Among the many hypotheses about why people get fat, this one pops up now and then in the dietetic literature, but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
It's a good hypothesis in that it's scientifically falsifiable. In other words we can test it (and the predictions that flow from it) against empirical observations and see if it works. For example, this hypothesis predicts that:
1) People or animals with access to abundant food should eat far more (and get fatter than) people who do not.
2) People with access to abundant food should consume excess calories in proportion to the excess available to them.
3) An abundance of food should lead to rapid and inevitable obesity. That is, we would expect people faced with abundance to eat dozens or hundreds of calories more than their actual requirement - consistently, day in, day out.
4) People who face food scarcity should be thinner than people who are food-secure.
None of these predictions are true; in fact, the truth is sometimes the exact opposite.
My cat is given food in abundance, but because he is given appropriate food (ie., not commercial cat food), he stops eating when he's had enough and resumes when he's hungry. Cats who are given food full of corn and soy and rice become obese, and they develop diabetes and kidney failure; cats are obligate carnivores, so their energy-regulation systems fail under those circumstances.
My chickens also have food in abundance. They currently range over 1 hectare of improved pasture, full of bugs and stuff they like to eat. They are given extra scratch. But they don't become obese (although they do get fat and tasty).
In fact most animals have food in abundance, at least at certain times of the year. An ape or a sloth living in a rainforest is spoilt for choice. Neither one will become obese. Food scarcity occurs, but only in certain seasons.
When I was a kid at school we ate potatoes. But we ate lots of other things with them. We were encouraged to go up for seconds, or thirds if we felt like it. But mostly we were full on the first go, so we didn't. And IIRC there was also that thing about "how can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?".
There's also the mundane observation that food isn't really as abundant as we think. Just because the supermarket shelves are loaded doesn't mean we can all waltz through taking whatever we like. Financial constraints are real, and they're very real for people on low incomes. Only the rich could (theoretically) afford to stuff themselves - yet statistically, they're the least likely to do so. It's those on low incomes who become obese, despite the fact that they have very little money to spend on food.
The culprit, IMO, is low-fat food. A low-fat diet, as I said in the guide, is inherently loaded with carbs. Your body is an adaptive closed-loop system, which means it will fail "hard" when it fails: at a certain point it can no longer compensate for its inputs, and it falls over catastrophically. There is a threshold beyond which it should not be pushed. Keep it below that threshold and all will be well.
Sherlock20 observed:
"I could eat bowlfuls of cream...if it was there. "
Here's the Toad challenge: eat 500ml of cream, every day, in addition to proper meals. As slipstick said elsewhere, you can have too much of a good thing. Not everything needs to be boiled in lard or loaded with fat. We used to have a member here who was convinced that she could eat a whole wheel of Brie every day. And sometimes she actually did, just because she was allowed to. But she still ended up as one of the most successful "losers" here. Her bodyfat went down to athlete levels.
But let's say abundance actually is the problem. What are we supposed to do about that? Unfortunately, the solutions don't seem promising:
- a lifetime of self-denial (which clearly doesn't work, because 30%+ of the UK population is still fat)
- a cadre of Food Police, handing out ration coupons, with fines and imprisonment for people who eat too much. All for our own good, of course.
- a Smash The System insurrection, bringing down the capitalist system and ensuring that nobody has enough to eat. Our Dear Leaders seem committed to actually doing this at the moment (I bet Marx never considered that possibility). But we're all still fat.
I really hope I'm right that human appetites still work - same as they ever did pre-1970 - because if I'm not, we're all in big trouble.
Written by
TheAwfulToad
Ambassador
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
36 Replies
•
Well, as you probably know, I respectfully disagree on certain points. You're still missing some key differences between Western eaters and the rest of the animal kingdom. They have to work for their food. It's never in abundance to the point where they don't have to do anything to get it other than shuffle to a fridge.
Today, you may be right in saying poorer people are bigger (we'll get to the why of that and how that fits in with the 'abundance' point in a minute), but historically, this was not the case. Show me a fat Victorian, and I'll show you a man with money. Because he moved less and ate more. And there was one hell of lot of fat in the average wealthy Victorian's diet.
Financial - as I know you know, the cheapest stuff isn't always the best, but it IS cheap. and it is abundant. It is also easy. You can now get frozen pre-mashed spud, for heaven's sake! Wealthier people tend have more time, and yes, more money for better ingredients, but often they are also doing other things which poorer folk aren't doing so much of. They are going to gyms, etc (who can afford a gym?)
In the past, the poorer population were not by any means healthier, but they certainly were thinner. Far fewer of them would have had sedentary jobs. Just cleaning your house took more time and effort without all the conveniences. People didn't sit on computers or phones, or watch TV, not because they were so much less lazy, but because they didn't have any choice.
Getting exercise is now something we have to consciously do in a way we never had to do before and in a way no other species has to. I'm a prime example of someone who was lithe and very fit some years ago purely because I had an incredibly physical job. My diet was godawful, because said job was ridiculously anti-social hours. I tended to live on bacon sandwiches at 3am.
Some years later, a desk job and the menopause have changed things somewhat. If I didn't live somewhere with no cars/public transport, I'd get zero exercise and weigh more than I do now, but that's life for an awful lot of people whose main level of movement is from their front door to their car in the driveway.
Children aren't outside all the time like I was, and like most children of less wealthy families were back then. Today, the wealthier you are, the more likely it is that you'll get out, away from a screen as a child, because you are more likely to live in a safer environment to be able to be out alone, or have parents with time to take you on days out, etc.
Restrictions on eating are much less common now than they were. When I was a child, it was strictly 3 meals a day with maybe one (and only one) piece of fruit in between or the odd biscuit. I had to ask for food between meals, something which is no longer common. Most of my friends don't have huge amounts of money, but it amazes me that their kids just help themselves whenever they like, so that element of restraint isn't ingrained. In an internet discussion I was recently involved in on facebook, I was amazed to discover how many people were shocked at the notion of children having to ask before they had anything from the cupboard. It used to be commonplace.
You are absolutely right that what we eat matters. But it isn't the only, or indeed, the biggest change in the past 40 years. Our lifestyles have changed far beyond what might have been envisaged. People are spending far more time sitting down than ever before, and crucially, our children are doing the same. The abundance of cheaply available snack food that takes no effort means more and more of us are sat in front of a screen, mindlessly eating. Poverty is a huge trap for this, because the poorer members of society are time poor as well as finance poor, so will eat more convenience foods whilst watching TV.
The natural appetite suppressant was always lack of ready availability and, frankly, being otherwise occupied. When I'm busy, I think about food much less. Sat in front of the TV, I think about eating more.
Add to that that we are all different in terms of how hungry we get and how quickly we get full and it's far more complicated than us all having this magic button we just need to re-set. In the much more distant past, those of us who suffered greater levels of hunger just had to live with being hungry. Today, hunger is a dirty word and something we not only cannot endure, but something we are constantly told we shouldn't have to endure. So we eat. Whether we need to or not. Our ancestors would not have eaten when they were hungry. They'd have eaten when they managed to catch food/forage food. That's what I mean by 'abundance'. We don't have to do that any more. We are hungry, food is there, we eat.
LCHF absolutely does work, but mainly because it's another form of self-control. It encourages us to eat much more healthily which is what I think is great about it, it encourages mindfulness, but it still needs willpower, none of which your average wild animal needs because it doesn't have food just there all the time.
There are many great things about your wonderful diet plan, and it will and does work. But it isn't so very different to calorie counting, because you are still cutting things out and thinking about what you eat. But you still have to somewhat artificially do that because we aren't living in the wild and our appetites and desires aren't naturally tempered any more by availability.
