Weight loss thread

[TheSutterDynasty]

Blankall, the majority of our little debate here is you not understanding the terms. I'll try to clarify for you.

Originally Posted by blankall

Here's your problem.

Just because something is old, does not mean it was done right.

Of course not, but if the physiological mechanism was discovered a hundred years ago and is still accepted today despite major advances in technology, that tells you something about the validity of the mechanism.

Originally Posted by blankall

People assumed that dietary cholesterol increased blood cholesterol as the tests they used involved fat people eating burgers and fries.

This is a sweeping statement that has no place in scientific discussion. There are many, many studies using many, many different methods, diets, populations, samples, timelines, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by blankall

When they tried to duplicate the same results with foods that are both healthy (ie low in calories) but high in cholesterol, they could not. Peolpe with diets high in eggs, nuts, and other lean sources of cholesterol simply did not suffer from heart disease. The reason being that the factor in your tests that caused heart disease was obesity.

Here's where you're mixed up.

Dietary cholesterol is not saturated fat. The names are a little misleading, since dietary cholesterol is actually a lot less of a risk factor for blood cholesterol than saturated and trans fat. It's not very intuitive

Dietary cholesterol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary...ietary_sources (NOTE: ONLY the section on "dietary sources". There is also a lot on serum lipids/cholesterol. Don't mix them up!)

From that wikipedia article:

Total fat intake, especially saturated fat and trans fat,[15] plays a larger role in blood cholesterol than intake of cholesterol itself.

If you notice, eggs and nuts actually have very limited saturated fat. Eggs and nuts are very recommended. Why? Because, despite high dietary cholesterol content, both possess very low saturated fat and high mono and/or poly unsaturated fat. Like I mentioned earlier, both mono and poly unsaturated fats are good for your heart health, contrary to the "anti-fat" message that is so prevalent in society today.

Originally Posted by blankall

As for your great scientific study.....IT'S OVER 30 YEARS OLD. The abstract you've linked me to also makes no mention of methods. What kind of diet did your study use? Was the high cholesterol diet burger and fries and the low cholesterol diet celery?

That's very good that you're able to ask those critical questions of the study. I set aside five minutes to find a couple of studies that were quickly searched for. If you're really that interested, I can certainly set aside a good chunk of time and find some high impact, well-designed studies for you.

Originally Posted by blankall

And before you call me out for not beign able to find studies to back up my position, maybe you should do a quick search in your own resource:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/80/4/855...8-c00382dfe4be (this study is from 2004)


Dietary cholesterol causes temporary increases in plasma cholesterol. But overall, these temporary changes are small when compared to the natural level of blood cholesterol and do not contribute to cardiovascular disease.

Ultimately the biggest risk factor for cadiovascular disease is Visceral fat. If your skinny, eat all of the eggs you want.

Hopefully by now you understand the differences between dietary cholesterol, lipid cholesterol, and saturated/unsaturated fats. Based on this, you'll notice that I said:

Originally Posted by me

If I were to take that last part concretely, you would be partially correct in saying that in some individuals actual cholesterol intake (ie cholesterol as in the RDA is 300 mg as in NOT saturated fats) does not affect the serum lipids. This is due to a gene mutation that is not found in many people; most people have a cholesterol-increasing effect from cholesterol intake.

And this is exactly what the article you linked said!!

Subjects were classified as hyporesponders (no increase or ≤0.05 mmol/L increase in plasma cholesterol for 100 mg additional cholesterol) or hyperresponders (≥0.06 mmol/L increase). During the EGG period, the hyperresponders (n = 18) had an elevation in both LDL cholesterol (from 1.54 ± 0.38 to 1.93 ± 0.36 mmol/L) and HDL cholesterol (from 1.23 ± 0.26 to 1.35 ± 0.29 mmol/L) with no changes in LDL:HDL. In contrast, hyporesponders (n = 36) had no significant alterations in plasma LDL or HDL cholesterol.

In other words, some people have increased lipid cholesterol from dietary cholesterol, whereas some do not. Despite the hyper-responses from some, nuts and eggs are still recommended due to the protective effects of mono and poly unsaturated fats, despite being high in dietary cholesterol.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

I think what you meant to say was that you resort to lying to avoid looking like an idiot.

Oops:


Looks like you really didn't know what periodization was/is. This must be really embarrassing for you.

What is embarrassing for you is taking out of context quotes and drawing invalid conclusions from them. Maybe you should spend more time on your critical thinking skills and less on your regurgitation skills.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Blankall, the majority of our little debate here is you not understanding the terms. I'll try to clarify for you.

Excuse me? I have a degree in cell biology. I understand the terms.

