Science behind nosdiet

[Royce]

Ok this is just what I remember from all the countless diet books/research I've read. I'm sure like everyone else here I've tried all the fad diets low carb/low fat, grapefruit ect.

If you restrict carbs for a long period of time your thyroid hormones are negatively affected, if you restrict your fat intake below a certain point your testosterone/sex hormones are negatively affected. Both are needed to develop significant body recomposition.

I'm guessing that the freedom to eat both carbs and fat free us from either pitfall. I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who has knowledge on this subject.

[DaveMc]

I haven't tried any fad diets, and unfortunately I'm not a nutritional or metabolic scientist, so I can't really answer your question.

It does remind me of something I've been wondering for a while, though: Why isn't the science of nutrition better than it seems to be? I mean, human metabolism is a complex subject, and doing experiments is a lengthy, time-consuming, and messy process (what with all the variability from one human to another), but it doesn't seem like it ought to be beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It seems like we ought to have pretty good information about this stuff, by now, and yet the entire discussion seems to swim in a sea of contradictory information and wild claims. My guess is that the problem is that the well-established facts of nutrition (the ones scientists in the field can all agree on) just aren't very exciting (things like "eat a variety of foods, including some protein and a good amount of fruits and vegetables") compared with the things that reporters like to report ("eat pomegranates and you'll live forever!") If my guess is correct, there's probably a sober body of research out there that we never hear about, and it's one that it would take a lot of effort to get at, because you'd have to read the actual scientific literature; you'd never hear about it in the press.

I do notice, though, how often NoS seems to get me around potential pitfalls without any additional effort on my part. I was recently thinking about the "starvation response" that we're warned about if you eat too little, and I thought, "Well, that's not going to be a problem for me: I'm eating three full meals a day, I'm hardly starving!" It's along the lines of the extreme low-carb or extreme low-fat issue. I guess the key is that it's just moderate, so it's unlikely to put you in the position of causing unexpected problems, like extreme diets might.

[BrightAngel]

I'm not into BodyBuilding, and have almost no interest in that area.
Also, my lifestyle is not conductive to the option of intermittent fasting.
However, I very much enjoy
listening to Brad Pilon and John Baban's weekly podcasts,
especially the ones they do together at "the Phil Life".

Anyway, this podcast makes some extremely interesting comments
about the difficulties of weight-loss Research.
http://blog.adonislifestyle.com/weight- ... explained/

[wosnes]

It does remind me of something I've been wondering for a while, though: Why isn't the science of nutrition better than it seems to be? I mean, human metabolism is a complex subject, and doing experiments is a lengthy, time-consuming, and messy process (what with all the variability from one human to another), but it doesn't seem like it ought to be beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It seems like we ought to have pretty good information about this stuff, by now, and yet the entire discussion seems to swim in a sea of contradictory information and wild claims. My guess is that the problem is that the well-established facts of nutrition (the ones scientists in the field can all agree on) just aren't very exciting (things like "eat a variety of foods, including some protein and a good amount of fruits and vegetables") compared with the things that reporters like to report ("eat pomegranates and you'll live forever!") If my guess is correct, there's probably a sober body of research out there that we never hear about, and it's one that it would take a lot of effort to get at, because you'd have to read the actual scientific literature; you'd never hear about it in the press.

According to Michael Pollan, nutritional science is still pretty much in its infancy. I really don't think there's that much difference between one person and another -- or at least not as much difference as we might like to think. One of the things that make nutrition science so complicated is that when you add or subtract one thing from the diet, by default you decrease or increase something else. So is it the addition or subtraction of the one thing or the decrease or increase of the other that has made a change in health, weight loss or whatever it is that's being studied. OR -- is it something else altogether? The fact that we're omnivores and depending on where we live and our likes and dislikes doesn't help research either.

If you were a koala, you eat eucalyptus. Let's say something else was added to your diet -- blueberries, for instance. If there was a change in health or weight it could easily be attributed to the blueberries. It's not so simple for humans.

Add to that many researchers go into a study with a bias. Ancel Keys, for instance, began the Seven Countries Study believing that high levels of saturated fat in the diet were responsible for elevated cholesterol and heart disease. He found that men on Crete and in Japan ate diets that were low in saturated fat and had low cholesterol levels and low rates of heart disease and other chronic diseases. Americans ate diets high in saturated fats and had high levels of cholesterol and high levels of heart disease. However, he neglected to look at the fact that both the Cretan men and the Japanese men ate far more vegetables, fruits, beans and whole grains than the Americans. In addition, they ate very little in the way of processed foods.

The Mediterranean diet is very healthy, but probably not entirely for the reasons Dr. Keys thought it was healthy.

More recently T Colin Campbell and other researchers from Cornell spent nearly 20 years doing a similar study in China. Supposedly they wondered why the Chinese had much lower rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity than Americans. There were apparently 8,000 "statistically significant correlations," but came to only one conclusion: people who ate the most animal products had the most chronic disease. By the time the book The China Study was published, Dr. Campbell had become associated with a number of doctors who advocate a vegan diet. I'd read several articles about the study about 10 years before the book came was published. While I remember them advocating a plant-based diet, I don't remember a plants-ONLY diet at all.

But then there are populations who eat a lot more meat and are very healthy. So that's probably not the cause of ill health either.

If organically grown fruits and vegetables are compared for nutritional value, supposedly (according to those who promote organics) there is no difference. However, if factory-farmed animal products and pastured-raised products are compared, there is a huge difference in nutrition. The pasture-raised are superior. That being said, factory-farming is the best way to provide the amounts of meat (and dairy and eggs) Americans want in a cost effective manner.

The bottom line: nutrition science is complicated.

[paulawylma]

Here's another piece to the puzzle. I don't remember were I read it, but some reaearchers now believe that whatever the diet or exercise plan you are on that you won't see real or permanent results until you have stayed with the same plan for 3 to 6 months. The idea is that we have so confused our bodies by changing eating and exercise habits every few weeks that our bodies no longer trust what we are telling it until at least 3 months has passed. The more inconsistent we have been with our habits the longer it will take our bodied to believe us. It kinda makes sense and explains the success of No S since it is one plan that is easy to stay on long term.

[DaveMc]

The bottom line: nutrition science is complicated.

Well, I can certainly believe that.

[oolala53]

I'm not sure about specific nutrition science, but if you want to see some scientists backing up the notion of not snacking because of hormonal advantages to 5-6 hours between meals, see any writers on leptin. Of course, they won't recommend S days, but they are not experts in habit.

[paulawylma]

The major problem with nutrition science is that science breaks things down into component parts--but food is more than it's parts. Nutrition today is about protein, cars, fats, fiber, antioxidants, etc, but eating is about food. Michael Pollan said it best: "Eat food. . ."