March 2, 2013

The Bloomberg diet.

"If you eat less than 2,000 calories you'll lose weight... If you eat more than 2,000 calories, you'll gain weight. Now some things metabolize more quickly than others. And everyone says I should go on this kind of diet or that kind of diet. Don't eat and you'll lose weight."

How does that fit with the "nanny" image? Nannies can get tough.



Anyway, how tall is Mayor Bloomberg? Tall enough to eat 2,000 calories a day (at the age of 71) and not gain weight?

But, as you know, I agree with him. If you're overweight, you are eating too much. You're eating too much for you. Why is it so hard to just eat less? Of course, if you could do it, it would work, but people can't do it. (I think the actual best answer is to go low carb, not to count calories. That's what we do at Meadhouse. )

71 comments:

ironrailsironweights said...

Anyway, how tall is Mayor Bloomberg?

He's quite short, around 5'6".

Peter

betamax3000 said...

Naked Ed Gein Robot says there is no need for one to get fat; if the need arises you can always wear the fat of someone else.

Quayle said...

Government, having been ordered out of the bedroom, now loiters in the kitchen.

But it's a control freak in any room of the house.

AEH said...

A pound of human fat is about 3,500 calories, so you need to burn that many calories in relation to your metabolic rate and calories in to lose a pound of fat. You can exercise more, eat less, or do both. It is easier to do if you eat lots of vegetables because veggies are low in calories (if not done up with butter and whatnot), and packed with vitamins, so you can essentially eat until you are stuffed and not eat too many calories. Medications and excessive hormones can disrupt this balance.

rcocean said...

How to lose weight is simple - it just isn't easy. Plus, while a calorie may be a calorie, it doesn't feel like it. I find it easy to get by on 2.000 cals a day if I eat a lot of protein/fat; but not if I eat a lot of carbs.

rcocean said...

And exercise - done in moderation - will actually decrease appitite

Tim said...

Yes, going low-carb is better than counting calories, and much better than telling people, "If you're overweight, you are eating too much. You're eating too much for you. Why is it so hard to just eat less?"

As to why it's so hard, the glycemic index seems to have an explanation within.

Expat(ish) said...

I was in SFO last week and on my way to run a loop across the Golden Gate (lovely run, but noisy with the traffic) I stopped at the iHOP.

They had the 2K calorie day disclaimer on their menu - every page. And then they had the calories for every dish.

Amazing how many calories they can slap on a plate for five bucks.

-XC

PS - I had two eggs over easy and dry sourdough toast. Yummy.

Mark O said...

The Return of the Puritans.

Shouting Thomas said...

Of course, if you could do it, it would work, but people can't do it.

Yes, they can.

Big Joe, my lead guitar player, lost over 100 pounds and has kept it off for three years.

Counting calories. Rides his bike at least 30 miles per day. Even during winter.

edutcher said...

Disagree on the don't eat alone unless you're on the Cabanatuan diet.

You need to up and move around or it can take forever to see some results.

Ann Althouse said...

Why is it so hard to just eat less? Of course, if you could do it, it would work, but people can't do it.

If we always did what we were supposed to, life would be no fun at all.

But there are a great many reasons why people eat and rational, logical appeals really don't count that much.

Bob Ellison said...

Julie Andrews is so beautiful. A friend who worked with her once tells me she is also gracious and humble. Hard to imagine.

Kelly said...

I lost 20 pounds by counting calories. I found that paying close attention to what I ate I naturally went low carb. Those online food diaries are great, keeping track of carbs, protein and sodium.

LarsPorsena said...

"...Why is it so hard to just eat less? Of course, if you could do it, it would work, but people can't do it..."

Probably something in our evolutionary makeup. In our tens of thousands of years as hunter-gatherers it would have been normal to gorge at every opportunity since the next meal was problematic.

Mitchell the Bat said...

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down at a cost of 16 empty calories!!1!!!1!!

robingoodfellow said...