LCHF is great, it really is. But it's still a diet and it's still compensating, ultimately, for the fact that how we obtain our food has changed beyond measure, and the natural inhibitors to intake simply don't exist any more because of ... abundance.
in reply to
Incidentally, I'd like to add that whilst LCHF has, and is still, working for me, if I don't move, I still gain on it. I walk daily with a friend, and for a week we just could fit it in. I gained a pound in that week. In answer to your question about 'if it's abundance (which it very much is), what do we do about it', the answer it not much until we wake up and realise that if we don't stop consuming at ridiculous rates, we won't be able to survive on this planet any more. Until we return to the state of existence where all the food we have is that which we've caught/grown/foraged for ourselves, and start eating in accordance with that which is available to us as hunter/gatherers seasonally, we'll be stuck in this cycle of having to artificially moderate our eating patterns in the same way we have to artificially encourage ourselves to move about because the necessity isn't there.
Using the animal kingdom is a false comparison in many ways because the lifestyle of the average sloth or gorilla has not changed to the extent ours has and there is no comparable situation where animals live in a completely unregulated food environment, either by availability or human intervention. Domestic cats and dogs are dependent on what is given to them. My cat also eats 'proper' food, but if I fed him every time he asked, and he sat on the sofa all day without moving, he'd be a butter barrel. So I'm regulating his intake. Not him. But, like humans, not all cats are the same. Our last cat had a miniscule appetite.
Your posts are very thought provoking, and of course, conversation provoking. As there is a massive amount to respond to, I will just make a tiny point, comment, if I may, thank you.
There isn't any doubt that LCHF works for many people, as a way of eating to help with weight loss...that is, Low Carb Healthy Fat; rather than, Low Carb HIGH Fat.
To me, the High Fat terminology/title, is rather misleading...to someone not acquainted to this diet, it may suggest, everything indeed 'boiled in lard' (to use Toad's example) and, lots of it (as in, a 'high' amount) which can indeed add pounds. Whereas, Healthy Fat, as in the fats in our meats, the skin on our chicken breast, cheese and cream (in moderation) are non-processed, and low carb, so IMO, healthy foods in general; which makes the LCHealthyFat diet, a healthy way of eating ( consumed in sensible amounts, obviously...by this I mean, watching what, and how much, we eat).
As we all do, I have read a number of articles about LCHF; the most recent being yesterday (I will try and find the link) which states that too much fat is bad for our cholesterol and therefore, our heart; but it went on to say that, most people who follow a Low Carb diet, will eventually regain all of the lost weight, once they start eating carbs again. This to me seems a little misleading (or perhaps, just inadequately written) because surely a) Doesn't anyone regain weight, if they eat too much of any food, so departing from the healthy way of eating, that helped them to lose weight in the first place; and, b) To me, eating a Low Carb diet (way of eating) is a choice...so if you choose to eat Low Carb, because it makes you feel better, perhaps, why would you suddenly gorge yourself with Carbs, once you reach your goal weight ....you wouldn't, so therefore, this comment (to me) is redundant.
Personally, for me, when I ate 'High Fat' foods, and a 'High' amount of them, I did not lose weight, eg, snacking on cheese. For weeks (3) my weight was a STS.
I read that Fat should be used as a lever (handle) once you become fat adapted, and, if weight loss stalls...so, in other words, eat less fat, to lose more weight....which to me, means...consume less, ensuring that the fat is not in abundance. Again, to me, this means eat 'Healthy' fats, paying attention to how much you eat.
This is a conversation that can go on for ages...so many pros, and some cons, for this way of eating.
Sorry if I have waffled on a bit, I am having a hard time with insomnia atm, due to health issues....which is making it difficult for me to stick with a plan, and, to lose weight. Which reminds me, about another article that I recently read, warning against a Low Carb way of eating, because (they say) it can cause sleep issues, because carbs are linked to the production of Serotonin, and reduced Serotonin, means less sleep. I'm not sure about this one...lots of carbs does not improve sleep for me
Thank you for reading...apologies my 'little' response, was not so little
I did a rant a while back about the "Low Carb High Fat" terminology, which I'm pretty certain was coined by dieticians to discredit the concept. As you said, it really doesn't accurately describe what it's all about.
I had a look at the link, but I've seen many of these and they're all depressingly similar. They invariably deploy strawman arguments (painting LCHF as something it isn't, and then attacking the caricature that they've drawn) or they use arguments which have long since been shown to be irrelevant or incorrect, eg.:
"many who try keto consume high amounts of unhealthy saturated fat, which is associated with an increased risk of heart disease and high lipid levels in the blood."
Which manages to incorporate:
- a strawman (LCHF = keto = meat and fat and no vegetables)
- two statements that have been experimentally proven false (saturated fat =increased risk of heart disease, and LCHF leads to high lipid levels)
- and a logical fallacy (some people who have saturated fat in their diet have high lipid levels, so LCHF adherents must have high lipid levels because they eat saturated fat, stands to reason ... even if, in practice, that doesn't actually happen).
The whole thing amounts to begging the question: unsaturated fats are unhealthy because they're unsaturated, ergo unhealthy.
I think I'd point a finger at the marketing surrounding Atkins for the negativity surrounding LCHF. The problem with the Atkins diet was that it really only focused on the first two weeks. People treated it like the cabbage soup diet, or the Cambridge diet - something you do to lose weight quickly for a short period of time, but then what? What's coming out so much more now is how to make this a long term lifestyle habit, rather than a quick fix fad. Any change has to be sustainable for long periods, and Atkins just wasn't presented that way (probably not the fault of actual Atkins). The other problem is a rather more up-to-date one, which is the reliance on meat and dairy. With veganism rapidly gaining traction for environmental reasons, obtaining our fats from products derived from animals is more and more seen as 'not a good thing', and arguments from the vegan sector do hold up from a dietary point of view. No other species drinks another animal's milk into adulthood. We didn't used to, either, which is one reason why so many of us are lactose intolerant. As much as you swear by LCHF, equally as many people claim cutting out dairy has had the same effect as the LCHF for them.
Dairy is a huge hurdle because it is linked to a few conditions. My grandmother suffered from Rheumatoid Arthritis. Wheelchair -bound and on so many tablets she rattled. After discovering a book about the links with dairy and rheumatoid arthritis, she cut dairy out. Difference was incredible. She's still going strong, physically, at 94. She doesn't know who her own children are any more, but she can still walk a fair few miles. The most emotional I've ever seen my Grandfather was on a family walk some 25 years ago when he said, 'I never thought I'd see her do this again'.
I love my dairy, and I'm thankful to live somewhere where it is produced locally and well, and milk isn't the 'white water' of the mainland.
Fair point about dairy. I should mention that in the book. As you say, a lot of people are dairy-intolerant and don't realise it.
Worth pointing out, though, that there's a theory regarding certain milk proteins produced by Holstein breed cows: apparently, their milk is much more likely to trigger an allergic reaction than (for example) Jersey. I have no idea whether there's anything in that - I haven't researched it to any great degree.
Well, that's good for me if Jersey/Guernsey cows are less of a problem, theirs is the only milk we get. I dread lactose intolerance developing as I do like a bit of cream.
It would be worth trying, if you suspect you have a dairy intolerance. Let us know if it makes any difference! I have no idea if the theory is correct or not. I tend to take these things with a pinch of salt because so much dietary "fact" is just made-up nonsense.
I agree...but you don't have to eat oodles of saturated fats, to follow a LCHealthyFat way of eating, I don't think anyway.
I agree with your post, completely.....and, I didn't know that, you're a lady..."hello"
PS. Also, I totally agree with you that, we're all different, and lose weight differently; my hubby is over 6ft and loses weight very easily, compared to me.
What annoys me about the "saturated fat" thing is that, well, there's no such thing as a "saturated fat". There are saturated fatty acids. Any given fat molecule (triglyceride) might be built from a combination of monounsaturated, polyunsaturated and/or saturated fatty acids. Chicken fat, for example, is about 70% mono- or polyunsaturated. But many nutritionists will simply assert that animal fat = saturated fat = bad, therefore you mustn't eat chicken fat.
