Obese Man to Sue NHS for letting him get fat.

[Coito ergo sum]

No. Many things are necessary. That means that if you don't eat them, you die. Carbohydrates are not one of those.

In that sense, neither is protein. A human can survive a long time exclusively on carbs an fats on a fruit and vegetable diet.

Carbohydrates are necessary for a healthy diet, as are proteins and fats, vitamins and minerals.

[Sisifo]

No. Without protein, you die. Without carbs, no.

[Warren Dew]

That most certainly is not true. Carbohydrates are important for the body. A healthy diet is a good balance between proteins, carbohydrates and fats, with sufficient vitamins and minerals for the body, good amounts of fiber and vegetables.

This is why people get fat: because they believe misinformation like "carbohydrates are important for the body", just because they've heard it so many times.

Muscles are built out of protein. The brain is built out of fat. I challenge you to name a body structure built out of carbohydrate.

The body cannot create essential fatty acids. The body cannot create essential amino acids needed to build protein. However, the body can create carbohydrates, as an intermediate energy source, in a process called gluconeogenesis.

The body does not need significant amounts of carbohydrates, and the minimal amounts that may be needed can easily be created from protein.

[maiforpeace]

That most certainly is not true. Carbohydrates are important for the body. A healthy diet is a good balance between proteins, carbohydrates and fats, with sufficient vitamins and minerals for the body, good amounts of fiber and vegetables.

This is why people get fat: because they believe misinformation like "carbohydrates are important for the body", just because they've heard it so many times.

Muscles are built out of protein. The brain is built out of fat. I challenge you to name a body structure built out of carbohydrate.

The body cannot create essential fatty acids. The body cannot create essential amino acids needed to build protein. However, the body can create carbohydrates, as an intermediate energy source, in a process called gluconeogenesis.

The body does not need significant amounts of carbohydrates, and the minimal amounts that may be needed can easily be created from protein.

I was discussing this yesterday with my friend Laura, who is the writer for this site. http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/ Apparently the eat carbohydrates/cut fats for good health mantra came about in the 70's with a health initiative of McGovern's. We've been beating that drum since. She's convinced this had a huge effect on the obesity epidemic that we now face. Timing wise, it makes a lot of sense.

[JimC]

So can obsessive jogging, cunnilingus and flying in a hot air balloon. It doesn't make calling them addictions helpful in any way

Well, I'd say the exact opposite.
It's hard to get an alcoholic to fight his addiction, until they admit to themselves that they are actually addicted. Once you get your head round the fact that you are out of control, you stand a chance of beating it.
While you keep kidding yourself that you can lose the weight "if you really wanted to", you don't stand much chance of making a change.

I'm not offering addiction as some sort of excuse here. That picture in my avatar isn't actually me, you know!
(it's my little brother)

I agree, mostly. Even if it is not technically addiction, and we call it a compulsion to eat, it has many of the same effects. You have to address this personal aspect first, or all the cool, logical advice in the world, no matter whether it would work perfectly when followed, will have no effect at all...

50 years ago, Americans were generally not overweight - maybe about 15% of the population, as I recall. Today, 65% of the population is overweight. What happened? A genetic mutation en masse making most of us addicted to food or contract an obsessive compulsive disorder?

Isn't it just possible at all that what happened is that the culture changed, and the average number of calories people eat per day increased, while the number of calories we burn per day decreased (due to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle), and lo and behold the percentage of overweight people increased? After all, the numbers back that up. It's a straight line correlation better than the "hockey stick" global warming graph. Our food intake started going up about 50 years ago, and that's also when television watching and other non-active activities went up as well (reducing the amount of calories we needed to burn to move around). Lawnmowers changed from non-powered push-cutters, to power drive mowers to riding mowers. Walking to school went away. The video game was invented in the 70s. Outdoor activities steadily declined over time.... eat more...exercise less..........gain weight..... isn't that a simpler explanation than arguing that 1/2 the population contracted an addictive/obsessive disorder when previously only a small fraction of the population suffered from that disorder?

