Nuts are okay on the Bernstein diet, but portion control is essential. Dr B. discourages them because most people can’t stop.
I am not totally in line with the Bernstein WOE. I find that it is too restrictive for me. I do eschew grains as much as possible, but I eat legumes.
Heck, I eat tomatoes, fruit, yellow peppers, and other banned things on the Bernstein list.
One thing in Taubes’ book Good Calories Bad Calories that bsc & co. didn’t mention was fuel partitioning. It’s not as simple as calories in = calories out. Our genetically different metabolisms deal with calories very differently. Some people’s metabolisms direct the glucose to the muscles, and they have an URGE to be active. When they are FORCED to sit still, they fidget, because they CAN’T stay still. Their body temperature tends to be higher, and they burn off more calories. Other people’s metabolisms direct the glucose to the fat cells, and they do NOT have the urge to move – they are very placid, and can sit still as a statue. You can watch breastfeeding babies, and see the active ones and the placid ones. That CAN’T be from fast-food ads! And, remembering that all the babies are taking in enough milk to satisfy them, the placid babies DO tend to be heavier.
So Taubes questions whether people are lean because they are active, or whether they’re active because they’re lean. Of course all this is presupposed on a society where food is abundant – if people have to work hard physically to survive, and there really isn’t enough food, anyway, you won’t see as much obesity (but you still will see it).
The second issue is insulin-resistance, which is inborn. Yes, you can modify it to some extent with exercise, but it’s fundamentally there. The entire population fits on a curve of insulin resistance, somewhat skewed to the right, indicating more IR. And the IR automatically drives fat deposition, because fat cells are less insulin resistant than muscle cells. Even among Type 1’s, there are widely differing BMIs and TDD of insulin. Insulin resistance is not confined to Type 2’s.
Taubes also says that semi-starvation diets limiting calories, but not carbs, tend to slow down the metabolism and defeat their own purpose. That’s why obese people plateau on such diets long before they have even come close to their weight goals. And people on these diets are hungry ALL the time, which accounts for the high relapse rate. No one can stand being hungry all the time for very long.
High-protein/fat, low-carb diets MAY partly be successful because they are much more satiating than high-carb diets, and make a person satisfied with fewer calories. That’s the defense line that the high-carb people use, but I don’t know if it’s true or not. I DO know that many on low-carb diets don’t watch calories at all, and yet experience success and are not hungry.
As for me, I lost 30 lb. on moderately reduced carb, not even low. Then I got lazy and ate more carbs, and regained 5 lb., and am back on the straight and narrow. I have never been able to lose weight in my life before, and now I’m back down to a normal BMI, and my weight is back down to where it was when I was in my 30’s. My lipid panel last time was the best I have ever had in my life. My BGs have been more stable, too. And I am NOT counting calories; I’m eating when hungry. I CAN deal with this lifestyle for the long-term, and an occasional treat isn’t going to hurt me. That’s enough to convince me, and the high-carb advocates can blather on all they like – I have discovered what works for me.
A fact in Canada and this is the bare minimum : The Canadian Diabetes Association CPGs recommend 150 minutes of aerobic exercise and 3 sessions of resistance exercise per week. Most people living with
diabetes currently do not meet these targets..Sadly true .
I eat more healthy carbs, when I exercise hard …and may even loose one or 2 pounds , no matter what the Text books say .
I think you could just say “most people living do not meet these targets”. I see a lot of people on the trails and it’s a pretty diverse group. There are packs of shirtless, high-school cross country boys running about 6:00 miles, people who radiate "seriousness’ with fancy equipement, some of whom are fast and some of whom (cough cough) aren’t, other people seem to be just getting started, may not have figured out that polyester microfiber shirts are popular for a reason, slogging along drowning in 100% cotton, etc. but there are also quite a few people, perhaps my cohort (43) or a bit older, somewhat bigger but not always walking in a very focused manner, right up there in intensity with the high school boys but you see them out there all the time. I suspect that some of them may have listened to their doctor when they were read the riot act but I can’t exclude that some of them may have figured out on their own that they need to get out. I’m obviously oversimplifying the “trail watching” that I’ve done but I suspect you’d find that these cohorts share a focus on pursuing goals. Maybe it’s a “Road to Nowhere” but it seems to get somewhere nonetheless?
PS, the goofy accordion/ bandaleon(?)-fueled beat of this song is great on the elliptical, if you run into one…
Great video AR!
Here is a tidbit from the NYT that may blow a hole in that theory: Perhaps counting calories and exercising more is outdated. Hmm…
Jason, why exactly do you accuse me of reading “broscience”? It was bsc, and not me, who suggested we should be getting diet information from body building magazines in THIS THREAD. And I challenge you to show me any textbook that suggests that you can eat unlimited fat and not gain weight. That idea is just criminally insane.
