Fit Club ahoy! Where men are bros and women are also bros!

[zircon]

Okay, noted. The ground beef was about $6 for a pound of 80/20 (they didn't have any leaner) but I plan on excessively draining it as I cook anyway. The angus steak was about $11 for a pound. Cost isn't a big deal though. One thing my parents impressed upon me was that you should never try to save on groceries by buying crap. You are literally made up out of the stuff you eat, and personal health is really important (especially given that I have a sensitive stomach), so it doesn't make sense to try and save a few bucks every week by buying microwave dinners and junk.

[Thin Crust]

Oddly enough, after 6 straight days of losing 1.5 lbs per day, today, I stepped on the scale and I had gained 2 lbs since the day before. That was very disturbing. Granted I haven't had to use the restroom yet. (I'm actually only needing it every other day now. Looks like not today.)

Only thing is, I need a little advice on what I did last night. Since I was so happy with my continued weight loss, I decided to indulge myself in eating sausage, something I have sworn against in the past because of it's fat content. This sausage doesn't have any carbs in it, but I did eat 3 servings yesterday. Just keep in mind that I still haven't any carbs yet. Would you guess that has something to do with it, or is it a simple thing like not relieving myself yet?

[ectogemia]

Oddly enough, after 6 straight days of losing 1.5 lbs per day, today, I stepped on the scale and I had gained 2 lbs since the day before. That was very disturbing. Granted I haven't had to use the restroom yet. (I'm actually only needing it every other day now. Looks like not today.)

Only thing is, I need a little advice on what I did last night. Since I was so happy with my continued weight loss, I decided to indulge myself in eating sausage, something I have sworn against in the past because of it's fat content. This sausage doesn't have any carbs in it, but I did eat 3 servings yesterday. Just keep in mind that I still haven't any carbs yet. Would you guess that has something to do with it, or is it a simple thing like not relieving myself yet?

If you go back through and read my last 2309482 posts in this thread, you'll know how I feel about the sausage (please spray your gay jokes all over my hair and face, everyone <3). Long story short, the sausage you ate had nothing to do with your weight gain. If you want to know why, again, read my posts. I can only say the same thing about protein, fat, and carbs so many times

Weighing yourself daily is a bad idea. At most, do it twice per week. Ideally, once per week. Why? Exactly as you suspect, the fact you have not peepee'd or poopoo'd or maybe you had a glass of water at an unusual time or ate a food with high water content, etc. will affect your body weight in a short-term manner which would be unnoticeable (and therefore more encouraging to you) if you did not weight yourself as frequently. Law of large numbers: if your weight is decreasing on average, you will find burps of increased weight, but over a long period of time, your weight will be trending down. So just decrease the frequency with which you weigh yourself, and you'll be more likely to see only number which are decreasing.

Also, you said you were running a race? I would NOT recommend frequent exercise on Atkins or any low-carb diet, including Paleo. There are many reasons for this, chief among them being cortisol and the rate of gluconeogenesis in your liver not being enough without supplemental dietary carbs to cope with the carbohydrate needs of your body. Again, go back through the posts I've made on cortisol to understand this. Long story short, low carb + exercise = high cortisol; CHRONICALLY high cortisol = fat retention.

It's important to make the distinction that NOT exercising and doing a very low carb diet is fine. Even infrequent exercise + low carb is fine. But if you notice you start to feel fatigued, strung out, anxious, or unable to fall asleep or stay asleep, it's likely because you're exercising too much on a low-carb diet. To fix those symptoms, all you need to do is add enough STARCH (potatoes, sweet potatoes, squash, yams, etc.; NOT grain or simple sugars) back into your diet until you no longer feel those symptoms. It shouldn't take much. Maybe 30-50g/day assuming moderate exercise??

Edited April 20, 2013 by ectogemia

[Thin Crust]

maybe I should clarify. My brother and I are racing to see who can go down to 200lbs fastest. And I drink a boatload. As much as I can. It's the poop that isn't coming out.

And I guess you're right. I shouldn't weigh myself everyday. But I'm the kind of guy that needs encouragement so it will be more than once a week.

[ectogemia]

maybe I should clarify. My brother and I are racing to see who can go down to 200lbs fastest. And I drink a boatload. As much as I can. It's the poop that isn't coming out.

And I guess you're right. I shouldn't weigh myself everyday. But I'm the kind of guy that needs encouragement so it will be more than once a week.

Oh, hahahha, I thought you were RUNNING a race! Oops Welp, whatever encouragement you need, go for it. Positive reinforcement is so important to sticking to the plan, so find an interval, maybe every 2 or 3 days, where you're almost always weighing less.

But don't let a day or two here and there of no loss or even a gain get you discouraged. I'm trying to build mass at the gym right now, and I weigh myself 3 times per week. Sometimes I weigh 2 lbs. less than I did 2 days prior, sometimes 3 lbs. It can be a little confusing, but keep track of your weight each time you weigh yourself and the number of days it has been since you started doing this (so if you started to record your weight today, write Day 1 next to that, then Day 3 next to your Monday weight, etc.). Plug all that into a cumulative spreadsheet in Excel at the end of every week and use Excel's graphing function to generate a line. The slope of that line is your daily rate of weight loss, and as long as it's a negative number, you're doing things right. I think that slope would be a more powerful motivator than anything. The more you can increase that negative number, the better you're doing to lose weight. Definitely a good number to focus on as a progress marker. It's what I do, and it's the best way I can think of to really gauge how you're doing over the long term.

edit: Also try to be consistent with when you weigh yourself. I sorta have a poop'n'pee schedule that I've fallen into. I always poop'n'pee before a workout. So one day, I decided to weigh myself and then go poop'n'pee and weigh myself again just to see how much of a difference in my weight a little evacuation made. ONE AND A HALF POUNDS. That's a lot of brown and yellow. So maybe try to squeeze a little out every time before you weigh yourself to keep things consistent.

