One twin gave up sugar, the other gave up fat. Their experiment could change YOUR life

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Jan 30, 2014 12:48 AM GMT
    One twin gave up sugar, the other gave up fat. Their experiment could change YOUR life

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2546975/One-twin-gave-sugar-gave-fat-Their-experiment-change-YOUR-life.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2014 3:45 AM GMT
    Don't feel like reading that much at the moment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2014 4:17 AM GMT
    StephenOABC saidDon't feel like reading that much at the moment.


    Thanks for letting us know. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2014 4:20 AM GMT
    This is great information to have. But I find it much harder to apply this information in my life. It's so much easier to say "all sugar is bad" or "all fat is bad." It just makes things easier. Guess we'll just have to put even more conscious thought into what we put in our pie holes.

    Oh and wouldn't a three-way with those two be incredible?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2014 4:29 AM GMT
    I didn't read it but I assume no sugar and healthy fat is the way to go.

    *edit* - okay, I skimmed it. Here's the short version, with the unsatisfying answer:

    "...what were our conclusions? If you want to lose weight it will be much easier if you avoid processed foods made with sugar and fat. These foods affect your brain in a completely different way from natural foods and it's hard for anyone to resist eating too much.
    And any diet that eliminates fat or sugar will be unpalatable, hard to sustain and probably be bad for your health, too."


    It SEEMS in that last bit they're saying that eliminating HEALTHY fat and UNPROCESSED NATURAL SUGARS SUCH AS YOU GET IN FRUITS AND HONEY would probably be bad for your health. I'm finding the article so unclear that I'm forced to read things into it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2014 4:47 AM GMT
    Why are you people commenting on an article if you're not going to bother reading it? Seriously? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2014 4:51 AM GMT
    eagermuscle saidI didn't read it but I assume no sugar and healthy fat is the way to go.

    *edit* - okay, I skimmed it. Here's the short version, with the unsatisfying answer:

    "...what were our conclusions? If you want to lose weight it will be much easier if you avoid processed foods made with sugar and fat. These foods affect your brain in a completely different way from natural foods and it's hard for anyone to resist eating too much.
    And any diet that eliminates fat or sugar will be unpalatable, hard to sustain and probably be bad for your health, too."


    Thanks for saving us the pain.

    BTW, I too would do those two in a three-way.
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Jan 30, 2014 5:35 AM GMT
    tldr

    i stopped when i got to this quote:

    " But here's the problem: despite being doctors - I also have a degree in public health - neither of us knew much about losing weight and eating healthily. "

    makes u feel real good about the global healthcare system doesnt' it?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2014 5:50 AM GMT
    thadjock saidtldr

    i stopped when i got to this quote:

    " But here's the problem: despite being doctors - I also have a degree in public health - neither of us knew much about losing weight and eating healthily. "

    makes u feel real good about the global healthcare system doesnt' it?



    Except I've known this my entire life about doctors. They get like 10 minutes of nutrition in medical school. Vets are the same way. If a doctor tries to tell you how to eat or exercise, tell him to fuck off.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2014 3:42 PM GMT
    GAMRican saidBTW, I too would do those two in a three-way.

    Sugar and fat? So would most of us! icon_biggrin.gif
  • kew1

    Posts: 1595

    Jan 31, 2014 2:59 PM GMT
    The twin who eliminated carbs from his diet for a month lost more muscle than the no fat twin, had no energy, & was pre-diabetic by the end of it .
    The no fat twin's body was better at utilising insulin (at least in the short term).

    The prog.

    [url][/url]
  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Feb 06, 2014 5:17 PM GMT
    ^
    that is a bummer...they removed it.


  • kew1

    Posts: 1595

    Feb 06, 2014 5:37 PM GMT
    Oddly, if I press play in your quote it's there, but not in my posticon_confused.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Feb 06, 2014 6:26 PM GMT
    ^
    It is a different video clip on youtube. They removed the original one so I found another one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2014 7:08 PM GMT
    I didn't watch the video, but read the article summary. Their approach - particularly to "low carb" dieting - was extremely problematic.

