Healthy AND "fat"

[mcsblues]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1200549,00.html

Interesting article, but I guess the crux of it is still this;

"Several recent studies indicate that the key to avoiding Type 2 diabetes is not to try to lose weight (indeed, there is much evidence that dieters are far more prone to the disease than average), but rather to make lifestyle changes in regard to activity levels and dietary content that greatly reduce the risk of contracting the disease, whether or not such changes lead to any weight loss."

- and the "lifestyle changes in regard to activity levels and dietary content" apply to "our' WOL in every way.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[DebPenny]

It's nice to see this misconception revealed yet again. I've been of this opinion for a while and lately have been more and more convinced of it.

However, I've made a renewed effort to reduce my own weight because of the structural and energy benefits I will garner. If I can drop enough weight, I'll be able to go backpacking again. ;)

;-Deb

[spirit]

DebPenny, are you still on Schwarzbein? I remember you from the Schwarzbein posts.

I was on Schwarzbein but have since switched over to the Go-Diet (now revised into the Four Corners Diet). I find it easier to follow and it's jump-started my weight loss.

[DebPenny]

This may not be the right place for this, but I'm glad you asked....

I'd have to say I'm mostly on my own plan, which is a blend of the tenets given in Protein Power Life Plan and TSP (the first book). Plus I recently did an analysis of how much I've been eating and came to the realization that I've been eating too many calories to lose weight (2500 to 3000 a day it turns out). I've been eating healthily, but my weight has been stalled for waaaaaayyyyyyy toooooooo long ;)

So now, I'm watching my calories as well and trying to keep them under 2000 a day and actually achieving 1600 to 1800 a day easily.

It's interesting, though, how easy it is to watch your calories in low-carb without feeling deprived or limited or hungry. I started watching my calories on Friday (4/22) and have already dropped almost 3 pounds. I made two primary changes to lower the fat I eat, which is the easiest place to reduce calories when you low-carb: 1) I cut in half the amount of half and half in my lattes and usually have only one a day -- not from Starbucks -- I have an espresso maker at home; 2) I replaced half the olive oil in my favorite homemade salad dressing, which I eat every day on a romaine salad, with water. And they both taste just as good as they did in their "full fat" versions. And I'm eating between 40 and 60 grams of carbs a day (about a 20-gram reduction) mostly at breakfast and lunch.

I've also started tracking my eating in an Excel spreadsheet that has breakdowns for all my favorite foods so I can just copy and paste them into the journal part and not have to look them up all the time. I measure everything in grams (I have a nice digital food scale) and have a calculation in the food lists to give me the carb/proteins/fats/calories for everything I eat. I don't plan on keeping it up the rest of my life, but for now, it's a good tool for managing my calories. It's also a good planning tool.

The best part is I know that when I'm ready to stop calorie-counting, I'll be able to go back to a healthy, normal low-carb lifestyle and won't have the problem of regaining all the weight I've lost -- I'm already trained. It's not like going off a low-fat diet so starved and relieved to eat again that you binge yourself back to your old weight and more.

[dannysk]

The most interesting line in the article..

" Ultimately the war on fat is both a cause and a consequence of the transformation of the Protestant work ethic into the American diet ethic. "

And that is cause for all the opposition to Low-carb

danny

[DebPenny]

Actually, the definition of diabetes has changed (from a fasting blood sugar of 140 to a blood sugar of 126) and many more people have been diagnosed as suffering from the disease.
That's why I went from being "pre-diabettic" at one visit to "diabetic" at the next one three months later even though my blood sugar had gone down from 138 to 135.

It's a moot point now, since the last time I was tested it was under 100. ;)

And this one...
Thinness has a metaphorical significance in America today. Americans - and especially American elites - value thinness for precisely the same reason someone suffering from anorexia nervosa does: because not eating means not giving in to desire. Strangely, what the American elites consider most desirable is a body whose appearance signals a triumph of the will over desire itself. Thus, bodily virtue is not so much indicated by thinness per se, but rather by an achieved thinness. Ultimately the war on fat is both a cause and a consequence of the transformation of the Protestant work ethic into the American diet ethic.
Maybe that's the underlying resistance to low-carbing. It's not "right" to lose weight without suffering deprivation.

[Angeline]

Maybe that's the underlying resistance to low-carbing. It's not "right" to lose weight without suffering deprivation.

