Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Feb-22-21, 04:45
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,492
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/203/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 25%
Location: UK
Default The real reason why you can't lose weight

Quote:
The real reason why you can't lose weight

A leading scientist is exposing the misunderstood science of metabolism, after a startling realisation while living with an African tribe


When Herman Pontzer set off for the rugged savanna of northern Tanzania to spend a summer with the local Hadza people, he thought he knew what he would find. As an evolutionary biologist, his aim was to measure how the Hadza’s hunter-gatherer lifestyle causes them to burn more energy. Because we all know the more exercise you do, the more calories you burn and the slimmer you become, right? Well no, not exactly.

What Pontzer and his fellow researchers discovered flew in the face of received wisdom about how our metabolism works. Although the Hadza lead far more active lives than ours – routinely walking long distances, they undertake more physical activity daily than the typical American does in a week – their energy expenditure was no greater. They were burning the same number of calories as men and women from industrialised populations. Our bodies, concluded Pontzer, seem to maintain daily energy expenditure within a narrow window, no matter what lifestyle we lead. So while obesity is largely caused by overconsumption, it appears there’s little we can do to change the calories we burn.

As Pontzer writes in his new book, Burn: The Misunderstood Science of Metabolism, “we have [got] the science of energy expenditure fundamentally wrong.”

A growing body of research supports this new understanding of metabolism. It has profound implications for how we tackle the obesity epidemic that has swept countries like the UK and US but left the Hadza unscathed.

So why, I ask Pontzer when we speak via Skype, have we been barking up the wrong tree for so long? The answer, he believes, is it’s hard to measure metabolism and until recently we lacked the scientific techniques to do so.

“In the absence of good methods, people have been doing the best they can, which is making good guesses. The guesses have become the dogma,” says Pontzer, who grew up in rural Pennsylvania. “There’s this disconnect between the easy story and the more complex evolutionary story.”

And when it comes to challenging the “easy story” the stakes could not be higher.

As Pontzer writes: “Public health strategies stubbornly cling to the simplistic armchair engineer’s view of metabolism, hurting efforts to combat obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and the other diseases that are most likely to kill us.”

Those 10,000 daily steps you’ve been trying to achieve? A typical 150-pound (10st 7lb) adult burns about 250 kcal while doing them, he explains. This is roughly equivalent to half a Big Mac. Climbing one flight of stairs burns about 3.5 kcal – less energy than you’ll get from a single M&M.

It’s enough to send you back to the sofa, defeated. But it shouldn’t because, as Pontzer makes clear, exercise is vitally important for your health – it just won’t make you thin. “If you start a new exercise program tomorrow and stick to it religiously, you will most likely weigh nearly the same in two years as you do right now,” he writes. “You should still do it! You’ll be happier, healthier and live longer. Just don’t expect any meaningful weight change in the long term from exercise alone.”

So if squeezing in an extra trip to the gym each week won’t stop us piling on the pounds, what will? I put it to Pontzer that the supervillain in Burn is the ultra-processed, highly flavoured foods in Western diets. While the Hadza have stuck to a plain diet of wholefoods, we have been seduced by an ever greater array of engineered delights. These won’t nourish us or fill us up so we eat more of them.

“I think that’s right, if you had to point your finger at one thing,” he says. “All the research we’ve done in the last 10 years – not just my lab but other people too – points to diet as being the culprit here for obesity. It’s not sloth, it’s the food.

“What particularly is it about the food? Is it sugar? No. Is it fats? No. It’s the fact we engineer our foods in labs and focus group test them to make sure you eat too much. That’s literally the point of these big industries: to make sure you buy as much as you can. That’s how they make money. Obesity has come up right alongside the availability and engineering of processed foods.”

Some of us eat more than others, of course, and some eat more ultra-processed food than others, for various reasons. Genes are part of the picture – though perhaps not in the way you’d expect.

You may think you have a fast or slow metabolism, but Pontzer suggests this perception usually translates as “I feel I can eat whatever I want and I never feel tempted or hungry outside of that” or “I feel hungry all the time and if I don’t work really hard, I will overeat”.

He says: “We know that is your brain’s management of your hunger and fullness and satiety, and we know people are wired differently and the genes that contribute to the variation in BMI [body mass index], they’re active in your brain, not in your fat or muscle cells.

“So it’s how you’re wired, it seems, that’s going to affect how fast you feel your metabolism is.”

There are also external factors that influence how we eat. One is stress. “It makes our brains make decisions about food that probably aren’t the healthiest,” says Pontzer. “Comfort-eating and stress-eating are real. I suspect if Covid is having an effect on people’s waistlines, it’s as much about that [as anything].”

Lowering the emotional and psychological stress in our lives – as well as physical stress caused by sleep deprivation – could help tackle overeating. Though Pontzer would be first to acknowledge that in busy modern lives revolving around working long hours in sedentary jobs, it’s easier said than done.