As far as the NY TImes article that you provided a link to, please note what it says about diet: “The foods that contributed to the greatest weight gain were not surprising. French fries, potato chips, sugar-sweetened drinks, red meats and processed meats, other forms of potatoes, sweets and desserts, refined grains, other fried foods, 100-percent fruit juice and butter”
“Also not too surprising were most of the foods that resulted in weight loss or no gain when consumed in greater amounts during the study: fruits, vegetables and whole grains.”
This is exactly the diet that I eat, and the diet that I recommend. A diet high in fruits, vegetables and whole grains, low in refined sugar and starches including potatoes, and low in fried foods and saturated fats. This is not a low-carb diet, and it certainly doesn’t fit the Bernstein model. But it does fit the ADA diet recommendations exceedingly well LINK HERE, with their recommendation of a plate of food with half vegetables, one quarter whole grain, one quarter meat plus low-fat milk or yogurt and fruit.
I am not accusing you of reading “broscience…” you are just inadvertantly spouting off what they talk about. You know how it is, lean meats, throw away the egg yolks, cardio, eat every 3 hours in order to avoid the nitrogenic balance (or the blood sugar crash…)
“And I challenge you to show me any textbook that suggests that you can eat unlimited fat and not gain weight. That idea is just criminally insane.”
I’m not saying that. And your redirection is funny. I asked you to show me the references that calories in calories out is the way to lose weight, from all those medical textbooks you cite.
Eating ANYTHING in excess will provoke an insulin response. It’s anecdotally known as the “Chinese Buffet Effect.”
The NYT article goes into explaining that it is the type of foods that we eat that are causing us to be fat, and that exercise is not as efficace as we once supposed.
Please note that even your whole grains are porcessed in some form. In fact, the GI of a slice of whole grain bread is EVEN MORE than the white bread because of the natural sugars surrounding the kernel. (From the germ.) In the end, it is even more glucose spiking than eating the so-called “whole grains” that are so good.
Saturated fats get a bad rap. I lvoe that as well. Sure, science sure has gotten it right over the last 100 years, right? I mean, with all the “advances” and so-called “healthy” fats, and the demonization of saturated fats have brought us to the obesity epidemic. I guess it’s because fat people under report what they eat, right?
Them liars!
So, did you find the references in those 100 or so medical textbooks yet? Inquiring minds want to know…
You asked me to support my statement: “Anything you eat will be stored as fat if you have eaten more calories than your body is able to burn. That includes carbohydrate and protein, but yes it also includes fat.”.
Here’s an Elmhurst College slide set for the course “Overview of Metabolism” LINK HERE “Energy for the Human Body” with the following statement: “The three main classes of food provide the following amount of energy: carbohydrates and proteins provide about 4 Calories per gram; fats provide about 9 Calories per gram. When you choose foods that furnish more energy, or Calories than you need, the excess energy is stored as fat in the body – a gain in weight may result. If too little food is eaten to meet energy demands, the body’s stored fat serves as an energy source – a weight loss will result. Your weight stays about the same if the energy from food matches the energy requirements of the body.”
Speaking of redirection, how do you feel about the NY Times article that you cited supporting the ADA diet rather than a low-carb diet as a way to lose weight?
I wonder if there’s a “hidden language of food” operating in these studies? I would think that a person doing the NYT study didn’t just happen to be choosing whole grains/ fruit over potato chips, french fries and “other fried foods” that they found produced weight gain? If you are making choice #1, I would think that you would be more likely to make other choices like sensible portion control or exercise, that might produce a more favorable “score” on whatever the doctors running the study were measuring than choosing to let 'er rip. There aren’t a lot of people who are tremendously active who fuel themselves on potato chips, Twinkies and Schlitz Malt Liquor.
Perhaps it’s not entirely correct to sort and blame, saying this category is “good” and that category is “bad”? There’s not too much else a scientist can measure but perhaps something exploring thoughts about food or conceptualizations of food might help illuminate the challenges of achieving change?
Please note …I ( female ) weigh never more than 140 pound ( 63 kg?? ) , 1 meter 70 cm in height ( 5 feet 7 inches ?? ) …stable weight ;I really dont’t want to loose weight and eat good choice carbs approx 150-160 daily when I am not hard exercising …when " in training " about 179 grams …and red wine at supper …hope I blow someone’s theory , other than we are all different .
Next my eve walk .
Obviously we are all different, or there wouldn’t be obese people in our society. They aren’t ALL eating Twinkies and French fries – many of them try very hard to eat what they are told is a healthy diet. Our genetically different metabolisms have very different dietary requirements – my totally unresearched, unfounded theory is that some people have inherited a metabolism that is adapted to the agricultural revolution, and some still have the old hunter-gatherer metabolism.
