HFLC

SteelyDanJalapeno · 13-06-2014 12:21PM

ford2600 wrote: »

example of two doctors who hadn't a clue on nutrition; surprise surprise.

They were the test cases? It was probably better they had no "clue" on nutrition, less biased.

ford2600 wrote: »

bad science

Care to elaborate on this?

ford2600 wrote: »

One was on a no carb diet, the other a no fat diet. Two horrible diets that no one with any knowledge is advocating

Nobody in the study was advocated either diet? nobody should, it was an interesting hour on how it can affect the body.

ford2600 · 13-06-2014 12:58PM

TiltedBrain wrote: »

They were the test cases? It was probably better they had no "clue" on nutrition, less biased.

Care to elaborate on this?

Nobody in the study was advocated either diet? nobody should, it was an interesting hour on how it can affect the body.

Test cases? Who decided whst evidence to listen to or not; eg when they dismissed Lustig's comments because they had read into it and didn't know anything about it.

Test cases normally come to conclusion for the audience?

Why look at two diets that no body eats?

I've spoken to many passive observers who came away with ides that sugar is better than fat. "Sugar won" to paraphrase

Many people who switch to high fat feel horrible while their body adapts, typically 7-10 days. This was never explained, especially in context of a 4 week study with NO carbs and no fibre.

If you consider that good science with a sample size of two then we'll have to agree to disagree.

SteelyDanJalapeno · 13-06-2014 01:12PM

ford2600 wrote: »

Test cases? Who decided whst evidence to listen to or not; eg when they dismissed Lustig's comments because they had read into it and didn't know anything about it.

What I mean is, they're sophisticated lab rats, what does it matter if they have any nutritional intelligence? I cant recall Lustig's comment, what was it?

ford2600 wrote: »

Why look at two diets that no body eats?

Why not look at it? Just because not many people eat it, it doesnt mean something cannot be discovered or learned from it. If we went around the attitude of "why bother do that? nobody does that" no discoveries would ever be made, that would be "bad science".

ford2600 wrote: »

I've spoken to many passive observers who came away with ides that sugar is better than fat. "Sugar won" to paraphrase

Agree with this, It did seem to favour sugar, I think the standout parts was the reaction to sugar on insulin levels when it was re introduced to the body after 4 weeks on the high fat diet, and the race that probably swayed people towards the sugar.

ford2600 wrote: »

Test cases normally come to conclusion for the audience?

I believe their ultimate conclusion included all macros in somewhat moderation based around reducing processed foods?

Bruno26 · 13-06-2014 04:54PM

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Just saw this thread now Bruno, and saw you addressed me in the OP, can't remember why, maybe I disagreed with you in another thread? probably.

Echoing what someone else has said earlier in this thread, all your posts are coming across as someone who has just discovered Paleo, hflc, wheat free or any other variation of this type of diet, you've seen good results in weight loss and it's working for you. But this doesn't mean it's the way the rest of us should be eating, this was all new to a lot of people 5 - 7 years ago and you wouldn't be getting half the debate you're getting now if you found it back then.

In the 1st few weeks of cutting carbs, people see massive loses due to the amount of water carbs hold (every 1g can hold up to 3g of water) and I suppose the majority of people don't realize this fact, and it gives them great hope that they can lose 3 - 5 pounds of weight in the first week, that this diet must be amazing. Imagine you could easily eat well over you maintenance calorie value in proteins and fats and still lose weight due reducing carbs by losing the water, but this wont last obviously( and this sounds suspiciously like what you're experiencing), there's only so much water you can lose.

You seem pretty open to watching documentaries on the evidence, there's an interesting Horizon documentary out there since a few months back, looks at 2 identical twins one on high sugar and one on high fat diets, I cant find it right now in work but here's and exert, try find it and give it a watch it's very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5RqPWeqhlI

I saw that documentary- it was rubbish. Watch Cereal Killers - it's an excellent documentary.

Why does it matter if I come across as someone who just discovered this? Anyway

Diets in the sense of dieting to lose weight are always unsustainable. Eating hflc / paleo just means eating real unprocessed food (obviously some processing in dairy). It's a pity they are also called diets.

I suppose if I said just eat real unprocessed food people might be more tolerant. This is the way everyone should be eating.

Blacktie. · 13-06-2014 04:59PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

I saw that documentary- it was rubbish. Watch Cereal Killers - it's an excellent documentary.

Why does it matter if I come across as someone who just discovered this? Anyway

Diets in the sense of dieting to lose weight are always unsustainable. Eating hflc / paleo just means eating real unprocessed food (obviously some processing in dairy). It's a pity they are also called diets.

