Shock finding: cycling causes weight loss

[honwal]

Also a shock revelation is if you exercise more and eat less you lose weight,

[TonyR]

People get obese because of two things.

1. Their genes, specifically their degree of insulin resistance.

You mean its not their fault, its their genes. The same genes as their parents and grandparents had. So how come obesity has been rising fast in the same gene pool. Or is that just a convenient excuse? "Its not my fault and there's nothing I can do about it - its my genes"

If however, they eat a low carb diet, which many populations did, or a low-glycaemic index diet (no refined carbs) and worked hard, they don't get obese.

2. A "modern" high carb diet.

In an insulin resistant person (it gradually gets worse as you age), the high carb intake generates hunger as the consequently high insulin blocks the use of fat. Fat can be used when there's more fat in the fat cells (i.e. the person is heavier). Eating this diet explains why some people are "normally" 17st on a "modern" diet and drop to say 12st on a low carb (50g carb or less) diet. It's really that simple.

All this calorie counting doesn't work long-term. True low-carb works very well, but it HAS to be low.
There are papers on-line comparing low carb v low fat and they define e.g. low carb as 45% of calories or less. This is nonsense. It does not work at that level. It has to be down around 10% or less.

I don't see a lot of obesity in high carb diet populations. Our diet used to be primarily carbohydrates - potatoes, rice, wheat etc and when those were the staple foods obesity wasn't a problem. Sounds like you're promoting just another of those myriad ineffective get slim quick fashion diets you see promoted on the front of magazines every week.

[Gearoidmuar]

You didn't read all the answer.
Go back and read it.

[Gearoidmuar]

The 'modern" high carb diet I refer to is loaded with sugar.
American eat 150lb of sugar per person. Irish about 130. British maybe a little less.
100 years ago intake much lower and contrary to what you believe, the standard diet some time ago included a lot of bacon, eggs, sausages etc. That's all gone to be replaced by breakfast cereals with added sugar.

[al_yrpal]

Back in the 60s few had cars, everyone walked and cycled much much more, there were no slob jobs sat in front of a computer, and evenings werent spent slumped in front of a tv. Everyone was much more active. Lean meat like chicken was just a Christmas treat and we all stuffed our faces with loads of bread and potatoes and piled sugar in our tea. A bowl of porridge followed by a fry up for breakfast every day was common with a canteen meal of meat and 2 veg at lunchtime plus an evening meal or pile of bread and jam for tea. At that time people were a lot slimmer on average and the sprinkling of fatties was sparse.
Its easy to see whats so obvious. Being more active clearly helps to ward off fat. A 2 hour commute on a bike will burn over 1000 calories. Exercise is healthy and an excellent dietary component. It isnt rocket science

Al

[Tonyf33]

A major part of the problem for the Western world is the ease in which you can consume vast quantities of Kcals. an average takeaway is around 1300-1400Kcals.

it's also far too easy to lead a sedentary lifestyle and with the onset of the computer age, gaming consoles, TV/social media increases, the kids are plonked all too often in front of such for hours at a time which encourages such lifestyles.
Uk average person online is approx 17 hours/week, then add in smart phone use texting/idle chat, gamers spend silly hours every single day playing.
The cost to the economy in lost productivity hours due to social media/internet is probably in the double digit billions every year.

As for genetic predisposition, it plays a part, but IMO it is a small one that can be overcome with not a huge amount of 'difficulty'..but difficult is not what large swathes of Western society want..they want easy & quick fix so give up far too easily when they don't get instant results or it becomes 'too hard'

[james01]

http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4887

Link to the original article in the BMJ.

[Gearoidmuar]

As for genetic predisposition, it plays a part, but IMO it is a small one that can be overcome with not a huge amount of 'difficulty'..but difficult is not what large swathes of Western society want..they want easy & quick fix so give up far too easily when they don't get instant results or it becomes 'too hard'

Your gut instinct is very understandable Tony, but it appears to be incorrect. It's the cart before the horse. What apparently happens is that eating a diet unsuited to them, genetically predisposed people start to put on weight and become lazy. They do not get fat because they're lazy but the other way around. If you cut their carbs drastically, the become energised and lose weight. It's insulin driven.