In any case, our bodies really don't distinguish between saturated fatty acids and unsaturated ones. They're metabolised in pretty much the same way. Interestingly, though, chain length makes a big difference. Short-chain fatty acids (carboxylic acids) are burned rather like carbs - as a high-power energy source. Different fatty acids can make your cholesterol go up, down, or do nothing at all, with no apparent correlation to the presence or absence of unsaturated bonds.
In short, it's all a load of rubbish.
PS I'm male I think you're confusing me with Sherlock20.
Yep, it's me that's a woman, and Toad is a man. I'm Sherlock purely because it's what I was reading at the time I signed up, having found an old childhood favourite for free on Kindle.
I can't really disagree with that, and it certainly clarifies your stance. I think I misinterpreted your original post to be a suggestion that we're all fat purely because of "abundance".
Of course some willpower is required to make the changes. As I said in the introduction, you have to actually want to get slim, and you have to want it more than you want to sit in front of the TV with a microwave meal. It does require an effort of will to say "OK - I am not going to be fat anymore". It does require that you actually empty your cupboards of carbs and re-fill them with other things. That's quite a leap of faith for many people. But that's qualitatively different to the continuous and extreme effort of will required to "eat less and move more", which human bodies rebel against (and which doesn't work).
A rather fortuitous benefit of LCHF (at least the way I've depicted it) is that it explicitly requires you to avoid those foods which are abundant - ie., government-subsidized carbs, subsidized crappy mystery-meat products, supermarket loss leaders, and so on. I've tried to pitch that not as an act of denial, but as a step upmarket. It's my firm belief that everyone deserves to eat well. Not necessarily "abundantly", but well. I'm also confident that anybody can achieve it, even on a very modest income. I want to get people out of the mindset that they'll be eating canned gloop from the Value aisle for all time. If someone is currently stuck in that position, they owe it to themselves to get out of it somehow, because their lives depend upon it.
I think a lot of people will be concerned about the financial impact of eating well, and I'm still toying with the idea of adding a whole page about it. But simply because you're not "allowed" to eat tax-funded rubbish on LCHF, you're stepping away from the abundance economy.
The only part I'll disagree with is the idea that LCHF is not radically different to calorie-counting, and (perhaps to a lesser extent) that "we're all different". LCHF is diametrically opposed to calorie-counting. I've taken pains to point out that the reason calorie-counting doesn't work is that the underlying theory is wrong - not just a bit wrong, but hopelessly and completely wrong. It's impossible that our bodies might work the way the dieticians describe; any body that did work that way would be suboptimally adapted to our historical environment, and it's genes would have been eliminated centuries ago.
People are only different to the extent that they have different goals and desires, different things that are important to them, different carb tolerances, and different tastes in food which aren't infinitely modifiable. But we all have the same organs inside and they all work the same way. I therefore suggest that eating human-appropriate food and trusting your appetite is the best possible scenario. Adding anything else would re-introduce the idea that "it's all about calories", and it just isn't.
Exercise: 100% agree with you here. I think a lot of people think that just eating an LCHF diet will make them look like a catwalk model. It won't. It'll stop you becoming overweight, but most people don't realise that fit bodies look fit because they're carrying a huge amount of muscle (that's true for women as much as men). That requires you to put in a lot of physical activity. Our ancestors would have thought nothing of carrying a 20kg load for five miles, but most modern humans can't do that for more than a hundred meters - if they can do it at all.
Ultimately, all I'm really concerned with is this: does the 4-week plan work better than the 12-week plan? I'm not trying to find the perfect diet for all humans - I don't think there's any such thing. If the plan does what it says on the tin, for the majority of people who read it, I'll be happy.
I think will. I think what I'm getting at is that you have to be careful about what you say on the tin. It's modern human nature to look for the easy fix with minimal effort, but when it comes to losing weight, there's no easy get out. There's nothing that doesn't involved change for a lifetime, not just a few weeks. People who find they are still hungry, or aren't losing weight, like the lady who started this all off on the other thread, get turned off because they are looking for the magic bullet which isn't there.
And we ARE all different. We're different builds, hormonally different, etc. I'm not the same as my husband. He's 6 foot two and male. Our organs are not the same. His are larger than mine. This is why calorific ranges are different depending on height and gender. It's entirely logical to suggest we can both eat the same sort of foods. It's not logical to suggest we can eat the same amounts. Our bodies don't have the same needs.
I do appreciate you see LCHF as opposed to calorie counting, and it is in the sense that it removes the need for counting (another great thing for me, as I'm numerically challenged), but you mentioned a few times in the plan that people will be eating less. So, that's less calories. The idea is, as you've again pointed out in this post, that you won't want to eat more than you need, but it still boils down to 'calories in, calories out' ultimately, doesn't it? The big difference is, with your plan, the desire to mindlessly consume empty calories isn't there, because you are filled with good food. But it's not really diametrically opposed to 'eating less, moving more', it's just a more effective way of achieving that aim.
Eating less and moving more DOES work, because fundamentally we aren't designed to lie on the couch cramming food into our mouths. Food is fuel to enable us to do stuff. If we aren't doing stuff, we don't need so much of it. But it isn't the whole story. What LCHF does is tell the rest of the story. It gives us a more sustainable 'how' to achieve that end.
>> It's modern human nature to look for the easy fix with minimal effort, but when it comes to losing weight, there's no easy get out
That's true. I've tried to stress that it's about getting healthy and staying that way; weight loss is merely a nice side-effect. But yes, there are always people who just want to "lose weight", and to do it as quickly as possible. I've also attempted to point out that life isn't like that, and if you think it is, the guide is not going to help you.
>> We're different builds, hormonally different, etc. I'm not the same as my husband. He's 6 foot two and male. Our organs are not the same.
Well, yes. But your own bodies are well aware of that To a first approximation, you're the same. You're both human. You're both omnivores. The same math and physics describes the way your organs work, even if they have somewhat different parameters.
>> It's not logical to suggest we can eat the same amounts.
I haven't suggested this anywhere.
>> you mentioned a few times in the plan that people will be eating less.
If you're losing weight then you'll be eating noticeably less, yes. Your appetite will drop. But people don't just lose weight forever - at some point the weight loss stops and they are then in 'caloric balance'. For some reason, people on LCHF consume fewer calories at maintenance than people on high-carb diets. I suspect this is because running "fat fuelled" is simply more efficient, possibly because it requires fewer lossy chemical transformations.
>> it still boils down to 'calories in, calories out' ultimately, doesn't it?
Yes and no. If you're losing weight then your body will demand less energy than you might expect, because (obviously) it has an internal source that it's busy chewing through. That is absolutely not the same as giving your body fewer calories than it demands, in the expectation that it will burn through fat as a first recourse. Unless your control mechanisms "realise" that one's bodyfat stores are surplus to requirements, it will not touch them. Excuse the anthropomorphic language, but since all control systems have a built-in goal, it's not an unreasonable way of describing it.
>> Eating less and moving more DOES work
I entirely disagree. It certainly didn't work for me, and I've never met anybody for whom it works, although people do pop up on the NHS thread now and then to defend it. My hunch is that it only works for them because they've dumped junk food and sugar and started eating better in general - which, for many people, does the trick.
All the research is very, very consistent on the subject: virtually everyone gives up on caloric restriction within three years, and gains the weight back again (plus some). More importantly, there is no theoretical reason why it ought to work in the first place. I'm still working on Appendix 2 for the guide - clearly, there's an interest in the biochemical explanations! - but because it demands at least a basic knowledge of physics and organic chemistry (neither of which are taught in high school these days) I've found that I'm writing a textbook.
