JOLLYBLOGGER

Hyper-Controllers Take Note

Something to think about:

I thought of my family's childhood-food battles when I read this piece about mistakes parents make in feeding their kids, and apparently we're doing everything wrong.  I expected another "cut out trans fats" article but actually found some novel information--not so much about changing the of content of what they're eating as changing--my new favorite word--the context in which the food is offered. Example:  despite what your instincts--and the 'diet disciplinarian' in all of us--may tell you, don't keep the desserty, sugary foods out of reach:

...a large body of research shows that if a parent restricts a food, children just want it more.  In [a]...Penn State study, researchers experimented to determine whether forbidden foods were more desirable. Children were seated at tables and given unlimited access to plates of apple or peach cookie bars — two foods the youngsters had rated as “just O.K.” in earlier taste tests. With another group, some bars were served on plates, while some were placed in a clear cookie jar in the middle of the table. The children were told that after 10 minutes, they could snack on cookies from the jar.

The researchers found that restricting the cookies had a profound effect: consumption more than tripled compared with when the cookies were served on plates.

Other studies show that children whose food is highly restricted at home are far more likely to binge when they have access to forbidden foods.

This seems right to me--we crave what we can't have, in the words of Tacitus, "the mysterious is magnificent," and on and on.  Yet almost every parent I know, myself included, does the "keep it out of reach" trick with their kids' treats.

And there are plenty of other shockers in there:  don't reward a kid for taking a bite of broccoli, don't insist that they try everything (it just makes them hate it more).

The broad point seems to be that it's a mistake to imply to your kids that some foods are 'tantalizing and mysterious, but forbidden' and others as 'no fun to eat, but morally correct.'  Well intentioned though this system may be, the result is an ongoing mealtime angel-on-devil struggle, with our will power and inner pleasure-seeker locked together in a death-grip. 

That applies to so much more than food and eating.  While you are thinking about that, think about Romans 7:7-8 and think about all the ways you try to restrict and control the behavior of others and what effect that has:

⁷ What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”^a ⁸ But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead

^a Exodus 20:17; Deut. 5:21

The Holy Bible  : New International Version, electronic ed., Ro 7:7-8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984).

Gary Taubes Top Ten Conclusions

It's been awhile since I have blogged about issues related to weight loss or the low-carb lifestyle.  I've been meaning to put this up for awhile and just haven't gotten around to it - this is Gary Taubes summary of conclusions from his book Good Calories, Bad Calories.  That's the book that gave me the impetus and intellectual ammunition I needed to get on and stay on a low-carb diet.  This list is on page 454 of the book and I mention that to say that I am just offering his summary, not proofs for his conclusions.  The other 453 pages of the book document these things amply, and I would say that if you are at all interested in weight loss or nutrition you owe it to yourself to read Taubes book.  So without further ado, here's the Taubes Top Ten:

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease or any other chronic diseas of civilization.

2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis - the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body.  The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on your health, weight and well-being.

3. Sugars - sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically - are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.

4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes.  They are most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.

5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.

6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller.  Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.

7. Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance - a disequilibrium - in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism.  Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation.  We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of fat tissue reverses this balance.

8. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage.  When insulin levels are elevated - either chronically or after a meal - we accumulate fat in our fat tissue.  When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel.

9.  By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fast and ultimately cause obesity.  The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.

10. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.

Jolly - Before and After

Way back when, someone mentioned that I should do a before and after here on the blog to document my weight loss.  I wanted to wait a bit to make sure I kept the weight off, and now I'm at a point where I'm pretty satisfied that I'm keeping the weight off.

I wish I had dates on all of these but the before pics are all somewhere between 2003 and 2006.  The after pics are all from fall 2007 till a few weeks ago.  The pics aren't good quality but they do give an idea of how much weight I've lost.  From now on I will refer to the before pictures as "David with a beachball under his shirt" and the after as "David minus the beach ball."  I also thought this would be a good follow up to the preceding post on the effects of a high fat - low carb diet on the body.

Before

 

After

This is what happens to your body when you eat a diet high in fat!

No, I'm not turning this into the Jolly Good Cosmo-GQ blog, but I thought I would share a couple of pics I have come across recently in the low-carb-osphere that show the dramatic effects that eating a diet high in fat can have on your body.

The guy is Mark Sisson, he's 54 years old and here's a description of how he eats.

2,458 calories, 58% of which was from fat; 165 grams of protein (1 gram per pound of body weight) and 114 grams of carbs. Now some might say that eating less than 2500 calories is too low for a moderately active man, but there are two points to make here. First, I am never really hungry. On this Primal Blueprint eating style, I eat when I want to and stop when I no longer feel hungry. Pretty simple. If I skip meals, I don’t get light-headed or famished. I don’t ever feel like I need more calories or that I am missing out on anything or “sacrificing” some guilty pleasure. I get plenty of protein to spare muscle and add to protein turnover. I get plenty of fat for fuel – sometimes 65% of daily calories.