This sort of thing is the most brain dead.

Imagine someone going into an AA meeting and shouting "just stop drinking, is that so hard?!"

Also, to put the shoe on the other foot, it's easy to balance a budget, just stop spending more money than you take in!

Tank said...

I love the headline there:

Mayor Bloomberg says to lose weight you have to eat less

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yes, it's easy to say and hard to do. Lots of things are.

It's exactly what I did almost 40 years ago and kept doing. If you want to be thin more than you want to stuff your face, you can do it.

Palladian said...

The prognosis for sustaining a lower body weight after dramatic weight-loss is rather poor.

Bender said...

The problem is that metabolism changes.
Often a reduction in calories triggers a reduction in metabolism to compensate, resulting in maintaining the weight, not losing it.

Tank said...

Pal

You're right. I think this is mostly because people think in terms of "dieting" rather than changing their lives forever. You have to find a way YOU can do it forever.

Shouting Thomas said...

The prognosis for sustaining a lower body weight after dramatic weight-loss is rather poor.

Yes, it is, which is why the bike riding solution works so well.

It's competitive and social. Big Joe belongs to a couple of clubs that ride every weekend and once during the week. The competitive desire to not be shown up keeps you motivated. I really recommend this approach and I'm getting involved in it myself.

Palladian said...

If you're overweight, you are eating too much. You're eating too much for you. Why is it so hard to just eat less? Of course, if you could do it, it would work, but people can't do it.


And if your city (or country) government is fiscally obese, you are spending too much. You're spending too much for you. Why is it so hard to just spend less? Of course, if you could do it, it would work, but governments can't do it.

Lyssa said...

I'm pretty small, and 2000 calories a day would be WAY too much for me. I'm trying to lose those last few pregnancy pounds by counting calories, but it's tough to load all of the amounts in when you cook with the "little of this, little of that, taste and adjust" method. My fitness pal has me at 1200 calories a day, which isn't too difficult most days that I do manage to keep track. Low carb sounds good in theory, but man, I do love my sweets.

St. George said...

Just a spoonful of tofu helps the broccoli go down, the broccoli go down, the broccoli go down.

Spit spot!

AllenS said...

It's easy to overeat. It's easy to not exercise. It's difficult to diet, and to maintain an exercise program.

MTN said...

I use my smartphone to help lose weight (because it is interactive and give me an easy way to manage calories). I have Accupedo (poor name choice) to count my steps each day and calories burned and MyFitnessPal to manage my overall diet. Everything I eat and drink (even supplements such as fish oil and vitamins) goes into MyFitnessPal. I also enter all cardio and strength activities, including calories burned as determined by Accupedo or time spent on the elliptical at the gym or running. At first I set a calorie limit of 1500 but that seemed way to easy to keep because of the calories burned (I am a +200 lb man). Important to realize that NET calories are different from intake. To lose weight I have found that my net calories need to be below 1000, ideally around 500 or less. I know it sounds low but if you are working out and burning 500-1000 a day you can still take in your 1500-2000. Make sense?

MTN said...

And, I have lost 12 pounds in 6 weeks, so that it pretty good progress and about the right rate. If you like using tech I really do recommend using those two apps. MyFitnessPal even lets you scan barcodes so you can enter EXACTLY what you eating. Plus the full nutritional profile is pulled in so you can track sodium, cholesterol, %RDA of recommended vitamins, carbs, protein, etc. It's pretty fun.

MayBee said...

Oh, if only we could all just do the things we know we should do, and not do the things we shouldn't do! We'd never be late, or say something unnecessarily harsh, or eat or drink too much. We would be wonders, we would

I just try not to eat too much, and I find maintaining a fitness habit is much easier than starting one. I have also stopped doing exercise I hate, in the name of enjoying staying fit.
Spinning and yoga work best for me right now. And tons of walking.

Ann Althouse said...

"Accupedo (poor name choice)"

LOL. Sounds like an app for pedophiles to locate victims.