Probably because of the perception that the weight was gained through overindulgence and now we must atone for our sin of gluttony through a harsh regime of deprivation "a la Ornish".

[Angeline]

The case against fat proceeds on the assumption that if a fat person becomes thin, that person will acquire the health characteristics of people who were thin in the first place. Although this assumption may seem like simple common sense, it is, like many commonsensical assumptions, quite dubious. If a person who is physiologically inclined to be fat loses weight, this does not transform that person into someone who is physiologically inclined to be thin. To understand the implications of this distinction, consider that bald men die sooner, on average, than hirsute men, probably because bald men have higher levels of testosterone, which appear to lower life expectancy. Given this, surely no one would conclude that giving a bald man hair implants would improve his prospects for long life.

That's pretty cute and might be right if being fat might be just another physical characteristic like having a big nose, or protruding ears. If we believe the current theories floating about in our particular circle, being obese is a sign that your body cannot handle the modern American diet of too much processed carb. It makes sense that rectifying the actual underlying cause of the symptoms would improve matters.

[CindySue48]

"That's why I went from being "pre-diabettic" at one visit to "diabetic" at the next one three months later even though my blood sugar had gone down from 138 to 135."

I agree....more people are being treated for diabetes simply because of the lower parameters.

People are also being considered overweight, obese, ideal and underweight at far lower parameters.

My brother was 6'1" at age 18 when his number came up in the vietnam draft. This was late in the war....his was the last group to get sent to Vietman. He was rejected, twice, because at 150# he was considered "severely underweight". They even questioned if he was anorexic or had some underlying problem because he was so thin.

Today, at age 19, my son is 6'2 1/2" tall and weighs 150# and he's considered "ideal" weight. Even tho the kid is VERY thin. An inch and a half taller, but the same weight. They both have the same build (no doubt which side of the family, my dad's, that they take after). In 1970 by brother was severely underweight and in 2004 my son is considered ideal.

[Angeline]

Consider this: from the perspective of a profit-maximising medical and pharmaceutical industry, the ideal disease would be one that never killed those who suffered from it, that could not be treated effectively, and that doctors and their patients would nevertheless insist on treating anyway. Luckily for it, the American health care industry has discovered (or rather invented) just such a disease. It is called "obesity". Basically, obesity research in America is funded by the diet and drug industry - that is, the economic actors who have the most to gain from the conclusion that being fat is a disease that requires aggressive treatment. Many researchers have direct financial relationships with the companies whose products they are evaluating.

I think that there is a better example of this. It's called high cholesterol

[DebPenny]

That's pretty cute and might be right if being fat might be just another physical characteristic like having a big nose, or protruding ears. If we believe the current theories floating about in our particular circle, being obese is a sign that your body cannot handle the modern American diet of too much processed carb. It makes sense that rectifying the actual underlying cause of the symptoms would improve matters.
Actually, the problem is that the threshold for "fat" has come down so low that being fat by today's standard probably is just another characteristic and "normal."

I'm certainly not going to use the BMI or anyone else's ideas of what I should weigh to determine where I want to be on the scale. I've put a guestimate of 140 in my profile, but if I'm happy with the way I feel and look (I'm going for rubenesque) at 180 or 160 or whatever, that's where I'll stop. I don't consider my weight a health issue beyond how it affects my physicality. I still have trouble on steep hikes due to painful knees and there's no way I could do a backpack trip at this point. Those are things I know are affected by my weight. But my PCOS (gone), allergies (greatly reduced), diabettes risk (gone), and heart health (good to excellent) are not affected by my weight and have been improved/cured through diet and activity.

So, yes, I think being fat is just another characteristic.

[ItsTheWooo]

And this one...

Maybe that's the underlying resistance to low-carbing. It's not "right" to lose weight without suffering deprivation.
I've long suspected that fat (both dietary fat and body fat) symbolizes overindulgence and excess. The big push to get people to "trim the fat" from waists and plates has more to do with this psychological hang up than with actual health.

Take a look at most low-fat diet gurus. They are all either vegetarians, vegans, and/or "spiritual" types who are really big on eastern religions (eastern religions are collectivist and at odds with western individualism - meaning, over indulgence is considered selfish and therefore a big no-no).
They also tend to praise the virtues of "cleanses" like various types of fasts. Please explain to me how the body detoxifies when you restrict food from it? The "cleansing" properties of a fast are psychological in nature, much like an anorexic or bulemic is "cleansed" by restricting or purging.

