6 weeks ago, I purchased a bicycle and started riding it anywhere from 50 to 80 miles per week with moderate to high intensity. At around the same time, I cut my caloric intake by approximately 25% without altering my diet significantly (read: I eat all the same stuff, just less of it).

At the same time, my bathroom scale began to malfunction. Each week, it says I weigh approximately two pounds less than I did the previous week.

A very odd coincidence, I know :party:

Exercise improves insulin resistance in some people who otherwise weren't getting much.

It's not the calories you expend *during* the exercise that matters so much as the fact that the improved insulin sensitivity raises your metabolic rate and reduces hunger.

Many fat people who are very insulin (and leptin) resistant exercise a lot but their fat and appetite stubbornly remain. Their metabolism is very broken and for many of them what will work is to slowly cut the sugar and starch to near zero; and in fact for many of them their insulin sensitivity will more easily improve if they avoid exercise for the first 6-8 weeks until after their metabolism improves.

I know that it's slightly cruel to bring this up now that you aren't riding for a while, but...

...maybe this is a good opportunity to get your diet right and stop bonking on your local club rides.

Paleo Diet Popular With Endurance Athletes - Nutrition - MensJournal.com

Food & Nutrition Myths: Bicycle Training | Bicycling Magazine

Feature: Tour of California Cuisine from the Clif Bar Food Mobile – Team Garmin-Sharp Pro Cycling Team

several months ago I stopped lifting weights and didn't change my diet and built a shed with almost no help.

I lost 10 lbs. durp.

Maybe mostly muscle.

Exactly my point. I lost weight in spite of reducing my activity and not changing my diet. It's just not how I prefer to lose. I am back at the gym and eating a ton. Weight is up 3+ lbs in a few weeks.

Neither supports nor contradicts the mostly-insulin-driven fat-thermostat (adipostat?) theory of fat loss/gain then.

last night I ate vegetarian.

it was odd.

we made patties out of chickpeas, broccoli, garlic, and onion in the fopro. used breadcrumbs and eggs to bind and tossed in a pan. Then topped them with tomato, avocado, and lettuce and ate--Similar to a Falafel.

Had homemade hummus/carrots and guacamole with it.

So, in the interest of science and fairness, I've been doing an experiment for the past month. I've more or less eliminated carbohydrates from my diet, and have instead been focusing on high-fat, calorie-dense foods. Lots of cheeses (fresh mozzerella, good swiss, lots of soft, smelly, goat cheese...), eggs, lots of meat- a mix here of "unprocessed" meats (salmon fillets with the skin on, canned tuna, fresh ground beef, roast duck) and "processed" meats (spam, frozen meatballs, pre-cooked chicken and steak strips in a bag, etc.)

I've totally given up all green vegetables and nuts, all fruits and fruit juices save for a max of two tomatoes and 1/2 avocado per day, nearly all bread and bread-like products, etc. I have resisted all of the cookies and sweets lying around the office this time of year. My exercise regime hasn't changed a bit- I still commute about 5 miles a day via bicycle, and do a fair bit of walking and stair-climbing during the course of my day (this TV station occupies two full floors of the building.)


So, last night's dinner, for example, was about 8oz of TJ's frozen turkey meatballs slathered in a mix of greek yogurt and Indian-style Vindaloo curry sauce*. Beside that was one medium-sized tomato, sliced and laid out on about 4 oz of sliced fresh mozzerella, all covered in olive oil and herbs. A late-evening snack consisted of three hard-boiled eggs mashed up with some mayo and salt. And today's lunch is a mountain of grilled chicken atop a lo-carb tortilla (6g net carbs) with two hefty slices of swiss cheese and 1/2 of a sliced avocado.


As I noted a week or so ago, I did cheat once. Specifically, I'd been feeling sort of light-headed for a couple of days, and while exiting the subway one evening I suddenly became dizzy and nearly collapsed on the steps. I ducked into the first pizza shop I could find and ordered a slice which I wolfed down ravenously. After about 15 minutes, I felt just fine and went about my business. After that, I increased my portion size at lunch a bit, which seemed to help.

Additionally, I've been sick (cold/flu) twice now in a 30 day period, which is pretty rare, but then I'm also in a new environment, so it's hard to say whether my immune system is crapping out or if it's just the climate making me more susceptible.


As for weight-loss? Well, I've gained about 8 lbs. This is unsurprising, as my caloric intake has gone up significantly with all this rich food.

What does this experiment have to do with anything? Are you creating your own diet?

Joe, why are you eschewing greens?

I'm exploring, for my own edification, the theory which Jason and other have espoused that a diet low in carbohydrates, starches, sugars and gluten, and high in protein and fat, will cause my body to do various ill-defined things such as "reset its fat setpoint" which will have the end result of causing weight-loss and improving my general feeling of well-being.

In other words, it's one thing to just have an academic debate, it's another to do empirical research. So I'm testing the theory.




Because those green vegetables which I typically consume (brussels sprouts, green beans, etc) are high in net carbohydrates. Continuing to consume them would bias the experiment.

