Fat Vs Fit?

[Rick Denney]

carbs vs fat
silver vs lacquer
pistons vs rotaries

It's good to see that the level of discourse, and knowledge, remains the same even when tuba experts stray into other fields.

That's bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!

Rick "fill yer hands, you..." Denney

[Rick Denney]

The mantra I see missing here is: "Eat less, Move more".

I was thinking exactly that and then I read your post.

We think in terms of macro-nutrients (carbs, fat, protein), but health is more based on micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) that we should get by eating good food, not by supplementing bad food with bad chemicals.

The mantra I give to people is: Exercise to be fit, eat to be healthy, and you'll weigh what you're supposed to weigh. Fit people who eat well are rarely fat, and they are also rarely sallow in the way lots of excessive-health-food geeks and ketogenic-diet proponents often become.

Rick "who'd like to be less pudgy, but who still has a resting heart rate of about 50" Denney

[Chuck Jackson]

The mantra I give to people is: Exercise to be fit, eat to be healthy, and you'll weigh what you're supposed to weigh. Fit people who eat well are rarely fat, and they are also rarely sallow in the way lots of excessive-health-food geeks and ketogenic-diet proponents often become.

+1 Rick. I have the same argument with Vegans/Vegetarians. We, as humans, are carnivores and require the nutrients in flesh to sustain a proper balance in our diet. I have many Vegan/Vegetarian friends who complain of being cold all the time (body heat is generated by digestion if I know my science correctly), look like the living dead, and lack sufficient energy ON THEIR OWN to do moderate to mildly stressful workouts, they always seem to be eating some whey based protien something or others to sustain their bodies. While not a huge proponent of eating alot of red meat, the amount I take in is sufficient to sustain me through a 5 mile run without the necessity of an added protien/carb/whey boost. For extreme workouts, I need the replenishment AFTERWARDS. I will say that processed meats, lunch meats, hot dots, etc, are HORRIBLE for you due to their incredibly high sodium content. I am also careful of chicken, but have found that it isn't as bad as I thought. Basically, anything in a can is chock full of salt.

I am not a health nut, but think healthily. As I said, I allow myself my bete-noirs. With Baseball season starting tomorrow, I have Hebrew National hot dogs, MGD Lite (I know, wussy beer, but hey, I actually like it) and pretzels. It is something to look forward to.

On a VERY PERSONAL side note, I think my ED was due to a high cholesterol count. I am living proof that after losing 40 lbs. (yes, my math was off in an earlier post, I went from 235 to 192) and cutting my cholesterol in half, Viagra is a thing of the past. At 51, I count that as a blessing. Just something to ponder.

Being fit is a state of mind. Move more, eat less. You don't have to run a marathon, just take a brisk walk everyday.

Chuck

[Donn]

I have the same argument with Vegans/Vegetarians. We, as humans, are carnivores and require the nutrients in flesh to sustain a proper balance in our diet.

Go have that argument with Scott Jurek, vegan ultramarathon champion. I'm sure there are other examples.

Humans are very adaptable omnivores.

[fairweathertuba]

If the calorie count is low enough, in a modern traditional sort of diet sure you will lose weight eventually. But what happens when you want to try to eat "normally" again? I would dread having to maintain a lifestyle of eating 1300 calories a day for the rest of my life!

I am now at 6' 185 pound, never feel hungry, don't easily feel tired, exercise mildly a couple times a week, or sometimes only once a week. Cholesterol, fats, blood pressure, etc all nearly perfect. Maybe I am just luckily suited for a "paleolithic" type diet?

Yes, a person can lose weight in more than one way, but being thin isn't the only thing to consider when you want to evaluate overall health. I've yet to see study results that equal the health benefits gained by low carb dieting. Here in this youtube clip Steve Gardner from Stanford (he's a vegetarian btw) explains how his study has shown that the low carb diet actually is the healthiest, much to his chagrin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdM ... e=youtu.be He really still kinda glosses over how it works and why.

