camelopardalis

Nobody seems to have posted a link to this series on this forum yet, which seems surprising.

https://theweightofthenation.hbo.com/films

Opinions?

gregf83 

From the title I thought HBO was making a film on Ryder Hesjedal
https://www.shopslipstreamsports.com/...ee-config.html

poxpower

I look forward to once again learning nothing about actual nutrition, cooking, shopping or exercise as a bunch of expert interviews get edited down into alarmist soundbytes to scare people into being angry at Burger King.

The trailer is abominable. That's the music I'd use in the final scene of a movie about a nuclear device hidden in an elementary school.

bobthib

Pox has a good summary of the special which does sensationalize the subject. However, it may be the only way to get people's attention to focus on what is indeed a "weighty" problem (excuse the pun. I couldn't resist.) It's sad that there is no apparent solution(s) presented, at least in a clear way, from what I understand. I must confess, I have not yet watched the entire series, indeed, only part of one. None the less, I offer my 2 cents.

For me, I'm trying a Low Carbohydrate High Fat approach, ala Atkins - Paleo - Rosedale diets. The reason is not weight, but rather cholesterol and blood pressure. Despite riding 150 - 180 mi a week and eating a reasonable diet, both my wife and I have elevated cholesterol which our dr wants to control.

Wait, you say, a low carb HIGH FAT diet? Are you crazy?

In learning, no rather becoming familiar again with basic biology, and putting diet and eating into the perspective of human evolution, I've become convinced that our (American) diet problem is NOT dietary fat. it IS dietary carbohydrates. Far too many for our needs.

Here are some basic facts of human physiology.

FACT 1: Eating sugar and starches (carbohydrates) causes the body to secrete insulin. It's needed to process the sugars.

FACT 2: Insulin coverts sugars and starches into glucose. Some glucose goes into the blood for immediate use, some is stored in muscles for short term storage, and the rest is converted to fat.

FACT 3: Insulin tells the body to take the fats made above, and any other fats ingested that are not used immediately, and store them for later.

FACT 4: In the absence of glucose, the body will start to burn fat stores, but it prefers glucose. In the absence of both glucose and fat, the body goes into survival mode and starts to "burn" muscle.

Given these facts, why does the human body work this way. The theory is that way back when our ancestors were hunter/gatherers. During the spring and summer berries, fruits, and vegetables (all full of sugar and starches) were plentiful and provided a ready source of food. Excess glucose was stored as fat, as was other dietary fats from animals and fish. But much of the latter was preserved for the long winter where fruits and vegetables were not available. So when winter came, between the stored meats and their "fat on the bone" they survived the winter. Their bodies changed to burning fat (ketosis) rather than glucose. The shift takes about 6 to 8 weeks. In the spring they were strong enough to start over again. For us, we are not faced with these seasonal limitations. We can eat anything we want any time we want.

Ketosis (fat burning metabolism) has advantages. 1. You don't get hungry! Glucose deletion drives hunger (eat those plentiful fruits and veggies while you can!) but when you have to rely on stored fat, don't get hungry. Brilliant!

2. Fat metabolism requires only 70% of the oxygen as glucose metabolism. For us as cyclists it means a lot less huffing and puffing during extreme exertion.

3. Fat metabolism is more constant than glucose metabolism. For us as cyclists it means better performance on long endurance efforts.

If there is any downside, short, all out exertion (long sprints) are better fueled by glucose. So take the gu about 20 min before needed.

So, why does this help me with cholesterol and blood pressure? When the body has adapted to fat metabolism (keytosis) the fats in the blood are being absorbed and used and fuel. They are not being stored anywhere just to have them available for the winter. Hence cholesterol goes down.

As a byproduct of ketosis, sodium processing changes, and more sodium is needed. This and other metabolic factors related to ketosis bring about a lowering of bp.

Of course, most people with type 2 diabetes find they have to reduce their insulin, and a surprising number find, with their Dr's permission, they no longer need insulin.

Of course, each individual is different, and the causes of high cholesterol, high bp, and diabetes may not be due to the factors above.

So is this the only way to control weight, cholesterol, bp, diabetes, etc? No, I'm sure there are other ways. But check with your dr and discuss the options. Be sure he is fully conversant with the latest research on "low fat" diets, esp. from Europe. Many Drs rely on what they learned on med school, and lots of things are changing. Ask him why the Inuit people subsist on a diet with almost no carbs, and lots of fatty seal meat, blubber, and fish, but have almost no cardiac disease!

My 2 cents.

Ok, well, maybe more like 78 cents worth.

camelopardalis

I guess you may react like that if you're Canadian.

camelopardalis

I wouldn't be that negative about HBO's production. I hope you've watched more than just the trailer before you formed such a strong opinion.

The production itself is as much a public service as it is a profit motivated endeavor. It was benevolent of HBO to make the entire series available without charge or advertising via the internet.

camelopardalis

There is always a low carb diet advocate when weight control is the subject.

bobthib

Weight control is not my endeavor. 175 was not a bad weight for me. I just want off statins!

eugenek

You are mostly correct, but some of your conclusions are inaccurate. Here is the key fact that your theory can't account for. Yes, our ancestors were hunter/gatherers. Strong emphasis on "gatherers" with some scavenging thrown in. Hunting is hard, even if you have good tools. Which our ancestors did not have until very recently. Prior to that, they were getting most of their calories from plants. Even today equatorial foragers get as little as 20-30% of calories from meat.