That does seem like a reasonable explanation of the changes. However, seeing that rationally does not by itself lead to actions that will cause change. If all the obese people listened to a lecture that carefully and accurately described the biological and cultural reasons for their obesity, and made it clear what their logical response should be to lose weight, would that be likely to work for many?

I think not...

To get them motivated to change is the issue, and many in this thread contend that overweight people have a hurdle to overcome which is as difficult as giving up cigarettes is for smokers.

[Coito ergo sum]

That most certainly is not true. Carbohydrates are important for the body. A healthy diet is a good balance between proteins, carbohydrates and fats, with sufficient vitamins and minerals for the body, good amounts of fiber and vegetables.

This is why people get fat: because they believe misinformation like "carbohydrates are important for the body", just because they've heard it so many times.

That assumes that the reason I understand that is merely because I "heard it so many times." That isn't the case. The misinformation is that carbohydrates are bad for you, just as surely as it is misinformation to say the blanket statement that "fat is bad for you."

Muscles are built out of protein. The brain is built out of fat. I challenge you to name a body structure built out of carbohydrate.

Carbohydrates are necessary macronutrients that provide energy. The body can store carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are used in the construction of organs and nerve cells. Carbohydrates determine your blood group.

The body does not need significant amounts of carbohydrates, and the minimal amounts that may be needed can easily be created from protein.

Eating exclusively proteins is not good for you. A balance of proteins, carbs and fats are all needed. A fat loss diet will, I grant you, be protein heavy, but absolutely, positively should NOT be exclusively protein. About 50% or so protein, 30% carbs, and 20% fats. For best results, eat high quality proteins, some from vegetable sources, and high quality carbs and fats. Avoid table sugars and soft drinks and whatnot. Polysaccharides are where to stay when it comes to carbohydrates.

I love this quote, "Remember, eat everything in moderation and nothing in excess. Also, the only healthy way to achieve permanent weight loss is to burn more calories than you take in. Anything else is just a gimmick." Monique N. Gilbert, Certified Personal Trainer/Fitness Counselor.

You're free, of course, to believe what you like. But, I will tell you this - my baloney detector tends to go off when I start hearing conspiratorial noises about how "they" don't want you to know "the truth" about weight loss, and "they" want you to stay hooked on grains because of the influence of big Agribusiness or something. There is no conspiracy.

There isn't a single person that I've talked to about Atkins (and I've even done a stint with Atkins diet to see what it was like) that after some pointed and probing questions doesn't reveal that in addition to switching to almost exclusively proteins, has drastically reduced their calories and otherwise also improved their diet and exercise lifestyle. What I find with these protein diets is story after story of people who go to restaurants and order their steak dinner - they then carefully push their mashed potatoes to the side and refrain from eating any bread, soft drinks and alcohol.

So what do you think happens in that instance? They refrained from eating 400 calories of potatoes and another couple hundred of calories of bread, and for each drink they would have had, subtract another 80-130 calories.... could the reduction in calories have anything at all to do with the fact that they started losing weight?

[Coito ergo sum]

[
That does seem like a reasonable explanation of the changes. However, seeing that rationally does not by itself lead to actions that will cause change. If all the obese people listened to a lecture that carefully and accurately described the biological and cultural reasons for their obesity, and made it clear what their logical response should be to lose weight, would that be likely to work for many?

I think not...

To get them motivated to change is the issue, and many in this thread contend that overweight people have a hurdle to overcome which is as difficult as giving up cigarettes is for smokers.

Before you can motivate someone to "change" - you have to understand - they have to understand - what it is that that they need to change "to."

If an overweight person thinks that calories bear little or no relation to weight gain, and whether they exercise or not bears little or no relation to weight gain, then they certainly are never going to get motivated to reduce the amount they eat and move around more.