I suspect you've done several cycles of calorie-controlled dieting and thereby "proved" to yourself that it works, by observing some up-and-down transient effects (as in the Q&A). Given that past experience, it will be impossible for me to convince you that no organism works like that. I focused on the evolutionary explanation in the guide because this is far, far easier for most people to grasp than the hormonal-control explanation, which I found I couldn't condense into a couple of pages. It's impossible. And it's boring. But if someone has seen their own body lose a couple of kilos on caloric restriction and then seen it come back again when they went back to "eating normally", that's such a powerful proof of the "correctness" of caloric restriction that no amount of intellectual reasoning will override it.
Actually, this is my first go round on the diet trail, and what I wanted was a lifestyle change as much as losing the midrift. I didn't want to do anything silly or faddy, and LCHF fit the bill as something reasonable I could stick to as part of more holistic change.
I think when you and I talk about 'eat less, move more', we're at cross purposes in our definitions. You think about it in terms of yo-yo dieting and simply cutting calories without improving your diet, and I'd agree that doesn't work long term because it is harder to stick to. What I'm maintaining is that on LCHF you are STILL cutting calories IF you start it to lose weight. If you were still eating the same number of calories as you were, you wouldn't lose weight. Of course, at some point you'll stop losing and level out, but if you routinely ate far fewer calories than you need, you won't magically stop losing weight, as anorexics can testify. So, a good diet plan, like yours, enables you to lose weight initially but if you stick to the intake levels, you'll level out, but in order to lose, less has to be going in than is coming out. It has to. If you eat 2,000 calories but only burn 1,500, doesn't matter what makes those calories, you ain't going to lose weight. So, at some point, generally at the start, you have to 'eat less, move more'. Let's say I was eating 5,000 calories a day. I've either got to eat less than that or burn more than that to lose weight. So, as I'm not an athlete or a body builder, I need to look at how much I eat first, because I'm not going to suddenly go from burning 1,250 calories because I do bugger all exercise, to the amount I'd have to do to burn over 5,000 calories. And we all know you can't outrun a bad diet. Right. So, in the first instance, I could try reducing the calories by eating the same food BUT halving the amount I eat. And you are right, I won't stick to it if I'm still eating rubbish that doesn't fill me up, because I'll be craving more, hungry all the time and miserable. But I've still got to reduce the numbers to see any difference.
One of the big selling points of LCHF is that you eat less because you are eating right, and don't crave the crap, yes? The biggest problem for dieters is getting rid of the feeling of never being full, and empty calories don't fill you up. This is why I agree it is not AS SIMPLE as 'eat less, move more', but the basic principle remains. A person needs to diet because, for the most part, they eat more calories than they burn. LCHF addresses WHY we do this, looking at how certain foods generate cravings, leaving us with false hunger. It's like putting diesel in a petrol engine.
But still, nobody loses weight if they routinely eat 5,000 calories and only burn 1,250. The point is, on LCHF, you won't BE eating so many calories, because you'll be full of petrol as opposed to stuttering on diesel and never feeling satisfied.
There's no getting away from it, if you need to lose weight, at least initially you will have to eat less and move more. There's no eating plan in the world that's going to work without in some way shape or form reducing your intake initially. It may be that on LCHF, your body re-establishes the difference between real hunger and simply craving those empty calories which leads to eating less and eventually balances out with your activity levels, thereby naturally achieving the reduction and leveled intake, but that process still has to happen. In the end, the net result is that when you get to 'maintenance', in terms of calories you will still be eating fewer than you were when you were overweight. And you've said 'For some reason, people on LCHF consume fewer calories at maintenance than people on high-carb diets', so there you go. Consuming fewer calories. So you are 'eating less'. As we've both said, people tend to be disappointed with the results if they haven't stuck some exercise in there somewhere, so - moving more. Now your body is maintaining for you because it's able to tell you what you need when you need it, but ultimately, you are still eating less and moving more than you were at the start of the process. At some point, if your activity increases, you'll naturally eat more, and because it's a 'proper' diet, you shouldn't, in theory, end up eating more than you need. But it'll still need to be the case that what you burn equates to what you eat. LCHF may aid us to do this without having to think about it, but it's still what happens. LCHF is simply a much better way to get to the point where we aren't consciously doing anything to maintain it, but it will still be what is happening.
Therefore, LCHF is still calorific restriction. It's just intelligent calorific restriction as opposed to eating half the same foods you used to. Which we are all agreed doesn't work. And, in exactly the same way that if you go from a basic counting-calorie restrictive diet back to what you were eating before, your weight will go up, so if you move away from LCHF and go back to your previous eating habits...your weight will go up. Whatever you do, you can't go back to what you were doing before and expect the weight to stay off. It's got to be a lifetime change. The difference is, one of these eating plans is far easier to maintain long term, and far healthier. But with both 'diets', if you stop, and go back to what you were doing before, you'll go back to your previous weight. The problem with simply restricting calories with no thought as to the 'what' of your diet, you'll be more likely to go back to 'eating normally', i.e as you were before.
>> With both 'diets', if you stop, and go back to what you were doing before, you'll go back to your previous weight.
We can certainly agree on that. There are reams of research papers (such as the one Shield_Maiden quoted) that state that people who "go back to eating normally" after a "keto diet" regain all the weight. Well, of course they do. A diet which made you fat last year will still make you fat this year. Only dieticians find this surprising (although, unfortunately, they've convinced a lot of the general public that they should find it surprising, too).
The underlying problem is that dieticians refuse to accept anything other than a low-fat diet as "eating normally".
When it comes to "less calories", I suppose what we're arguing over is "less than what?" and the chain of causation.
I'm asserting that you eat fewer calories because your body has decided to lose fat mass. Dieticians say you lose fat mass if you eat fewer calories.
It's a completely mundane observation that losing bodyfat involves eating fewer calories (temporarily). In fact I can't disagree with your explanation for why LCHF causes you to lose weight - it's correct. But it isn't "caloric restriction". You're consuming precisely what is required, no more and no less, given the internal processes that your body has decided upon. In other words, you're eating less than a boneheaded calculation would imply, but not less than you need. The implication is that the calculation is incomplete, not that eating less causes weight loss.
"Restriction" implies that you're eating less than you actually need (= less than your appetite demands). If you do that on LCHF then, as in any other scenario, your body will compensate. You may notice a transient increase in the rate of fat loss, but then it'll stabilise out again. Your body's internal target for fat mass will remain unchanged (or may actually increase - since it's unobservable, you have no way of knowing, but in theory you can infer the target from observed system behaviour).
The physical analogy is something like this:
- Observation: a car running downhill [=recovering stored potential energy] consumes less fuel, so you can take your foot off the pedal to maintain the same speed.
- Dieticians: if we take our foot off the gas pedal, the car will run downhill.
Not a precise analogy, but pretty close.
Anyway, it seems we at least agree that LCHF is healthy, and that if you stick to it, it will work. That's the important bit!
I wasn't entirely honest when I said I hadn't dieted before. I haven't dieted as an adult. I've been fortunate enough not to need to. But I can absolutely and unequivocally confirm that dieticians are absolutely correct when they say you lose fat mass if you eat fewer calories, because of something I am now rather embarrassed and ashamed of. I was an anorexic teen. And I promise you, when I ate fewer calories, I lost fat mass. Every bit of fat mass. Too much fat mass. Intervention happened fortunately before hospitalisation happened. You see, the unfortunate thing about humans versus animals is that our cognitive functioning enables us to re-program our bodies - trick them if you will. No other species will do that, because no other species thinks about weight gain from a point of view of aesthetics. No other species has a choice between healthy or unhealthy food, it only has what is available. There's either enough food to eat or there isn't. This is, again, back to the abundance theory. It is only in abundance that anyone would deliberately shun food, deliberately force that change, and then only if their brain has that level of conscious thought to focus on body image. It's not a problem I'd ever have had in a world where there was no possibility I could get fat through choices I made.