Ann Althouse said...

"The prognosis for sustaining a lower body weight after dramatic weight-loss is rather poor."

I think if you moderate your diet to low-carb, you can lose a pound or two a month, and you just never stop doing this. It's your new normal. I think this will work. Don't eat any sweets. Don't eat bread, pasta, or rice.

I think this is really do-able. We've done this for over a year.

Ann Althouse said...

If you must have chocolate, you might love the Official Chocolate of the Althouse Low-Carb Diet.

BDNYC said...

2,000 is a meaningless number unless you know how many calories you burn. Calories in, calories out.

If you are a man and you exercise, you might lose weight even if you consume 3,000 or more calories per day.

Chuck Currie said...

Exercise for strength.
Diet (as in what you eat) for body composition.

You cannot exercise off a bad diet - at least not in a healthy way.

People do not become fat because they don't exercise, they don't exercise because they became fat.

Put on a 60 or 100 pound pack and wear it all day, don't change your routine, wear it for a week, never take it off, then let's talk about diet vs. exercise.

2000 calories of food-like-substances will not have the same metabolic effect as 2000 calories of real food. A hundred calories of sugar will have a substantially different metabolic effect than a hundred calories of butter.

You require insulin to store fat. Dietary fat elicits no insulin response. Therefore, if you consume fat without carbohydrates or protein it will not be stored as fat, but burned as fuel.

Carbs = glucose = insulin response.
Insulin stores fat and blocks the release of fat as fuel. Constant consumption of carbs keeps insulin levels elevated, therefore you store fat and stay fat.

Initial symptoms of Type I diabetes - thirst, constant urination and rapid weigh loss. Type I diabetics do not produce any insulin, therefore glucose is eliminated through urination, which drives thirst. Absence insulin allows fat to be released as fuel and subsequent weight loss.

The constant over consumption of carbs leads to insulin resistance, which leads to Type 2 diabetes.

Controlling insulin is the key.

Cheers to us all

gk1 said...

Can anyone point to a statement Bloomburg makes that isn't transparently hypocritical? If he's going to give health advice so freely he should look like Jack Fucking Lalane. It must be an incredible superpower to know exactly what other people should be doing with their lives.

Sorun said...

Old men and their crackpot theories about healthy living. My dad and grandfather were like that also, but they weren't trying to run others' lives and us kids could ignore them.

Palladian said...

Tank & Shouting Thomas, both of you are right, it has to not be thought of as "dieting", or as a temporary regime that will cease when the goal is reached, but as a fundamental change in both how one thinks of food, and how one lives their life. And it must never be thought of as abstention or a denial of pleasure. And if you do it correctly (such as forgetting about calories) and sincerely, you won't feel as if your denying yourself anything; you'll feel as if you're giving yourself something.

Chuck Currie said...

There is also new evidence that shows a strong correlation between omega-6 fatty acids (seed & grain oils - canola, corn, soy, etc) and obesity, and the diseases associated with it.

Omega-6 is essential, however, we now consume far too much, especially in relation to omega-3 fatty acids.

The ratio of N-6 to N-3 should be in the historical range of 1:1 to 3:1. The standard American diet is about 20:1 to 30:1.

Simply switching to olive oil, coconut oil and butter will do a lot to bring those ratios in line.

Eating oily fish, grass fed beef and lamb, grass fed diary, and pastured chicken eggs will get you very close to the historical levels.

Cheers to us all

Astro said...

AA said: I think if you moderate your diet to low-carb, you can lose a pound or two a month, and you just never stop doing this. It's your new normal. I think this will work. Don't eat any sweets. Don't eat bread, pasta, or rice.
I think this is really do-able. We've done this for over a year.


Yep. That's working for me. I don't completely avoid bread or sweets, but I eat a lot less than I used to and I've seen the pounds slowly drop away. I don't feel like I've deprived myself of anything - except momentarily when I walk past the tower of Krispy Kreme donut boxes at the supermarket.

edutcher said...

