> Of course, by the end of the month, none of the men wished to continue. This type of extreme calorie cutting combined with intense exercise “is not a sustainable program in the long term,” Dr. Phillips said. “It’s more a kind of boot camp,” he said, manageable in the short term by people who are very committed and generally very healthy.
No no no.. don't diet.. change your lifestyle. Drinking a fancy shake for a month is a diet. Never touching Soda again is changing your lifestyle.
I've been paying very close attention to the responses of my body to different foods, etc. Drinking water has not produced better weight loss than drinking coke zero. Maybe by "soda" you meant soda with sugar...but for me, the coke zero is well worth the mood improvement, and I've observed no negative effects.
A better alternative, though still exacerbates acid reflux I believe, is flavored club soda like la croix. After about a week of drinking it, lime la croix tastes like sprite. Then if you have a real sprite you'll gag. Plus it gives you an excuse to act all fancy.
I should probably add that the difference between diet soda and flavored club soda are the flavoring agents.
With la croix, "The flavors are derived from the natural essence oils extracted from the named fruit used in each of our LaCroix flavors. There are no sugars or artificial ingredients contained in, nor added to, these extracted flavors."
The conclusion of the diabetes-related study you linked to is not that diet soda causes insulin resistance, but that diet soda consumption is positively associated with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.
The nature of the link is not established, but the authors speculate that diet soda consumption may lead to increased consumption of high-sugar beverages or food either directly by causing sugar cravings or indirectly by impairing the ability to gauge whether one has eaten enough.
> The nature of the link is not established, but the authors speculate that diet soda consumption may lead to increased consumption of high-sugar beverages or food either directly by causing sugar cravings or indirectly by impairing the ability to gauge whether one has eaten enough.
Or it could be the other way around. Suppose you are consuming a high sugar diet, both from consuming high sugar soda and eating high sugar foods. You are fat, and you know you are heading toward diabetes. You want to start taking steps to avert that.
The easiest step to take is to replace regular soda with diet soda some or all of the time. For many people that is as simple as inserting the single word "diet" into their order at the fast food place.
Thus, I think that you are going to see correlations between diet soda and various bad things because people who have these bad things or are worried about developing these bad things switch to diet soda.
I think there is also a mental response. Diet soda is sickly sweet. Your train your mind and body that there should be a sickly sweet treat with each meal.
Don't drink any soda or juice for a few months, and you may be surprised how sickly sweet it is. I would spit out diet pepsi at this point.
Once you get your sense on track for a reasonable diet, I find it helps with making other good choices. Like ice cream... too sweet, easy to pass up. Whereas former fat me would eat it every night.
Can confirm. Now that I'm not used to having soda all the time, when I occasionally indulge my tolerance for the stuff is really low. 3-4 ounces and it's starting to gross me out. Sodas on the sweeter end of the spectrum (Pepsi, my old favorite Dr. Pepper) are entirely unappealing.
It's a triumph of marketing that having a big-ass glass of soda (free refills!) with most meals isn't seen as just as indulgent/gross as eating a couple big handfuls of candy or having a bowl of ice cream with every meal, when in fact it's probably _worse_, since at least chocolate & nuts or decent ice cream will have _some_ redeeming qualities (vitamins). Yet no-one's going to buy a tub of Ben & Jerry's every morning to have at their desk at work—they'd be too ashamed (maybe at home, but not among co-workers). A 32+ ounce cup of soda, though? Sure. Very common.
To anyone looking to kick the habit: I found that even _unflavored_ sparkling water or club soda just about totally eliminated any immediate desire to have a sugary soda. The carbonation bite was the main thing I craved, turns out, not so much the sweetness. These days I mostly drink plain water, but I went through tons of that stuff when I was quitting, and I think it was a big help.
I quit drinking coke zero on purpose for months at a time, and come back to it, just to appreciate it again. At no time have I ever thought it tastes sickly sweet.
Sadly, when it comes to food research a "rigorous scientific study" is often just a collection of personal anecdotes with some correlations identified.