Edited April 20, 2013 by ectogemia

[zircon]

Out of curiosity, what do you have to say about the studies (such as the recent one concerning red meat & gut flora, in both rodents & humans) supporting the hypothesis that red meat consumption is linked to heart disease? ie...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583051

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23451121

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21912836

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23001745

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23388667

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-links-l-carnitine-in-red-meat-to-heart-disease-201304176083

I bring it up because I was discussing my recent exercise & diet stuff with my dad (also my doctor ) and he pointed out that there really is a lot of consistent evidence, such as that latest gut flora study, pointing toward excessive red meat consumption being bad for you.

Edited April 22, 2013 by zircon

[ectogemia]

The short answer is that these studies do not indicate what the quality of the beef utilized is, nor do they correct for confounding variables. It could be the shittiest feedlot beef there is. Also, these sorts of "food log" studies which track consumption of only one particular food miss crucial details like which foods people tend to eat WITH, say, red meat vs. chicken. In America, most people who eat "healthily" (by a conventional definition) would eat things like chicken preferentially, and they would also probably eat few processed foods. Compare that to the easiest and most common place people source beef, fast food joints, and you have a huge list of confounding variables not considered in these oversimplified studies. There's actually a documentary called "Fat Head" which explores this idea of confounding variables in studies condemning saturated fat. He basically does the opposite of "Supersize Me" and eats McDonalds' for 30 days, but he ONLY eats the meat and really nothing else. No fries, no pop, etc., and the end result is he loses weight, has better blood cholesterol, and better blood pressure. Very interesting.

I'll respond in more detail to each study later. Got school stuff going on right now.

edit: And now for the long answer...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583051

First of all, this study is highly authoritarian. The fact they say so assuredly "Because both N-6 and N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are essential and reduce risk of heart disease, the ratio of N-6 to N-3 is not useful and can be misleading," doesn't sit well with me. It's a very absolute statement, and it's not really appropriate for a scientific abstract. I've already cited studies to you which say the opposite, but such is the nature of science.

What I do like about this abstract, though, is this VERY powerful statement: "All lines of evidence indicate that specific dietary fatty acids play important roles in the cause and the prevention of CHD, but total fat as a percent of energy is unimportant." Wow. Love it. Is that not the opposite of everything we've ever been taught about fat? Things really ARE more complicated (or simple, depending upon how you look at it) than "eat less fat to avoid heart disease). I just REALLY don't like where they go with their recommendations after that. Their language is also, once again, authoritarian. "All lines of evidence..." Oh really? Every single study ever done has shown this one thing to be true? Bullshit. That never happens anywhere in science. These guys clearly have an agenda or no scientific integrity if they're writing their article in such absolutes.

And they mentioned that three types of studies have demonstrated an adverse effect of saturated fat. None of those studies are mechanistic (exploring the process whereby something occurs. They are, instead, correlational or epidemiological. In my opinion, those types of studies are NOT reliable for health recommendations because of the potential for confounding variables. Here's an analogy. The average annual temperature has been increasing since the late 19th century. Naval piracy has been dropping since the late 19th century. If you were to do a single variable linear regression to determine how strongly naval piracy correlates to average annual temperature, you'd find that there's a strong correlation between the two. So what do we do with this information? Do we recommend that people start becoming pirates to combat global warming? NO. We recommend that further studies be done to determine HOW naval piracy causes global warming. If a mechanism can't seem to be found, then the usefulness of that naked correlational statistic should be cast into doubt. If we can't CAUSALLY relate naval piracy to global warming, should we value that strong correlation anymore? No, it's a coincidence. Same with all these correlational saturated fat studies. If you can't tell me HOW saturated fat is causing heart disease (no one can), then it probably isn't causing it. In this case, the positive correlations are likely due to confounding variables. Again, check out the documentary "Fat Head" to see how correcting for these confounding variables can lead to very positive results from high red meat consumption, even when sourced exclusively from McDonalds'.

I actually remember a controlled feeding study (a type of study mentioned in the abstract) performed on mice which showed saturated fat caused heart disease, diabetes, liver problems, high cholesterol, etc. So I looked into the materials and methods for the study. The mice were fed a diet of 100% HYDROGENATED coconut oil (wtf, that is ALL they were fed?). What is hydrogenated coconut oil? Trans fat. This was a study on trans fat, not saturated fat, yet the authors intentionally did not phrase it as such (hmmm...), and the study was all over the mainstream media. Horrible science and journalism everywhere.