My body gave up telling me it was hungry in the same way a baby gives up crying if nobody ever comes. It's why now, as a middle-aged woman, more years than I care to mention from that time in my life, I couldn't diet like that again. Because if you want to lose weight, for some of us, it really works. It works far too well. You might remember we had a discussion some time ago, I think with subtle-badger in which you said there was no need to consciously think about when to stop losing and start maintaining, because the body does that. It knows.
Well, it might, but it can be overridden. If you want it badly enough, you can keep losing weight until everything shuts down. Anorexics are probably the greatest example of the fact that eating less works when it comes to losing weight. Even if you didn't have it to lose, really, in the first place. There's both theoretically and practically every single reason why it should work. Because if what you actually do is eat less, and continue to eat less, you lose weight. The only time it doesn't work is when you stop eating less and return to eating more. People in the non-anorexic but yo-yo situation don't return to 'eating normally'. They return to overeating. That's why it doesn't work for them, because they don't know what 'eating normally' looks like. They can't find a balance between eating way too much and way too little. THAT'S why eating less 'alone' doesn't work with those people, because nobody gives them 'normal', just 'diet'.
That's why, in my adult life, I'm not dieting that way. Not because it doesn't work, but because for people like me, it works too well. This is why I really do know what I'm talking about. Eating less and moving more nearly killed me because I didn't know how to stop. Actually, that's a lie, I didn't want to stop.
It's why I'm cautious, you understand, about any form of diet evangelism, particularly when it involves cutting out/down an entire food group. Your definition about the implied 'eating less than you need' is a vital one.
I've not mentioned this before in case it puts me on some sort of site watch list, so I'd like to state that all that was a long time ago. I genuinely needed to lose a few pounds this time, I'm much older and much wiser. I'm changing/have changed the WAY I eat. I've shifted a bit, not a lot, but I didn't need to shift a lot. I just needed to make better choices to do it. Keto/LCHF, whatever you want to call it is a good thing because it gives dieters a definition of what 'eating normally' looks like, so it isn't a permanent 'diet' it's a permanent eating habit on which you will not starve, but if you stick to it, you won't overeat either. It's the middle ground that's always been the missing piece of the puzzle. It's a definition of 'eating normally'.
But we only need a definition because there is so much available that isn't 'normal'. Back to abundance again. It's still hard to walk past the biscuit aisle, and probably always will be, because it is always there. Animals don't have that problem. LCHF will always be a 'restrictive diet' in the modern world because it means you aren't eating something else which is readily available. If it wasn't available, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
Sorry for the late reply. I realise that post must have taken a lot of effort and I wanted to give a proper response
Your experience is a primary reason why I get so very upset about the "eat less to lose weight" paradigm. I touched briefly upon this sort of searing "proof" that caloric restriction works in the plan Q&A. I hope you don't mind me referring to your very personal story to demonstrate a point, but you actually didn't prove what you think you proved: what you proved is that eating nothing will cause you to lose weight.
I do identify to a certain extent with your experience. I grew up dirt-poor and was skin-and-bones as a teenager. I estimate my daily calories at that time somewhere in the 1000-1200kCal range, or about 50% of the expected intake for a growing lad doing school sports three afternoons a week. I can confirm that your "crying baby" analogy re. hunger is completely correct. That experience, perhaps, is why I've become so obsessed with the details of human metabolism.
Starvation biology works like this. As you eat less, your internal control systems will wind their operations down and down and down until they reach a hard limit imposed by physics - your heart, lungs, brain etc require a certain minimum power input to keep them running, even in "hibernation mode". It's somewhere in the ballpark of 1000kCal/day. That limit boils down to Newtonian mechanics (not "thermodynamics"). When you eat less than that, for a long period of time, your body is out of options: it just hunkers down and waits for death and/or a miracle. All activity ceases, including obsessive searching for food, as does hunger (it no longer serves any purpose). You will then start losing weight - mostly fat initially, with a progressive increase in the rate of muscle loss as your body realises that it soon won't need any muscle.
This is not the same thing as caloric restriction, but your experience may tell you that it is. The more usual sequence, which I see over and over again on the NHS forum is this:
- "I'm eating at my calorie allowance but I'm not losing weight. I've decided to reduce my calories a bit."
- "I can't understand why it's not working. I'm going to reduce my calories a bit more to see if I can get this started".
- "What's wrong with me? Why is my body like this? I'm down to 1200kCal/day and I'm still not losing weight".
- "I'm a disgusting, gluttonous person. I'm clearly still eating too much. I think I'll try that 800kCal/day Mosley diet and see if it works".
- "Success! Finally I'm losing weight! Obviously, I was just being a greedy pig and this is about right for me. And I don't even feel very hungry".
I'm not just making this up. This is an amalgam of sentiments from various forum posts and from a phone conversation I had with a client.
The theory is very straightforward: all control systems fail "hard" at their limits, as I said elsewhere. In other words, they're either (a) working wonderfully or (b) FUBAR, with nothing in between. As the limit of failure is approached there might be some graceful degradation ...but only if that's designed-in. Most people find this very counterintuitive, which is why (I think) nutritionists continue to spread that "500kCal deficit will cause 1lb weight loss per week" nonsense. They don't know or care that fat mass is carefully managed by multiple control loops, and that fat mass isn't just a useless bucket of lard into which excess calories are tipped.
Eating less and moving more nearly killed you because, presumably, you hadn't considered any alternative paradigm for losing weight - and, of course, you found that when you stopped eating, you lost weight. Bingo!
I am convinced that 90% of eating disorders have their proximate cause in "eat less and move more" rhetoric, as per the behaviour/thought sequence described above. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be slim, and I am as disgusted by the currently-fashionable "love yourself as you are" memes as I am by "eat less move more". The one clearly gave rise to the other: nutritionists know their prescription doesn't work, so their only get-out is to explain to people that hey, getting fat is normal, there's nothing you can do about it, so you'd best just accept it.
I'm not ashamed to be evangelical about eating proper food in proper quantities; I'm up against a quasi-religious movement that quite literally denies every scientific discovery we've ever made about human metabolism. It's not a holy war over carbs, although the dieticians like to paint it that way. All I hope for is that people would realise that getting slim is not about eating less, and that getting fat is not about eating more. Humans just need to eat the right amount of the right things, and the best arbiter of "right" is your own biochemistry. I'm absolutely positive you'll experience this if you stick with it. Eat until you are full, every day, and you will eventually walk right past the biscuit aisle without a second thought. Or possibly thinking, "what a load of crap, I can't believe people buy that stuff".
There's a massive amount of psychology to food-related disorders. One of the things I can tell you about that time in my life now, with the wisdom of hindsight, is that it wasn't about the food, or my actual physical weight. I didn't need to be looking at alternatives to losing weight because I didn't need to lose it. What I was doing was controlling something in my life. One thing the massively overweight people who end up bedridden over it tend to have in common is not the food, it's the psychological reason for eating it. Human beings are maybe not entirely unique in this, but (abundance again) are one of the few species who are in a position where this is even possible. Similarly, you don't find terribly many voluntary anorexics in areas of scarcity. It's a psychological indulgence, if you will, only available to those who are in a position to use food as a form of control.
Food addiction is rarely discussed from the psychological perspective, but it isn't dissimilar to the opposite. I find it very interesting that we look with pity upon those with anorexia, etc, as suffering with a mental disorder, but we seldom look at morbidly obese people with that same level of compassion. Food is not just addictive because of the type of food it is, but also because of association. How many times have those of us who watched those documentaries about incredibly overweight people heard how food is a coping mechanism, a comfort blanket. One of the problems with throwing bariatric surgery at people is that it doesn't address the psychology of the addiction, often leading to bariatric patients replacing the food with something else - painkillers, or other drugs. And it's that psychological addiction that often leads to the self-dishonesty that is the hallmark of addiction - 'why aren't I losing weight, I'm only eating 1,200 calories' - an honest food diary generally reveals this isn't in fact the case. What people think they are eating, versus what they are actually eating tend to be two different things.