I really do recommend the book by Gary Taubes "Why We get Fat" he does a great job of explaining the historical aspects of our "modern" calorie counting way of dieting, and why the low carb diet has historically been recognized as the preferred method for health and weight loss.

A lot of people want to claim that the Atkins style diet is a "fad", but it's only possible to do so because of the modern context created by the USDA and the AMA and others promoting the crazy food pyramid type diet with calorie counting beginnning in the 60's sometime. Before the crazy food pyramid came along doctors routinely recommended low carb dieting, hmmm. So who is right? Well you just need to look at the obesity rates in the U.S. from the late sixties to the current day. Obesity and overweight percentages used to be in the 20 to 30 percent range but now today the combined overweight are at about 70% as of 2008. I'm pretty sure the numbers have gone up since then, and they sure haven't come down! Here are some facts from the center for disease control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm Enjoy!

I don't claim to know everything about every kind of diet and sure there have been successfully thin groups that traditionally eat rice, (Think Asians here) But I haven't studied those diets at all to find out what percentage of carbs they eat/ have eaten historically or even now. I did live in China for two years from 2008 to 2010 and I can tell you they did seem to eat plenty of carbs, though they are now beginning to have obesity problems there as well.

I'd say that if you are confident with what you do with diet and exercise and it works for you please continue doing it! The real tale is told over several years, how does one's health hold up over time with a certain regimen. That's a good question for me as I've only been low carbbing for about a year now. I will probably actually have to continue with low carb eating because I was also beginning to see high blood sugar readings from the previous diet, and I surely don't want to go back to that.

[fairweathertuba]

"Traditionally", I believe subsistence societies (regardless of WHAT they manage to find to eat) are "thin".

The CHALLENGE is for a people of plenty to somehow find the DISCIPLINE to overcome the INSTINCTUAL pressure to "get while the gettin's good" (as the "gettin' " continues to be "good" until "good" becomes "bad").

bloke "A very large mug of hot tea with about 20 calories of creamer and Splenda keeps me from prowling around in the kitchen. Additionally it prompts urination - which is the only way that humans can really 'lose weight'."

I am sure those groups of people never found sacks of potatoes or large bags of rice piled up inside a bakery at the local wal-mart. More likely they found land animals, sea animals year round and seasonally some leafy plants, fruits, nuts. And not the high sugar modern varieties of apples, berries etc. that have been developed over the last few centuries.

[fairweathertuba]

Me either.

[Uncle Buck]

bloke "A very large mug of hot tea with about 20 calories of creamer and Splenda keeps me from prowling around in the kitchen. Additionally it prompts urination - which is the only way that humans can really 'lose weight'."

That strategy works great for me too.


When I remember to do it . .

[Donn]

Many who choose the anti-omnivoracious path of veganism or vegetarianism seem to adapt themselves into pencil-necked geeks.

Just envy there, or does the hostility come with too much meat in the diet?

[JHardisk]

+1 Rick. I have the same argument with Vegans/Vegetarians. We, as humans, are carnivores and require the nutrients in flesh to sustain a proper balance in our diet. I have many Vegan/Vegetarian friends who complain of being cold all the time (body heat is generated by digestion if I know my science correctly), look like the living dead, and lack sufficient energy ON THEIR OWN to do moderate to mildly stressful workouts, they always seem to be eating some whey based protien something or others to sustain their bodies. While not a huge proponent of eating alot of red meat, the amount I take in is sufficient to sustain me through a 5 mile run without the necessity of an added protien/carb/whey boost. For extreme workouts, I need the replenishment AFTERWARDS...

On a VERY PERSONAL side note, I think my ED was due to a high cholesterol count. I am living proof that after losing 40 lbs. (yes, my math was off in an earlier post, I went from 235 to 192) and cutting my cholesterol in half, Viagra is a thing of the past. At 51, I count that as a blessing. Just something to ponder.

I've managed to bite my tongue and not reply to this thread... until now.