Second - and this goes to the heart of the Primal concept – when you eat fewer carbs, your body readily accesses dietary and stored fat for fuel. Even at 8% body fat, I still have 46,000 calories of stored fat, at least 25,000 of which is available to use as fuel at any time. Theoretically, you could walk 250 miles on that. It’s a beautiful thing when you direct gene expression to “want” to burn fat instead of always storing it. You certainly don’t need cardio to produce the full effect (you can if you want, within guidelines). As we often say here “80% of your results come from how you eat.” Conversely, eating more carbs drives up insulin, drives carbs towards fat storage, decreases fat-burning by prompting fat cells to hold on to stored fat and makes you hungrier for more carbs. I could burn some or most of all that off again by doing tons of cardio, but that only makes me hungrier for more carbs and perpetuates the cycle. It’s like digging a hole to put the ladder in to wash the basement windows.

The lady is Kat James who runs a website called Informed Beauty. Jimmy Moore introduced an interview with her this way:

Kat shares the cold hard facts about why fat consumption in conjunction with a low-carb diet is an awesome way to take care of your body and make yourself truly beautiful inside and out.

I'm telling ya - don't feel guilty about bringing out the bacon, the butter and the eggs, and don't worry about the fat in the burgers - it's the bun, the fries and the condiments that are killing you - not the meat (well, unless the meat is diseased).

Carbohydrates are the only macronutrients we don't need to eat

It's been awhile since I blogged on things related to diet and health.  For those of you who may be new to the blog, my interest in this comes from my attempts to lose weight over the past year.  I've lost 55 lbs using the low carb approach and so I'm a big advocate of the whole low-carb way of life.

I realize there are some folks out there who can eat a moderate amount of carbs and remain healthy.  I spent over 30 years eating tons of carbs, became grossly overweight and had to take a little bit more extreme action.

Still, whenever I talk low-carb, the vast majority of people I talk to are skeptical.  Most folks are happy for me that I have lost weight on this approach but they also think it is basically unhealthy and that I am playing with fire.  This is why I keep close tabs on Jimmy Moore's Livin La-Vida Low Carb blog because Jimmy is the most tenacious low-carb researcher on the internet and the more he writes the more I see that there is a scientific avalanche of evidence supporting the health benefits of the low-carb lifestyle. 

Today I'll call your attention to a post he did on some Swedish doctors and researchers who have commented on the health benefits of a low-carb lifestyle.  The thing to note is that a diet high in (natural) fats and low in carbs is a preferred diet.  Here's a few pull-quotes from the post:

Annika Dahlqvist:  I recommend healthy people eat liberal amounts of natural fat. Then they automatically consume less carbohydrates because they have normal appetite regulation.

Lars-Erik Litsfeldt: Carbohydrates are the only macronutrients we don't need to eat.

Andreas Eenfeldt:  It is my opinion that healthy persons who don't feel they need to lose weight should exclude sugar from their diet. The rest of the carbohydrates ought to be natural and not refined--that is carbs with a low glycemic index.

Johanna Söderlund: Many proportions can work well, but most people would get the best health if they had an intake of 40–60% fat, 20–30% protein and 10–20% carbohydrates.

Sten Sture Skaldeman: No, nobody can feel bad from eating a low-carbohydrate diet, except for the first two first weeks. When we are adapted to operating on fat for fuel, the need for carbohydrates is zero. (No, a low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) diet is not for everyone. It demands people have both willpower and intelligence.)

Read the rest.

72 Minutes with Gary Taubes

I haven't posted much lately on diet and exercise and weight loss.  But I am continuing on the low-carb lifestyle and am maintaining my weight loss. 

I've wanted to write more about Gary Taubes and his book Good Calories/Bad Calories, but haven't had the time.  I also want everyone I know to read it because there is more good nutritional advice and just plain sound thinking in that book than most I have read.  I found that book not only a help in how to diet, but how to think and how to do research.  The book is thorough and Taubes shows the difference between association and causation, a huge matter, and shows how easily it is to get duped by conventional wisdom. Thus, his book has not only helped me in the diet area but in learning how to think.

But alas, this book is big, thick and dense, and frankly will be hard to read for those with a busy lifestyle. Even if you do have a busy lifestyle I still recommend it highly - it's worth the sacrifice of time.  But if you can't quite find the time, let me give you three options.

1. Wait for a condensed, more popular version of the book to come out.  Jimmy Moore has hinted that something like this might be in the works.

2.Check out Jimmy Moore's links on Gary Taubes.  And, just read Jimmy Moore in general - he's the best source in the blogosphere for low carb stuff.

3. This is the best option - watch the following YouTube video where Gary gives the gist of his findings (HT - Jimmy Moore).

Around the Jollysphere 12-13-07

I'm going to try to dust off an old thing I used to do - a link list called "Around the Jollysphere."  I used to do this and then let it fall by the wayside.  I have accumulated quite a lot of links in my del.ici.ous folders and saved rss feeds so I think I can make a go of this.  As I do this I'll try to separate it into categories and share with you some of the best things I have read.  I'm not going to have set categories, but you can expect that each time I do this I'll have some theology/biblical/Christian living links, cultural stuff, and a bit of sports stuff (especially during football season).  I also will share some stuff on diet and fitness as this something I have been very consumed with over the last few months and have quite a bit of material on.  So, without further ado (or is it adieu?) . . .