Motivation requires: (1) acceptance that something needs to be done, and (2) and understanding of what needs to be done. Those two things are prerequisites for ever getting up and doing anything. It's only after a person actually accepts that that they are overweight and that to lose weight they have to do X and Y can they ever even begin to try to change their mindsets such that they actually begin to try to do X and Y.

[JimC]

[
That does seem like a reasonable explanation of the changes. However, seeing that rationally does not by itself lead to actions that will cause change. If all the obese people listened to a lecture that carefully and accurately described the biological and cultural reasons for their obesity, and made it clear what their logical response should be to lose weight, would that be likely to work for many?

I think not...

To get them motivated to change is the issue, and many in this thread contend that overweight people have a hurdle to overcome which is as difficult as giving up cigarettes is for smokers.

Before you can motivate someone to "change" - you have to understand - they have to understand - what it is that that they need to change "to."

If an overweight person thinks that calories bear little or no relation to weight gain, and whether they exercise or not bears little or no relation to weight gain, then they certainly are never going to get motivated to reduce the amount they eat and move around more.

Motivation requires: (1) acceptance that something needs to be done, and (2) and understanding of what needs to be done. Those two things are prerequisites for ever getting up and doing anything. It's only after a person actually accepts that that they are overweight and that to lose weight they have to do X and Y can they ever even begin to try to change their mindsets such that they actually begin to try to do X and Y.

For many obese people, to actually do something about their weight requires more than the purely rational understanding of their situation, and the need to eat less/eat better and exercise more. Sure, you are right that they should be given the facts, and abandon the crank nutrition crap that abounds, but you still haven't seen the point that I and many others have been making; their obesity is tied to emotions, and that eating for them has many of the same properties as substance addiction. I suspect a lot of them know perfectly well the facts as you have outlined, just like many smokers know about the damage they are doing to themselves at an intellectual level. Many will need psychological counselling of a careful and professional kind, as well as possibly pharmaceutical assistance before they can start doing what they need to do.

[Warren Dew]

I was discussing this yesterday with my friend Laura, who is the writer for this site. http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/ Apparently the eat carbohydrates/cut fats for good health mantra came about in the 70's with a health initiative of McGovern's. We've been beating that drum since. She's convinced this had a huge effect on the obesity epidemic that we now face. Timing wise, it makes a lot of sense.

Absolutely. I think what happened was that the power in the Senate shifted away from the dairy industry to the farm lobby due to demographic shifts in dairy and farm states. The McGovern commission findings basically set the stage for the shift from the "four food groups", which emphasized meat and dairy and which I remember being taught in grade school, to the "food pyramid", which recommended that grain intake exceed both meat and dairy put together, which happened around 1980. Notably, that's around when the obesity epidemic really gained steam.

Carbohydrates are necessary macronutrients that provide energy.

Coito, I thought you were the one arguing that overweight people should be cutting back on their energy intake. How did those empty calories suddenly become "necessary"?

The body can store carbohydrates. Carbohydrates are used in the construction of organs and nerve cells. Carbohydrates determine your blood group.

None of which constitutes a "body structure" made from carbohydrates; you're talking about minuscule amounts of sugars the body can manufacture without dietary intake. Indeed, the O blood group is marked by the absence, not the presence, of the relevant oligosaccharides.

Eating exclusively proteins is not good for you. A balance of proteins, carbs and fats are all needed.

No one is recommending all protein. For most people, a balance of 40/60 protein and fat is generally ideal for weight loss. No carbs are needed.

There isn't a single person that I've talked to about Atkins (and I've even done a stint with Atkins diet to see what it was like) that after some pointed and probing questions doesn't reveal that in addition to switching to almost exclusively proteins, has drastically reduced their calories and otherwise also improved their diet and exercise lifestyle. What I find with these protein diets is story after story of people who go to restaurants and order their steak dinner - they then carefully push their mashed potatoes to the side and refrain from eating any bread, soft drinks and alcohol.

