McDonald’s all day breakfast is coming. This is NOT a drill

[Malthus]

Okay, so what - besides eating slightly less than required by your metabolism and activity level - is actually "realistic" and is "well-guided" from a "systemic point of view" for reducing weight to normal if one happens to be overweight?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Cut sugar consumption drastically.  Just stay away from it.  That's the one substance that your hunger mechanism is completely ill-suited to regulate, and worse still, sugar consumption stimulates further appetite.

Getting rid of excess sugar is good advice. People in general eat way too much sugar, which tends to be hidden in all sorts of processed foods, leads to tooth decay, and excess calories.

However, the so-called "sugar busters diet" is based on a certain amount of pseudoscience - much less the claim that this is somehow more "realistic" and "well guided" than simply keeping note of what you eat.

http://www.betterhealthusa.com/public/252.cfm

http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/sugar-busters-diet?page=2

However, nutritionists argue that their claim that sugar is toxic to the body is complete nonsense and that, although sugar has no nutritional value and counts as 'empty calories', it is in no way toxic. They also argue that this diet, although it has its advantages, cuts out far too many nutrients that are essential to our health, as well as healthy foods like potatoes and bread. There are also concerns about the high levels of protein encouraged in this diet. A review and analysis was carried out on the diet, led by UK Professor of Medicine and Clinical Nutrition at the College of Medicine, James Anderson, M.D. The study was published in The Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Anderson stated that Sugar Busters was one of several diets that condoned "...almost double the recommended daily allowance" of protein. He went on to say that: "This high protein load may lead to kidney damage."

Dieters that have tried this eating plan have given mixed reviews. Many said that the diet was easy to follow and provided them with plenty of energy as well as promoting a feeling of being full. However, on the downside, many dieters stated that the plan was difficult to stick to on a long-term basis, and could be quite time-consuming trying to find out about hidden sugars in everyday foods.

In summary - it is just another fad diet being peddled as the 'one true way' (of which there are many). Like all the others, it can work, but it basically "works" exactly the same way as they generally do - by cutting down calories. 

[DGuller]

Did I say anything about "sugar busters" diet?  Nice job demolishing that strawman.  I have no idea why cutting out cola, fruit juices, or cakes should deprive you of bread. 

[Malthus]

Did I say anything about "sugar busters" diet?  Nice job demolishing that strawman.  I have no idea why cutting out cola, fruit juices, or cakes should deprive you of bread. 

Did you not read what was posted? The "sugar busters diet" is based on the claims you made, which are identified as pseudoscientific: namely, that cutting out sugar is the best diet method (because of "science"), and that there is, therefore, no need to "count calories", as amount of calories consumed is claimed not to be the key to weight gain or loss - cutting out sugar is because of "science" (ignoring the fact that the diet they then construct in effect restructs calories).

The fact that the authors then construct a whole diet around this (and one that is not necessarily internal consistent) is an irrelevance. It is the reasoning behind that diet which is dismissed - the actual diet, as identified, has its pros and cons (as do all such diets). Namely, that it is "scientific fact" that, because of how the human metabolism works, cutting sugars, not counting calories, is the "key" to weight loss.

Sure, some people argue that - as do the authors of this diet - but it would appear not to be widely accepted: it is just another bit of faddish food pseudoscience. Of which there is, literally, dozens of examples circulating - all intent on proving that they, and no others, have *the* secret to weight loss.

The truth: almost any diet will "work" if you stick with it.

[DGuller]

The point is that "sticking with it" is an essential part of any diet, and not an external factor like you make it sound.  A diet that works but requires a superhuman effort to stick with it really doesn't work in general.

As for the origins of advice to cut sugar, I'm really not interested in continuing a debate where I'm assigned an argument, and the focus switches to me having to distance myself from it.

[crazy canuck]

I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat.  People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.

[Malthus]

The point is that "sticking with it" is an essential part of any diet, and not an external factor like you make it sound.  A diet that works but requires a superhuman effort to stick with it really doesn't work in general.

As for the origins of advice to cut sugar, I'm really not interested in continuing a debate where I'm assigned an argument, and the focus switches to me having to distance myself from it.

Why is it a "superhuman effort" to cut one's food intake to slightly below one's daily requirement - but not a "superhuman effort" to completely cut sugar from one's diet? Sugar is in practically everything.

I'll tell you ths - it isn't hunger that makes dieting hard, it is habits. If you want a really sugar-free diet, you have to prepare practically everything yourself from raw ingredients, which is waaay harder than simply eating slightly less (something in my experience not really all that hard to do). 

[DGuller]

I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat.  People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.

Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort.  Humans are what they are, willpower and all.

[crazy canuck]

I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat.  People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.

Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort.  Humans are what they are, willpower and all.

I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less.  I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try.  In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.

[Malthus]

I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat.  People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.

Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort.  Humans are what they are, willpower and all.

I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less.  I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try.  In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.

Particularly if they come to believe that meaningfully losing weight requires eating no sugar.   

[crazy canuck]

I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat.  People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.

Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort.  Humans are what they are, willpower and all.

I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less.  I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try.  In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.

Particularly if they come to believe that meaningfully losing weight requires eating no sugar.   

Agreed

[Barrister]

I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat.  People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.

Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort.  Humans are what they are, willpower and all.

I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less.  I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try.  In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.

You have this bizarre notion that fat people don't realize that they are fat. 

Of course they know they are fat.  All they have to do is look in a mirror.  Even if their friends and family are also fat, all they have to do is look at TV, movies, magazines, the internet - to be shown non-stop depictions of skinny people.

And they do try.  I'm sure you've heard the phrase yo-yo dieting.  They've tried diet after diet.  They've lost weight for a time... only to see it creep back.

[crazy canuck]

I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat.  People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.

Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort.  Humans are what they are, willpower and all.

I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less.  I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try.  In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.

You have this bizarre notion that fat people don't realize that they are fat. 

I refer you back to the study that kicked this conversation off that parents of about 4 out of more than 200 obese kids thought their kids were over weight. 

[DGuller]

You have this bizarre notion that fat people don't realize that they are fat. 

They may realize that their BMI is high, but they may think that they're built like linebackers, that the extra weight looks good on them, or some other excuse that would make BMI not applicable to their situation.

Of course they know they are fat.  All they have to do is look in a mirror.

Mirrors don't actually work that well when the observer is also the observed.  People have a great capacity for delusion or denial.

And they do try.  I'm sure you've heard the phrase yo-yo dieting.  They've tried diet after diet.  They've lost weight for a time... only to see it creep back.

But yes, many people do try, and most fail.

[Eddie Teach]

The minimum speed I recomend to catch your breath is 6 MPH, and only for about a quarter mile, because longer than that might affect negatively your knees and anckles. And 6 MPH breath catching should only be after you are done with your first two miles at combat speed.

As I recall from when you've posted your test results, 6 mph is about your normal pace. I don't know where you're getting this shit about slowing down to that after sprinting for 2 miles. Sure, if you're Roger Bannister.

Also, I doubt 6 mph is harder on the knees than 7-10 mph.

[Siege]

Negatron. My average speed right now is 7 MPH. My combat speed (2 miles) is 8 MPH, and my spring speed is 9 to 10 MPH, but I cannot sustain it for longer than a quater mile at a time.

6 MPH is way too slow (10 minutes per mile), so it is not a winning deal. Not to mention, the slower you run the more weight you put on your knees.