Theological Goodness

John Barlow has a good quote from Samuel Johnson.  It wasn't written in a theological context but is too good not to mention here:

"Hume and other skeptical innovators are vain men and will gratify themselves at any expense. Truth will not afford sufficient food to their vanity, so they have betaken themselves to error: Truth, Sir, is a cow which will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull."

Glenn Lucke gets caught quoting the Bible on the the gospel and the kingdom.  Some of the brethren are troubled that some of the brethren seem to be defining the gospel in terms of the Kingdom of God.  So, Glenn does the unthinkable and searches the Scriptures on the matter.  Be sure and read the post and then look at a few other comments that Glenn made in response to me.  I understand the fear - some have used the "gospel of the kingdom" as an excuse to abandon the historical (biblical) teachings on justification.  But an errant understanding of the relationship of gospel and kingdom does not mean we abandon that which the Scripture plainly teaches - the gospel is the gospel of the kingdom

And of course, if we were still allowed to quote Tim Keller, we might find some wisdom.  But since we can't do that I'll quote Tony Stiff who quotes you-know-who as follows: 

“In general, I don’t think we’ve done a good job at developing ways of communicating the gospel that include both salvation from wrath by propitiation and the restoration of all things. Today, writing accessible presentations of the gospel should not be the work of marketers but the work of our best theologians.” Tim Keller, The Gospel and the Supremacy of Christ in a Postmoderd World (pg. 111)

 

This is what gets to me - Christians just love to fight over things that shouldn't be fought over.  The "gospel is the kingdom" guys want to deny or downplay propitiation in favor of the redemption of all things.  The propitiation guys are afraid that the restoration guys are going to lose propitiation so they don't want to talk about it.  The gospel is both - let's run with it.

And here's a good quote from Michael Bird that sets a correct trajectory for discussing the gospel:

"When Christians speak of salvation, they telll a story. It is a story that stretches from even before the creation of the world to its final redemption, when the plan of salvation conceived by God from eternity is to come to fulfillment. While God's dealings of old with God's chosen people, Israel, play an important role in this story, ultimately it revolves around Jesus Christ and his death on the cross."

David Brondos, Fortress Introduction to Salvation and the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007), p.1.

An Important Review of Gary Taubes - Good Calories, Bad Calories

Hello, Jolly the low-carb Nazi here offering more propaganda in favor of the low-carb lifestyle.   Here's a review of Gary Taubes book Good Calories, Bad Calories by Jeremy J. Stone, past president of the Federation of American Scientists (HT - commenter Kevin at Jimmy Moore's Livin La Vida Low-Carb).  As I've mentioned before, I am very excited about Taubes book.  It's not a diet book per se, it's a science book, a research project, but his research has been enough to motivate me to continue on the low carb plan.

Since June 1, 2007 I have lost 50lbs, weigh less than I did when I get married and am approaching my college weight.  And all this while cheating way more than I should. I am feeling better than I have in a long time and one of the best parts of this is that I no longer vomit when I see myself in the mirror.  I'm no Tom Cruise and will definitely not be taking my shirt off in public any time soon, but it really is nice to get dressed in the morning and not look like I'm pregnant (yes, I have had people make that joke about me before!)

But I also know that a yahoo like me doesn't have the cred to recommend this so I wanted to reference a real live scientist, whose credentials and ability to read technical research material should not be in question.  So, let me encourage you to read what Dr. Stone says about Taubes book after the jump.

Saturated Fat Saturday

What if everything you have believed turns out to be wrong?  That's the impression I have gotten in reading Gary Taubes book Good Calories, Bad Calories.  It is amazing how he methodically demolishes almost every piece of conventional wisdom you have heard about diet and weight.

One of the things Taubes brings up is that fat in general and saturated fat in particular, may not be as bad for you as you have been led to believe.  Well, for those of you who don't have the time or interest in reading Taubes book (I enjoy it but it is a beast to read) the blogosphere's Grand Poo-bah of all things low carb - Jimmy Moore - has links to several articles on the low carb lifestyle, including three on the subject of saturated fat.

Here's the three articles on saturated fat, you can read all of Jimmy's post for the other articles.

3. "Saturated Fat Is Your New Friend"
SOURCE: Male Pattern Fitness Blogs

4. "What If Bad Fat Is Actually Good For You?"
SOURCE: Men's Health Magazine

6. "Stop Blaming Saturated Fat"
SOURCE: Men's Health Magazine

A New Diet

I came across this thing called the "No S Diet."  It means no snacks, no sweets, and no seconds except on days that begin with the letter "s."    Days that begin with "s" of course are Saturday and Sunday, but it also includes "special days."  "Special" days are yours and your close relatives birthdays, national and religious holidays.

The trouble is, I'm one of those people who believes every day should be "special."