The obsession we have with punishing ourselves via dietary restrictions is unhealthy... it's really a culturally sanctioned form of anorexia if you think about it. We feel terrible and guilty for our prosperity, so in response we become vegan, or we go on a no-fat very low calorie diet, or "cleanse" ourself with periodic fasts.

[kyrie]

A lot of people just don't understand that being obese is *sometimes* (and maybe often) a SYMPTOM of unhealthy behavior, and doesn't necessarily prove that an individual has unhealthy behavior.

For me, I had a lot of unhealthy behaviors, and being obese was a result. I'm working on those behaviors now, and certainly my vanity appreciates the side benefit of losing weight, but the important thing is for me to have a stable blood sugar level, to get more exercise, and get valuable nutrition out of my food.

I don't have a low "goal weight" set, because I don't know what my ideal weight is. When I have adopted healthy behavior into a permanent lifestyle, and my body is able to handle the activity I want to be able to do, I expect my body will *tell* me my ideal weight.

[ItsTheWooo]

That's pretty cute and might be right if being fat might be just another physical characteristic like having a big nose, or protruding ears. If we believe the current theories floating about in our particular circle, being obese is a sign that your body cannot handle the modern American diet of too much processed carb. It makes sense that rectifying the actual underlying cause of the symptoms would improve matters.

I too think that it is foolish to regard obesity as just another physical characteristic which has no impact on health.

First of all, unlike the shape or texture of skin hair and eyes... quantity of adipose raises metabolic activity. Energy-transforming activities put oxidative stress on the body which contributes to cellular aging. You'll notice that those among us who burn the most energy also tend to die very young: athletes and the like. These people transform thousands of calories daily and wear out their bodies prematurely. Like an athlete, an obese person could have a metabolic rate which is almost twice as high as it should be. This does have long term implications. Just as athletes tend to die in their 50s and 60s, so do the morbidly obese. Coincidence? Not likely.

I know you are probably thinking what I am saying is a contradiction. How can having a high metabolism be bad if doctors are always telling us to exercise? How can having a high metabolism be bad if it will keep you thin?

Well, first of all regarding exercise. Exercise has benefits not because of its impact on metabolism (in that it raises it), but because it improves energy and oxygen transport/utilization. It has nothing to do with the character building virtues of suffering pain and unpleasantness. It has nothing to do with increasing metabolism. It's because exercise gets blood flowing, improving the quality of the cardiovascular system. Exercise also has a positive effect on sugar metabolism (although this is probably because we eat far too many carbs in our culture, and therefore raising metabolic rate higher to match the excessive sugar consumed allows the body to lower insulin... though for most people an even better way of improving sugar metabolism is to simply stop eating so much of it).

If exercise is very physically unpleasant, odds are you are pushing yourself too hard. Moderate intensity exercise is considered most protective: that means a brisk hour walk most days of the week. Anything which gets the blood flowing and heart pumping a bit, but not excessively so is best. Exercise should be enjoyable. Intense, stressful, marathon cardio sessions only put wear on the body and may even be worse for you had you not exercised at all.

When it comes down to it, having a naturally lower metabolism (not caused by disease) is better than having a higher one irregardless of body composition. If one is over-exercising to maintain a thin figure, they are doing themselves no health benefit. Instead of using those calories to support extra fat tissue, they are wasting them on the treadmill. Big difference, both put the same amount of oxidative stress on the body and both contribute to aging. They might be a little better off because of the cardiovascular benefits of exercise, but metabolically speaking it is always better for the rate to be lower. In other words, avoiding the donut in the first place is smarter than eating it and then going for a run.

Excess fat has other physiological implications besides contributing to aging. Fat is very hormonally active and can exacerbate endocrinological complications (and likewise, endocrinological complications tend to cause fat storage). Let's not forget how stressful it is on the human body to carry 100+ pounds needlessly.

Finally, as you pointed out, an abundance of fat tends to imply that person is in ill health some way emotionally physically or both.

Some people might just be naturally chubby, but the amount of people who are overweight is unnaturally high today. 30 years ago we didn't have the degree and number of obese people we do now, genes don't change that fast. It is a direct result of excess sugar consumption.