So why do you think it is that so many people seem to succeed in losing weight by eating the steak and pushing aside the carbs - and no one succeeds by eating the potatoes, bread, and soft drinks, and pushing aside the steak?

[JimC]

With a low carb, high protein/fat diet, you'd want to make damn sure you had the right amount of vitamins & minerals (maybe via suppplements), and equally vitally, a good source of dietry fibre.

I can see some point in reducing sugar intake, and also starch with little else (like white rice & potatoes), which could indeed be called empty calories. However, it would be foolish to eliminate from the diet such things as fruit, vegetables, nuts and some whole grains (like oats), because, in addition to their carbs, they are excellent sources of vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants and fibre.

[Warren Dew]

With a low carb, high protein/fat diet, you'd want to make damn sure you had the right amount of vitamins & minerals (maybe via suppplements), and equally vitally, a good source of dietry fibre.

Somewhat true of the vitamins and minerals. The issue of dietary fiber is not so clear. While some forms of fiber, such as pectin from fruit, seem to be beneficial, others, such as those found in whole grains, are now thought to be detrimental, causing intestinal irritation. It's far from clear that any fiber at all is needed if there aren't a lot of carbs to feed the bacteria that clog things up in the first place.

I can see some point in reducing sugar intake, and also starch with little else (like white rice & potatoes), which could indeed be called empty calories. However, it would be foolish to eliminate from the diet such things as fruit, vegetables, nuts and some whole grains (like oats), because, in addition to their carbs, they are excellent sources of vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants and fibre.

Whole grains contain primarily B complex vitamins, which can be obtained with far fewer calories in red meat. Nuts are generally high in fats, and thus fit in perfectly with a low carb diet.

Fruit and vegetables do contain useful amounts of water soluble vitamin C and vitamin A. You can get the vitamin A from liver, but a lot of people don't care for liver and many vegetables are quite low in carbohydrates anyway. Fruit have a bit more carbs, though far less than starchy foods. Raw or rare meat can also prevent scurvy, but a vitamin C supplement probably won't hurt if you decide to skip the fruit.

[Blondie]

I hope he wins. Triumph of the justice system.

[Coito ergo sum]

[
That does seem like a reasonable explanation of the changes. However, seeing that rationally does not by itself lead to actions that will cause change. If all the obese people listened to a lecture that carefully and accurately described the biological and cultural reasons for their obesity, and made it clear what their logical response should be to lose weight, would that be likely to work for many?

I think not...

To get them motivated to change is the issue, and many in this thread contend that overweight people have a hurdle to overcome which is as difficult as giving up cigarettes is for smokers.

Before you can motivate someone to "change" - you have to understand - they have to understand - what it is that that they need to change "to."

If an overweight person thinks that calories bear little or no relation to weight gain, and whether they exercise or not bears little or no relation to weight gain, then they certainly are never going to get motivated to reduce the amount they eat and move around more.

Motivation requires: (1) acceptance that something needs to be done, and (2) and understanding of what needs to be done. Those two things are prerequisites for ever getting up and doing anything. It's only after a person actually accepts that that they are overweight and that to lose weight they have to do X and Y can they ever even begin to try to change their mindsets such that they actually begin to try to do X and Y.

For many obese people, to actually do something about their weight requires more than the purely rational understanding of their situation,

Who said it didn't?