--

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23451121

My response to this is, again, it's a large epidemiological study. What about the confounding variables? Without further study, this is just a set of data which warrants closer investigation. Nothing more. Without a mechanism showing how grass-fed red meat causes heart disease, I'm not too concerned about data like these. Maybe in China, many people who eat red meat do so with a particular side dish or condiment which is extremely processed and dangerous to cardiovascular health. Maybe that same side dish is never eaten with chicken. Who knows. The study didn't investigate that. It's the same thing Fat Head looks at. Unlike the asshole in Supersize Me, the guy in Fat Head doesn't get a large coke and an apple pie with each McDonalds' meal. And he doesn't get fat or sick, yet the conclusion of Supersize Me was that fat is bad for you. Confounding variables. It's the sugar overdose people eat often WITH the fat from McDonalds'.

--

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21912836

"Meat protein is associated with an increase in risk of heart disease." -- Associated? Cool. Show me a mechanism for how meat protein causes heart disease.

"Recent data have shown that meat protein appeared to be associated with weight gain over 6.5 years, with 1 kg of weight increase per 125 g of meat per day." -- 1 kg of weight increase/year per 125 g of meat eaten per day? Pretty slow increase if you ask me. I've gained 10 kg of mass and a shit ton of strength in 10 weeks eating about 175 g of animal protein per day. Sounds like this study group needs to lift harder

"In the Nurses' Health Study, diets low in red meat, containing nuts, low-fat dairy, poultry, or fish, were associated with a 13% to 30% lower risk of CHD compared with diets high in meat." I hate the nurses' study. It's another huge epidemiological BS fest full of vague associations and ZERO mechanistic explanations. It confuses more than it teaches. Anyway, great, cool, where were the nurses getting their red meat? From the Wendy's in the hospital food court, and I'd like a large frosty and fry with that, thank you very much?

"Low-carbohydrate diets high in animal protein were associated with a 23% higher total mortality rate whereas low-carbohydrate diets high in vegetable protein were associated with a 20% lower total mortality rate." This was probably a study done on Atkins which allows the conusmption of ANYTHING, so long as it is low-carb. A lot of the foods labeled "low-carb" found in grocery stores are highly processed and loaded with trans fats or inflammatory compounds. You just cannot blanket "low-carbohydrate diets high in animal protein" over ALL diets high in animal protein. Would a whole foods diet low in carbs and high in animal protein have the same associations with heart disease? A very important question.

My take on this study is "so what?" It's just a set of raw data. A starting point for deeper investigation. No explanations. Blanket generalizations and positive statements without important follow-up questions or distinctions being suggested. So what?

--

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23001745

The findings of this study actually corroborate what I've been saying. "In meta-analyses of prospective cohorts, higher risk of CHD is seen with processed meat consumption [stats omitted], but a smaller increase or no risk is seen with unprocessed meat consumption."

and

"The overall findings suggest that neither unprocessed red nor processed meat consumption is beneficial for cardiometabolic health, and that clinical and public health guidance should especially prioritize reducing processed meat consumption." There's no part of this study I really disagree with except for the interpretation of their data. They are probably being cautious because a diet high in unprocessed animal cholesterol CAN raise your blood cholesterol, but it does so in a proportional manner with respect to HDL and LDL which is not known to be associated with heart disease, but it can flag on a lab as "elevated" cholesterol. Sure, but it's not "aberrant" cholesterol (low HDL, high LDL-, so there's no concern. I suspect the authors of the study didn't make the distinction between elevated and aberrant cholesterol when they found that unprocessed red meat cosumption.

They also did this study on people who have type II diabetes which is a disease caused by a horrible, terrible, shitty diet. That population has a very dysregulated and sensitive metabolism, so trying to apply the effect of certain foods on their metabolism to that of a healthy population is poor science. Who knows what else the test groups are eating aside from processed/unprocessed red meat? My guess is that considering they have type II diabetes, it's probably not good. And where's a good place to get processed beef? Burger King. Might as well pick up a Coke while I'm there. For science!

--

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23388667

This study is funny. It demonstrates exactly what I was saying about how shitty epidemiological studies are. It also demonstrates that same phenomenon with naval piracy and global warming. "Higher intakes of whole-grain bread, raw vegetables, coffee and cakes and cookies were found to be significantly associated with a lower risk of chronic diseases." HMMM? So that first study was comfortable with making dietary recommendations based on raw epidemiological data (insane, but common practice in nutrition science). Imagine if the authors of this study had done the same thing. "Consume cakes and cookies to reduce your risk of chronic disease." I REALLY respect the language of this article and the fact the authors ended their abstract with questions about the validity of their study. But it also annoys me. It shows their bias. The study shows that cakes and cookies were associated with a reduction in chronic disease. So they question THAT, but not the red meat consumption? Pre-conceived notions...

And here's the hellspawn child begat from the marriage of nutrition science and epidemiology: THE FOOD-FREQUENCY QUESTIONNAIRE. No wonder their results were weird. I would Google this if I were you and read critiques on this research method bearing in mind that it is what is used for the vast majority of epidemiological nutritional studies, the same type use by ALL the studies you have cited. It's really just an awful method which relies on memory, estimations, and the small set of study terms/"food groups" which the authors permit the subjects to use when filling out the survey. So much room for error and ambiguity.

--

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-links-l-carnitine-in-red-meat-to-heart-disease-201304176083

Here's a generally solid response to the TMAO study, complete with citations of its own. Saves me a little time

My only addition to that guy's response is that inflammation is a NECESSARY condition for cardiovascular disease. Without an overactive immune system (a condition I believe to be most commonly prevented by low dietary gluten, good omega 3 to 6 ratio, low oxysterol intake, low added sugar intake, etc.), cardiovascular disease is unlikely to occur even in the presence of normal dietary free radical production. It's not like TMAO is the only free radical produced by foods we eat, and that response says as much. Free radicals are a fact of life. This study is just being alarmist about TMAO.

