Running Formula reader wrote:
Recommended reading for people on this thread.
http://running.competitor.com/2014/04/nutrition/5-signs-diet-diet-cult_100749As for peanut butter, I prefer almond butter. :)
ALMOND butter?!?
You smug little fad-food lover...Cultist! Burn witch burn!!!
Running Formula reader wrote:
Recommended reading for people on this thread.
http://running.competitor.com/2014/04/nutrition/5-signs-diet-diet-cult_100749As for peanut butter, I prefer almond butter. :)
Matt Fitzgerald is an English major. Lovely chap that I'm sure he is, he spouts utter nonsense such as:
"The effect of a food on hunger is determined primarily by its volume and only secondarily by its calories." Racing weight, p102.
Iron War is one of my favourite books but everything else he has ever written should be ignored. I see he has a new book out. The very thought that it exists makes me a bit angry.
moose nipples wrote:
Person A
2300 kcal/day
Carbs:60% Protein:20% Fat:20%(sat fat 6%)
Person B
2300 kcal/day
Carbs:40% Protein:20% Fat:40%(sat fat 10%)
Both people exercise in moderation 4 times per week, but are not athletes. Both people eat a nutrient rich high fiber diet of whole foods.
Please explain why person B will get more fat than person A.
Under such controlled conditions, there will be no significant difference between the weight and/or fat gain or loss between the two. This is certainly true. A few minor caveats:
It has been demonstrated that saturated fat is stored more readily than unsaturated fat, and unsat fat more readily oxidized for energy. However, this is fairly minor, and if these two are not eating more calories than burning, it won't make a big difference (though could make a small difference in fat storage).
The possible point of the other poster was:
Fat calories have over twice the calories per gram as do carbs. Therefore, for some people, it's easier to overeat fat (if they are looking at portion size). (OTOH, fat also often comes with protein, which helps with satiety)
Secondly, if one is overeating calories (but this is not the case in your example), excess carb intake at least can initially be "dealt with" two ways prior to a major effect on fat storage: A) those carbs above energy needs are stored as glycogen, B) the body up regulates carb oxidation.
With excess calories come from dietary fat, fat storage is the immediate result. And fat burning is not up regulated as quickly. However, over the long term, excess carb or fat calories will result basically in similar fat storage because with excess carb intake, fat burning plummets and there is some carb to fat conversion.
I'm afraid you missed my point.
I was not suggesting that anyone should blindly believe this article.
But do you think it is healthy to demonize a whole group of food or nutrients, to claim that one diet is the "absolute best" for everyone, or to use fear to recruit new converts? Is it healthy to be emotionally attached to their diet like so many people on this thread seem to be?
I didn't demonize peanut butter, not did I try to convert anyone with fear. I simply stated I prefer almond butter. I am agnostic in diet, just like in everything else.
yes it's very hard to take away much from an anonymous, uncontrolled, not well documented anecdote. All I will say is:
1) it sounds like you improved your diet in several ways other than just adding fat
2) who knows what effect your lactose intolerance was having on your nutrient absorption
3) Adding nuts, avocado, and olive oil is all good. Positive effects of MUFA and PUFA, and micronutrients. higher fat diets high in UNsat fats (as opposed to sat fats) tend to have positive impacts on cholesterol numbers
4) while your numbers do look good (very low ldl, obviously excellent total/ldl ratio), it is still uncertain how positive it is to raise your HDL as you did. Read this:
But yes, nuts, avocado, olive oil, excellent choices. And back to the OP: Peanuts and peanut butter fit the nutrition profile of those foods.
Yes your points are fine and I have no problem with them. I just got carried away because I really, really dislike it when Matt Fitz tries to do science. That article in particular you linked is basically Matt just creating a bunch of strawmen. He's a douchebag.
Um, on the off-chance that you're actually Matt Fitzgerald I apolgise for calling you a douchebag because that's just rude. I thoroughly dislike that article though.
UK Limey runner wrote:
Yes your points are fine and I have no problem with them. I just got carried away because I really, really dislike it when Matt Fitz tries to do science. That article in particular you linked is basically Matt just creating a bunch of strawmen. He's a douchebag.
Take everything you said and apply to it to Gary Taubes...x 1000...and that's the truth about him and how I feel about him. But I think you already knew this (problem is, Gary's audience is a million x larger than Matt's. I've never read Matt, so I can't comment)
UK Limey runner wrote:
"The effect of a food on hunger is determined primarily by its volume and only secondarily by its calories." Racing weight, p102.
How is that not true? Drink lots of water and you'll feel less hungry, even if it's only for a few minutes.
At the risk of sounding a bit creepy I was actually thinking about you during my run yesterday my man. The penny finally dropped; it is no wonder you get a bit defensive/aggressive sometimes given that you get a bunch of people with no formal certification (myself included) harping on about nutrition on this board when you yourself actually have some credentials.