I highly doubt its even possible to isolate how one product affects your weight loss considering its not the only thing you will be consuming over several months
Great article, nice and short, and to the point. This is not news to diet and exercise enthusiasts, however, but it is always nice to see supporting evidence. Strength training, combined with a high-protein diet, is ideal for maintaining or increasing muscle mass even in caloric deficit. Compound exercises, like squats, deadlifts, benchpress, etc, involve greater whole-body muscle recruitment and are more effective than accessory exercises like bicep curls. It is likely, however, that the 3 pounds of muscle gained was attainable because of the relatively untrained status of the participants and their high body fat percentage (article mentions approximately 24% average body fat percentage for the participants). Leaner, more well-trained individuals, have a harder time packing on muscle when in caloric deficit.
The study is very misleading. I was excited to read about some scientific breakthrough because I saw the link from Hacker News, but this one crucial fact gave it away:
> the McMaster researchers rounded up 40 overweight young men
Of course they both lost weight and gained muscle. They were overweight to begin with. Anyone overweight who starts exercising loses a lot of weight and gains muscle simply because their bodies began to have higher caloric expenditures, and their muscles had to adapt to more mechanical stresses.
If we're talking about someone whose body fat percentage is already normal, however, we'll go back to choosing between losing weight or gaining muscle, because you can't do both. When you exercise, you burn the carbs first, then the fat, then to a small extent, the protein, though these three are being used simultaneously to produce energy. You hit the fat-burning zone when your carbs can't produce as much energy (fat produces way more energy but requires way more intensity to burn), but since fat also takes some time to burn and you already need to produce energy to continue with the exercise, you use the protein too, which comes from your muscles.
This is the reason why bodybuilders have a cutting phase and a gaining phase. They gain muscle or strength for 2-5 months, cut for 1-2 months, then go back to gaining muscle again. How do you gain muscle? You put on weight--meaning, you eat more. The weight that you put on will be about 5 parts fat and 1 part muscle, and that is why the cutting phase is necessary. Muscle is only gained with the fat and continued weight training, so burn the fat once you put on the weight. Whenever you attempt to lose fat, you will always inevitably lose muscle, so if you want to get buff, you can only do so much fat-burning exercises. That means keeping your runs at 10-15km, for example.
In summary, you can't do both. You can only gain muscle and lose weight together if you're really fat to begin with. If you're within the average body fat % range, though, you still need to switch between cutting and gaining phases.
Just ask any competitive bodybuilder how to lose fat without losing much muscle and they will tell you about their "cut" diet, cycling, periodization, etc. Some of them (eg Ben Pakulski) work with scientists in fact, and go to ridiculous lengths in that regard. Except body builders drop carbs significantly and they always eat a ton of protein, cut or bulk. Of course steroids help to achieve and sustain single digit body fat percentages, but even without steroids you should see OK results if you're willing to put in the work in the gym.
Here some tips after losing weight ( 25 kg = 55 lbs in 6 months) ( healthy way).. It was 1/4th of my weight.
- Morning cardio, after a protein shake
- Eat every 3 hours ( no sugar please!)
- Men are easier at gaining "muscle" ( testosteron), i'm not a woman. But woman would have more effect with more cardio. Men have more effect with doing both
- If you eat more then 4 consecutive days too little, your body will cut on the daily energy requirements. Eat 1 cheat meal every 4 days. ( because of a hormone called leptine, it's the reason why you can survive 30 days without food)
- Eat every meal ( morning, noon, in between and evening) || 6 meals a day will make you a king
- Last (small ) meal = 2 hours before going to sleep
- Protein to be lean, drop the carbs closer the evening. In my opinion, you should have the "big meal" in the morning, so you have to whole day to digest it..
- You don't digest things in your sleep, it gets stored as fat ( you're not doing anything, so your body doesn't need it now)
- Sleep enough
- Weight exercise in the evening, if you want to do cardio. Do it afterwards.
- If you suck at running, don't try Start 2 run. Run 1 minute, stretch 20 seconds and repeat for half an hour. Next time. Run 2 minutes and stretch. I ran 10 km in a month ( and i hate running and i was pretty fat :p )
- Don't like running, try rope skipping
- Don't like rope skipping, rowing is awesome!