Ultimately, diets fail because our relationship with food isn't as simple as putting oil in the engine for humans living in the more abundant parts of the world. It's a complex variety of social pressures and mental battles. Without the abundance, those pressures would cease to exist. Whilst, like you, I'm not keen on the current "love yourself as you are" movement, I understand why it is there. It's a rather blunt, blundering attempt to address the psychology surrounding the physical form and attitudes to weight that exist, particularly, but not only, for females. The pressure to look a certain way, etc, and the inability of the populace to cease making value judgements based on appearance.
Why did I really want to lose weight all those years ago? Absolutely none of it had anything to do with health. All right, I didn't like what I saw in the mirror, but I wasn't seeing what was really there. Or not there, as the case may be. I've actually seen a few people here who display the same sort of tendencies, where their physical weight isn't the whole story. And some of them are LCHF enthusiasts, whose evangelism goes beyond merely the joy of healthy eating.
'Eat less move more' misses the psychology of eating. But so does LCHF. It addresses the physical addictive qualities of food and the reasons physically why certain foods cause overeating, but it doesn't address the psychology of the routine overeater. You can't guarantee, to me, that I will walk past the biscuit aisle and not think about a biscuit any more than I can guarantee to an alcoholic that of he does this, he'll never want a drink again, without understanding why he actually drinks beyond the physical need. I've never been an alcoholic. I can go into a pub and drink one gin and make it last all night. An alcoholic can't do that. Why? Physically, we have the same organs. Both of our bodies 'know' what we need/don't need. So why can one of us walk out of the pub with most of our money in our pocket and one of us can't? It's not as simple as one person having drunk 3 glasses of water before they went in. It's not as simple as what's in the alcohol they drink. My gin's no different to their gin. For alcoholics, the only answer is abstinence. Some may never want a drink again. For others, it's a battle they fight every day for the rest of their lives. Cigarettes are the same. I've met ex smokers who can't even bear the smell. I've also met people who've not smoked for 40 years but still think about lighting up.
It's a fascinating discussion. Not my intention to be adversarial, merely to explore eating beyond the physical science, because it does go beyond that. because we aren't lions and tigers and bears. The problems of evolving a brain that operates far beyond 'need'.
>> What I was doing was controlling something in my life.
Can you pinpoint why you felt that you had to control something? I've heard this from other ex-anorexics too, but I'm not convinced that's the whole story. What I mean is: why pick food as the thing you control? All of us, at some point, feel that the levers of control have been taken away from us. The usual response is either stress or learned helplessness. Choosing to starve oneself just seems a very strange way of reasserting control over one's environment. What's the goal, if it isn't weight loss?
>> Similarly, you don't find terribly many voluntary anorexics in areas of scarcity. It's a psychological indulgence, if you will, only available to those who are in a position to use food as a form of control.
If your theory is correct, you would expect to see a huge number of anorexics in societies with stifling social norms, and far fewer in liberal countries. I don't see the connection between perceived loss of psychological control and scarcity/abundance.
>> an honest food diary generally reveals this isn't in fact the case. What people think they are eating, versus what they are actually eating tend to be two different things.
Sometimes, but usually not. They actually are making their meals smaller and smaller. While you might split hairs over the number of calories, they are generally telling the truth. In any case, the idea that human metabolism adapts to its food supply has been experimentally verified - the amusing part is that nutritionists now fret about how this can be overcome in the context of a calorie-restricted diet. The idea that a calorie-restricted diet should not be attempted in the first place never occurs to them.
>>It's a rather blunt, blundering attempt to address the psychology surrounding the physical form and attitudes to weight that exist, particularly, but not only, for females. The pressure to look a certain way, etc, and the inability of the populace to cease making value judgements based on appearance.
Personally I think it's a cynical attempt by the nutritionists to cover their own abject failures, so that they can continue to prey on desperate people while charging large sums of money for their "expertise".
The "inability of the populace to cease making value judgements" is rooted in evolution, and it's a Good Thing. People make value judgements (or attractiveness judgements) about fat people because they are ill. Not because they are incorrectly perceived as being ill. They actually are ill. All animals are discomfited by illness. Chickens (and many other species) will kill sick individuals, presumably to protect the flock. Humans are damn lucky we don't have that instinct. If people don't want to be judged in this way, they can stop being fat. Of course, if people are being told unscientific nonsense about why they're fat, that's a big, big problem.
One thing I get really irate about is the human propensity to assert that Nature has got things wrong, and that humans can fix it. Allied to that is the idea that we somehow stand outside of, or above Nature, godlike and all-powerful. The sheer hubris behind this attitude is absolutely breathtaking. And it's stupid. Humans are obsessed with the idea of controlling Nature; they're endlessly fiddling with stuff they don't understand, and end up making twice as many problems as they had in the first place.
>>You can't guarantee, to me, that I will walk past the biscuit aisle and not think about a biscuit any more than I can guarantee to an alcoholic that of he does this, he'll never want a drink again, without understanding why he actually drinks beyond the physical need.
I understand these things reasonably well. My degree is in psychology, and I can state with a fair amount of confidence that alcohol addiction and carbohydrate addiction are two different things, with different underlying physiological mechanisms that have been subject to different evolutionary pressures. I can't really discuss "food addiction" because I have seen no evidence that there is any such thing. "Food addicts" invariably binge on carbs and sweets. I've never heard of anybody stuffing their face with steak and broccoli until they explode.
There really is no "psychological aspect" to eating. It's 90% autonomic (animals with quite severe neocortical damage will feed normally). The brain structures and hormones that mediate feeding are pretty well understood as of 2020. Certainly your physiology can have a profound impact on your psychological wellbeing, but the reverse scenario is pretty rare.
The idea that 30% of the UK population have a psychological disorder is very strange indeed; and to quote Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That evidence simply isn't there. If abundance is the root problem here, then you would expect all societies with abundant food supplies to throw up a similar number of people who are obese, and a similar number of people who have eating disorders. But reality looks nothing like this. I live in a country where food is abundant, cheap, and of excellent quality. Obesity is virtually zero. Eating disorders are almost unheard-of. There are a couple of neighboring countries with the exact same scenario. The principal difference between these countries and the West is that nobody believes that fat (or "calories") make people fat, or that eating less makes you slim.
All I can suggest is that you give this stuff a try. Or you might want to test it on your cat. A felid-appropriate diet is about 60% protein, 35% fat, and 0-5% carbs (a domestic cat has an absolute requirement for ~6g/kg protein). A whole roast chicken does the job for me (deboned and blended). You may well find he'll be suspicious for a day or two, then he'll binge for a few days, then he'll settle down to a routine. I'm 100% confident he won't end up looking like a beanbag.
Ok, it's taken me a while to answer, sorry, it's been a busy week.
I'm not really willing to go into the reasons here, though I am under an assumed name. But it was actually about effecting changes in my body that might stall something else other than changing my weight. I was 14. Think about it. What else might I be wanting to control at that age? What else might be happening to my body?
I'm guessing you've just got a degree in psychology, but haven't actually practised it if you really haven't come across one of the primary reasons psychologically why many people deliberately attempt to gain or lose significant amounts of body fat. It comes up time and again in stories of both anorexics and the morbidly obese.
Body image isn't just about wanting to look like a Disney Princess.
What did I want to control? I wanted to control what other people saw. You must have heard larger people talking about hiding behind their fat? I chose another way to hide.
I repeat. It wasn't about the weight. There was something else going on and it really isn't that uncommon in anorexics. Nor is it uncommon in those who have taken weight gain to extremes.
Yes, humans like to think they stand outside or above nature. Largely because we have developed mental capacity beyond instinct. Nature decrees the majority of women should be bearing children at the age of 11 or 12. I'm guessing that doesn't find great favour with you? Has nature got it wrong or have we just developed beyond the mere basics of existence to exist on a rather different emotional plane.