    From the article:"I went on a no-carbohydrate diet - essentially no sugar - and Chris went on an extremely low-fat diet.
    We were allowed to eat as much as we wanted, except I couldn't have carbohydrates and Chris was allowed only the barest amount of fat . . . .

    Let me tell you straight up that both of these diets were miserable. I thought I'd got the better deal: I could eat meat, fish, eggs and cheese. But take away carbohydrates and the joy goes out of meals. And remove all fruit and veg - they all have carbs - and you get constipated. Though I was never hungry, I felt slow and tired, and my breath was terrible. . . .

    One of the words you hear a lot when people talk about very low-carb diets is ketosis. This is where your body makes chemicals called ketones, which can act as fuel for the brain, which can't use fat. But they're not great brain food. While I wasn't distracted by hunger for the month, I felt thick-headed, and this was most evident in a stock trading competition with Chris. . . . The same was true for my physical performance. . . . Again Chris thrashed me in every test. So, even though I seemed to be losing more weight, everything became harder to do."


    First of all, no carbs is unrealistic, and unnecessary. You can have some carbs and stay in nutritional ketosis - I try to stay at 15 net carbs per meal (carbs minus indigestible fiber), and I have stayed in ketosis for a long time now.

    Second, carb content of vegetables varies drastically. I eat tons of leafy green vegetables and a really good amount of cruciferous vegetables, like broccoli and brussels sprouts. Along with lots of good fats like olive oil, high oleic sunflower oil and avocados, and moderate amounts of nuts, lean meats and fish. The folks who go straight to all steak and bacon are of course going to feel like shit.

    Which brings me to my third point. The brain functions just fine on ketones - many folks report a much greater clarity and sense of awareness. But there is an adaptation period, commonly known as the "keto flu." It takes 2 weeks to a month to become keto-adapted, at which point the flu lifts. This informal experiment - like many formal experiments people have relied on to criticize low carb diets - shut off just at about the time when the subject should have started to feel better.

    Fourth, because he wan't keto adapted, he wasn't getting the benefit of low carb dieting in his workouts. It is true that relying on carbohydrate for fuel makes strength training a little easier, though one can weight train just fine in a ketogenic state. The real benefits are in endurance exercise. There is limited body capacity to store glycogen, which is why folks hit the wall or "bonk." In comparison, fats are an almost unlimited source of ketones, so keto-adapted endurance athletes can do great things.

    In sum: There are benefits and drawbacks to each style of diet, but this "experiment" was a pile of shit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2014 1:04 PM GMT
    I think the most vital part of this whole conversation is understanding the role carbohydrates play within in our body. Carbs are carriers, they move resources around the body, but what they move depends on the other foods you eat and how active you are.

    If you're sedentary, carbohydrates will take excess fat and store them, a survival approach, so that we have the stores of energy available to burn when we need it. For instance when a predator attacks.

    If you're active, carbohydrates move amino-acids and the building blocks of protein to your muscles, to help them restore and build.

    If you cut out all carbohydrates you limit your bodies potential for growth. It's why bodybuilders talk about "carbo-loading". The trick to staying leaner is to time your carbohydrate intake. Eat carbs when you're about to, or have just been active. Avoid eating a lot of carbs when you're going to sit on the couch doing nothing for a day.

    I think this lack of understanding of carbs is what has lead a lot of North Americans to become more obese. They're more available and cheaper than ever, and yet the general public is now a lot less active during their work days than they were 50 years ago. Our "meat and potato" dinners now just make us fat, when they used to help us recover muscle and energy expended.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2014 2:46 PM GMT
    I did watch the entire show, and and as I see it, the most useful demonstration for average folks was the high-carb vs. high-fat breakfast, where the high-fat guy ate far fewer calories. In my own experience, carbohydrate reduction for weight loss doesn't even require the extreme of going into ketosis; carb intake just has to be below the threshold where it drives ravenous hunger.

    As for the high-fat guy's pre-diabetes diagnosis, from what I've read over the years, it only takes a few days back on carbs for glucose tolerance test results to return to normal.
  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Feb 12, 2014 7:49 PM GMT
    How sugar affects the brain