Ann Althouse said...

I think if you moderate your diet to low-carb, you can lose a pound or two a month, and you just never stop doing this. It's your new normal. I think this will work. Don't eat any sweets. Don't eat bread, pasta, or rice.

Why not just jump in the casket?

There's worse things in life than being a little chubby.

If you must have chocolate, you might love the Official Chocolate of the Althouse Low-Carb Diet.

I'd give up chocolate, but I'm no quitter.

PS It's not the pasta or rice, it's the sauce or butter you put on it that puts on the weight.

PPS Sugar free, gluten free.

What's the point of eating it? I used to take one little square off one of the big Cadbury bars after supper and just let it melt in my mouth.

Got all the sweet I wanted.

Chuck Currie said...

Sweden is leading the low-carb high-fat (LCHF) revolution:

http://www.dietdoctor.com/swedish-truck-drivers-can-now-eat-lchf-anywhere?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=swedish-truck-drivers-can-now-eat-lchf-anywhere

Cheers to Sweden

dreams said...

Bloomberg is right that sugar is bad for you but he is ill-informed on so much and just one example is salt which is good for you except for those who are salt sensitive. Bloomberg is a lot like our dictator wanna be Obama.

http://eatingacademy.com/

http://garytaubes.com/

Ann Althouse said...

"And if your city (or country) government is fiscally obese, you are spending too much. You're spending too much for you. Why is it so hard to just spend less? Of course, if you could do it, it would work, but governments can't do it."

I like this analogy because it works for critiquing the argument that you should deal with being overweight by doing more exercise. That's like saying the govt should raise taxes.

If you're overbudget, you're spending too much. If you're overweight, you're eating too much.

Ann Althouse said...

"You require insulin to store fat. Dietary fat elicits no insulin response. Therefore, if you consume fat without carbohydrates or protein it will not be stored as fat, but burned as fuel."

If you have an oversupply of noncarbohydrates, before it's burned as fuel, where is it? What is it?

Ann Althouse said...

"Why not just jump in the casket?... I used to take one little square off one of the big Cadbury bars after supper and just let it melt in my mouth."

To each his own. For me, chocolate at the Cadbury level is of zero interest.

Balfegor said...

When I lost weight, it was fairly easy -- I just aggressively reduced my portion sizes. And stopped eating rice (because if I have a pot of white rice in front of me, I will eat the whole thing even if it's like 8 servings). Eating out was a large part of the problem. If I buy a sandwich from a deli every day and eat the whole thing, and eat a whole American-size dinner, I will gain weight, no question. The other part of the problem is that the easiest dishes to make (rice) are also easy dishes to overeat.

On the other hand, I can't really talk since at the moment, I'm reclining in bed eating manchego on crackers slathered with sweet quince paste, so I'm not exactly doing my bit to make America thin again.

Should probably start cutting down on those portion sizes again . . .

edutcher said...

Ann Althouse said...

Why not just jump in the casket?... I used to take one little square off one of the big Cadbury bars after supper and just let it melt in my mouth.

To each his own. For me, chocolate at the Cadbury level is of zero interest.


Whatever rocks your world. The point is, you only really want a taste.

Joe said...

Bloomberg is essentially right; eat fewer calories than your burn and you will lose some weight. However, it's none of his fucking business.

ricpic said...

The trick is learning to deal with the hunger pangs that usually come in the evening, say between 7 and 9, when you're dieting. I'm sure there are many strategies that work. Mine is a piece of fruit, one piece of fruit. Actually less than one, half a pear usually does it for me and the crisis is weathered. For others the strategy might be a hard boiled egg. Doesn't matter. As long as you've devised a "solution" to the hunger pang problem you can go on dieting indefinitely.

dreams said...

