Three bottles a day okay?


#41

It just occurred to me that one person on this thread is telling me to cut carbs and do keto and another is telling me the complete opposite; to eat a high carb and low fat diet. It’s no wonder people are so confused about how they should eat.


#42

People get far too carried away about the benefits of their chosen diet when recommending things. Low carb high fat works for a lot of people, but low fat also works. Ultimately, if you’re able to stick with a diet and not suffer as a result of the caloric deficit, that’s a good diet for you. And three bottles a day certainly won’t be dangerous, though an occasional multivitamin and mineral supplement wouldn’t be a terrible idea if the other food you eat isn’t hugely nutritious.


#43

Fortunately, you seem to have arrived at the best solution, which is to do what makes sense to you.


#44

I really think this applies right now: https://youtu.be/cXBG86ZCalI?t=2m14s


#45

The solution is really quite obvious. Do both.


#46

Ketogenic diets are usually too high in protein content measured over the overall caloric intake. Some people here have probably heard about the E.P.I.C. study, as in “European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition”; it’s one of the biggest epidemiological studies of our time. One of the most amazing findings of the study is that the prevalent obesity of the western society is highly associated to the excessive intake of proteins (not carbohydrates, not fats, proteins!), where “excessive” means above 15% of the overall caloric intake or so.

This seems to be a complete paradox considering the high efficacy of ketogenic diets, but remember that the EPIC study followed a statistically significant sample of several hundred thousand people over the course of almost 15 years, which is much more than the duration of a typical ketogenic diet, and the explanation for this apparent paradox is that ketogenic diets work through what is substantially a form of poisoning that drastically reduces appetite. But this doesn’t seem to work in the long run (i.e. most people fail in going off the diet without gaining back part or all of the original weight).

As far as I know, a reasonable share of proteins over the caloric intake is about 12-13%, which is impossible to achieve on a ketogenic diet because animal foods usually provide way more than that.

Reducing appetite by filling the bowels with fiber instead of calories is certainly better than reducing it through toxic keto bodies. :slight_smile:

Even though ketogenic diets are highly effective in the short term, why not adopt a diet that’s healthier, more successful in the long run, and most importantly recommended by virtually every doctor?


#47

On a side note, I actually have a relative who has “successfully” been on a ketogenic diet. “Successfully” is in quotes because he lost an amazing amount of body fat after less than a year and he was unrecognizable, but guess how is he now? Exactly the same as before. He told me things like “yeah I know, it’s my fault, I didn’t stick to the diet strictly when I started going off”, and I answered him “there’s gotta be a reason for that.” :slight_smile:

So, for what it’s worth, my anecdotal experience completely confirms the findings of the EPIC study and their accepted explanation.


#48

[quote=“pauldwaite, post:38, topic:26975”]
You don’t have to call me sir; Grand Supreme Vice Admiral in Charge of Special Projects and Assistant Secretary of the Social Committee will do just fine. :slight_smile:[/quote] Got it. :smiley:

[quote]Query: whose “official” guidelines are those?[/quote] I suspect there might be close relationships between the doctors who worked to publish those recommendations in AIRC and those who revise studies at OMS / WHO. One of them is Franco Berrino, I’ve watched many of his interviews on YouTube (another Italian, sorry :\ ).

[quote]My Italian’s poor, but is Italian Association for Cancer Research a workable translation?[/quote] Yes it is.

[quote]So: “may” have an independent protective effect against many cancers, not “will” or “is necessary”.[/quote] Nothing is for granted because you may still have horrible genetic mutations of course, but vegetable food is still your best guess.

[quote]Are the AIRC saying something different?[/quote] I don’t think so, it’s always “may” / “might” / “can” and nothing is for granted. But don’t think any guarantees can be possibly given at the current state of the art of medicine and nutrition. Soylent doesn’t give any guarantees either.


#49

You need to drink six a day. There is a reason soylent bottles are sold in multiples of twelve.


#50

LOL, 6? That would be 2400 calories. She would need to be a very, very big woman for that to be a weight lost quantity of Soylent.


#51

Well, not always. Enough exposure to the right kind of radiation will give you cancer. Avoiding exposure to the HIV virus will mean you don’t get HIV. We know that, because we understand the mechanisms by which these things occur, thanks to science.

As you say, the same is not yet true for the effects of diet on health. So, as I originally said, I don’t think your optimal diet described above is established as necessary for being healthy (I include avoiding cancer as part of that), or, to get back to the original thread topic, losing weight.

Out of interest, how long did it take him to put the weight back on? I lost a reasonable amount of weight between January and October 2014. Put it all back on by October 2015. Lost even more again by June 2016. Went back up to my October 2014 weight by January 2017, but am now below my June 2016 weight again.

(I always thought yo-yos looked fun, now I know it’s even more fun being one.)


#52

[quote=“pauldwaite, post:51, topic:26975”]
So, as I originally said, I don’t think your optimal diet described above is established as necessary for being healthy (I include avoiding cancer as part of that), or, to get back to the original thread topic, losing weight.
[/quote] Not necessary indeed, but still your best guess. If certain mechanisms work in the human bodies of half a million people just the same, what else can we say?

[quote=“pauldwaite, post:51, topic:26975”]
how long did it take him to put the weight back on?
[/quote] I don’t remember because it was a few years ago, but I’d say roughly the same time it took to lose it.


#53

Don’t listen to @erkinalp. You need to drink 12 a day.


#54

“How many bottles of Soylent are you on?”
“Like, maybe 5 or 6 right now, my dude.”
“You are like a little baby. Watch this.”


#55

Yeah. Bottled drinks come in multiples of 6 and odd numbers don’t pack into square packages very well.


#56

#57

Because, as I pointed out in one of my previous replies to this topic, one of the most amazing findings of the E.P.I.C. study is that high-protein diets are highly associated with obesity. :slight_smile:

While it’s completely true that low carb and/or ketogenic diets are very effective in the short term, a sample of half a million people followed for 15 years (i.e. much more than the typical duration of any diet) showed the aforementioned results.

Nothing is necessarily true for every single individual in nutritional science because, unfortunately, epidemiology is different from math and in epidemiology there are no proofs. But we can still talk about what the best guess is. Keto and Low carb don’t seem to be the way to permanent weight loss.

On the other hand, vegans are the only demographic group that falls within the healthy BMI range on average, while every other group (including vegetarians) places above. This doesn’t mean we should all go vegan, but the mechanisms behind this result are very well known by today’s nutritional science.