Obesity, then, stems from a complex interplay of biology and socio-economic factors. And once you’ve become overweight or obese, our highly evolved metabolisms make it incredibly difficult to shed the pounds we’ve gained. Pontzer points to research such as the landmark study conducted during the 2010s on obese people who went to weight loss bootcamps for reality TV show The Biggest Loser. After 30 weeks of calorie reduction and exercise, although the contestants all lost weight, tests showed their metabolic rates had slowed down dramatically – they were in starvation mode, where cells burn energy more slowly as the body works to conserve calories. When researchers checked in with 14 of the contestants six years after the programme, their basic metabolic rates were still lower than expected and all but one had regained a considerable amount of weight. It’s perverse – and depressing – but, writes Pontzer, “from an evolutionary perspective, it makes all the sense in the world”.

It’s time, then, for a rethink of how our metabolic engines work. But what do we do meanwhile to keep the weight off?

Although he’s amused by the modern obsession with eating like our ancestors did, in the form of so-called paleo diets, Pontzer says we can learn from the Hadza. “They stay thin because they eat a diet that doesn’t have these processed foods in it. I think 90 per cent of it is that simple.”

We frequently complicate it with fad diets because we like to believe in the narratives around them, he says. It’s appealing to think there might be a magic bullet. But there isn’t.

“Every diet that works works because it cuts calories,” says Pontzer. “There are different ways to do that. There’s no magic. Every diet works if you stick to it.”

The diet that works best for you depends on “your particular reward system and the variety of foods that satisfy you most on the fewest calories,” Pontzer writes.

On a personal level, we can keep tempting treats out of reach. At a societal level, we will only tackle obesity by changing our food environment. Extra taxes on ultra-processed food might be one way. Making wholefoods cheaper and easier to come by, another.

Physical activity remains vital – for regulating our metabolism including our feelings of hunger and fullness, protecting us against every major disease, helping us live longer and maintaining weight loss.

When it comes to understanding metabolism better, Pontzer is optimistic the tide is turning and when public health guidelines are rewritten to clarify that exercise isn’t the key to weight loss, he’ll know the penny has, finally, dropped.

Burn by Herman Pontzer



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-...nt-lose-weight/
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Feb-22-21, 09:31
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 3,652
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Good article, hardly revolutionary for those who've made lifestyle changes with nutrition as core.

Quote:
"Obesity, then, stems from a complex interplay of biology and socio-economic factors. And once you’ve become overweight or obese, our highly evolved metabolisms make it incredibly difficult to shed the pounds we’ve gained. Pontzer points to research such as the landmark study conducted during the 2010s on obese people who went to weight loss bootcamps for reality TV show The Biggest Loser. After 30 weeks of calorie reduction and exercise, although the contestants all lost weight, tests showed their metabolic rates had slowed down dramatically – they were in starvation mode, where cells burn energy more slowly as the body works to conserve calories. When researchers checked in with 14 of the contestants six years after the programme, their basic metabolic rates were still lower than expected and all but one had regained a considerable amount of weight. It’s perverse – and depressing – but, writes Pontzer, “from an evolutionary perspective, it makes all the sense in the world”. "


Yes, it was starvation and torture to get these poor people to move and limit what they could eat.
Quote:
"At a societal level, we will only tackle obesity by changing our food environment. Extra taxes on ultra-processed food might be one way. Making wholefoods cheaper and easier to come by, another."


So, the main question here is who is going to take the lead in informing the public which foods are healthy and how to eat? Not a simple question. Taxes? Who will determine which foods get taxed based on what knowledge. This is kind of a "knee-jerk" political response intending to take action with little knowledge that can back correct decisions. Food pyramid, anyone?
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Feb-22-21, 10:13
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,293
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
Good article, hardly revolutionary for those who've made lifestyle changes with nutrition as core.


Rob, I think you've hit on the right message. Yes, everyone wants "quick and easy" but I think all of us realize that will not work.

I ran into trouble at puberty, began lowcarbing in 2003, and LAST YEAR I really got a handle on it.

Well worth it, but don't tell people that... they will reach for the junk food
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Feb-22-21, 13:08
wbahn's Avatar
wbahn wbahn is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 6,453
 
Plan: Atkins-ish, post-WLS
Stats: 324/269/174 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 37%
Location: Southern Colorado, USA
Default

My gut feel is that he's being a bit oversimplistic, too.

He is basically claiming that the total energy expenditure, and hence caloric needs, of all humans falls within a narrow range and it doesn't matter how much or how little physical activity you do.

But that flies very much in the face of the reality that people from all walks of life that are in high-activity roles for any amount of time, be it athletes or special ops soldiers, (can and need to) consume a lot more calories than those same people can when they stop being active.

From a personal standpoint I can attest to that. When I was in shape and very physically active I didn't have to watch what I ate at all and kept my weight in the 180 lb to 200 lb range. But as soon as I stopped doing most of those activities, my weight exploded on a fraction of the caloric intake.

