It is also noteworthy that “overweight” is NOT synonymous with “unhealthy”. The only effective diet is the one our mothers told us: EAT YOUR DAMN VEGETABLES. Why? Human bodies cannot break strong molecular bonds, but plants can. Plants break tightly bonded nutrient molecules apart, therefore we eat the plants and we get those nutrients in a useable form.

Everything we do at a cellular level produces acids as a byproduct. Weak acids are expelled through the lungs in the form of CO2. The body needs minerals to buffer strong acids which cannot be expelled this way. These acids MUST be buffered so that they do not damage sensitive tissue on their way out. Many of these stronger acids are a result of eating excess protein, which has a negative energy impact from intake beyond the threshold of bodily need. That means we use up more resources trying to get rid of what we don’t need than we get from eating them in the first place.

So what happens when the body’s natural mineral reserves run out? If we don’t get enough natural sodium and minerals from vegetables, then the body starts taking useable buffers from other places, namely the bones. Osteoperosis, anyone? We’ve all heard the story of the little old lady who fell and broke her hip. The truth is, the bones of her hip, porous from being robbed of calcium over the course of years, gave way under the pressure of supporting her body weight and broke, causing her to fall.

We evolved eating diversely, so all-vegetarian diets are not without their problems, but raw veggies should be your primary intake, at least 60% — achieve the vegetable discipline, and you will not overeat. You won’t get hunger signals from your body if you are giving it what it really needs.

From my experience I don’t lose that much with diets other than atkins. I don’t binge eat protein with atkins, I follow the low calories diet while on atkins… I eat only protein rich and nutritious low carb food while still maintaining a lower calorie diet.

What I realize with atkins is that… Yes it’s true. You do burn fat. I mean you do burn fat directly.

While on atkins, I maintain an energy level equal or, I dare say, even greater than carb rich diets. My theory is that fat is constantly being burned that I actually have continuous energy being delivered to the bloodstream. It’s like a constant burning of fat and immediately using them.

Note* I exercise with a regime similar to marathon training while on atkins and I never really felt the need to eat carbs to fuel me up.

This is basically speculation, but I’m wondering if the proportion of calories actually absorbed is different. I know that high fiber foods can reduce the absorption of micronutrients. Might the absorption of macronutrients (and therefore actual calories absorbed) be similarly reduced by dietary fiber?

And then there’s the question of whether the calorie content of the fiber itself is included in those figures. If the calorie count is derived from burning the food and measuring the resulting temperature change in a fixed volume of water, the result is going to be a calorie count that includes the energy stored in the fiber, and those calories are definitely not absorbed. There are, apparently, standard corrections for that, but I don’t know how accurate they are.

First just wanted to say thanks for the great SGU podcast. The combination of SGU, Carl Sagan, and Richard Dawkins have changed my world view for the better.

Until recently, I would have been one of those people that said “Well, it worked for me”. Under the care of a endocrinologist (I’m type 2) and dietitian, I went on a protein-sparing modified fast and lost about 50 pounds within a few months. I was thrilled. I was able to discontinue most of my meds, other than metformin, and I felt great. Over the last couple of years though, I have gained back about 20 pounds, even though I have been mindful of my calorie intake on a daily basis, so I have to agree with you: Diets don’t work in the long term.

Now, this has left me disappointed and confused and I don’t seem to be able to find consensus in the scientific community regarding the best way to maintain long term weight loss. The physicist in me says a calorie is a calorie, but my anecdotal experience seems to tell me otherwise. If I eat 1500 calories worth of decent food (complex carbs, protein, lower fat) versus 1500 calories worth of junk food, I seem to get better results from the former. Do you feel that there is no advantage, in terms of weight loss, from consuming the same amount of calories from decent food versus junk food? Does being diabetic change the answer to the question?

Thanks.

Only the first two weeks of the diet, Phase I, are basically without carbs, fruit, etc. Phase II reintroduces plenty of carbs, but they are low GI carbs. SB keeps you away from processed, simple carbs that turn to sugar right away. Multigrain breads, low GI fruits, etc are encouraged. Protein is provided by small portions of meat. The fats recommended are Omega 3s, olive oils, etc. The calorie reduction comes from not feeling hungry. Low GI foods take longer to digest.

There is nothing hoakie about it. Just look at the recipes in the book, they are healthy and balanced. Simply put, SB is about staying away from processed and eating the most elemental foods as possible. It even says in the book, the bigger the better. Whole grains versus enriched white bread, whole apples rather than juice.

Finally, what I like about SB is it teaches you how to eat and how keep the weight off. The author of the original book now has one out that includes how to incorporate exercise, because he recognizes exercise is key as well.

I am not a shill, really. (s) Like miconian, I just don’t want to see it misrepresented, because I think it can really benefit people.

I’m not an advocate of South Beach in particular. But in general, you seem to be working with a straw man assumption that people who go on low-carb diets believe that there is something magical about calories from low-carb foods that make it take more of them to add up to a pound of excess body fat. Please give at least some of the dieters a little more credit. The idea is that eating a low-carb diet keeps your insulin under control, which leads to fewer pangs of “hunger” when you aren’t really hungry, which, yes, leads to fewer calories. I’m sure that there are plenty of people following low-carb diets who don’t understand this, and simply make the link between low-carb and weight loss. But their error is in being reductive, not in getting the whole picture wrong.

The problem here is that there are reductive statements happening on both sides of the argument. Yes, calories are what matter at the end of the day, and yes, all foods contain calories. And yet, it’s also true that nobody is going to get fat from eating raw apples. An apple contains calories, and a brownie contains calories. But one of them is going to leave you feeling fuller and take your body a while to break down, while the other is going to dissolve in your stomach right away and leave you feeling hungrier than you did before you ate it. For someone who has managed to “detox” from their sugar cravings and shifted to snacking on apples, then yes, of course it’s infuriating to hear someone tell them that weight loss is really just a matter of calories and portion control. Portion control is much easier with some foods than with others.

The second point contains ‘could’ and ‘somehow’; you’d have to point to a plausible mechanism to back up this theory.