[adkpam]

To paraphrase Gaylord Hauser, a fitness guru of the 1920's & '30's:

"Obesity is a carbohydrate-intolerance disease."

[DebPenny]

I too think that it is foolish to regard obesity as just another physical characteristic which has no impact on health.
We keep lumping people who are overweight with those who are obese. Obesity, as shown in the article, is not healthy and does cause/contribute to serious health problems and is a symptom of unhealthy lifestyle practices (high refined carbs being the big one). However, people who are considered overweight by the BMI and our skewed perceptions are not necessarily unhealthy. I was talking about being overweight.

I think overweight can be a characteristic, obesity is a health risk. Most of the people in my family are overweight based on their BMI. Only a few of us are actually obese. Of the ones who are overweight, those who practice healthy lifestyles (limiting carbs and good activity levels) are very healthy. We are a long-lived family as well and retain our youthful looks well into our senior years. A lot of it is genetics and genetically my family runs chubby, long-lived and generally healthy.

According to the BMI charts I am obese, and I have to agree based on my physicality and shape. That's part of why I'm working harder (lowering my calorie consumption) to bring my weight down. But I've made changes to my activity and diet that have made me much healthier than most women in the same size-range as I am (I hike, I walk daily, and I live low-carb).

Women who used to be considered attractively rubenesque are now considered overweight and, by our society's general standards, unattractive and unhealthy. My mom is rubenesque and one of the most attractive women I know, and my dad certainly thinks so. ;) I would love to have Mom's shape. Mom is also very healthy according to her doctor. She's active and eats low-carb.

It was also reported in the article that the most unhealthy behavior is yoyo dieting. Luckily, I've done very little of that in my life. I pretty much stayed away from diets. And with low-carbing, I know now that I can be successful in reducing my weight to a more comfortable, what I consider attractive, place and not pile it and more back on.

I guess this all comes down to my being tired of being judged negatively for being fat.

[spirit]

Deb Penny,

I agree with you totally regarding our culture's discrimination against larger people.

I notice that you cut your carbs from 60 -80 to 40-60.

Do you think it would be easier for you if you just counted carbs instead of counting calories as well? I eat 40 net grams carbs per day (not counting all the "unlimited" low starch veggies I eat), and I'm losing very slowly, but still losing.

After years of counting calories, I think I'd pull my hair out of my head if I did both. I was just wondering if lowering the carbs alone would do the trick for you.

I always say health above weight!

[DebPenny]

Do you think it would be easier for you if you just counted carbs instead of counting calories as well?
Thanks for your question, Spirit. In answer, I don't think so. I didn't just cut carbs, I cut fat. Admittedly, the carbs I cut were also a main source of the fat I was eating in the form of sauces, etc. But I was also drinking two or three lattes a day made with 1/2 to 3/4 cup half and half each and my salad dressing was a major source of fat too. I went from close to 250 grams of fat a day to around 150 grams. I don't need to eat 250 grams of fat a day.;)

Before I cut calories, I was stalled for close to two years and the last 6 to 8 months I had actually started putting on some weight (enough carbs added to too many calories gives you enough insulin to store fat). I knew I had to make a change. The changes I had tried previously, including reducing my carbs to 20 to 25 grams a day, did not do the trick. Lowering my calories has been the only thing that worked -- to the tune of 7.5 pounds so far.

The interesting thing about low-carbing is how easy it is to watch your calories without feeling deprived or limiting your nutrition. Cutting my calories has been very easy. I now have only one latte a day and I've substituted half of the half and half with water in the one I allow myself now (I do miss those other two lattes though;)). I have replaced half the olive oil in my salad dressing with water -- it still tastes great, just a little lighter, which with olive oil can be a good thing. I do not have carbs (veges) with dinner often anymore -- my dinner veges were a main source of fat, such as more than 1/4 cup of mayonnaise with an artichoke. My dinners are mostly grilled meat, which I love and could live off by itself. But these are small, easy changes. I identified my calorie abuses and fixed them.

However, when I have gotten to where I want to be, I will go back to relaxed-low-carb (read maintenance) and only worry about calories if my weight starts to creep back up.

BTW: My carb counts are total carbs, not net carbs. About 1/4 of the carbs I eat are fibre. And I'm not demonizing fat. It's just a very high source of calories, so easy to cut, but as you see, I am by no means eating low-fat at 150 grams a day.