It doesn't surprise me that those natives have metabolisms that are nice and efficient enabling them to do a lot of work on the same caloric intake we do. But what about those natives that consume that same intake and, for whatever reason, are no more active than we are?
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Feb-22-21, 14:13
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,576
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/170/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 110%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

It's important to note that the Hazda doesn't have grains as part of their diet.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Feb-22-21, 14:56
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,583
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

I'm currently enrolled in a medical weight loss program (hey, it had some free perks!) that tracks calories eaten and estimates supposed calories burned through activities/exercise as a part of the program. I'd give the calories in portion a lot more likely accuracy rating than the activities part. I believe the results this researcher discovered comparing the hunter-gatherers with more sedentary people all having a cap on activity calories they can metabolically afford to expend, as my own experience mirrors this. The program will say I burned thousands and thousands of calories doing lots of activities I enjoy, but if I really did I'd be as thin as a toothpick and probably pretty sick from lack of energy by now and I'm not either of those. I don't know how the body pulls it off, but it really does prevent spending too much energy on activity somehow (while still allowing me to do the activity) because the body is smart and designed to not run out of energy and die from doing too much. I have noticed that on a keto diet I have a lot more energy/endurance than other players around me eating typical SAD diets, although people's various fitness levels might also be at play.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Feb-22-21, 15:17
wbahn's Avatar
wbahn wbahn is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 6,453
 
Plan: Atkins-ish, post-WLS
Stats: 324/269/174 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 37%
Location: Southern Colorado, USA
Default

I believe that, with rare exceptions, at any given time our body has a set point of a weight it is trying to maintain. That set point is not fixed -- it can move and things that we do, intentionally or unintentionally cause it to move. But if we are above that setpoint and consume more calories that we need, the body will not just pack every last one of them into fat cells, it will dump a lot of them straight through our digestive track. Some people have set points so rigidly fixed that they can eat pretty much what they want and not gain weight. It's not because they have a high metabolism -- those same people can cut their intake back substantially and not lose weight. Other people, like me, have bodies that allow our set points to move up too easily. Both bodies have advantages and disadvantages from an evolutionary standpoint.

For a very long time my setpoint was at 377 lb. If I gained more than just a couple pounds above that I could count on it returning to that weight within few days without me doing anything. By the same token, if I lost a few pounds either because of lowered consumption or being really active, I could count on it popping right back to that weight. The problem was that every time I would force my weight down through traditional diet and exercise attempts, when they failed my set point would get notched up another ten to fifteen points in the process.

That happened from the time I was about 240 lb until I got up to 377 lb, which seemed to be where my body decided enough was enough. At one point I got up to 408 lb (I don't recall the circumstances), but when I decided to do something about it and trimmed back my eating and started going out for walks my weight dropped almost immediately (in well under a month) to, you guessed it, 377 lb and then the weight loss stopped. I gave up before I could get it to move lower.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Feb-22-21, 20:04
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,383
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/232/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 42%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Dr fung addresses set points for BW. And the use of fasting to lower that set point.

I miss his old website. A treasure trove of blogging gone. Sure wish I had printed out his writing.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Feb-23-21, 05:20
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,293
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
Dr fung addresses set points for BW. And the use of fasting to lower that set point.

I miss his old website. A treasure trove of blogging gone. Sure wish I had printed out his writing.


Gone? I wonder what happened. Pressure from his publisher?
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Tue, Feb-23-21, 07:32
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,383
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/232/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 42%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
Gone? I wonder what happened. Pressure from his publisher?


Didn't he hook up with the Diet Doctors?

I really miss his 21 page info on fasting. Very detailed. I read it for support, like a Bible.

Perhaps he put it all in his book..... So maybe it was his publisher.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Tue, Feb-23-21, 10:01
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,516
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

https://thefastingmethod.com/blog/

Lots of Fung's blogs here.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Mar-01-21, 09:55
Happy girl Happy girl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 479
 
Plan: SEC
Stats: 198/183/150 Female 168 (5.512 ft)
BF:
Progress: 31%
Location: Scandinavia
Default Glutamates

[QUOTE=Demi]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-...nt-lose-weight/

Hi Demi


As Pontzer writes: “Public health strategies stubbornly cling to the simplistic armchair engineer’s view of metabolism, hurting efforts to combat obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and the other diseases that are most likely to kill us.”

“What particularly is it about the food? Is it sugar? No. Is it fats? No. It’s the fact we engineer our foods in labs and focus group test them to make sure you eat too much. That’s literally the point of these big industries: to make sure you buy as much as you can. That’s how they make money. Obesity has come up right alongside the availability and engineering of processed foods.”




Btw. Why do some threads get moved?

Last edited by Happy girl : Tue, Mar-02-21 at 04:04.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:46.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.