For those who know me, I am vegan. I am also an athlete. I weight 200+lbs, and am in the process of getting my Crossfit certification. I have a regular practice of yoga with my wife who is an RYT 500E yoga teacher and nutritionist, and maintain about 15-20 miles/week of running. In 10 days, I will compete in an event called "Tough Mudder" http://www.toughmudder.com. I sure hope I'm not too puny and cold to be able to run 12 miles and get punished by 27 insane obstacles! My resting heart rate is right at about 50bpm. Oh, and our children are also vegan.

I strongly disagree with any claim of the body's "need for flesh." While I've chosen to be vegan for ethical reasons, the health benefits of a vegetarian/vegan diet are the number-one reason why people choose to follow this way of eating. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans support the benefit of a vegetarian diet: "Most Americans of all ages eat fewer than the recommended number of servings of grain products, vegetables, and fruits, even though consumption of these foods is associated with a substantially lower risk for many chronic diseases, including certain types of cancer." Research has shown that people who follow a vegetarian diet are at a lower risk for obesity, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, diverticulosis, renal disease, some cancers (including lung and breast), and gallstones. Vegetarian diets have also been shown to benefit people who already have type 2 diabetes. In one study, 43% of the people with type 2 diabetes who ate a low-fat vegan diet reduced their need for diabetes medications. I can attest to the validity of this as well. My mother-in-law was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. With our dietary guidance, she has managed to control her sugar count without the aid of medications. Oh, and she can eat almost anything she wants!

There are incredible benefits for the environment by the elimination of meat in one's diet as well. Did you know it takes 16 lbs of grain to produce 1 lb of beef? And there are so many people in the world starving... I'll save that rant for a different time...

The reason for these health benefits comes from the lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and the higher intakes of complex carbohydrates, significantly more vitamins in the purest form, dietary fiber, certain minerals, and phytochemicals. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, so vegan diets are completely cholesterol-free. Had a little issue with ED, at an early age, did you? Here's a way you could solve it... Not to mention the elimination of all the crap and chemicals they pump into, and feed the animals that are marked as "food." See any of the recent articles about "discoveries" of "pink slime" lately? The food service industry has been turned into a lab, and food is no longer being cultivated... it's a process now. Most of the food we eat at home is organic, and sometimes we even get to grow it ourselves! Raw food is at the top of our list!

Many high profile athletes are taking notice of the added health benefits of a vegetarian/vegan diet and adapting it for themselves. Additionally, with all the added vitamins and nutrients that the body is absorbing, post workout recovery times are diminished.

Back to the original topic:

With my students, one of the first things we talk about in lessons is fitness. We play the tuba. It uses a ton of air. Being out of shape, overweight, and generally unhealthy (i.e. smoking) is not a benefit to our cardiovascular system. I believe that taking care of one's body is just as important as practicing Arban, or Rochut. So, in addition to weekly musical lessons of listening and practicing, I give a physical assignment as well. A typical practice session includes some sort of warm up, right? So, we buzz our little lips into the shiny metal piece for a bit, do some tonguing, etc... Perhaps some breathing as well? I like include stretches, and some light cardio. A few sun salutations, and perhaps a couple dozen jumping jacks, or jump rope in place to get the blood flowing, and bingo!... air usage increased. I've actually got a pretty good routine that I do to limber up my tissue, and prepare myself for the physical demands of playing the tuba. Not to mention getting up and moving, helps combat the fact that we're about to sit on our butts for hours on end, blowing our guts out into a big pipe.

I don't advocate that every tuba player go out and become a marathoner or bodybuilder. But, for the sake of yourself and those who care for you, get off your butt and be active once in a while! Don't let that belly get in the way of your tuba. Be fit enough to lug around 2 tubas without breaking a sweat! Don't pollute the air of your colleagues with the stench of cigarettes and indigestive farts. Take care of your body, and it will take care of you by paying dividends when you're older and not falling apart, like your unhealthy counterparts!

End of my little rant... flame away. I like grilled veggies as much as raw ones!