I will note that I've also been taking a daily multivitamin (store brand equivalent of Centrum) in an attempt to fill in whatever I'm missing out on from the total deprivation of fruits and vegetables.


Additionally, I started taking psyllium husk fiber supplement capsules towards the middle of week 1, after the removal of most of the natural fiber from my evening meals resulted in unacceptable variation in both the consistency and regularity of my bowel movements. This treatment restored normality in both the texture and timing of my poo.

Way to add a bunch of variables. I feel pretty confident Jason never recommended cutting out vegetables and fruit, or eating nasty processed mystery meat.

But, sounds like a fun diet.

He (and others) have recommended cutting out carbs in general, with only some vague, non-specific references to certain classes of carbs being OK, but only after a heavy workout. Since I don't do heavy workouts, I decided to err on the side of caution.

Thus, I have removed a variable, not added one.


As for sources of protein and fat, there have been various discussions as to whether "unprocessed" meats are less likely to carry the sort of long-term risks associated with high fat diets in general (eg: increased risk of most cancers, heart disease, etc.), however no distinction has been made between the two insofar as the specific topics of weight loss, "resetting the body's fat setpoint," etc.

So this is a neutral point.



I realize that you are personally a proponent of the so-called Paleolithic diet, which permits the consumption of fruits, nuts and vegetables while condemning processed meats, however that is not relevant to the specific test being conducted here.

Sure, whatever.

I'm genuinely confused. What is it about what I have done that you consider to be invalid relative to the mantra of "carbs and grains and starch are bad, fat and protein is good"?

Or are you expressing a more general belief which is disabused of that notion altogether, in favor of the more omnivorous Paleo diet which you more frequently espouce?

Because instead of giving Jason the most charitable reading, and assuming that his varied posts in this thread probably don't encapsulate a full-fledged diet plan, but are rather specific responses to different questions, comments, and objections, and therefore taking the time to research the sites and sources he's offered and basing your plan on that, you have decided to construct the most narrowly reductionist interpretation of his comments and then deliberately added new variables within that interpretation which will undoubtedly "disprove" your narrow interpretation of his comments but will have little resemblance to actually giving it a fair shot.

It's fine. You're playing an internet-forum-debate-troll-game, not expressing real interest and honest curiosity. If that's your purpose, go for it. Eat some shitty processed meats, ignore fruits and vegetables, and write up a snarky post about it. Yay.

And it's spelled "espouse."

I'm going to respond to this out-of-order, as it fits better into the general dialogue (eg: I want to air the dirty laundry first so that the post can end on a more productive note.)


First of all, fuck you.

Specifically, fuck you for presuming my intentions to be flippant and simply resorting to the rather childish tactic of saying "you're a troll because what you say disagrees with something that I believe" rather than bothering to expend a modicum of effort to have a meaningful conversation.

I would have thought that my years of taking the time to perform careful, rationed analysis of topics ranging from the semi-absurd (high performance thermostats and plastic trays in the toaster oven) to the quite serious and useful (AFM removal in the 1.6 engine using the EMU, fault-tolerant MS1 ignition output drivers, reliable crank decoder circuits, aircon control...), and then share the results with the community would count for something.

While I certainly won't claim to be an expert in the field of nutrition (if anything, I admit quite the opposite), I do, in fact, treat this as a serious field of investigation. I am saying "Although I do not understand the rationale behind these suggestions, and view them with some suspicion given my limited understanding of the subject matter, I am willing to subject myself to a strict interpretation of them in order to gain a personal basis of reference for understanding the subject matter, rather than simply relying upon conjecture and speculation to determine what is and is not pseudo-science."

Hell, I haven't even had any beer for the past month. Is that not sufficient evidence of my motivation for you, you self-righteous, presumptuous, ignorant little shit?





Now that we've gotten that unpleasantness out of the way:



Yes, that is how the scientific method works. You don't take "charitable readings" of data coming out of a particle accelerator or a seismometer, you strip away all of the noise, eliminate as many variables and points of uncertainty as possible, drill down to a single theory, and then perform experiments to either support or refute that theory.

If this thread were a dissertation, then the thesis could be fairly summarized as follows:

"In general, present-day thinking among a growing minority of nutritionists in the US and Europe suggests that the consumption of carbohydrates precludes the burning of fat by the body and results in weight gain and ailments related to the regulation of blood sugar, while a diet low in carbohydrates but high in fats and proteins tends to reverse this effect, leading to a decrease in body fat and more stable regulation of blood sugar."

Which leads me to...


You are correct in that I have taken a narrow interpretation. As I discussed above, a narrow interpretation is a necessary element of good research.

I have not, however, added new variables. Quite to the contrary, the elimination of vegetables from the diet was done for the specific reason of reducing variables.