[Mick F]

Sorry, late to this party.
Been away on holiday for a week on a cruise in the Med.

Me and Mrs Mick F never used the lifts. The ship is a big 'un with 11 decks. On and off was at Deck 2 and the sun deck was at Deck 11. Eighteen steps per deck. Food on Deck 5 and Deck 10, bars on Deck 6, and 10. Cabins on Decks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Fat people everywhere. Fat people slobbing around. Fat people using the lifts. Fat people eating and drinking too much. 1,400 passengers, most of them fat.

When we initially arrived on board at Deck 2, a staff member showed us to our cabin on Deck 9. Our luggage was already up there and the staff lady showed us to the lift. I asked about the stairs and she replied, "It's seven decks, sir!".

I replied, "So what?"

Sad.

[al_yrpal]

Been on a couple of cruises. Not really our scene because you only get a day somewhere and never get under the skin of a place. After a couple of weeks you get stir crazy. For us it was the only way to see Antarctica, South Georgia and the Falklands. The other was all around East Asia, Beijing, S Korea, Nagasaki, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand and Singapore to get a quick look at everywhere to see where we would like to go back and spend some time. On cruise ships we often played Blob Alert, you got points, and triple points for Double Blob Alert. As you say the prepondrance of Blobs on cruise ships is quite striking. With all that food on offer 24 hours, and only the deck to stroll around its dead easy to put it on your belly. Its the ultimate non activity holiday. However, we ourselves have shifted lots of personal fat, both now in the healthy BMI range. and it included increased exercise almost every single day, we also just ate less and cut down drastically on junk. Our new diet is now a habit and we are determined to maintain it. We wont be going on a cruise again anytime soon. The thought of being cooped up with all those Blobs doesnt appeal.

Al

[Gearoidmuar]

I was on a cruise myself two years ago. Was not on LCHF at the time but had given up sugar. I had a large breakfast and lunch and dinner. No snacks. Didn't put on an ounce.

[TonyR]

[
Your gut instinct is very understandable Tony, but it appears to be incorrect. It's the cart before the horse. What apparently happens is that eating a diet unsuited to them, genetically predisposed people start to put on weight and become lazy. They do not get fat because they're lazy but the other way around. If you cut their carbs drastically, the become energised and lose weight. It's insulin driven.

Do you have any references to this in the scientific literature or is it a pet theory?

[Mick F]

The people on the cruise were fat slobs when they arrived, and no doubt fatter and slobbier when they left. Yes, cooped up with them wasn't good, but the cruise itself was fun. We walked our legs off round the ports and never used the organised tours preferring to explore ourselves and using our brains.

Just weighed myself.
12st spot on, just like I was before.

This all illustrates the problem of modern life to me. It's an "input/output" situation: eat more than you expend and you'll store the excess. Expend more than you eat, and you'll reduce weight. It's a balancing act.

[mjr]

You didn't read all the answer.
Go back and read it.

Disagreeing doesn't mean incomprehension.

The trouble with LCHF is it's another oversimplification, lumping all C and all F together.

I don't agree with it but I can't be bothered debating it with its more fanatical advocates because this is truly Darwinian. We'll see who survives best.

[Gearoidmuar]

[
Your gut instinct is very understandable Tony, but it appears to be incorrect. It's the cart before the horse. What apparently happens is that eating a diet unsuited to them, genetically predisposed people start to put on weight and become lazy. They do not get fat because they're lazy but the other way around. If you cut their carbs drastically, the become energised and lose weight. It's insulin driven.

Do you have any references to this in the scientific literature or is it a pet theory?

Yes. If you read Gary Taubes monumental book, Good Calories Bad Calories, or The Diet Delusion in the Uk, it is referenced completely in the last chapter or two of it. He spent years researching the literature for all of this. The problem with many academics is that they don't read widely. I worked with a chap in London who at the time was a consultant and became a very widely respected Professor and researcher. He told me ... "I read no journals. I hear it all at meetings". This is true for many, and, unfortunately, what it not comfortable for the sponsors of the meetings to hear (food companies etc), tends to get suppressed. That is why many researchers are quite ignorant of many areas which they should research.