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Of course not, but if the physiological mechanism was discovered a hundred years ago and is still accepted today despite major advances in technology, that tells you something about the validity of the mechanism.

Nobody know the mechanism that causes heart disease. It's linked to obesity and more specifically visceral fat, but nobody knows the exact mechanims.

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Here's where you're mixed up.

Dietary cholesterol is not saturated fat. The names are a little misleading, since dietary cholesterol is actually a lot less of a risk factor for blood cholesterol than saturated and trans fat. It's not very intuitive

I've reread what I wrote. In my first post I said "LDL consumption", when what I meant was "cholesterol consumption". LDL is a lipoprotein and entirely different from either choleseterol or fat. You don't consume it in large quatities in anything.

I howver, at no time use the terms cholesterol and fats interchangebly. My first few paragraphs deal with choleseterol. My last paragraph deals with fatty acids.

Despite the fact I introduced the concept of dietary cholesterol, you also specifically called out this position as wrong. You're now softening your stance with the "lot less of a risk factor" talk.

The truth is that many new scientific studies are showing us that dietary consumption of foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol is not a problem. Trans fats, which are largely found in synthetic foods, are the problem. Ironically enough people have been eating margerine and avoiding butter for decades due to this flawed science.

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Dietary cholesterol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary...ietary_sources (NOTE: ONLY the section on "dietary sources". There is also a lot on serum lipids/cholesterol. Don't mix them up!)

From that wikipedia article:



If you notice, eggs and nuts actually have very limited saturated fat. Eggs and nuts are very recommended. Why? Because, despite high dietary cholesterol content, both possess very low saturated fat and high mono and/or poly unsaturated fat. Like I mentioned earlier, both mono and poly unsaturated fats are good for your heart health, contrary to the "anti-fat" message that is so prevalent in society today.

I don't think I ever said anything to dispute this. In fact, I encouraged eating certain fats. I discouranged eating trans fats.

In this case it is you who needs to look up the terminolgy. Mono-unsaturated fats are not good for you if they are trans-fats.

From wikipedia:

Trans fat is the common name for unsaturated fat with trans-isomer (E-isomer) fatty acid(s). Because the term refers to the configuration of a double carbon-carbon bond, trans fats may be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated but never saturated.

You clearly have no idea what the terms "saturated" and "trans" mean. You need to take a few courses in organic chemistry and biochemistry before you shoot your mouth off. Trans fats can be mono-unsaturated fats. If the unsaturated carbon bond in the lipid chain is in the trans as opposed to the cis form, the mono-unsaturated fat can be a trans-fat.

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

That's very good that you're able to ask those critical questions of the study. I set aside five minutes to find a couple of studies that were quickly searched for. If you're really that interested, I can certainly set aside a good chunk of time and find some high impact, well-designed studies for you.

If you didn't spend any time looking for these studies, why did you base your argument on them and then demand that I produce similar studies. In fact you called these studies your "gold standard".

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

In other words, some people have increased lipid cholesterol from dietary cholesterol, whereas some do not.

Some peope may have mutations that prevent them from properly metabolising cholesterol. However, the vaaaaaast majority of people do not. Unless you have a very specific condition, dietary choleseterol will not lead to increases in blood cholesterol. If you do have that mutation, your probably goign to die very early anyways. Almost everything has some cholesterol in it. You can delay your death through extreme diets, but it will happen sometime when you are relatively young.

Your also trying to backtrack now and your sending a very mixed message in your argument. You are simultaneously saying that cholesterol is bad for you and that it is not bad for you.

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Despite the hyper-responses from some, nuts and eggs are still recommended due to the protective effects of mono and poly unsaturated fats, despite being high in dietary cholesterol.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

That really doesnt clarify anything. You stated earlier that trans and saturated fats are the problem and that cholesterol was a "lot less of a risk factor ". Now your use of the word "despite" suggests that cholesterol is also a major problem.

You said it was wrong for stating that dietary cholesterol does not cause heart disease. I, however, was not wrong. Cholesterol levels are controlled by the body. If you eat more, the body prodcues less.

Show me any kind of proof from the last ten years that shows dietary cholesterol increases blood cholesterol in the long run....they don't exist. It's old disproven science. This was the specific statement of mine which you said "takes the cake" for most wrong statement ever.

The jury is still out on saturated fats, but attitudes are changing quickly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturat...se_controversy

I'm in the camp that they are not bad for you based on the many studies I have read. The ones that account for the affect of obesity and lifestyle do not show any causal link between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. The body is capable of metabolising saturated fat and, like cholesterol, a large amount if found naturally in the body. Adding a few drops is not going to change anything. The body will metabolize the excess. If you eat less, the body will compensate by making mroe.