Bloomberg should practice what he preaches when it comes to spending the taxpayer's money, its my understanding that he has ran up NY's debt by a large amount. He is no Rudy Giuliani.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ann,

I think if you moderate your diet to low-carb, you can lose a pound or two a month, and you just never stop doing this. It's your new normal. I think this will work. Don't eat any sweets. Don't eat bread, pasta, or rice.

No, not possible. Not if you have a serious taste for Indian food. No rice? No bread either? As for pasta, I'm with Megan McArdle, who once said that she wouldn't give up semolina pasta even if it gave you cancer while you were eating it. (Though she did briefly try the Atkins diet way back, and blogged about it. She concluded that it was indeed an effective weight-loss tool -- because if you're forced to subsist almost entirely on meat, the sight of meat soon becomes so nauseating that you don't want to eat all.)

Fr Martin Fox said...

Our genial hostess asks, why is it so hard?

Well, I can think of several reasons.

First, some are better able to create a supportive environment than others. Professor Althouse says, "we" (I assume she means she and her husband) have been doing it. Well--there you go: if your whole household does it together, that makes a big difference. But that isn't always so easy to do.

In the case of someone who is single, s/he lacks the reinforcement of a partner; and one who eats out, or at others' homes, has some disadvantages.

Second, it's a question of competing priorities. It seems clear to me that some people place a much higher value on enjoyment of food and drink and other sensual pleasures, and what goes with them, than others.

Some people will eat almost anything, and not much care whether they have some dried out leftovers, versus something cooked really well. They'll buy really cheap, really cruddy stuff, and think you are a little odd to care about the distinctions they don't care about.

Well, vice can be found at all extremes, whether extreme sensuality or extreme disdain of the good things of life. We all know people who are rather jolly, rather fond of food and drink, and are, therefore, too ample; and those who are slim, driven, disdainful of such pleasures...and I suspect many of us can think of times we'd much rather hang out with the fat folks than the trim ones.

I might point out that if you read Dickens closely, I don't see anything that says Scrooge was fat. I suppose there have been fat totalitarians, but I am willing to bet the worse ones were those who tended to abstemiousness.

So when you see this not as a failure to choose the good, but instead a choice between goods, it's a little easier, perhaps, to see why people waver--added onto the obvious fact that not all of us excel in virtue (including me)--if, indeed, being trim is manifestly virtuous?

Big Guy said...

Bloomberg has far more self-discipline than the average man. He got ahead at Salomon Brothers because when he started in 1966 he arrived at work at 6 in the morning, every morning, and William Salomon, the chairman, started to chat with him every morning -- no one else was there.

Through the years, he's trained himself to never overeat or get drunk.

Being in control is his style. When Bloomberg Inc was on Park Avenue, every single one of the more than 5,000 employees who worked there had to walk by his desk to enter and exit the building between the hours of 7 AM and midnight.

He has become much wealthier while he's been mayor than when he was running his business. There's no way Bloomberg Inc would have become so successful in the past dozen years if he remained in charge. Very large organizations cannot function effectively with an extremely demanding control freak at the very top.

Joan said...

Low carb works for me, but only recently I found out that what I really needed to do was drop wheat. Seriously, corn tortilla chips have become a staple part of my diet and my weight is stable. Potatoes and rice don't bother me either, but wheat makes me gain weight and aggravates my RA. Anyone of northern European descent should consider a wheat fast and see what happens. There is growing evidence that many people have what are essentially wheat "allergies" less severe than celiac disease, but still causing all sorts of problems we attribute to other things.

southcentralpa said...

This is what I get for showing up late for a thread.

First of all, clearly the urge to hector is among the strongest in our nature as humans...

A good rule of thumb is that you should need to consume a hundred calories to sustain ten pounds of lean body weight. Two thousand calories should be sufficient for a two-hundred pound man, though this will vary by how active he is, how much of the day he stands, etc...