I suppose if I said just eat real unprocessed food people might be more tolerant. This is the way everyone should be eating.

Seen cereal killers. It's a good documentary alright but it doesn't sway me to think high fat is some magic formula like you seem to think.

Because people who just discover something like this feel the need to spread it without understanding all the facts. It's not a good position to be in.

Isn't paleo not dairy? Anyway diet refers to peoples food choices. Everything people eat is part of their diet whether it's actively managed or not.

ford2600 · 13-06-2014 05:08PM

Blacktie. wrote: »

Seen cereal killers. It's a good documentary alright but it doesn't sway me to think high fat is some magic formula like you seem to think.

Because people who just discover something like this feel the need to spread it without understanding all the facts. It's not a good position to be in.

Isn't paleo not dairy? Anyway diet refers to peoples food choices. Everything people eat is part of their diet whether it's actively managed or not.

Cereal killers while interesting lacked a lot of detail on O'Neills cholesterol numbers; total cholesterol was high but it didn't explain further tests that said it was excellent. Apo B? Lpa?

Also on his exercise, intense very short duration; it nevrr explained scientific basis and whether gains were possible short medium or long term.

Interesting man and legend for an uncle, but it could have been much better

Bruno26 · 13-06-2014 07:26PM

Blacktie. wrote: »

Seen cereal killers. It's a good documentary alright but it doesn't sway me to think high fat is some magic formula like you seem to think.

Because people who just discover something like this feel the need to spread it without understanding all the facts. It's not a good position to be in.

Isn't paleo not dairy? Anyway diet refers to peoples food choices. Everything people eat is part of their diet whether it's actively managed or not.

Yes paleo is not dairy- hence why I put hflc/paleo. I've also never once said high fat is a magic formula. Sure I just said eat real unprocessed food!

I certainly don't have all the facts.
Can you point me in the direction of someone who has all the facts please?
I presume your in a better position as you've all the facts.

I'm referring to dieting- someone dieting is generally trying to lose weight.

Bruno26 · 13-06-2014 07:27PM

ford2600 wrote: »

Cereal killers while interesting lacked a lot of detail on O'Neills cholesterol numbers; total cholesterol was high but it didn't explain further tests that said it was excellent. Apo B? Lpa?

Also on his exercise, intense very short duration; it nevrr explained scientific basis and whether gains were possible short medium or long term.

Interesting man and legend for an uncle, but it could have been much better

I believe all the numbers are on the website- think you register for free to see them.

Alf Veedersane · 13-06-2014 11:03PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

Sure I just said eat real unprocessed food! .

If only.

Bruno26 · 13-06-2014 11:20PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If only.

Yes in my post prior to that one-not in all though! Eating real unprocessed food essentially means you are eating a mixture of paleo and high fat low carb.

Alf Veedersane · 13-06-2014 11:22PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes in my post prior to that one-not in all though! Eating real unprocessed food essentially means you are eating a mixture of paleo and high fat low carb.

Just don't eat grains or YOU WILL DIE!

Bruno26 · 13-06-2014 11:24PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Just don't eat grains or YOU WILL DIE!

You must be on the liquid grain!

Alf Veedersane · 13-06-2014 11:27PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

You must be on the liquid grain!

Wow. You're good.

But no, I'm not.

Bruno26 · 13-06-2014 11:29PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Wow. You're good.

But no, I'm not.

Oh- no excuse then

Alf Veedersane · 13-06-2014 11:32PM

So, all you've really said is 'eat unprocessed food'?

It's a travesty you were ever banned.

dylbert · 13-06-2014 11:35PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes in my post prior to that one-not in all though! Eating real unprocessed food essentially means you are eating a mixture of paleo and high fat low carb.

But there are plenty of unprocessed high carb low fat foods too.

desultory · 13-06-2014 11:36PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes in my post prior to that one-not in all though! Eating real unprocessed food essentially means you are eating a mixture of paleo and high fat low carb.

It's hilarious how excited about this diet you are and you quote specific people yet you're on it yourself and by your stats it's not exactly great at all.

Bruno26 · 13-06-2014 11:51PM

dylbert wrote: »

But there are plenty of unprocessed high carb low fat foods too.

Indeed there are- paleo doesn't mean low carb. I said a combination.

Bruno26 · 13-06-2014 11:55PM

desultory wrote: »

It's hilarious how excited about this diet you are and you quote specific people yet you're on it yourself and by your stats it's not exactly great at all.

This is where people go wrong- how does eating real food mean you're on a diet?

What stats are you taking about?