- If you have pain, take care and don't overdo it!
- 40% is exercise, 60% is better / healthier food
- Fish is healthier then every meat
- Poultry is the best meat
- Repeat exercising every day, except 1 day in the week ( rest day)
- Don't expect extreme results after a week, it will become more and more visible as your metabolism will improve
- Don't check your weight on a scale daily... Do it monthly or biweekly
- Change your exercises regularly, your muscles adapt / become more efficient at what you do the most. You don't want that...
- A pure protein diet as in the commercials, will ruin your metabolism... ( Eg. When you eat after the diet, like you ate before the protein diet, you will gain weight faster then you lost it)
- If you want your weight to stay off, respect your metabolism. Eat always ( preferably small portions)
- Not every fat is bad ( transfats are), not every sugar is bad ( eg. fructose and dextrose)
- Probably some controversional theory, but they always say alcohol are empty calories. I also think that alcohol lowers your metabolism
You want reading material with more information? Try Tom Ventuo with "Burn the fat, feed the muscle". ( you'll learn more about calorie cycling and much more then what i've said here)
And somebody downvoted me, why? I just gave a lot of tips which i used and who are effective for other people... And i didn't wrote a book about it... :)
A pure protein diet will cause "rabbit starvation". If you are eating low-carb, and you get diarrhea without any sugar alcohols to blame it on, you probably need to eat some fat, ASAP.
Not every trans fatty acid is bad. Rumenic acid and vaccenic acid, which naturally occur in meat and dairy, are fine.
But pretty much every trans fat formed by the hydrogenation process on unsaturated fatty acids will poison your body in some way. And thanks to US nutrition panel rules, a food can actually say it has zero trans fats in it when it actually has some. So you have to check the ingredients list.
Fructose is about as bad for your liver as an equivalent amount of alcohol. Dextrose is a synonym for glucose.
Fructose is a sugar from fruits, dextrose could be bought in the pharmacy and i always thought it was a healthier form.. ( my reference for that was multiple sport people who did professional cycling. They added it to their water instead of a "real" sports drink ).
Wikipedia says dextrose = d-glucose, so i don't really know the difference between normal glucose
Off course, always limit sugar as much as possible ( as said earlier)
I totally agree with the rabbit starvation and fats though ;)
They reduced calorie consumption, but also mandated that 50% of the diet comes from carbohydrates. Is it possible that for their average experiment participant the weight loss was a result of net reduction of carbohydrates consumed, not variations on a 50-35-15 formula?
In both groups %50 of their calories came from carbohydrates. Carbs are quick sugar energy, and the resulting rise in blood sugar tells the body that it has plenty of energy.
This would have been much more interesting if one group had low to zero cards, and high fat and high protein.
Such a diet has worked well for me to lose a hundred pounds in 8 months... without any exercise. (and I don't think I'm losing muscle.)
The question is- can you cut carbs and become fat adapted (Which is what I have done, and the results are dramatic, my bodies response to fat is much different than before)... while still building muscle.
This is the next phase for me- the second hundred pounds I want to lose I will do while working out and building muscle.
In my case, this change in diet has become a change in lifestyle. I'm perfectly happy eating steak and BBQ and when I get a hankering for a pizza I make it with almond flour and have very little carbs. It's easy and fun and I'm eating better now (and saving money) while feeling much better.
Like the people in the study I've also recently started experimenting with a shake. It's called "Keto Chow" and you can find the recipe at diy.soylent.com. The nice thing about this is that I put my daily vitamins in the shake and some supplements so I'm getting better nutrition than I was before.
This is taking essentially no effort. Before when I dieted (low fat, high carb standard "diet") it was very difficult because it took a huge amount of willpower.
This takes almost none.
Of course, exercising will take willpower so I'm finding exercises that I like to do. Dancing is my aerobic approach. Not sure what I will do for muscle building yet, though, because lifting is kinda boring. (but I do have dumbbells next to my chair and I pick them up and exercise a bit when I'm thinking.)
I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others.