So yeah. That's a lot to read. I guess the take-home themes are that correlation is not the same as causation, that without a demonstrable mechanism there is always room for doubt of an actual causal relationship regarding even the strongest of correlations, and that the methods whereby these epidemiological studies are performed are shitty as evidenced by the results of the study I just talked about right above this paragraph.

Edited April 22, 2013 by ectogemia

[zircon]

I guess the thing is, when there are dozens upon dozens of large-scale studies showing the same correlation in different cohorts, with animals, with humans, etc., that to me indicates there IS actually a problem. We keep seeing the same correlations across the board.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=414881

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1134845

You can say "oh maybe it's antibiotics" or whatever, but we keep seeing these results all over the world. The fact that the mechanism isn't 100% known with certainty isn't actually relevant. We don't know the mechanisms for a great majority of things but through the scientific method and repeated studies/testing we can observe what appears to be cause and effect, and make decisions based on that. Germ theory developed long before we had any hard evidence of germs themselves, and was mostly based on observation / epidemiology. Nonetheless, once people accepted conclusions like "gee, washing your hands seems to cause less hospital deaths, even if we don't know why", society benefited.

I think you're being willfully ignorant if you can look at the mountain of accumulated evidence and dismiss ALL of it out of hand. There's too much out there to simply say there are errors and confounding variables in every single case. It goes against logic and common sense. The mantra of 'correlation doesn't mean causation' doesn't negate the value of entire fields of study.

[XPRTNovice]

I don't have the time to read all of the stuff you guys have been talking about, but I will offer one piece of anecdotal evidence: my wife.

Back in 2008, my wife started having some really, really serious health issues centered around her digestion. She tried EVERYTHING. She saw gastro specialists in two different countries, and EACH ONE told her something conflicting. I won't go into details, but it was bad. Really bad. Like, we thought we'd never be able to have children because her body was shutting down kind of bad.

My wife switched to something very similar to the whole 30 you guys were talking about before. She had a complete lifestyle switch, and followed the scdlifestyle.com guidelines. That's how she got involved in that culture of health - one which ecto is pretty much quoting from - and that's how I know viacariously what I know. Once she did that, life changed within 1 month.

The stories I've heard from other people are seeing thing like CANCER go away. Parkensons. Chrone's. ADHD/ADD. Outrageous degenerative diseases that don't even seem to have a connection to a diet have totally vanished from people that ascribe to ecto's philosophy. "Mountains of evidence" have been accumulated to attempt to prove very silly things in the past, and ecto's counterargument is pretty effective. Red meat from feedlots just isn't the same as grass fed beef.

But, honestly, I don't care. I don't care about studies or statistics or whatever - I have a wife who isn't dead and a new daughter, and I guarantee you that it had everything to do with the diet changes my wife made.

Anyway, that's all I'll offer. I've mentioned before that I try not to stress about it all. To me, reading studies by our medical profession is too stressful for me to really care - I have the answer living with me every day because she didn't listen to doctors who told her to eat more bread and that she just had IBS and that she just had to deal with it.

edit: Zircon are you doing whole 30? My wife "challenged" me to do it and I might give it a chance for the month of May. Let me know how you feel! I will give you this advice: When my wife changed her diet, about 3-4 days into it she felt awful. They call that "die-off" because your gut flora is re-balancing itself. DON'T GIVE UP. Give it at least 7-10 days before you throw in the towel (and after that long, you won't). And check out scdlifestyle.com - there are soooooo many stories just like yours.

Edited April 22, 2013 by XPRTNovice

[ectogemia]

The fact that the mechanism isn't 100% known with certainty isn't actually relevant. We don't know the mechanisms for a great majority of things but through the scientific method and repeated studies/testing we can observe what appears to be cause and effect, and make decisions based on that. Germ theory developed long before we had any hard evidence of germs themselves, and was mostly based on observation / epidemiology. Nonetheless, once people accepted conclusions like "gee, washing your hands seems to cause less hospital deaths, even if we don't know why", society benefited.

That much is true, but when mechanisms aren't known, conclusions should be drawn from the raw data set using the overarching framework of that scientific discipline. Geology has plate tectonics theory. Chemistry has atomic theory. Physics has quantum theory (or whatever they've reduced things to now). Biology has evolutionary theory. Perhaps the most frequently repeated saying in biology is this quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." This is also the most woefully forgotten saying in biology. If you generate a set of biological data and draw a completely unevolutionary conclusion from it, then either we need to revise evolutionary theory around your conclusion (should it prove to be correct) or you should revise your conclusion so that it makes sense within the conceptual framework of that science. Nutritional science is a subdiscipline of biology, and nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. Therefore, nothing in nutritional science makes sense except in light of evolution.

Unfortunately, most nutritional research is not interpreted through a lens of evolution. It is instead loose epidemiological data. Interpretations of those data sets are haphazard because most nutrition scientists do not consider evolution when trying to understand their data. This, in my opinion, is what leads to the general feeling of the layperson towards nutritional studies that "no one knows what they're talking about" or "they said that was good for you 2 years ago, but now they say it doesn't do anything for you?" You don't really see that sort of confusion with any other science, and that's because other sciences have their shit together. They have a framework, they use it, the same set of data is generally understood in a similar manner from scientist to scientist, and the debates within the fields tend not to be over the fundamentals, of the field, but the real outskirts of unexplored knowledge. Nutrition scientists HAVE this conceptual framework in evolution, they just don't acknowledge it for some reason. Thus, all the confusion, all the contradictory conclusions, all the ineffective policies and recommendations, etc.