Bruno26 · 13-06-2014 11:58PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So, all you've really said is 'eat unprocessed food'?

It's a travesty you were ever banned.

Yes- but you and I probably have different interpretations of real unprocessed food.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

generic2012 · 14-06-2014 12:27AM

Bruno26 wrote: »

Indeed there are- paleo doesn't mean low carb. I said a combination.

Sorry I'm late to the party. So what does paleo mean? In terms of diet.

desultory · 14-06-2014 12:41AM

Bruno26 wrote: »

This is where people go wrong- how does eating real food mean you're on a diet?

What stats are you taking about?

Your weight for your height

The food you eat daily is a diet. It's not everyone else's fault you have an issue with the word.

Alf Veedersane · 14-06-2014 08:49AM

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes- but you and I probably have different interpretations of real unprocessed food.

It wasn't me that banned you.

Bruno26 · 14-06-2014 10:07AM

generic2012 wrote: »

Sorry I'm late to the party. So what does paleo mean? In terms of diet.

Foods to eat are grass fed meat, fish caught in the sea, vegetables, fruit, nuts. Some approve of dairy but hardcore paleo people don't.

There are guidelines around carbohydrate intake hence why starchy veg, fruit and nuts need to be limited.

Bruno26 · 14-06-2014 10:16AM

desultory wrote: »

Your weight for your height

The food you eat daily is a diet. It's not everyone else's fault you have an issue with the word.

How can you judge that?

Yes we all have a diet but when we say someone is on a diet we all know it means they are trying to lose weight (generally counting calories). I eat foods that we were meant to eat. The problem of being on a diet is that it is never sustainable.

Mellor · 14-06-2014 10:33AM

Bruno26 wrote: »

This is where people go wrong- how does eating real food mean you're on a diet?

What stats are you taking about?

He's probably talking about your macros that you posted earlier.
You are preaching the power of HFLC, yet you don't eat like that yourself.

The food you eat is called "your diet". No matter what your goals or aims are. I don't know why you struggle to separate this from a "weight loss diet".

Blacktie. · 14-06-2014 10:46AM

Bruno26 wrote: »

How can you judge that?

Yes we all have a diet but when we say someone is on a diet we all know it means they are trying to lose weight (generally counting calories). I eat foods that we were meant to eat. The problem of being on a diet is that it is never sustainable.

Yes but we've already established we're not referring to diet as a weight loss diet so stop bringing it up it's just semantics and is irrelevant in this discussion.

We're not advocating counting calories for life. I don't think anyone would do that. But it is very useful to get an idea of what you're eating now, calorie and macro content of foods or meals you regularly eat and can be a real eye opener. It also brings you around to where you can make the most sustainable changes without needing to constantly calorie count.

Bruno26 · 14-06-2014 10:56AM

Blacktie. wrote: »

Yes but we've already established we're not referring to diet as a weight loss diet so stop bringing it up it's just semantics and is irrelevant in this discussion.

We're not advocating counting calories for life. I don't think anyone would do that. But it is very useful to get an idea of what you're eating now, calorie and macro content of foods or meals you regularly eat and can be a real eye opener. It also brings you around to where you can make the most sustainable changes without needing to constantly calorie count.

Certainly agree with counting macros but this idea that some people have that a calorie is a calorie is absurd.

Blacktie. · 14-06-2014 11:07AM

Bruno26 wrote: »

but this idea that some people have that a calorie is a calorie is absurd.

It's just something we'll never agree on then.

metamorphosis · 14-06-2014 02:45PM

Im sorry but nearly all version of paleo and primal that people read up on is next to nothing akin to what people ate back then. So, if we are going to be playing semantics, let us not forget that.

What the 'paleo' and 'primal' communities do show and speak off is indeed a great template to eat from. Why? It is good food. End of. Decent meat, fish, some nuts, varieties of fruit and veggies etc. However, it is the exact same behavior to other eating models in terms of placing rules and restrictions in place that shouldn't be broken for <insert reason here>. We are NOT in the paleolithic era. I ate paleo before. I eat real food now with the odd <insert food or beverage that I shouldn't touch> because I live in the 21st century, am not a monk, train well, and have the intelligence and knowledge behind me to know that a little bit here and there apart in a diet that would otherwise include real food, is not going to negatively impact on my health. The stress of placing too many do's and donts will place my health under more pressure than having a beer here or having a mocha there.

It's funny, doing a paper a few years ago and interviewing people from 'primal' communities, the behaivoour model was interesting.

Change dietary process --> Extremist views that it is the only way for health optimization --> Long term balance and foresight (or if this did not happen, relapse)

HFLC

Comments