Lifting may be boring, but it's not time consuming. If you want to build muscle, you want to stick to high weight/low reps anyway. The benefits weight lifting gives you is enormous and extends well beyond just building muscle.
If you want to build _strength_ you'll do high weight/low reps. If you want primarily size, you need to have the volume (about 8 reps pre set for most exercises, and 3-5 sets), which could be pretty time consuming.
(Not the one who downvoted you). Why do people always mention carbs this days ? Is it the new trend after the no-fat diet ? I just don't get it, carbs have always been a major part of meals since medieval times and it's clearly a part of a normal alimentation, if you put everything in moderation, I don't see really the problem, I just don't get it.
Complex carbs are definitely not new, but the amount we eat today is unusual in the grand scheme of things. Cutting them is currently popular for one very simple reason: It works.
Cutting sugar is very healthy and will likely result in weight loss, but if you cut sugar and replace if with carbs like bread and pasta, you've kind of exchanged one bad for another.
If however you cut both complex carbs AND sugar, and replace them both with almost anything else you'll shed the weight. Seems the Atkin's diet (eat unprocessed meats only) really did have some merits after all, fats and animal proteins are very healthy, as are greens, just have to kick that sugar addiction...
I'd be legitimately interested to meet an overweight individual who could maintain that weight without eating sugar or complex carbs, I don't personally think it is possible, but I'd be interested to be proved wrong.
If so, why did Dr. Atkins die overweight with a history of heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension? Please, don't buy into the Atkins/low-carb/paleo hype - check out http://www.atkinsfacts.org/
If you follow general nutrition there is almost nobody currently saying sugar and complex carbs are good for you, everyone is saying to limit your intake, while consuming more fats, proteins, and greens.
All of those diets have one thing in common: Less sugar and less of things that easily metabolize into sugar.
> there is almost nobody currently saying sugar and complex carbs are good for you, everyone is saying to limit your intake
Who is saying to limit intake of carbs? Definitely not any non-profit organization like WHO:
> The Consultation RECOMMENDS:
> 3. Against the use of the terms extrinsic and intrinsic sugars, complex carbohydrate and available and unavailable carbohydrate.
> 11. That the many health benefits of dietary carbohydrates should be recognized and promoted. Carbohydrate foods provide more than energy alone.
> 12. An optimum diet of at least 55% of total energy from a variety of carbohydrate sources for all ages except for children under the age of two.
> 17. That the bulk of carbohydrate-containing foods consumed be those rich in non-starch polysaccharides and with a low glycemic index. Appropriately processed cereals, vegetables, legumes, and fruits are particularly good food choices.
> 18. That excess energy intake in any form will cause body fat accumulation, so that excess consumption of low fat foods, while not as obesity-producing as excess consumption of high fat products, will lead to obesity if energy expenditure is not increased. Excessive intakes of sugars which compromise micronutrient density should be avoided. There is no evidence of a direct involvement of sucrose, other sugars and starch in the etiology of lifestyle-related diseases.
NHS[0]. US Government[1]. Harvard nutritionists[2]. Health Canada[3]. American Diabetes Association[4]. American Heart Association[5]. Need I go on? Who ISN'T saying limit carb intake?
I didn't realize science expired after N years. Should we disregard the theory of gravity, too? I mean, it's quite old!
Your first two sources (NHS & Choose My Plate) are literally government/industry propaganda, so aren't even worth taking seriously.
The Harvard page doesn't say, "carbs are evil". It says, "The type of carbohydrate in the diet is more important than the amount of carbohydrate in the diet, because some sources of carbohydrate—like vegetables (other than potatoes), fruits, whole grains, and beans—are healthier than others."
Where does it say to limit carbohydrates on the other pages? They all say to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, which are almost all "carbs". I'm genuinely puzzled and intrigued by why some people think carbs are so bad, at least in the form of whole plant foods.
All of those links recommend grains as part of a healthy diet. Usually as the second-biggest source of food after fruits and vegetables.
I really think the success people have (when they have success) with low-carb dieting is because they are cutting out half of a normal person's intake of calories when they remove carbohydrates.
That's a normal person, too - dunno how it works out when a person is getting carbohydrates through icing-covered donuts and not through, say, whole wheat bread, but it probably isn't good.