A necessary condition is not necessarily a sufficient condition. Some people NOT ONLY need to know what they need to do and how, but have emotional and other support to do it.

and the need to eat less/eat better and exercise more. Sure, you are right that they should be given the facts,

It's not about being "given the facts." It's about a person ACCEPTING the facts - like an alcoholic admitting they have a problem and acknowledging, really acknowledging, that they need to quit. Nobody says that's easy. Nobody says that all they need to know is that they have to stop drinking - but, they do need stop drinking, right? So, if an alcoholic is told that "the amount of alcohol you consume doesn't relate to whether you're an alcoholic," then he's a lot less likely to stop drinking. Likewise, an obese person who is told that "the amount of food you eat doesn't relate to whether you're fat" - they're far more likely to keep eating. Why not? It's not the food - it's the darn high fructose corn syrup that "they" are putting in the food....or some such thing.

and abandon the crank nutrition crap that abounds, but you still haven't seen the point that I and many others have been making; their obesity is tied to emotions,

I've seen that point and acknowledged it several times. OF COURSE there are complex emotional and psychological issues that can cause someone to eat more than they should. Naturally. That doesn't mean people ought to sell the fool notion that "eating too many calories doesn't make you fat." There are many different reasons people eat too much - some just like food - some don't understand that they are eating too much and think that their quantities are fine - some think it's high fructose corn syrup - some think it's because "they" make us eat too much oatmeal and bread - others suffer from depression -- some anxiety - some have compulsive eating disorders.. The one thing every single one of them has in common, though, is that they take in more calories than go out.

and that eating for them has many of the same properties as substance addiction. I suspect a lot of them know perfectly well the facts as you have outlined,

Actually, you'd be surprised, I think, how many people don't. And you'd be surprised how many succumb to the notion that calories don't bear much of a relation to fat gain.

just like many smokers know about the damage they are doing to themselves at an intellectual level. Many will need psychological counselling of a careful and professional kind, as well as possibly pharmaceutical assistance before they can start doing what they need to do.

Absolutely - perfect example. However, the one thing a smoker must first do in any case in order to quit smoking is this: he or she has to come to the realization that they smoke too much, and they need to cut down and eventually quit. If someone buys into a silly notion that smoking cigarettes bears no relation to cigarette addiction, then they won't quit. Sure - realizing that smoking is bad and they have to stop is not the only prerequisite to actually stopping smoking, but it is nevertheless a necessary prerequisite.

[Coito ergo sum]

Carbohydrates are necessary macronutrients that provide energy.

Coito, I thought you were the one arguing that overweight people should be cutting back on their energy intake. How did those empty calories suddenly become "necessary"?

Carbohydrates aren't necessarily "empty" calories. Fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, whole grains, oats....all great stuff.

I'm the one arguing that people have a metabolic rate which indicates how much energy they need. I'm the one arguing that people shouldn't eat more than that if they want to lose weight. Feel free to argue against that, if you like.

Of course people need to eat. And, the body needs energy to survive, and enough food on a daily basis is needed to be healthy. I've not advocated locking fat people in a room and giving them only water until their bodies waste away.

Let's look at real science and not pop culture booksellers trying to tell you about a secret "They" don't want you to know about.

There are plenty of health problems associated with protein only diets. A review on the safety of low-carbohydrate diets notes that Atkins-type diets are at a greater risk for being nutritionally inadequate and raise the issue of potential long-term health effects. Crowe TC. Safety of low-carbohydrate diets. Obesity reviews. 2005;6:235–245.

In a one-year clinical trial reported in Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005, researchers randomly assigned 160 overweight individuals to one of four popular diets. Participants assigned to the Atkins diet lost 2.1 kilograms, while Weight Watchers dieters lost 3.0 kilograms, Zone dieters lost 3.2 kilograms, and dieters following the Ornish program lost 3.3 kilograms. Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293:43-53.

A review of 107 research studies on various low-carbohydrate, high-protein weight-loss diets concluded that weight loss on these diets is not due to any special effect of restricting carbohydrate; rather, weight loss depended on the extent to which the dieters’ caloric intake fell and how long they continued with their regimens. Bravata DM, Sanders L, Huang J, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:1837-1850.

Other reports have also found calorie reduction to be the most important factor in weight loss, with no special weight-loss advantage from the restriction of carbohydrates. Kennedy ET, Bowman SA, Spence JT, Freedman M, King J. Popular diets: correlation to health, nutrition, and obesity. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001;101:411-20; Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D’Alessio DA. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:1617-1623.