The winter/summer story does not work because there's almost no change of seasons in equatorial Africa. The Inuit example is nice, but not particularly applicable (unless you have Inuit roots) because Inuits almost certainly have specific evolutionary adaptations to low-carb diets, having lived no less than 15,000 years in the Arctic region.

For a good and generally well-informed discussion whether dietary carbohydrates are the real problem in America, see here

https://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...f-obesity.html

There are many things wrong with the American diet, but quantities of carbohydrates are neither the worst part of it nor are they particularly unnatural, given our evolutionary history. It is worse and more unnatural, for example, that Americans get very little fiber or omega-3. Americans average 10-15 g/day of fiber and 1-2 g/day of omega-3 (DHA,EPA and LNA). A hundred thousand years ago, prehistoric hunter-gatherers averaged 100 g/day of fiber and 10-15 g/day of omega-3.

Surfer34

Dietism is a new religion.

camelopardalis

I absolutely agree.

Why can't Americans see that the vast majority of the world's populations eat white rice as a significant part of their diet. Most people are too poor to have a low carb diet as an option.

You don't see too many obese Asians, do you?

It's the quantity. Do not make it complicated.

vandarye

All I'll say is, Atkins did the trick for me. Lost weight, got my colesterol, triglycerides and bp all back to normal without being pushed a bunch of liver poisoning statins

camelopardalis

That doesn't prove anything.

I did the same by cutting back on fatty foods, lowering calorie intake, and exercising.

Have you considered that it might have been the lower calorie intake that did it for you? Cutting out a major food group is quite likely to reduce overall consumption.

JoeMan

I would suggest that men read the Harvard Medical School Guide to Mens Health, Harvey Simon, MD. The information in this book is based on a huge longitudial study (96,000 American men). As far as weight goes the less you weigh the lower your risk factors are for chronic diseases. The basics apply: eat less - exercise more to lose weight.

Koobazaur

The atkins/paleo people remind me of one standup comedian who basically countered that with: "our ancestors weren't fit because all they ate was meat and fat; they were fit because they spent EIGHT HOURS A DAY CHASING AFTER IT."

This, a hundred times this, with a sprinkle of avoiding overdoing obviously-terrible-food (which, in moderation, wont actually be a problem, so yes you an have your chips!)

It boggles my mind how obtuse some people are when it comes to "eating healthy" - it's not some magical, complex and unattainable concept, in fact it could probably be summed up in like just a few simple guidelines (eat fresh veg/fruit, and lots of them; oil is for lubing and flavoring, not simmering; candy, chips and soda is empty calories etc.) In fact if you google, pretty much every single "healthy eating" source will tell you exactly that. But people just like their twinkieis and big macs too much.

Also, after lots of reading up I stopped bothering with "research studies" because, honestly, you can find a study that proves pretty much ANYTHING out there (ever heard of the twinkie diet? google that). For any new "dietary finding" there's just as many medical journals proving it's the next best thing since sliced bread, as well as how ineffective and actually damaging it is for you. oh and it will give you cancer. Everything gives you goddamn cancer these days.

Dunbar

Don't get too skinny though...





https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr08-639.pdf

jmX

Gotta make note that when those graphs are broken down into causes of death, the low BMI folks are almost all dying from respiratory diseases, and the #1 is lung cancer. Add onto that, 90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking, and this study is of people that died in the 1980's and 1990's, and were between 50-80 years old. This is the cream of the crop as far as bad smoking habits are concerned.

What that means is you're gonna have a lot of low bmi elderly lung cancer patients dieing with emaciated bodies.

If you don't smoke and have a BMI of 19, i seriously doubt you need to be concerned.

Dunbar

Not true, you find the same results when you control for smoking. The seven countries study did exactly that and found, among non-smokers, that being overweight (not obese) had no effect on mortality compared to "normal" weight people. Most of what you read on the risks of excess weight are either BS or grossly exaggerated.

There's also a double standard where the health police say you have to control for cancer in the thin group. But they don't want to allow for that in the analysis of the overweight and obese group because they claim excess weight causes cancer...

jmX

Did you look at the PDF that contained the graphs? Figure 5 breaks it out, and you can see that all the skinny folks died of respiratory illness. Are you saying the #1 killer from respiratory illness isn't lung cancer or that lung cancer isn't 90% caused by smoking?

Dunbar

No, I'm saying that studies that control for smoking get the same result. I used that study because that's all I could find when searching google for a graph to illustrate the point. Here's a graph that shows the risk in smokers vs. non-smokers (graph shows all-cause mortality vs. BMI in 300,000 adult men):



https://medjournalwatch.blogspot.com/...-can-deny.html

jmX

Exactly! That new graph is way different. The old one showed a guy with a BMI of 20 being the same as a massively obese BMI of 40 as far as death rate goes.

The new one is much more like one would expect once all the skinny smokers are cleared out, 20 is about the same as 30 - and a BMI of 30 is much less outrageous than 40.

The first graph was pretty misleading, and I wouldn't say this is the same result - but I think I see what you're trying to argue and that is under weight and overweight both have increased risks. With that I agree.

HardyWeinberg

Is that BMI at death? If not I would think it's more likely to be a bunch of appetite-suppressed smokers than emaciated cancer victims.

camelopardalis

Now that's really funny. And poignant.

+1
Keep it simple. It's not rocket science.

camelopardalis

Have you guys calculated how little you have to weigh if you're on the low end of normal on the BMI scale? I don't know how many people other than really young adults can be healthy at those weight levels. I wonder how many of those people are malnourished and/or diseased?

Not all of them can be professional bike riders.

Dunbar

Yes, that was my point. As far as underweight though, according to the government a normal weight person has a BMI of 18.5-24.9.