Same thing with apples and pears. It’s NOT a male/female difference as is so often stated or implied, but goes along with the inherited insulin resistance that some people have a lot of and some people a little, and others in between. My ex-husband was clearly a pear – had a big butt, and didn’t look like a fashion-model in suits, whereas I have a apple shape as all the women in my family do. And I do have mild insulin-resistance, in spite of being normal BMI (24.3). So for me, to eat a lot of carbs would mean taking more insulin, and since insulin is the fat-storage hormone, I would definitely gain weight. (Actually already tried that, by bingeing on carbs during my depression last year – gained 23 lb.)
I’m truly glad that you, being adapted to the agricultural revolution, can eat so many carbs – I really wish I could too, but it just doesn’t work, unless I want to gain weight, which I decidedly don’t!
I agree with you Natalie. And I think that the food pyramids and plates are designed for normal people, not diabetics. I saw on tv this morning that the old mantra of less calories in and more calories out plus exercise is not working as well as it should. Now this is a generalisation as are all the diet books and food theories. Incidentally, I have just bought Dr. Pierre Dukan’s recipe book and there are some great low carb recipes in it as well as a brief resume of his food theory. He is low carb and low fat and claims it has worked for his patients for 30 years or so. An interesting read.
Thanks for “weighing in” Natalie. I really appreciate your detailed explanations. Most members in my family struggle to keep weight off while most members of my husband’s family struggle to keep it on. Many members in my family have T2 while many members of my husband’s family have cholesterol problems. My husband eats lots of fat and carbs with no weight gain… I eat lots of meat, eggs, cheese etc. with no cholesterol problems. It’s genetic.
Again, you are beating a dead horse… I don’t dispute that fat is stored as a result of calories in calories out. As Taubes points out, it’s akin to saying that the room is overcrowded because more people came in then left. I mean, hello! If I said that to you, your response would be, so what?
Interestingly, in your reference, take a look at the picture below what you referenced… Notice the “Flow of Energy in the Biosphere?” Notice that it states that CHO is stored as energy. Not fat, not protein. In order for protein to be utilized as energy, it needs to be converted over to CHO by gluconeogenesis. Fat does not convert at all over to CHO, but the body runs off of ketone bodies.
The real queston is, why do people overeat. Why do they consume more than they can burn. Turn to insulin resistance for the answer. Most T2s here can confirm it. Heck, I became a resistant myself.
As for the NYT article supporting the ADA diet, I am not surprised. When faced with the science, EVEN when admitting that counting calories is outdated, they still stick their head in the sand. Of course, eating low fat diet is good for you, because all that cholesterol is bad for you. Eat where its more profitable for the USDA, who determines what we need to eat. 65% of your daily calories NEEDS to come from CHO, see? That way, you’ll have to cover it with insulin. Yes, and oh! Of course, Pharma just happens to gain in that respect.
Yah, the ADA diet is SO much better at helping people lose weight.
Oh, that’s right, didn’t the ADA admit that low carb works, but “isn’t sustainable?” Here’s the reference article for you.
Even more interesting is this article about a 22 month study on the eficacy of LC dieting in T2’s.
A few choice quotes:
Low-carbohydrate diets in the management of obese patients with type 2 diabetes seem intuitively attractive due to their potent antihyperglycemic effect.
Advice on a 20 % carbohydrate diet with some caloric restriction to obese patients with type 2 diabetes has lasting effect on bodyweight and glycemic control.Take a moment to read through that abstract. There are plenty of peer related abstracts for all the statements that I have made before, about the efficacy of a low carb diet verses the ADA diet.
Hear Hear! The problem that I get is that I get depressed without carbs. I find myself every once in a while going for the “cheat.” If I chose to eat like I used to, (I am a chef, so you can imagine!) then I would be back where I was, 5’7" and 235 lbs. Not a pretty sight.
Right now I am struggling to get below 200. I know that insulin is a fat storage device because I got to see it first hand before I was diagnosed. I lost major amounts of weight, and got down to 168 lbs. It was when I got my BG under control with insulin that I regained my weight back. I can usually pack on a good 5 lbs from a carb binge…
Pastelpainter, do you have the name of that recipe book? It sounds interesting…
That’s it Natalie, for me …the Netherlands , where I came from …potato growers paradise 
( and ate tulip bulbs in the Hunger winter of 1944 …another story ) .I am glad too , that I can eat, what I eat …and I walk a lot as well …the " big annoyance" is having to buy running shoes very regularly and they don’t come cheap .
As I mentioned before : we are all different .And I still learning !
Tulip bulbs? I’d love to read a blog about that winter. I once watched a show where scientists determined that there was a relationship between famine and several chronic diseases.
Missed the word " am " in the last sentence ; as I said : And I am still learning !