[Donn]

Good luck with the event. Also, good luck with Crossfit - I'm sure a lot of people benefit from that program, but read up on the injury issues, rhabdomyolosis etc. if you haven't already.

About vegetarian diet - lest I seem to be posing as a vegetarian here, we actually do stray from a strictly plant based diet, not only with dairy products but we eat some fish. You can't really live in Seattle and not eat fresh wild Pacific salmon, etc. I believe it will be tofu tonight, though. My point in mentioning it is that you don't have to choose between diets A or B in order to conform to some dietary label that you put on yourself. It's about living well - which does have an ethical dimension, but you have to sort that out for yourself.

[Rick Denney]

I am sure those groups of people never found sacks of potatoes or large bags of rice piled up inside a bakery at the local wal-mart. More likely they found land animals, sea animals year round and seasonally some leafy plants, fruits, nuts. And not the high sugar modern varieties of apples, berries etc. that have been developed over the last few centuries.

Your skipping about two thousand years of human history when rice and other grains (like, for example, corn), and high-density carb sources like potatos and beans, have provided the subsistence diet. These people have never been fat except when they were rich, and even then only occasionally. And meat was "rich people food". Your paleolithic humans had a little different lifestyle than modern humans. They ate voraciously and opportunistically, feasting when the opportunity was there on whatever, and eating whatever they had to during famine. Okay, they didn't have Wal-Marts. Man has been agricultural for a very, very long time--enough generations to change the mix of population that responds in specific ways to different diets.

For any given eating strategy, someone has written a highly persuasive book explaining why that is THE answer to modern problems of obesity. I've read a bunch of them.

And I've done the diets. My recipe for exercise bars that follow the 40-30-30 mix of carbs, protein, and fat is still quite well-known in certain triathlon circles. You can find it on my web page, along with pictures of me doing endurance sports and articles I wrote on bicycle technology for Triathlete Magazine. I was thinner then, but I was never really thin.

When I lost the weight, I went from 280 to about 200 by cutting out fat and (oh, by the way) working out four days a week at the gym and riding 100-150 miles a week with the local cycling club. I then read a book about the Zone Diet, and started eating that way. I followed that diet carefully for about three years, and went from 200 to 195 to 205, with changes in muscle, but never dipping below 10% body fat no matter how hard I trained. After the Ironman, I got married and stopped training as much, and I started gaining weight, but I didn't change my diet at all. Now, my diet is "eat reasonably" and my exercise is pushups and a little weight-lifting and not much walking. I'm up to a stable 235--the balance my body finds with reasonable decisions. But my experience has as little meaning for what others should do as yours--the response to macronutrients is partly genetic, as is the metabolic rate, the oxygen uptake, general body size, the ratio of body fat percentage to body mass index (a measurement myth if there ever was one), and a range of other attributes. Our individual experiences are anecdotal and what works for one person may not work at all for someone else.

It's good that you have found your formula and that it works for you. You should keep doing it.

Rick "wary of extrapolation" Denney

[Donn]

It seems that finding what works is not always the problem - self-discipline and sticking to the plan is often the most difficult part.

Though I'd agree with your point on the 2nd page, insofar as that has for some reason become a lot more challenging in the US over the last 40 years.

[fairweathertuba]

Your skipping about two thousand years of human history when rice and other grains (like, for example, corn), and high-density carb sources like potatos and beans, have provided the subsistence diet. These people have never been fat except when they were rich, and even then only occasionally. And meat was "rich people food". Your paleolithic humans had a little different lifestyle than modern humans. They ate voraciously and opportunistically, feasting when the opportunity was there on whatever, and eating whatever they had to during famine. Okay, they didn't have Wal-Marts. Man has been agricultural for a very, very long time--enough generations to change the mix of population that responds in specific ways to different diets
Rick "wary of extrapolation" Denney

2,000 years In evolutionary terms is a very brief time indeed. Modern humans have been developing for at least 2 million years, which compared to perhaps up to 10,000 years of some early pockets of agriculture is an astoundingly long time.