Because carbs affect insulin. When your insulin is high, you store fat. When your insulin is low, you burn fat. It's that simple. Combine that with the fact we in the western world overconsume carbs because they're cheap and addictive and you get your answer.
Carbs make your insulin go up, but so does protein; a steak will cause substantially higher insulin secretion than pure white table sugar. What you really want to be eating is a high-carbohydrate, high-fiber diet (whole plant foods, lots of whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables).
It isn't bullshit, but it isn't helpful information to someone trying to lose adipose mass.
Repeating it to a fatty as fat-loss advice is a lot like trying to teach someone to swim by continually telling them that water is wet. Absolutely true, but completely unhelpful.
The broken element in a fatty is a complex biochemical feedback system that ultimately does not send "start eating" and "stop eating" signals at appropriate times. The frontal cortex can consciously override it to some extent, by refusing to eat when the "start eating" signal is sent, but this is psychologically very stressful.
One of the great things about low-carb and keto diets is that the body's backup ketone-burning power system is usually not affected by the buggy firmware updates that have been applied to the carb-burning system over the years. Once you are adapted to it, you can consciously control your caloric intake as appropriate for your body-reform plan without getting bombarded by unsatiated appetite signals every waking moment of your day. You can eat a 1200 kcal diet without biting through the padlock on the fridge and gorging yourself on whatever is in there.
A fatty usually isn't fat because they want to be, or because they don't understand thermodynamic balance. They're fat because they have a little shoulder devil constantly whispering in their ear, that just won't shut up, ever.
DEVIL: Hey. I want a doughnut. I want a dozen doughnuts.
FATTY: No.
DEVIL: Get me a doughnut. Do it. Do it now. Gooey jelly doughnut.
FATTY: Those are like 300 Calories. Each. So, no.
DEVIL: Don't care. Ok, compromise. 3 beignets. C'est si bon.
FATTY: No!
DEVIL: Fine. Churros, por favor. Me gusta.
FATTY: No. No fried sugar-dough of any kind. Will french fries work?
DEVIL: Super size! Extra ketchup! Fountain drink!
FATTY: [om nom nom]
DEVIL: Now I want chocolate.
As you can see from the example conversation, the fatty already knows that a doughnut has too many calories in it. That knowledge simply does not help to silence the imaginary anthropomorphization of appetite.
I love the dialogue there! When I'm up in the middle of the night (certain periods when my sleep schedule is off) I have this exact voice in my head, planning to go get a donut from my favorite shop when it opens. Luckily my desire to get in better shape has been keeping this urge under control, but it's amazing how persistent it is at convincing me otherwise.
There's obviously more to it than that. For a hypothetical example, if your diet caused your basal metabolism to increase, or for you to excrete more calories without metabolizing them, then it could induce a change in weight compared to a different diet with the same caloric intake.
But the calories out side varies among individuals. Bodies aren't 100% efficient at extracting compounds between eating and excreting. Two people can eat the same exact foods, do the exact same exercises, and gain or lose different amounts of weight.
I don't think anyone's seriously claiming that everyone will react the same to diet and exercise, or that "calories in - calories out = weight lost" is the only word on weight loss.
So, you've made - repeatedly - the completely obvious point that, if you can account for every term in the equation, calories in - calories out = change in weight.
Thank you for that. Now if you'd like to adopt the assumption that your audience isn't brainless, let's talk about the interesting point that everyone wants to be talking about: that the 'calories out' number varies for the same 'calories in' number across people, diets, and behaviors.
And the stored calories, like body fat and glycogen? What side of the equation are those on? And the energy needed to convert complex carbs and protein into glycogen? The energy used converting glycogen to ATP?
If you can demonstrate everywhere the energy comes from and everywhere it goes and where and how it's used in the body, I imagine there's a nobel prize in it for you. There's still a lot we don't know about where all that energy comes from and goes.
No no no.. don't diet.. change your lifestyle. Drinking a fancy shake for a month is a diet. Never touching Soda again is changing your lifestyle.
One works for the long term, one does not.