I don't somehow think my female cat that I had years ago was that worried about the 'me too' movement, or being treated with a bit of respect. Largely because she wasn't encumbered with high levels of emotion attached to procreation.
I'm really surprised you perceive the resistance to body fat as instinct because it's 'unhealthy'. It's actually very much cultural and social. In UK social culture, obesity was once a sign of health, because it meant 'wealth'. At one point in Western society, being thin was the thing. In other cultures, women carrying more weight were more desirable. And some people still do prefer weightier individuals. I found this hard to believe but I recently discovered there are women who deliberately gain men because there are men who will pay them to do so. It's a whole porn industry you know. Because we view physicality beyond nature. Sometimes it is a good thing. Sometimes it isn't.
We're complex emotional beings. Might it be better if we weren't in some instances? Sure. But the fact is, we aren't. We aren't beasts in the field.
I'm so glad everyone is a 'normal' weight in the area you live in. I suspect you have no idea what goes on behind some of those closed doors. I wouldn't expect all societies with an abundance of food to have the same weight ratios at all, because I don't expect all societies to have the same cultural attitudes. I'm simply pointing out that abundance makes eating disorders more possible. My brother lives in Rome. The stereotype of Italians eating pasta is absolutely true. They eat it every single day. Go in their supermarkets and the dried pasta aisles are a thing to behold. Yet I saw very few, if any fat Italians. 'Low carb' is unheard of. But their cultural attitude to food is very different. More social. Less sitting front of the TV snacking. Less eating between meals. Mind you, meals can go on for hours, where's the time to snack, lol. And you could have cakes for breakfast. Sweet things at breakfast is a staple, as it is in some Eastern European countries. So why isn't everybody fat? Having spent some time in Italy, I'd absolutely say it's because the cultural approach to food is totally different.
>> What else might I be wanting to control at that age?
OK, got it. Actually I am familiar with (one of) the primary reasons, and I hope to God it wasn't that; if it was, I'm hesitant to even continue the debate in case it involves too many unpleasant memories. You were clearly in an extreme situation, and if abundance of food made it easier for to do what you needed to do, I'm not sure if we can therefore blame abundance ... or even take it into consideration. Most people are overweight (usually not obese) for very mundane reasons: they eat junk and they sit in front of the TV. Both of those things are indeed in abundant supply. No argument there. Inevitably, then, getting slimmer involves learning how to avoid abundant junk food and TV. Many people just don't want to take that step (which is perhaps what you're implying?). The pain of being fat does not exceed the (anticipated) pain of walking away from a couch potato lifestyle. That's one reason I'm vehemently opposed to the 'fat acceptance' thing - it reduces the pain associated with being fat, so people have less incentive to sort themselves out.
>> It's actually very much cultural and social.
It can be. I guess we're arguing over a matter of degree. There are various places, and various times in history, where being overfed to the point of being fat was considered attractive. Although I'd argue that this is/was largely a response to cultural dysfunction in other areas. In other words, if you're fat in a failed society, it might flag up that you're a better catch (not necessarily healthier, because health may not be socially valued) than people who are walking skin-and-bones. I suppose what I'm saying is that, if a society perceives obesity as desirable, then that society has problems big enough to obscure the fact that obesity is objectively undesirable.
>> I'm so glad everyone is a 'normal' weight in the area you live in. I suspect you have no idea what goes on behind some of those closed doors.
Well ... I have a fairly good idea. I know what goes on behind the closed doors of people I've been close to. People just don't eat crap. It's as simple as that. And to some extent that is cultural. This society has never had a tradition of producing or eating sweets, for example.
>> I'm simply pointing out that abundance makes eating disorders more possible.
Fair enough. It's a bit hard to argue with that! But my guide wasn't intended to address eating disorders. The target audience is the average overweight person who needs to fix his diet and has perhaps internalized some faulty ideas about "calories"; that covers 90-95% of people who are currently fat, IMO.
Once you take that first step away from 'abundance', it does become easy to maintain. You don't have to take my word for that: you can scan back through posts here to see many people being pleasantly surprised by this effect. This link between physiology and psychology (which occurs in many contexts) is one reason CBT can be profoundly effective.
You're right that I didn't go into clinical psychology. I never intended to; I was more interested in neuroanatomy, cognitive psychology, and the like. I was looking for a career in prosthetics (specifically, interfaces between wetware and machines), which I saw as a tractable problem. I did do a course on CBT, and another for the treatment of Cluster B personality disorders, but all those really did was confirm my original suspicion about psychological interventions: many people are beyond any human help, at least given the current state of the art. I didn't want to enter a career which would be mostly futile.
>> The stereotype of Italians eating pasta is absolutely true. They eat it every single day. Yet I saw very few, if any fat Italians. 'Low carb' is unheard of.
Honestly, I think you weren't looking very hard Most middle-aged Italians are fat. Not to such an extreme degree as in the UK or the US, certainly, but they're fat. I do spell out in the guide that it's not as simple as "carbs make you fat" - it takes many years to back your metabolic processes into that particular corner.
Also worth pointing out that Italians never ate pasta in the quantities that they do today, for the same reason Americans never used to stuff their faces with chips and burgers: those things are cheap because they're subsidized by governments, and are easily manufactured using machines. 200 years ago pasta was a handmade treat - one small course out of several more nutritious ones.
Low-carb probably is unheard-of in Italy. But so is low-fat. Low-fat is the crux of the problem. When you remove fat from a human diet - particularly if you do it via industrial processes and chemical jiggery-pokery - you're not only increasing the carb count, you're increasing the peak metabolic power that bodies have to deal with. That's the underlying driver behind Metabolic Syndrome; not carbs per se.
'Also worth pointing out that Italians never ate pasta in the quantities that they do today, for the same reason Americans never used to stuff their faces with chips and burgers: those things are cheap because they're subsidized by governments, and are easily manufactured using machines. 200 years ago pasta was a handmade treat - one small course out of several more nutritious ones' - we're back to 'abundance' again.
Fact is, we still wouldn't be eating any of this if it wasn't there and cheap. Abundance. You won't find any disagreement that diets of heavily processed sweets etc on a daily basis is a bad thing. But I've seen people on here having a panic if they've eaten a few potatoes and a two finger kit kat. Been there myself, being on my own, slightly modify version of LCHF (I can't do yours to the letter because of availability of certain things where I live, which we've been through before). People will still cheat on it like they do with every diet that has ever existed, because it's a diet. It's still restricting what you eat, and much as we keep talking round it, ultimately how much you eat.
Many people, I've noticed, myself included, are paring this with intermittent fasting. Again, resulting in a reduction of intake of food. This was something, as I've said from the start of this, that to a degree we just did without making a big song about it. It was called, 'not eating between meals'.
It's still 'calories in, calories out' it's just in a different package. A healthier, better package, but the net result is still the same. Looking at your diet, I suspect most people trying it for the first time will be halving their calorific intake. They've taken all the sweets and junk out. That's why they lose. As a host on the weekly weigh-in, I'm also seeing the exact same peaks and troughs you get with any other diet. People still talking about cheating, etc, things that accidentally fall into their mouths. What happened when they went on holiday and weren't 'good' (myself included). That's the psychology at work, right there. When a change in setting equates to 'treating' yourself, because we're all still on a diet. We don't magically stop wanting a biscuit (at least, I definitely haven't).
We don't disagree on the fundamentals of the changes that need to be made, however we make them. . Ultimately, there are reasons why in the last 40 years this has become a bigger problem and it's almost all lifestyle related. We are more sedentary now than we have ever been in history. Fewer of us sit round a table for meals. Fewer of us expect to have to wait for mealtimes, because hunger has become a dirty word, and that is the abundance factor. Abundance of food on the go. Food used to be an effort to prepare, a thing to be celebrated. Not something you grabbed to eat at your desk. We don't respect food.