This isn't just my theory, either. There's a growing movement in the scientific and medical community called "evolutionary medicine" which is trying to augment the current but conceptually disconnected "evidence-based medicine" approach to doing and understanding biology by ensuring that all results are interpreted in light of evolution. It's a very powerful idea, and I think if it becomes the new paradigm, the benefits for society will be unreal.

You're also oversimplifying the golden age of microbiology. Germs had been observed centuries before Virchow and Lister brought microbiology and hospital sanitation by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. There was a raging debate at the time between the majority hold-outs who clung to the "humors" theory of medicine and the new-school people who instead suggested that there could be other causes for diseases (or infectious disease, but this was not yet a solid medical concept). Plenty of evidence existed for germs AND for their link to diseases for decades before a shift to sanitation occurred. You're describing a time where there was a very smudgy grey area between the old guard and the new guard of theories of disease, not unlike how things are now with dietary fat.

My point here is not to quibble history but to demonstrate that science is a slooooow-moving body, and that's relevant to our discussion. There are suns with less intertia than your average scientist. Despite the fact Lister and Virchow had such wild success with their hospital sanitation methods, they were still met largely with disdain and skepticism throughout the medical community for most of their careers. And they were right the whole time.

I think you're being willfully ignorant if you can look at the mountain of accumulated evidence and dismiss ALL of it out of hand. There's too much out there to simply say there are errors and confounding variables in every single case. It goes against logic and common sense. The mantra of 'correlation doesn't mean causation' doesn't negate the value of entire fields of study.

You're misunderstanding my position. The whole of my side of the debate wasn't encapsulated in my response to those studies you cited. I really just made a single point with respect to those studies, and that was that I am very familiar with those types of studies, and I don't trust them as a way to make dietary recommendations for the reasons I cited in my previous post. You know there's more to my side of the debate than that.

I'm also not suggesting that "correlation does not equal causation" DOES negate an entire field of study. I am saying that making recommendations from correlations alone is weak science, and I think I made the reason for that perfectly clear with my analogy in the previous post. Correlations are a STARTING POINT for mechanistic science. "Oh, it looks like these two things are related. Let's find out how." is the way to go. Not "Oh, it looks like these two things are related. Avoid A to avoid B." That's just, well... lazy. A billion studies showing pirates are related to global warming doesn't mean they actually are related. Quantity of evidence is one thing in science, but quality is another. Cakes and cookies prevent chronic disease, right?

My position is not merely one of negating the work of others. What about the studies I have cited myself which present contradictory evidence with respect to those you presented?

What about tying theory to practice? Being coldly scientific is "good" from an analytical standpoint, but on a practical level, you can't wait to have 100% of the information that exists on a something to make a decision about how to proceed with it. No one has complete information for anything, ever. Results on diets like Paleo are nearly universal, and clinical trials are being performed now. Some are actually on PubMed NOW, demonstrating the "paradoxical" effectiveness of a high-fat diet on heart disease markers, diabetes, obesity, etc.

If I have the studies to say that what I am eating is probably not going to harm me, my blood lipids and vitals are excellent, I feel amazing, my results have been long-term, and I have been able to reproduce these results in 100% of my friends (so far) who have tried this method, why should I be even a shred unconfident in my position even if there's some big, scary studies which tell me animal fat is bad?

I've cited to you many studies which support my contention. I could cite many, many more, but that would be superfluous at this point.

My position isn't unfounded, it's just unpopular. And wildly effective. And man, do I love Oscar Wilde's quote, "Everything popular is wrong."

Edited April 22, 2013 by ectogemia

[ectogemia]

I don't have the time to read all of the stuff you guys have been talking about, but I will offer one piece of anecdotal evidence: my wife.

Back in 2008, my wife started having some really, really serious health issues centered around her digestion. She tried EVERYTHING. She saw gastro specialists in two different countries, and EACH ONE told her something conflicting. I won't go into details, but it was bad. Really bad. Like, we thought we'd never be able to have children because her body was shutting down kind of bad.

My wife switched to something very similar to the whole 30 you guys were talking about before. She had a complete lifestyle switch, and followed the scdlifestyle.com guidelines. That's how she got involved in that culture of health - one which ecto is pretty much quoting from - and that's how I know viacariously what I know. Once she did that, life changed within 1 month.

The stories I've heard from other people are seeing thing like CANCER go away. Parkensons. Chrone's. ADHD/ADD. Outrageous degenerative diseases that don't even seem to have a connection to a diet have totally vanished from people that ascribe to ecto's philosophy. "Mountains of evidence" have been accumulated to attempt to prove very silly things in the past, and ecto's counterargument is pretty effective. Red meat from feedlots just isn't the same as grass fed beef.

But, honestly, I don't care. I don't care about studies or statistics or whatever - I have a wife who isn't dead and a new daughter, and I guarantee you that it had everything to do with the diet changes my wife made.