I am intrigued by Jhardisk's veganism, I will attempt to read up on the subject to see the picture more clearly, unfortunately he didn't recommend any books or studies to back up his claims that the diet is extraordinarily beneficial.

I am open-minded about diet, and maybe there is a way to incorporate more carbs into mine. The high blood sugar problem that I had was what initially led me to low carb eating. If there is a way to keep blood sugar low being a vegan, I'd also be interested in that method.

[Donn]

2,000 years In evolutionary terms is a very brief time indeed. Modern humans have been developing for at least 2 million years, which compared to perhaps up to 10,000 years of some early pockets of agriculture is an astoundingly long time.

On evolution - something to think about - similar principles apply to cultural and social advances, and of course they're much more rapid. If the folks in one valley are weak and stupid because of their diet, they're going to be learning a new language spoken by the people in the next valley pretty soon. Given the choice between the lifestyle of a early agricultural peasant vs. a African Bushman, I don't think I'd choose the latter just because it's a good match with my physical evolutionary history.

[JHardisk]

I am intrigued by Jhardisk's veganism, I will attempt to read up on the subject to see the picture more clearly, unfortunately he didn't recommend any books or studies to back up his claims that the diet is extraordinarily beneficial.

I am open-minded about diet, and maybe there is a way to incorporate more carbs into mine. The high blood sugar problem that I had was what initially led me to low carb eating. If there is a way to keep blood sugar low being a vegan, I'd also be interested in that method.

I don't normally get on a soapbox about veganism, but I did feel the need to chime in when it was addressed in a negative light. And for the record, I don't feel any need to label myself with a title... In fact, I'd prefer not to. It is just a simple way to get the point across that I don't believe in consuming animal products. I treat this in the same way I view religion or politics. Everyone has their own beliefs, and that's wonderful. I share my opinions on these things only when asked, or if I feel like there is genuine mis-information being spread that contradicts what I have learned as truth (yes, I realize there is a fine line when applied to opinions). If we were all the same, the world would be boring, and the TNFJ would not have the opportunity to blast every person who comes here to ask what might seem like a harmless question, even if it's been discussed before.

Some great places to start learning about vegetarian/vegan diets are here:

http://www.worldpeacediet.com/
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/vegan.htm
http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20081001 ... 2-diabetes
http://www.nursingdegree.net/blog/19/57 ... ing-vegan/
http://pcrm.org/search/?cid=264
If you like movies, try these (which are both available on Netflix streaming right now):
http://www.forksoverknives.com/
http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/

Feel free to pm me if you ever have any questions. I enjoy a healthy lifestyle, food, and exercise just as much as I enjoy the tuba and music.

[Rick Denney]

2,000 years In evolutionary terms is a very brief time indeed. Modern humans have been developing for at least 2 million years, which compared to perhaps up to 10,000 years of some early pockets of agriculture is an astoundingly long time.

Dealing with high blood sugar is a separate discussion, assuming that you've been tested and diagnosed with that issue.

But 2000 years is not so long, if you stop thinking about gene mutation and start thinking and existing populations that grow or shrink in the face of available resources and vulnerabilities. There's enough genetic variation out there already, but any given environment will favor some combinations over others and the relative populations will reflect that favoritism.

You talked about fruit being bred for sweetness in just a couple of hundred years--10% of those two millennia--yet fruit trees might live as long as people (or as long as people did during most of those 2000 years).

For example, one book I read suggested that most humans are at least partly allergic to lactose, with the principle exception being northern Europeans. Yet northern Europeans have been successful in a variety of ways, and have given the species a big dose of their genetic material. Their customs spread to those without the genetic ability to metabolize lactose effectively. This didn't happen in the last 40 years, by the way. But it did happen well within the last 2000.

Most of the people on this planet eat rice as a subsistence staple and have for that whole 2000 years, and yet most of those people are not fat. Something is not adding up!