I don't know where you are, but as I said, I expect, like the Italians I've met, there's a lot more to it than just not eating crap. What's the whole approach to food like? Is it sit down properly and socially or is it munching in front of the TV? It really does make a big difference. Believe it or not, I've never been a big savoury carb eater. The first time we went to Italy, the amount of carbs horrified me. But the way they eat reminded me of my childhood. Round a table. No-one sat with a bag of crisps in front of the TV, because that isn't how you eat food.
I'm going to have to come back to this as I've just seen the time. I'm supposed to be meeting my friends for walkies before work in ten minutes. Eek!
People will still cheat on it like they do with every diet that has ever existed, because it's a diet.
It really isn't. The first few weeks might reasonably be described as such - when you're basically re-learning how to eat properly - but I can't agree that following your appetite, without counting or measuring anything, should be called a "diet". LCHF involves a radical change in one's relationship with food; and as I've tried to explain before it's not just a sneaky way of achieving a caloric reduction (in maintenance, you are by definition eucaloric). Because it's not a diet there is no such thing as "cheating". If you want to eat an entire 12" pizza on LCHF then you can eat that pizza, and there's no need to feel guilt about it. This is why people find it so liberating.
Unfortunately, nothing I can say will convince you of this because of your incredibly powerful experience of "eating less" and seeing the result you wanted. That's been literally burned into your brain's wiring, and the only way you'll be able to step away from it is by experiencing something equally powerful, but contradictory.
Many people, I've noticed, myself included, are paring this with intermittent fasting. Again, resulting in a reduction of intake of food.
And I really wish they wouldn't. It's pointless at best. At worst, it's a primary reason for "falling off the wagon". I warn people away from doing this sort of thing because it will appear to work, and they will therefore never discard the idea that they have to "eat less" to be healthy. Eating to appetite will also work, and in most cases will work better. But when people combine IF with LCHF (without first attempting eat-to-appetite on the basis that that bit must be wrong) and see the weight dropping off, they conclude "aha, it's the caloric restriction that's doing it". Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
This, I suppose, is where culture comes into eating behaviour. The cult of calories is so deeply embedded into what we call "common knowledge" that asking people to discard it is like telling people the world is flat. It does not compute, so is rejected.
We don't respect food.
I'm 100% on board with you there. This is a huge, huge factor in the obesity epidemic, and I believe there is a concerted effort by TPTB to ensure that people do disrespect food to the max; by this means, humans can be fed pig kibble in pretty boxes, and they won't complain. Again, though, some of my guide is dedicated to the goal of getting people to respect food, and by extension to respect their own bodies.
I have actually scanned back through the guide in light of this discussion, and I think I've adequately addressed the 'abundance' thing, at least to the extent that we can agree on where that abundance lies. What I can't do is add anything about calories or "eating less", because it would destroy the coherence of the explanations (and it'd be false).
Here's the link, that I mentioned in my earlier response (I must confess to not reading all of it, yet). It mentions Keto as well as Intermittent Fasting; it also states that people follow these to restrict calories ( I disagree with this; these were not my reasons for trying both ways of eating).
They also say that the weight is regained usually, within 12 months...so why so many people losing, and, maintaining on this forum lol
Interesting article, lots of comment, lots weasel words, could be, should be. it has been shown, etc, but not a lot of references to peer reviewed, large scale surveys. I am always suspicious of any articles that finish off with a request for amounts of money on a monthly basis.
I love your thought provoking posts Toad. I’m sure you’re right about abundance not being the whole story.
In the animal world, abundance is usually followed by scarcity, and animals make the most of it when it’s available. They put on fat to carry them through the lean times. I’m sure this happens with people too, even in today’s world. But humans eat for many more reasons other than to just satisfy their hunger or lay down stores for lean times. They eat for comfort/solace, they eat for convenience, they eat because they are bored. All of these reasons alienate them from their true nutrition needs. The abundance of high carb convenience junk food in our society that is also addictive, further complicates matters.
As I understand it, the LCHF way of eating allows people to get back in tune with their bodies real needs, so that they don’t over eat and their bodies gradually settle into a weight zone that suits the individual. It may be true that they are eating less, perhaps because they were over eating before. It may also be true that they are simply eating better quality food and therefore don’t need to eat as much as before. They may also be moving around more because they feel more healthy and more energised. So in a sense they may be eating less and moving more, but it will be the result of their way of eating not because they are forcing themselves to just move more and eat less. It doesn’t require huge amounts of willpower, it’s simply the result of that way of eating. I think it’s this notion that isn’t quite understood by those who talk about the calories in/ calories out model.
I completely agree with Hidden regarding the abundance of junk food (not food in general), which, as you said, is addictive. There's no getting away from that. The tragedy is that good food is perceived to be out-of-reach of all but the well-off, even though it really isn't. So people deliberately immerse themselves in the "abundance economy", often thinking they're doing the right thing (because complex carbs are the best fuel for your body, right?) or that they have no choice. Both of those driving assumptions are fundamentally incorrect, and arise mostly from the manipulation of social values by the likes of the BDA, the NHS, and agribusiness/supermarkets.
I had a dog who was on a meat and green veg diet and she would scoff everything she could get her jaws around. She gained weight if she was fed too much. Friends have other breeds who actually leave food in their bowls, they clearly have an ‘I’m full’ signal. Doesn’t the wild animal kingdom normally go mad breeding when there is abundance of food? - which uses up a load of calories.
Depending on exactly what was in your dog's diet, it may have just been hungry. Dogs are not obligate carnivores like cats, but their natural diet is mostly meat and fat; they have a much better ability to use both protein and fat for energy than omnivores like humans. Their ability to use carbs for energy is on par with the human ability to use protein: it's there, but more as a last-ditch backup than anything else. Also: dogs (and cats) do eat a lot more than humans relative to their weight because of their greater reliance on protein. Cats, for example, have an inflexible bare-minimum protein intake of ~5-6g/kg/day, ie., about 10 times higher than a human. If they don't get it, bad things happen. Dogs are more flexible, but they still need a lot of meat; their lower limit for protein is about 2-3g/kg/day - say, 0.25kg of meat for a 25kg dog.
Given adequate dietary protein and fat, a dog will stop eating at the correct point ... just like humans. Domestic dogs get fat and ill because commercial dog food is mostly rice and corn.
Population explosions can be driven by an abundance of food, yes, and it's quickly followed by a population collapse. But it seems to me that that happens only when other conditions are just right. Example: big cats have an abundance of food for much of the time - they could, theoretically, pick off as many herbivores as they wanted from roving herds. But they don't. They eat, and then sleep the day away. Just like domestic cats. And they don't breed without limit, either. They seem to instinctively know that doing so would be disastrous.
Oh dear. Poor hungry dog. I followed the vets guidelines for a healthy weight for her. She had digestive issues so had to eat meat, a few carrots, with occasional eggs.
Depending on what the digestive issues were, it sounds like she would have been in some discomfort whatever you did. So I wouldn't feel too badly about it.
I spent some time researching animal nutrition after our cat developed kidney failure. The doctor recommended a low-protein, low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. "Are you sure that will help?", says I. "No," says the doctor, "he's got about six months and will need regular subcutaneous saline infusions to flush out the toxins that his kidneys can't eliminate".
So I did a bit of reading and came to the conclusion that the standard prescription is utter nonsense. The logic here is simple: whether the cat has functioning kidneys or not, his protein requirement is non-negotiable. That requirement, in turn, dictates the fat content (carbs being basically zero). I put him on a moderate-protein, very-high-fat diet (which basically means chicken and fish with all the fatty bits included). Two years later, he's doing just fine. He doesn't need the saline thingies, although he does drink and pee more than usual. His kidneys haven't repaired themselves, but whatever was happening to them is no longer happening.
was dieting, I have eaten lovely food, the food I long for because I have been spending most of my...
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