I'm not sure that Taubes' audience is so large compared to Matt's but I understand where you are coming from. I have time for Taubes (reading another of his books right now) but won't deny the potential conflict given that both our backgrounds are physics and hence my objectivity could be questioned.
I'd be interested in chatting with you further. Perhaps we could start a thread where we discuss our perspectives without getting drawn into tiresome debates about sat fat, cholesterol, atherosclerosis/CVD and other such things. My interest is in setting practical advice that helps people. I imagine you have similar goals.
But not tonight. For today I bombed during a marathon workout and am hitting the red wine. And it's not for the resveratrol.
P.s. For the OP. Eat your PB! 'Healthy' is relative and there are far, far worse things you can eat than peanut butter.
Randy Oldman wrote:
UK Limey runner wrote:"The effect of a food on hunger is determined primarily by its volume and only secondarily by its calories." Racing weight, p102.
How is that not true? Drink lots of water and you'll feel less hungry, even if it's only for a few minutes.
If living organisms did not exactly balance their energy expenditure with their energy intake, they would die.
Gnomebe wrote:
20 POSTS AND NOBODY MENTIONED PB IS LOADED WITH HYDROGINATED OILS. MAN. MORONS YOU ARE>
Your mom is loaded with hydrogenated oils.
Haha this guy. 8/10.
moose nipples wrote:
Person A
2300 kcal/day
Carbs:60% Protein:20% Fat:20%(sat fat 6%)
Person B
2300 kcal/day
Carbs:40% Protein:20% Fat:40%(sat fat 10%)
Both people exercise in moderation 4 times per week, but are not athletes. Both people eat a nutrient rich high fiber diet of whole foods.
Please explain why person B will get more fat than person A.
1. It's stupid to call all carbohydrates "carbs". Oatmeal is not the same as table sugar.
2. High fat leads easily to more calories. Fat has more than twice the calories per gram.
3. Carbohydrates have a thermic effect. Fat is stored a little bit more efficiently.
UK Limey runner wrote:
"The effect of a food on hunger is determined primarily by its volume and only secondarily by its calories." Racing weight, p102.
It's much more complicated than that.
UK Limey runner wrote:
I'm not sure that Taubes' audience is so large compared to Matt's but I understand where you are coming from. I have time for Taubes (reading another of his books right now) but won't deny the potential conflict given that both our backgrounds are physics and hence my objectivity could be
Stop reading Gary Taubes. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImWYirF0esThat is the first video of total 17 videos about Gary Taubes.
fguy1 wrote:
moose nipples wrote:Person A
2300 kcal/day
Carbs:60% Protein:20% Fat:20%(sat fat 6%)
Person B
2300 kcal/day
Carbs:40% Protein:20% Fat:40%(sat fat 10%)
Both people exercise in moderation 4 times per week, but are not athletes. Both people eat a nutrient rich high fiber diet of whole foods.
Please explain why person B will get more fat than person A.
1. It's stupid to call all carbohydrates "carbs". Oatmeal is not the same as table sugar.
2. High fat leads easily to more calories. Fat has more than twice the calories per gram.
3. Carbohydrates have a thermic effect. Fat is stored a little bit more efficiently.
I love to argue, but the thing is that I bet what the two of us eat is very similar.
I just have an extra tbsp of olive oil and 18 more almonds
and you have an extra cup of sweet potato and 1/2 cup more steel cut oats.
It's the depressed obese T2DM guy living on corndogs soaked in Everclear that I'm worried about.
fguy1 wrote:
Stop reading Gary Taubes. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImWYirF0esThat is the first video of total 17 videos about Gary Taubes.
I'm not sure I want to spend any time listening to material from a vegan (he/she may not be, it's just my assumption giving that they are a vegan apologist). A vegan agenda clouds judgement.
fguy1 wrote:
UK Limey runner wrote:"The effect of a food on hunger is determined primarily by its volume and only secondarily by its calories." Racing weight, p102.
It's much more complicated than that.
Of course it is. That was my point as to why one should be weary of material written by Matt, despite the well-intentioned and nice chap that I'm sure he is.
Omg I can't believe I watched your link. He took 11 minutes to make two points against Taubes. The first insulting him for calling out Dean Ornish for reducing the Atkins diet to pork rinds despite an early edition of Atkins' book containing references to pork rinds, and then a rant about how Banting only achieved weight loss to the point of a BMI of 28 at the time he wrote his letter on corpulence. He finishes the video by mocking the photograph on the front of the book GCBC and pretending it's some kind of killer blow for goodness sake.
I browsed his blog too. The man's a rambling quack. I'll shove broccoli up my ass before I'll be watching any more of those videos.