It is possible to lose weight by severely restricting carbs, but WITH LONG-TERM COSTS TO YOUR HEALTH. High levels of dietary fat are strongly associated with coronary heart disease and stroke. I know you love meat, people, but people were not designed to eat meat every day. There is only demonstrated way to reverse heart disease, that is a genuinely low-fat (5-10% of calories from fat) diet. It's truly horrifying the number of people who will choose to have their chest sawed open rather than adopt a new way of eating.

Carbs are not the enemy. I'm always amused when someone says that carbs are fattening, and they give as examples doughnuts(fried), french fries (fried), and pizza (covered in cheese). It's a combination of a sufficient amount of carbohydrates that allows large quantities of fats being consumed to be stored.

A genuinely low-fat (10% or less of calories from fat) plant-based diet is the ticket to long term success and good health.

bgates said...

If you're overweight, you are eating too much. You're eating too much for you. Why is it so hard to just eat less?

If you're gay, you are attracted to the wrong sex. You're attracted to the wrong sex for you. Why is it so hard to just be attracted to the opposite sex?

There's an argument that what you want to put in your mouth, or other sections of your alimentary canal, is biologically determined, not harmful to anyone except possibly yourself, and therefore none of anybody else's goddamn business, even if the thought of you indulging your proclivities grosses out such worthies as Mayor Bloomberg or Professor Althouse.

I Callahan said...

It is possible to lose weight by severely restricting carbs, but WITH LONG-TERM COSTS TO YOUR HEALTH. High levels of dietary fat are strongly associated with coronary heart disease and stroke. I know you love meat, people, but people were not designed to eat meat every day. There is only demonstrated way to reverse heart disease, that is a genuinely low-fat (5-10% of calories from fat) diet.

There is evidence that those with high ischemic vascular disease or coronary disease also eat lots of carbs. See the Mediterranean diet and Gary Taubes for a different look.

In other words, it's not necessarily fat that causes heart disease.

pj (lowercase) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pj (lowercase) said...

Meant 'gym rat' not 'gym rate'.

Fred Drinkwater said...

I agree with Joan's 1:18. When I cut way back (like 90%) on my wheat consumption, I steadily lost weight, and specifically the pad of belly fat I had built up.
Admittedly, I'm not talking about big numbers: I dropped from 165 to 151, which was my weight at age 22. But I did this because I was gaining steadily, and now am stable. Also, I dropped the weight while I was greatly restricted from exercise due to a hip joint problem - again, I credit mostly cutting wheat, with minor credit to bumping up my fish, meat, and eggs. (I always consumed plenty of greens and other veggies - I don't think that percentage has changed much.)
I still eat plenty of rice (all kinds).

n.n said...

It's not necessarily how much you eat, but what you eat and in what proportions. Also, weight gain is a poor criterion to assess a diet's fitness. Although, it is the easiest metric to exploit for other purposes.

They need to cut the health classes and instead teach biology and chemistry.

I wonder how much fat we can cut from the education establishment's diet if we forced them to focus on teaching principal knowledge and skills. There are a lot of additives and contrived ingredients deposited into the system, which cause it to bloat and exhibit a diverse class of symptoms indicating it has been corrupted by a degenerative disease.

southcentralpa said...

I Callahan Nice try. There is only one clinically proven way to reverse heart disease.

I'm not Bloomburg, I'm not saying we should mandate a McDougall/Esselstyn diet for everyone, eat what you like but do it with your eyes open.

Oh, and Professor, I know you're just MADE of time, but if you go to YouTube and look for a presentation called "Losing weight without losing your mind" by a psychologist named Doug Lisle. His jokes need some work, but it will answer some of your recurring questions on why some people overeat. (Short version, for some people food with a lot of fat, sugar, and salt can have the same effects as drug addiction, but do see the whole thing if you can)

LoafingOaf said...

I think if you moderate your diet to low-carb, you can lose a pound or two a month, and you just never stop doing this. It's your new normal. I think this will work. Don't eat any sweets. Don't eat bread, pasta, or rice.

