Look at table 1. This is supposedly part of the solution to the problem exposed in the article.
Quote:
|
**The number of calories for each individual should be sufficient to maintain a steady weight with a BMI between 20-25.
|
Ah, assuming that eating less will cause us to lose weight, and assuming that eating more will cause us to gain weight. This assumption in turn is based on another assumption that the energy we spend will remain the same. In other words, to maintain weight, we must be in caloric balance. What about hunger? What if by eating only what we need to maintain a specific weight, we had to remain hungry all the time? Now that's a problem that the "solution" just can't address in its present form for the simple reason that it's based on a flawed assumption.
Quote:
|
Finally, with aging, there are large changes in nutritional needs and metabolism. For example, there is approximately a 1 percent decrease per year in energy requirements after age thirty. As we age, there are also major changes in many functions in some individuals, for example, decreases in the enzyme lactase (in the gastrointestinal tract), which splits lactose to easily absorbed galactose and glucose. Also, in some elderly persons, the ability to absorb certain essential substances, such as vitamin B-12, declines. These changes must be understood when talking about diets in the young versus in the elderly.
|
The above is based on the simplistic assumption that the differences in nutrition requirements are due to aging, i.e. time. The truth is very different indeed. With time, ingesting a low dose of a poisonous substance will cause greater and greater harm until one point this harm will show up as a disease or chronic symptom. So it's not a question of time but a question of dose over time. Time merely allows the dose to grow to toxic level. Such is the case with carbohydrate.
In table 2, we see:
Quote:
|
Inter-conversion in the body of carbohydrates, fats and proteins as necessary
|
Obviously, he's talking about
dietary carbs, fats and proteins. The inter-conversion of protein works only one way. And eating only protein, or not enough of the other two makes protein toxic, i.e. rabbit starvation. The inter-conversion of carbs to fats and vice versa depends on insulin level. And this depends on how much carbs we eat. The less fat we eat, the more carbs we must eat. But then we get into the "age related" dose-time problem above. There is no such problem with dietary fat unless we're talking about the so-called essential fatty acids.
The article asks "Is There an Optimum Weight for Adult Humans?"
Then goes on to answer: "The answer is probably yes."
I agree. However, not because there is such a thing as an optimal weight that we should strive for without regard for how we get there. Instead, I believe that an optimal weight is achieved only through an optimal diet. This is because I believe that an optimal weight is the weight that is reached by eating an optimal diet, whatever that weight is. This diet must not lack calories, it must not contain toxic substances, it must be merely food. So no supplements, no carbs, and a boatload of animal flesh. But that's just me.
Table 3 is interesting. The only part I disagree with is the dietary fiber/digestion bit. Dr. Eades spoke of this in his blog. Dietary fiber is not good for humans. Funny we should eat fiber to fix a problem caused by something else. Maybe we shouldn't eat that something else in the first place. And fiber has its own set of problems that nothing can fix yet.
The article talks about BMI as some kind of measure of health. This is misleading at best. The obvious reason is that it's based on only two things: Height and weight. Health includes everything from teeth to nails to skin to mental function. I could point out many who are within the 20-25 BMI range yet they have dental caries, mental problems, and digestive disorders, to name but a few.
Then there's this bit over here:
Quote:
Do weight-loss diets in obese people work?
None work well. On average, over the long term, obese humans do not lose much weight on voluntary low-calorie diets of any kind. (There are of course a few obese individuals who have “self discipline” and can lose weight and keep the weight off. Their “secret” is obscure.) There is, however, some evidence that low-carbohydrate diets “work” best at least for periods up to one year,22 but this has not been replicated in a two-year study.22a Notwithstanding thousands of weight-loss articles and books, there has been very little progress in this area outside of surgical intervention.
|
I would say such things if I only looked at the "science". But maybe the author isn't fat or hasn't tried cutting carbs. Yet.
I like table 4. It says everything we need to know about why we eat so much carbs. Money.
Science and Pseudoscience in Adult Nutrition Research and Practice...
Linear Mode