The truth is that its virtually impossible to run a study on saturated fats as the control factors, become the way people live their lives. How do you control your subjects over the course of decades, which is the time scale for the development of heart disease.


To sum up my position:

trans fats and being fat = bad

Choleseterol and non-trans fat = good

[SHOGUN]

Just watch the documentary, "Fathead". The guy lost weight and bf % by eating fast food every day for a month, but limited it to 2000 calories, cuting carbs to 100 grams per day, drank only water or diet soda, etc. You can find it on netflix.

[RW99]

Anyone have any recommendations for either a cookbook or website for a single guy looking at healthier options, but doesn't want to have 100 different items in his fridge he would use once a month?

[Sample00]

Originally Posted by RW99

Anyone have any recommendations for either a cookbook or website for a single guy looking at healthier options, but doesn't want to have 100 different items in his fridge he would use once a month?

Actually, I highly recommend the magazine, Men's Health.
It has great information in it including cooking tips.

[Pinner]

Cooking healthy is very easy. If you need recipe ideas just use the internet or Youtube.

If you like rice, make 6 servings at a time. Stir fry is super quick and easy. Use frozen veggies, I've been buying Artic Garden brand stir fry veggies.

Roasted chicken is a "no brainer". I was too busy to cook for a lot of years, I enjoy it now that I have time.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

What is embarrassing for you is taking out of context quotes and drawing invalid conclusions from them. Maybe you should spend more time on your critical thinking skills and less on your regurgitation skills.

Here's your context you putz: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...12#post2361712

It's very apparent that you still don't know what periodization is, else you would recognize that this:

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Completely false. You get the best results by doing the same things, with the exception of incrementally increasing the weight, until you have completely exhausted your gains which can take years.

Switching your routine is what pussies do when things get hard.

which I haven't altered, is the exact opposite of periodization. Periodization involves macro, meso, and micro cycles, or in other words differences in each work out, each week, each month, to maximize gains. So unless by "pussies" you meant the top athletes and weight lifters in the world, then yea, you're an idiot.

Nice trolling.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by blankall

Excuse me? I have a degree in cell biology. I understand the terms.

Apparently not. I said:

Originally Posted by me

Saturated fats are never good for you. They raise LDL substantially. So no, bacon and fatty steaks are still terrible for you.

You said:

Originally Posted by blankall

The vast majority of cholesterol in your body is produced by the body itself. So while eating cholesterol may result in a very minor and temporary spike in cholesterol levels, it won't affect your overall levels over a period of time.

I said eating saturated fats increases LDL, but you said eating dietary cholesterol doesn't affect your overall serum lipids.

So no, apparently you don't understand the terms.

You also said:

Originally Posted by blankall

A lot of studies in the past showed there was a link between LDL consumption and heart disease, however, these studies did not take into account the affect of obesity and foods high in cholesterol are usually associated with high calorie diets.

LDL consumption? Low-density lipoproteins are the lipid transporting particles in our bodies. Maybe you should read up on them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDL

And again you're talking about foods high in cholesterol. Saturated fat is not cholesterol.

This is cholesterol:

This is (one type of) saturated fat:

Hopefully your degree in cell biology can help you comprehend the differences.

Originally Posted by blankall

Nobody know the mechanism that causes heart disease. It's linked to obesity and more specifically visceral fat, but nobody knows the exact mechanims.

Hahaha are you kidding? I took an entire course based on the mechanisms of heart disease. Or is that "controversial" now too?

Here's a quick run down for you:

1. There is a disruption in the endothelial layer (this is why hypertension is a risk factor for heart disease)

2. LDL/VLDL/chylomicrons (TGs) enter and accumulate within the arterial wall and are oxidized and modified

3. This modified LDL (and VLDL and TGs) stimulates MCP-1, which attracts monocytes into the subendothelial space (inflammation is occurring)

4. LDL et al promote the differentiation of the monocytes into macrophages, which engulf the modified LDL et al and transform them into foam cells

5. These foam cells are the "plaque" that accumulates in the artery, causing atherosclerosis; heart disease.

6. HDL is good cholesterol because it promotes the efflux of cholesterol from the subendothelial space, and inhibits the oxidation of LDL et al.

Put that cell biology degree to work.

More to come..

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by blankall

Despite the fact I introduced the concept of dietary cholesterol, you also specifically called out this position as wrong. You're now softening your stance with the "lot less of a risk factor" talk.