If you go back and read post #29 (and the surrounding conversation), you will see why I consider this to be an unwelcome variable. (For context, this followed Hustler noting that some professional athletes, specifically cyclists, promote a diet which is rich in carbohydrates.) In response to that, Jason wrote:

The best interpretation which I can make of this is:

1. Vegetables are a source of carbohydrates.
2. I only need carbohydrates to replenish my glycogen reserves after a workout.

So, since I do not routinely perform strenuous workouts, I interpret this as meaning that I do not require carbs in the form of vegetables, and that since the over-arching theme of the thread in general is to reduce carb intake, the elimination of vegetables is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the thread.



Or do you feel that I have mis-interpreted this?



While there are a couple of different ways in which I could respond to this, I acknowledge that this post is getting a bit lengthy.


First off, I will concede that there may be certain long-term health risks associated with the consumption of processed meats. I have read research which supports this conclusion, and I have no reason to doubt it.

However, I question the relevance of this to a discussion concerning the merits of a low-carb diet. I can find no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim, and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you bring up the subject in that context, rather than just vomiting random words onto the screen for the sake of some random tangent.


A re-reading of the article to which you linked in post #112 (Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition) seems to provide further reinforcement for my experimental parameters. First, it mentions vegetables only once, in the context of a joke, to wit: "You don’t get fat from fatty foods, just as you don’t get atherosclerosis from calcium or turn green from green vegetables.” It also says that "the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides,” and notes that "Butter, olive oil, heavy cream, and bacon are not harmful foods. Quite the opposite. Fat is the best thing for those who want to lose weight."

By contrast, it mentions a distinction between "processed" and "unprocessed" meats exactly zero times. In fact, the consumption of bacon is promoted twice, and modern bacon is generally considered to be a "processed" food in most western medical / nutritional literature owing to the use of nitrites, sodium erythorbate / ascorbate and phosphates in the brining and curing process. (This is not a US innovation, it is common to all mass-produced cured bacon.) If processed meat were strongly counter-indicated in the low-carb / high-fat diet targeted at weight loss, you'd think that fact would merit at least a small mention by a scientist promoting the consumption of bacon as a healthy alternative to bread on behalf of the Sweedish government in a peer-reviewed committee publication.





Ah, yes. If there's one thing which I espouse, its' the care-ful use of schpelling and gramar all times. :D

Summary:

Joe makes flippant comments in response to Jason's posts.
Joe writes snarky post about trying Jason's suggestions.
Joe gets mad that someone doesn't believe he's taking this subject seriously.

Don't blame me. You poisoned the well with your previous comments and attitude toward Jason. Why would anyone believe you were suddenly struck with honest curiosity toward the subject, when the very post announcing your self-experimentation was written in the same snarky tone?

Motivation is fine, but your self-experimentation (and self-deprivation) will be wasted if you introduce extra variables like not eating any fruits or vegetables at all.

But what you did is introducing variables instead of reducing them. It would as if I wanted to find out whether water or Coca-Cola was healthier, so I ran a test where people did nothing but drink water or Coke until they died. Yes, I "reduced" variables but not in a realistic way.

The charitable reading principle refers to proper debate/discussion etiquette, not scientific study results. I was referring to how you chose to interpret Jason's advice.

See above.

Again, this is an uncharitable reading of Jason's comments. If you'd read the sources and sites that Jason frequently posts here, and in light of the post to which he was responding (Hustler suggesting that athletes need carb-heavy foods like grains), you could correctly interpret his comments thusly:

1. Vegetables are carbs
2. You only need carbs to replenish glycogen
3. Glycogen stores are finite so only a small amount of carbs are required
4. Therefore, healthy sources of carbs, like vegetables, are sufficient for the body's needs

[*]Understood, but not spoken since it was not pertinent to this response: Vegetables are beneficial and healthy for reasons other than carb content

I do believe that you have. Read his comments in the context of the sites and sources that he frequently mentions, and they make much more sense.

I do bring it up for a reason. Nutrition and health are not easily reducible to easily testable hypotheses. But I already linked a study comparing the health effects of processed vs. unprocessed meats in this thread, and since you chose to address in your original self-experimentation post not only the measurable effects re: weight change but also how you felt, then I'm comfortably within the appropriate context of this discussion when I point out that you are including foods that are detrimental to getting a clear result from your experiment.

Again, why are you taking one news article -- written by a news editor -- as the guideline for constructing your experiment? If you're actually approaching this seriously (and setting aside a month out of your life to change your diet), why wouldn't you start by setting aside 30 minutes to read Robb Wolf, or Gary Taubes, or Mark Sisson, or Chris Kresser, or any of the people Jason and I have mentioned? All four of those that I just mentioned have some kind of "Getting Started" page on their respective websites. If you don't understand what their claims are, how can you fairly test them?

More overly reductionistic logic. Processed and unprocessed are fuzzy categories. Why are you trying to build counterarguments on flimsy definitions from an editor's summary in a news article? Why not seek out an actual explanation? If you're actually curious about bacon, there's information from plenty of paleo/keto/anti-inflammatory sources that discuss in great detail the various healthy and unhealthy aspects of bacon.