So why do you think it is that so many people seem to succeed in losing weight by eating the steak and pushing aside the carbs - and no one succeeds by eating the potatoes, bread, and soft drinks, and pushing aside the steak?

They do: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40424707/ ... ay_health/ (21 pounds in 60 days on all potato diet)

Calories, my friend. Calories.

[Coito ergo sum]

Some individuals may be confused or misled about important dietary issues based on the following inaccurate claims:

1. “High-protein diets cause dramatic weight loss.”
The weight loss typically occurring with high-protein diets—approximately 11-16 pounds over the course of a year5,6—is not significantly different from that seen with other weight-reduction regimens or with low-fat, vegetarian eating patterns.

2. “Fatty foods must not be fattening, because fat intake fell during the 1980s, just as America's obesity epidemic began.”
Some news stories have encouraged the public to discount health warnings about the amount of fat (especially saturated fat) in the diet, suggesting that fat intake declined during the 1980s, an era during which obesity became more common. However, food surveys from the National Center for Health Statistics from 1980 to 1991 show that daily per capita fat intake did not drop during that period. For adults, fat intake averaged 81 grams in 1980 and was essentially unchanged in 1991. While the American public added sodas and other non-fat foods to the diet, forcing the percentage of calories from fat to decline slightly, the actual amount of fat in the American diet did not drop at all. What did change was portion size. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association confirmed that meal sizes have steadily risen over recent decades.31

A notable contributor to fat and calorie intake in recent years is cheese consumption. Per capita cheese consumption rose from 15 pounds in 1975 to more than 30 pounds in 1999. Typical cheeses derive approximately 70 percent of energy from fat and are a significant source of dietary cholesterol.

3. “Fat and cholesterol have nothing to do with heart problems.”
Abundant scientific evidence establishes that dietary fat and cholesterol are associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk.19 Nonetheless, some popular-press articles have incorrectly suggested that evidence supporting this relationship is weak and inconsistent.
In addition, the late diet-book author Robert Atkins claimed in interviews that, despite his having followed a fatty, high-cholesterol diet for decades, he did not have artery blockages. The net result may be that dieters believe they can safely disregard well-established contributors to heart disease. After Dr. Atkins’ death, his widow and his personal physician revealed that Dr. Atkins had indeed had coronary artery blockages, although they have maintained that these blockages had nothing to do with his death.

4. “Meat doesn't boost insulin; only carbohydrates do that, and that's why they make people fat.”
Popular books and news stories have encouraged individuals to avoid carbohydrate-rich foods, suggesting that high-protein foods will not stimulate insulin release. However, contrary to this popular myth, proteins stimulate insulin release, just as carbohydrates do. Clinical studies indicate that beef and cheese cause a bigger insulin release than pasta, and fish produces a bigger insulin release than popcorn.32

Also, it is important to realize that different carbohydrate-rich foods have very different effects. Most cause a gradual, temporary, and safe rise in blood sugar after meals. Beans, green leafy vegetables, and most fruits are in this healthful category. The main exceptions are large baking potatoes, white bread, and sugary foods, which can cause an overly rapid rise in blood sugar.

5. “People who eat the most carbohydrates tend to gain the most weight.”
Popular diet books point out that cutting out carbohydrate-containing foods may lead to temporary weight loss. This fact has been misinterpreted as suggesting that carbohydrate-rich foods are the cause of obesity. In epidemiological studies and clinical trials, the reverse has been shown to be true. Many people throughout Asia consume large amounts of carbohydrate in the form of rice, noodles, and vegetables and generally have lower body weights than Americans—including Asian Americans—who eat large amounts of meat, dairy products, and fried foods. Similarly, vegetarians, who generally follow diets rich in carbohydrates, typically have significantly lower body weights than omnivores.

http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/advisory.html