Anyway, that's all I'll offer. I've mentioned before that I try not to stress about it all. To me, reading studies by our medical profession is too stressful for me to really care - I have the answer living with me every day because she didn't listen to doctors who told her to eat more bread and that she just had IBS and that she just had to deal with it.

edit: Zircon are you doing whole 30? My wife "challenged" me to do it and I might give it a chance for the month of May. Let me know how you feel! I will give you this advice: When my wife changed her diet, about 3-4 days into it she felt awful. They call that "die-off" because your gut flora is re-balancing itself. DON'T GIVE UP. Give it at least 7-10 days before you throw in the towel (and after that long, you won't). And check out scdlifestyle.com - there are soooooo many stories just like yours.

Hate to double post, but I think I was running out of characters in my other one, haha.

Thanks for sharing that, Joe! That's amazing that your wife healed so significantly! And that really seems to be par for the course for this Paleo-or-whatever thing, and that's pretty damn amazing, too.

I used to think theory was more important that practice until I started actually doing science where I learned that they theory we quote from -- science itself -- is rife with bias, fabrication, and complacency and until I started doing Paleo where I learned that an evolutionary approach to reading the scientific literature helps you achieve the best results. I know it wouldn't seem like I'm a practice-before-theory sort of decision-maker just from reading my posts in here, but I really am. It just so happens that I'm also very interested in biology, so I'm pretty well-read on the literature, and I've found I can augment my results with those bits of theory, especially in the gym where things aren't as common-sense as the Paleo guidelines.

[zircon]

I'm not doing the whole 30 thing. My only problem is that I feel like I could lose some weight (10-15 pounds) just to feel better about myself. I don't have a problem with digestion or energy otherwise.

So the thing is Joe, that is really great that your wife felt better. But I'm not arguing against diet changes or low-carb at all. I HAVE done low-carb in the past (South Beach) and I did lose weight. I am the last person to argue that the average American diet is any good, as we tend to eat way too many refined/processed carbs, too much sugar, processed stuff, etc. There's also growing evidence that many of us don't process gluten properly, or that the sort of gluten we end up eating is just not what we've naturally evolved to eat. So I am honestly not surprised your wife felt better after cutting a lot of that stuff.

What I'm arguing against specifically is the idea that eating tons of saturated fat and red meat is good for you. Very very specifically arguing against that. I'm not saying red meat is bad overall or that low-carb is bad, simply that there is a lot of evidence against *red meat* and eating too much of it.

The evolutionary angle makes sense sometimes but I don't think the red meat deal is one of them. Natural selection tends to only care about child-bearing age and our ancestors certainly didn't live very long. Cardiovascular disease is not a factor until you're MUCH older, far beyond the point where evolution would "care" so to speak. Frankly I think it's irresponsible of you (Ecto) to espouse eating so much red meat which might be good in the short term, but could be very damaging later. You can't tell me with any certainty, especially as it goes against the vast majority of the medical & scientific community's consensus, that you and your friends won't have cardiovascular problems later in life as a result of your diet now.

[ectogemia]

You can't tell me with any certainty, especially as it goes against the vast majority of the medical & scientific community's consensus, that you and your friends won't have cardiovascular problems later in life as a result of your diet now.

You can't do the same with the prevailing recommendations which reign over a society where the #1 cause of death is cardiovascular disease, but time will tell how things turn out for me...

The evolutionary angle makes sense sometimes but I don't think the red meat deal is one of them. Natural selection tends to only care about child-bearing age and our ancestors certainly didn't live very long. Cardiovascular disease is not a factor until you're MUCH older, far beyond the point where evolution would "care" so to speak. Frankly I think it's irresponsible of you (Ecto) to espouse eating so much red meat which might be good in the short term, but could be very damaging later.

... but I'll settle for current research. Anthropological research. While it's awesome that you clearly understand natural selection for what it really is, you're forgetting one major, major thing. Modern day hunter-gatherers still exist, and they are studied extensively. We can actually look at elderly "cavemen" who lived well beyond childbearing age to see what old age in an "evolutionary" human is like. There's an African tribe, the Maasai, which eats red meat and dairy almost exclusively, and they are thin, healthy, cavity-free, and have almost no incidence of any chronic disease, even among their elderly. Feel free to read any of the existing studies on them. Then please explain why it is you continue to believe that chronic, heavy consumption of grass-fed red meat is of any concern whatsoever to me.

There's no confounding variables in studying their diet. All whole foods. All sourced from nature. Almost all red meat, blood, and dairy. Negligible chronic disease in the elderly. Why?

Edited April 22, 2013 by ectogemia

[zircon]

You can't do the same with the prevailing recommendations which reign over a society where the #1 cause of death is cardiovascular disease

Most people don't listen to the recommendations, if you haven't noticed already, so that doesn't really make sense as a counter-argument on any level.

There's no confounding variables in studying their diet. All whole foods. All sourced from nature. Almost all red meat, blood, and dairy. Negligible chronic disease in the elderly. Why?

Well, where to begin? First of all, as you should know, nobody (including me) is saying "red meat gives you cardiovascular disease", but rather, red meat is a contributing factor. You can have risk factors or contributing factors and not develop a disease or condition. The average American has numerous other factors that would contribute to CVD but most notably, a major difference between us and modern hunter-gatherers is that they are getting exponentially more exercise which of course makes a huge impact on combating heart disease and a host of other ailments. Meanwhile the average American is sitting 12+ hours a day. Chances are the average American is also overeating and all things being equal, eating less is generally better for you than eating more (caloric restriction studies etc)

To further dismantle things, please note that the Maasai actually have extensive atherosclerosis, which is exactly what you would expect from too much red meat consumption.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26

This puts your example in a coffin and lays it to rest permanently, quite soundly, as the conclusion is also that their Olympic level physical activity is what keeps them going. To an average American who is NOT getting that extensive activity, that sort of diet is a death sentence, like I've been saying.