I did, did I? Again, I said:

Originally Posted by me

Saturated fats are never good for you. They raise LDL substantially. So no, bacon and fatty steaks are still terrible for you.

You said:

Originally Posted by blankall

The vast majority of cholesterol in your body is produced by the body itself. So while eating cholesterol may result in a very minor and temporary spike in cholesterol levels, it won't affect your overall levels over a period of time.

I called out your "saturated fats do not increase LDL" position wrong. To your "dietary cholesterol does not increase serum lipids" I said:

Originally Posted by me

If I were to take that last part concretely, you would be partially correct in saying that in some individuals actual cholesterol intake (ie cholesterol as in the RDA is 300 mg as in NOT saturated fats) does not affect the serum lipids. This is due to a gene mutation that is not found in many people; most people have a cholesterol-increasing effect from cholesterol intake.

So now that you've (hopefully, but probably not) realized the differences between dietary cholesterol, blood cholesterol, and saturated fats, you'll see I was speaking to an entirely different point and my position has remained the same the entire time.

Originally Posted by blankall

. The truth is that many new scientific studies are showing us that dietary consumption of foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol is not a problem.

The "truth"?

From your original article:http://www.ajcn.org/content/80/4/855...8-c00382dfe4be

The purpose was to evaluate the effects of dietary cholesterol provided by whole eggs on the lipoprotein profile...

During the EGG period, the hyperresponders (n = 18) had an elevation in both LDL cholesterol (from 1.54 ± 0.38 to 1.93 ± 0.36 mmol/L) and HDL cholesterol (from 1.23 ± 0.26 to 1.35 ± 0.29 mmol/L)...

But wait, you just said that dietary cholesterol isn't a problem. But it increases LDL in hyper-responders.. and LDL is a huge/causative risk factor for heart disease. That seems like a problem to me.

Now the problem of saturated fats and LDL...

More crap you spewed:

Originally Posted by blankall

You said it was wrong for stating that dietary cholesterol does not cause heart disease. I, however, was not wrong. Cholesterol levels are controlled by the body. If you eat more, the body prodcues less.

I assume you mean "eat more saturated fat", and I assume this to mean "if you eat more saturated fat, LDL decreases".

This is unbelievably erroneous, but more:

Originally Posted by blankall

The jury is still out on saturated fats, but attitudes are changing quickly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturat...se_controversy

I'm in the camp that they are not bad for you based on the many studies I have read. The ones that account for the affect of obesity and lifestyle do not show any causal link between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. The body is capable of metabolising saturated fat and, like cholesterol, a large amount if found naturally in the body. Adding a few drops is not going to change anything. The body will metabolize the excess. If you eat less, the body will compensate by making mroe.

The truth is that its virtually impossible to run a study on saturated fats as the control factors, become the way people live their lives. How do you control your subjects over the course of decades, which is the time scale for the development of heart disease.

Choleseterol and non-trans fat = good

Not only are you saying that saturated fat isn't bad, but it's actually good. In other words, you are saying that saturated fat does not increase LDL, or even that saturated fat decreases LDL.

From your own wikipedia link:

Systematic review Relationship between cardiovascular disease and saturated fatty acids (SFA)

Mozaffarian, 2010[2] 19% reduction in Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) events by replacing saturated fatty acids (SFA) with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)

Siri-Tarino, 2010[1] insignificant Danaei, 2009[3] 5% additional mortality risk for each 1% calories exchanging PUFA for SFA

Mente, 2009[4] insignificant Mozaffarian, 2009[5] Reduced risk associated with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and PUFA compared with SFA and trans-fatty acids (TFA)

Skeaff, 2009[6] reduced events by substituting PUFA

Jakobsen, 2009[7] 5% exchange of SFA for PUFA: 13% decrease events, 26% decrease deaths

Van Horn, 2008[8] 25-35% fats but <7% SFA and TFA reduces risk

Chanu, 2003[9] significant in longer term

Hooper, 2001[10] reducing total fat, SFA or cholesterol intake reduced events by 16% and deaths by 9%. Longer-term trials led to 24% reduction

Hu, 1999[11] exchanging SFA for nuts gave 45% reduction

Truswell, 1994[12] decrease SFA and cholesterol intake, partial replacement with PUFA: 6% reduced deaths, 13% reduced events

Highlighted are the systematic reviews that gave confirming, significant evidence that saturated fats increase LDL, which increases the risk for heart disease. 10/12 reviews found this.

What you're doing is an error in logic. You're erroneously equating two studies NOT finding significance with disconfirming evidence. There are dozens of reasons why a study may not find significance. It's not about a lack of affirming the antecedent, it's about affirming the consequent.

So there you go.