Wow, I could never do that! I think Americans are just wildly out of control with portion sizes, especially with pasta.

I started cooking most of my dinners from scratch each evening, and somehow I think this helps me keep weight off. This has become my way to unwind. Instead of sitting on the couch, I watch TV or listen to the radio while while standing and walking around the kitchen. And you get a lot of pleasure from the food as you make it. The aromas, some tasting, etc. By the time you've plated it, all the anticipation makes a small portion satisfying. It also gets you to eat higher quality food.

Also, maybe legalizing marijuana would reduce obesity. Despite the munchies, potheads tend to be slimmer than the population as a whole. Perhaps it's because they drink less alcohol, but I'm not sure. Smoking weed seems to burn calories, whereas drinking a lot of beer adds thousands of empty calories per week.

Nomennovum said...

That's very interesting what Bloomberg has to say.

But WTF has is got to do with running a city of eight million?

Shaddup, asshole!

Julie C said...

I lost about 35 pounds going low-carb. And I've kept it off for over a year. I'm 52 and weigh what I did when I met my husband 25 years ago.

When you are actively losing, you should avoid bread, rice, sweets. But after you've lost the weight, you can enjoy a bit of certain carbs, but in moderation. I still serve pasta to my family, but I buy Dreamfield's brand, which is low carb. When I have a sandwich (maybe once a month), I have a half instead of a whole. Mostly I eat salads with proteins for lunch. My breakfasts consist of bacon and eggs, or ham and eggs. Dinner is protein, vegetables, and salads. If I need to have rice with something (when I make Chinese food) I use Uncle Bens, which is lower on the glycemic index than other rice. And I only eat about 1/4 cup. You just have to reorient your thinking about food.

Being able to buy new clothes in small sizes has been so much fun. A great reward! A bit of dark chocolate is also a nice reward ...

Ann Althouse said...

"The point is, you only really want a taste."

Because it's bad, you mean?

Chuck Currie said...

Ann asked: "If you have an oversupply of noncarbohydrates, before it's burned as fuel, where is it? What is it?"


First: Fat is the only macro nutrient that does not elicit an insulin response = no fat storage - both carbs and protein do. So it's in your digestive tract - takes longer to digest - being processed by your liver or in your blood stream as fatty acids.

Second: You would be hard pressed to consume an over supply of fat. Fat is very satiating - a little goes a long way. People who eat a high fat diet (more than 60% fat) naturally self limit their caloric intake. In other words, they are full sooner and stay satisfied longer. Also, if you are unaccustomed to a high fat diet, you will have an unpleasant reaction, however, you will get some reading done. So if you are contemplating a change, take it slow, give your live and gall bladder time to adjust.

Cheers to us all

A said...

Not that this is a diet forum, but I adhered to the Ornish et al extremely low-fat diet for over a year---it's basically all carbs (beans and grains)
plus fruits and vegetables---and stopped because I was losing too much weight even though I ate really huge amounts of food. Individual variation isn't sufficiently addressed by all these dietary theorists and studies.

EMD said...

Very large organizations cannot function effectively with an extremely demanding control freak at the very top.

Tell that to Steve Jobs.

Balfegor said...

Re: bgates:

If you're gay, you are attracted to the wrong sex. You're attracted to the wrong sex for you. Why is it so hard to just be attracted to the opposite sex?

The problem isn't being attracted to food . . . it's acting on that attraction that makes you fat. Or rather, acting on that attraction too much.

Balfegor said...

Re: EMD:

My impression is that Jobs wasn't a control freak -- he told people what he wanted and let them do it. If they didn't do it the way he wanted, he was vicious. That's being demanding, not being a control freak. That's not like standing over their shoulders every moment of the day.

Chuck Currie said...

Nice depiction of the carb insulin obesity link:

http://www.dietdoctor.com/yes-a-low-carb-diet-greatly-lowers-your-insulin?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=yes-a-low-carb-diet-greatly-lowers-your-insulin

To your health