As if that weren't enough, according to Wiki (sourced, etc) the Maasai eat quite a bit of "acacia nilotica" which is a cholesterol lowering agent. So it's like the whole society is on Lipitor already. Those who don't have access to the plant actually do develop heart disease.

Sorry man.

[XPRTNovice]

I'm not doing the whole 30 thing. My only problem is that I feel like I could lose some weight (10-15 pounds) just to feel better about myself. I don't have a problem with digestion or energy otherwise.

Oh. Well, eff. That's what I get for not reading all of these. I thought I remembered reading an earlier post about how you were trying to solve some health problems. My bad.

[ectogemia]

Most people don't listen to the recommendations, if you haven't noticed already, so that doesn't really make sense as a counter-argument on any level.

Well, where to begin? First of all, as you should know, nobody (including me) is saying "red meat gives you cardiovascular disease", but rather, red meat is a contributing factor. You can have risk factors or contributing factors and not develop a disease or condition. The average American has numerous other factors that would contribute to CVD but most notably, a major difference between us and modern hunter-gatherers is that they are getting exponentially more exercise which of course makes a huge impact on combating heart disease and a host of other ailments. Meanwhile the average American is sitting 12+ hours a day. Chances are the average American is also overeating and all things being equal, eating less is generally better for you than eating more (caloric restriction studies etc)

To further dismantle things, please note that the Maasai actually have extensive atherosclerosis, which is exactly what you would expect from too much red meat consumption.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26

This puts your example in a coffin and lays it to rest permanently, quite soundly, as the conclusion is also that their Olympic level physical activity is what keeps them going. To an average American who is NOT getting that extensive activity, that sort of diet is a death sentence, like I've been saying.

As if that weren't enough, according to Wiki (sourced, etc) the Maasai eat quite a bit of "acacia nilotica" which is a cholesterol lowering agent. So it's like the whole society is on Lipitor already. Those who don't have access to the plant actually do develop heart disease.

Sorry man.

The Masai have extremely low rates of HEART DISEASE, yet they have evidence of atherosclerosis (not itself a chronic disease but a potential cause of one) upon autopsy. This is an extremely important disconnect worth some more attention here. This study suggests one reasonable explanation. If my blood pressure and blood lipids are as favorable as those of the Masai and I'm a physically fit person, I'm still missing the part where I should be concerned about my diet's high fat content.

A single atherosclerotic plaque is no biggie if it isn't affecting the local blood pressure in a significant manner. Not until a plaque is so occlusive that ischemia occurs or a rupture from high pressure due to the deformation from the plaque occurs is there any issue. Masai blood vessels remained compliant (able to expand and contract) as suggested by the aortal dilation found in the study. The #1 physiological factor relating to compliance blood pressure. High blood pressure is strongly linked to poor arterial compliance. If my blood pressure is 110/70ish like the Masai, I fully expect my aorta and all downstream vessels to be compliant enough to make any plaques I do have a nonfactor by expanding enough to allow blood to continue to flow as needed.

And I sorta feel like this is becoming a tit-for-tat sort of thing. I really don't have the time or the will, even, to keep at it.

edit: Fitocracy!

Edited April 23, 2013 by ectogemia

[zircon]

I don't think you read my post where I linked to the same study and said the same thing, that physical activity (at a very high level) is what prevented the actual heart disease. But the vast majority of people in 1st world countries, especially America, are not anywhere near that level activity. How active is "active enough" to avoid CVD while being riddled with atherosclerosis? Can you say for sure? Isn't it safer to just avoid the kind of diet (high in saturated fat, red meat) that causes atherosclerosis in the first place?

I think it is absolutely worth continuing this discussion, even if you don't want to, because I feel strongly that you are misinforming people here. Red meat IS dangerous and DOES lead to heart disease unless you are extremely active, and even then, remember that the Maasai also eat a cholesterol-lowering agent commonly in their diet. Without that agent, they DO get heart disease.

Simply put, it is not good advice to say "eat a lot of red meat", and that's true beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ectogemia]

I don't think you read my post where I linked to the same study and said the same thing, that physical activity (at a very high level) is what prevented the actual heart disease. But the vast majority of people in 1st world countries, especially America, are not anywhere near that level activity. How active is "active enough" to avoid CVD while being riddled with atherosclerosis? Can you say for sure? Isn't it safer to just avoid the kind of diet (high in saturated fat, red meat) that causes atherosclerosis in the first place?

I think it is absolutely worth continuing this discussion, even if you don't want to, because I feel strongly that you are misinforming people here. Red meat IS dangerous and DOES lead to heart disease unless you are extremely active, and even then, remember that the Maasai also eat a cholesterol-lowering agent commonly in their diet. Without that agent, they DO get heart disease.