Dietary cholesterol: may increase your risk of heart disease, depending on if you're a hypo- or hyper- responder.

Saturated fats: increase your risk of heart disease

[JustAnotherGuy]

Well, this thread has just become completely useless. Thanks guys.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Well, this thread has just become completely useless. Thanks guys.

Original post:

Originally Posted by MacGruber

Anyways, for healthier eating, weight loss, excercise (cardio), and weight training let's chat that stuff up here, yes?

Anything else you'd like to cry about?

[blankall]

Seriously SutterDynasty, I'm not going to bother replying to your posts because there is no point as they have just become insulting rants. I acknowledge there is a body of scientific literature that draws the conclusion that dietary fats and cholesterol do lead to heard disease.

However, there is another body of literrature that shows that as long as you avoid trans fats (which do not occur in high levels in natural foods like steak, eggs, etc..) you are fine.

You've obviously decided to not be open mided at all to the idea that some of the low carb high meat/fat diets actually have a lot of science to back them up. Instead choosing to tow the line of decades old mantras attacking red meat and fat consumption.

When I need to lose weight, I use a low carb, high protein/fat diet. I don't worry about saturated fats or cholesterol content in my food. Others can choose to do it differently, but this is what works for me. Based on my own knowledge of biology, I personally don't find there are significant health risks with this type of diet.

He said "chat" about.
Not get into a pissing war...

It's great to give info and share ideas, but I don't need to flip through 3 pages debating on whose theory on which animal fats/lipo-carbo-nucleo-whatever intake is better.

I'd rather read about people's success stories.

But that's just me.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Puxlut

He said "chat" about.
Not get into a pissing war...

It's great to give info and share ideas, but I don't need to flip through 3 pages debating on whose theory on which animal fats/lipo-carbo-nucleo-whatever intake is better.

I'd rather read about people's success stories.

But that's just me.

Welcome to the internet. You must be new here.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by blankall

Seriously SutterDynasty, I'm not going to bother replying to your posts because there is no point as they have just become insulting rants.

That's just what his posts are. Check his history. Whether it is about cars, fitness or just general ######baggery, virtually all his posts are condescending, rude and insulting.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

That's just what his posts are. Check his history. Whether it is about cars, fitness or just general ######baggery, virtually all his posts are condescending, rude and insulting.

Yeah, just read through his previous threads. Virtually every one insults the person he is replying to. He also seems to have hijacked every thread that relates even somewhat to diet, weight loss, or training.

[Dentoman]

All I have to offer for advice .... portion control, portion control, portion control. Until I made this change I was stuck at 190 pounds .. started out at 210 pounds. I was swimming 1 km three times a week and eating reasonable healthy. I felt my cardio improve a lot but my weight loss had stalled. 2 years ago I made a conscious effort on portion control, easily the hardest thing I had to do for weight loss, I was cranky many nights for about 3 months. Went from 190 to 170 in 1 year and have kept it all off for 1 year.
I haven't read a book on weight loss, counted calories or followed any program. My motivation came from wanting to be in shape so I could do stuff with my kids and hike to the top of Mount Rundle (I've done it 2 years in a row)!
Congratulations to all of you who have made the commitment to losing weight!! If your program is working for you, just go with it.

[Montana Moe]

Bi-weekly check in with the clinic today...
Only down 1 lb., but my 60 day progress report showed the following:

Total weight loss: 24 lbs.
Lean body mass to fat ratio: 2.5 to 1, up from 1.9 to 1
Body fat %: 28.5 down from 39.6

I knew I wasn't losing much weight in the past couple of weeks. I had a feeling I was building muscle due to increased workouts while training for my first 5k on May 15. I've also been increasing my weight training, so that helps.

Gotta say I'm happy overall, just have to keep on truckin'!

[Smyth's Skate]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

All I have to offer for advice .... portion control, portion control, portion control. Until I made this change I was stuck at 190 pounds .. started out at 210 pounds. I was swimming 1 km three times a week and eating reasonable healthy. I felt my cardio improve a lot but my weight loss had stalled. 2 years ago I made a conscious effort on portion control, easily the hardest thing I had to do for weight loss, I was cranky many nights for about 3 months. Went from 190 to 170 in 1 year and have kept it all off for 1 year.
I haven't read a book on weight loss, counted calories or followed any program. My motivation came from wanting to be in shape so I could do stuff with my kids and hike to the top of Mount Rundle (I've done it 2 years in a row)!
Congratulations to all of you who have made the commitment to losing weight!! If your program is working for you, just go with it.

Yep, in the end, food moderation and an active lifestyle will trump and diet or workout routine!