But be careful of drawing conclusions from change, without understanding cause. Most of the people I've read who have a ready explanation of why people are fatter now than 50 years ago have some other axe to grind, and since people are narcissistic, hiding that agenda behind diet advice is a good strategy for promulgating their ideas. But there are lots of influences that have emerged in the last half-century-plus. During that time, the U.S. has transitioned from agricultural-industrial-rural to service-urban models of work activity. Their entertainment has come indoors. When I was a kid, we were thrown out of the house when the weather was nice, not that we needed much encouragement. We rode bicycles, ran, climbed fences and trees, played "war", built tree forts, played catch, rode skateboards (very different from what they have become!), carried sousaphones in marching band, and on and on. We watched TV, but only after dark and on early Saturday mornings. Recess in school involved sports, not just standing outside talking. That's how my youth went, and I was a klutzy geek without an ounce of athletic talent or inclination.

The sports-inclined went much further, of course. Now, such activities are supervised to death, instead of being ad-hoc and ubiquitous, which limits those activities to the sports-inclined. The non-sports-inclined are given few places for such activities. I went to a girl's softball game were the two daughters of a work colleague were playing. These kids were too young to care about who won, but their parents sure as hell cared. No score was kept officially, but I can assure you score was being kept, and the tension level in the stands was palpable.

Now, the balance has shifted to indoor activities for the non-jocks, driven by a number of factors, including parental concerns for safety and the seductive availability of video games and the Internet. It's easy to blame McDonald's because it keeps us from having to blame ourselves. I'm not saying I disagree with the subtle influences of marketing and flavor manipulation at places like McDonald's, but it seems to me a bit like smoking. Does anyone really not know that smoking is dangerous? Does anyone really not know that a diet consisting entirely of fried fast food may not be healthy? Yet parents keep feeding it to their kids. Even at McDonald's, it is possible to make choices far more healthy than french fries and Coke.

And Bloke's reckoning that the vices of prior generations were not fat-inducing as are the vices of today rings true with me, too.

In the past, the first objective of most parents was to provide a better life for their children than they experienced. They worked hard to achieve that, and demanded (to the extent possible) that their kids take advantage of the opportunities provided to them. Over that 50 years, though, this has faded, it seems to me--the natural consequence of an affluent society that has lost its faith and for whom life is easy enough that a better life is hard to visualize. Self-discipline, initiative, and perseverance are easy victims of affluence.

Again, for any one person, a given formula might provide the answer, and for them it's the right answer. That does not mean it's prescriptive.

Rick "guilty of all these sins at one time or another, including espousing the paleolithic diet" Denney

[Bob Kolada]

I'm not anywhere near thick (6'10" and 190 on a fat day), but what I usually do to stay in shape is, rather than running for running's sake (inefficient and annoying ), I run/bike to wherever I am going.
Not everyone can accommodate that but it's a hell of a better idea than sitting on a treadmill or something. Save money on gas and get in shape!


I think I'll have Old Style, mac and cheese, and Italian sausages for lunch...

[Donn]

Now, the balance has shifted to indoor activities for the non-jocks, driven by a number of factors, including parental concerns for safety and the seductive availability of video games and the Internet. It's easy to blame McDonald's because it keeps us from having to blame ourselves.

If we're looking for things that could have driven an increase in obesity in recent generations, can't disregard environmental exposure to, for example BPA, or steroids in meat animals. Or similarly, pervasive changes in food technology, like high fructose corn syrup.

Those are things that you could excuse a parent for not knowing about. But if we're worried about whether it's fair to blame McDonald's, well, sure. You brought up the analogy to the tobacco industry, where I would assume you can find many people who are glad that Hell is an ecclesiastical fiction.

[Donn]

...so to blame "McDonald's" or "big tobacco" for "the stupidity, gullibility, and addictive nature of humankind" is to fall into a very tired old stereotypical shift-the-blame-away-from-where-it-lies argument.

Or drugs - I hate it when people try to shift the blame for kids' behavior onto narcotics dealers, why not take some responsibility for once?