Simply put, it is not good advice to say "eat a lot of red meat", and that's true beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think you missed the part about arterial compliance being primarily determined by blood pressure, not exercise That's the most important part of this discussion we're having now, what gives the Masai the arterial compliance to render their atherosclerotic plaques a nonfactor to prevent heart disease. Also, the authors' conclusion regarding physical activity being the preventative agent was conjecture. Read the language of that sentence again. It wasn't a fact. They were guessing. I am making a guess as well because I don't plan on doing a randomized control trial on the Masai any time soon, but I believe it to be a better guess because blood pressure is universally known to be the strongest tie to arterial compliance. Exercise is a thing which REQUIRES arterial compliance to be done properly. This is why when people who actually HAVE chronic disease like coronary artery disease cannot even walk up a flight of stairs without doubling over from lack of oxygen. Their arteries cannot expand well anymore, so their atherosclerotic plaques end up occluding their blood vessels and preventing blood from getting to the heart and muscles and organs.

Aaaand that's all the time I care to devote to this. I think we've laid out the bulk of each of our arguments in this thread. You may think I'm misleading people, but another person who reads exactly what I had to say may think I'm on the right track. I can live with that.

God have mercy on the person who actually reads through everything we had to say, but I'm OK with someone on the internet disagreeing with me, so I'm going to leave this debate where it is. I've got too many things to do and not enough time to do them. Convincing someone over the internet of something is right around the bottom of my priority list now.

You're still a good guy <3

Edited April 23, 2013 by ectogemia

[OceansAndrew]

God have mercy on the person who actually reads through everything we had to say

word up, you guys are being boring, and we certainly can't have that.

Seems like there are a lot of studies, and more research needs to be done. I personally have a very high protein diet, but get most of it from either dairy (yogurt/whey) or plant sources, mainly due to convenience and my schedule. I'll eat red meat when I can because it is fucking delicious, though I am pretty skeptical of eating a high quantity of anything except watermelon, since it is statistically proven that watermelon is the most delicious thing in the world.

As for Fito stuff, I started my summer cut yesterday, aiming for 7% BF by Otakon. The goal is to look like a sufficiently badass Sabin for the OCU Final Fantasy 6 group cosplay! I am sitting at about 10% right now, so 1% reduction per month, roughly, should allow me to retain most of my gains. If any of you guys want to share some tips for retaining my LBM while reducing fat, im all ears.

[Wiesty]

Well its end of semester and this looks fun! So lets give it a try!

[Soul Splint]

As for Fito stuff, I started my summer cut yesterday, aiming for 7% BF by Otakon. The goal is to look like a sufficiently badass Sabin for the OCU Final Fantasy 6 group cosplay! I am sitting at about 10% right now, so 1% reduction per month, roughly, should allow me to retain most of my gains. If any of you guys want to share some tips for retaining my LBM while reducing fat, im all ears.

7%? Whew. I'm approaching 11% as we speak. I don't know what forms of cardio you do, but for me, I can't speak highly enough of high-intensity interval training. I can't always get to a good spot for sprints so I sometimes do high-knees, but this has really worked for me in combo with my diet. In the past when I did traditional cardio, I would noticeably lose a little muscle along with the fat (which I REFUSE to do ever again; my muscle is hard-won) so I turned to HIIT.

Give it a shot if you haven't before. It's also nice because you get your 'cardio' in just a few minutes.

[wildfire]

7%? Whew. I'm approaching 11% as we speak. I don't know what forms of cardio you do, but for me, I can't speak highly enough of high-intensity interval training. I can't always get to a good spot for sprints so I sometimes do high-knees, but this has really worked for me in combo with my diet. In the past when I did traditional cardio, I would noticeably lose a little muscle along with the fat (which I REFUSE to do ever again; my muscle is hard-won) so I turned to HIIT.

Give it a shot if you haven't before. It's also nice because you get your 'cardio' in just a few minutes.

Random question, how do you measure body fat? I'd guess those pincher things I remember from high school gym class, but are there other ways as well?

[Garpocalypse]

Random question, how do you measure body fat? I'd guess those pincher things I remember from high school gym class, but are there other ways as well?

Calipers work great but there is a curve to using them. You can also get one of these which is what I use. https://www.google.com/shopping/product/7442751482380710246?q=fat%20percentage%20scale&hl=en&sqi=2&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45580626,d.dmQ&biw=1024&bih=570&wrapid=tlif136675838300010&sa=X&ei=FhR3UY-_JqbF0gHF6YC4CQ&ved=0CGMQ8wIwAA

But like anything else it's not perfect. There is some error involved and you're likely to get different readings at different times during the day depending on your fluid levels.

[wildfire]

Calipers work great but there is a curve to using them. You can also get one of these which is what I use. https://www.google.com/shopping/product/7442751482380710246?q=fat%20percentage%20scale&hl=en&sqi=2&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45580626,d.dmQ&biw=1024&bih=570&wrapid=tlif136675838300010&sa=X&ei=FhR3UY-_JqbF0gHF6YC4CQ&ved=0CGMQ8wIwAA

But like anything else it's not perfect. There is some error involved and you're likely to get different readings at different times during the day depending on your fluid levels.

How can a scale measure body fat?

[Garpocalypse]

How can a scale measure body fat?

It sends electrical signals up through your feet when you stand on it. Doesn't hurt or anything but it might put a pretty big dent in your battery budget. Since it is electrical though it is very dependant on your fluid levels. Weigh yourself once a day at the same time, usually first thing in the morning is a good idea. I read somewhere that there is as much as a five percent error when using these things but as long as you don't get any wild unpredicted results you can still use it to gauge your progress.