Post: #26

So then... Here's my cost-benefit analysis.

Benefits:

• Reduces anxiety
• Reduces depression
• Promotes happiness
• Improves concentration
• Staves off Parkinson's, Alzheimer's
• Lowers blood pressure
• Reduces oxidative stress/inflammation
• Reduces high cholesterol
• Burns fat
• Builds muscle
  

Drawbacks:

• May possibly, according to two studies that conflict with tons of other studies, increase your risk of prostate cancer.
  

Yeah, I'll take my chances.
12 grams of fish oil a day for life, yo.

Post: #27

I agree that the study can't draw any conclusions about the cause of higher prostate cancer rates but it's interesting to see so many people say, "well, I'm going to continue taking my supps because the benefits outweigh the risks and this study sucks anyway". Are the studies showing benefits of Omega-3's that are really any more conclusive? As far as I can tell, the data is very conflicting. Some studies show no benefit at all. Indonesia has a very high incidence of heart disease but I'm pretty sure they eat plenty of fish.

Plenty of studies show that higher cholesterol doesn't mean higher incidence of heart disease and if you look at countries' data, the relationship is questionable.

Every few months a new study comes out showing the exact opposite of what the last study showed. And every couple of years, one of them hits the media and then it's propagated throughout the world by writer's who don't question it or even worse don't understand it and retell the story differently. Then everyone jumps on the bandwagon until another study hits the media saying the opposite.

Butter is bad for you. Oops, no, wait, margarine is bad, butter is ok. Fat is bad for you. Oops, no it's fine. Ad nauseum.

Now we see everyone jumping on the low carb thing. It's amazing to see that the the world is so stupid. I've had people tell me that calories have nothing to do with losing weight and that, even if you halve your calorie intake, if you're still eating carbs, you will gain weight - EVEN IF YOU'RE BURNING MORE CALORIES THAN YOU TAKE IN. Carbs make you sick with disease, (I guess that's why Japanese people live the longest - cause they eat no carbs, right? Oh, they also happen to be pretty much the thinnest country on the planet. Yup, those carbs sure are horrible.) Here's a link showing a map of carb consumption by country. Notice that the US and Australia have the lowest in the world. Aren't they the two fattest countries in the world? Do they live longer than the Japanese? How anyone can look at this and still hold on to the belief that carbs make you fat or make you unhealthy is mind-boggling.

People are being brainwashed because they appeal to authority (the media and book writers like Tim Ferriss) like they are gods and because they don't have the analytical skills (or simply don't want to take the time) to question what's handed down to them. They just swallow it whole cuz they read it in a book somewhere. Even IN the Four Hour Body, Tim gives an example of a diet he put one of his clients on, and if you add up all the calories, you'll see that the guy lost weight because he was a big man surviving on about 1100 calories a day. Yes, 1100 calories a day! Go and look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Then go look at the discussion boards with people saying they are doing the diet but aren't losing weight. Then come tell me how avoiding carbs makes any sense. Will avoiding carbs help you live longer? Who the hell knows for sure. Common sense doesn't suggest it at the moment but it's possible. I'll tell you one thing, carbs has very little affect on whether you will lose or gain weight. It's all in the total calories, period.

Anyway, the truth is, whether it's carbs, or omega-3's or cholesterol or fat or whatever, even the best scientists don't know much about how it all works together and how it will affect you in the long run.

Smoking is about the only thing that has insurmountable evidence showing an early death.

Post: #28

(07-12-2013 02:34 AM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  I'll tell you one thing, carbs has very little affect on whether you will lose or gain weight. It's all in the total calories, period.

I agree with a lot of the sentiment of your post, but this is just patently wrong. Carbohydrates, fat, and protein all have drastically different metabolic effects on your body. Despite the fact that all of them ultimately can be turned into glucose by your body (in varying efficiencies), your body uses and is affected by triglycerides, amino acids/proteins, and dietary sugars/starches in very, very different ways.

Carb restriction and a low glycemic load diet is the way to go, for fat loss. This is prettymuch indisputable.

Post: #29

@ImmoralPsychology: Carbs are fine if you're working out:

Quote:Insulin resistance and obesity‐25% of the population isinsulin resistant, a condition where the
pancreas oversecretes insulin to maintain normal blood levels of glucose after a
carbohydrate‐dense meal. This oversecretion theoretically causes carbohydrate to be
stored as body fat. While this may be true for sedentary populations, it is not the case
with athletes and other active populations. Exercise makes cells more sensitive to
insulin and insulin triggers receptors to help glucose enter the cell and replenish
glycogen stores.

TL;DR: Don't overconsume carbs if you're not exercising regularly, otherwise, go for it. The caloric content is something to watch out for, however, if you're aiming to lose weight

Post: #30

(07-12-2013 02:50 AM)Ziltoid Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 02:34 AM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  I'll tell you one thing, carbs has very little affect on whether you will lose or gain weight. It's all in the total calories, period.

I agree with a lot of the sentiment of your post, but this is just patently wrong. Carbohydrates, fat, and protein all have drastically different metabolic effects on your body. Despite the fact that all of them ultimately can be turned into glucose by your body (in varying efficiencies), your body uses and is affected by triglycerides, amino acids/proteins, and dietary sugars/starches in very, very different ways.

Carb restriction and a low glycemic load diet is the way to go, for fat loss. This is prettymuch indisputable.

Indisputable? I just did. LOL

It's true if you believe it is though.

However, you disagree with my statement, "I'll tell you one thing, carbs has very little affect on whether you will lose or gain weight. It's all in the total calories, period" but you didn't really say what part of it you disagree with.

When I say that calories are all that really matter for losing weight, I am not saying that you can forgo a normal diet that includes veggies and fruit and meat and drink vegetable oil as your only source of food and remain healthy. I'm saying that if you having been eating W amount of X, Y and Z and maintaining your weight with that, if you reduce your amount by 1/3 of X, Y and Z (keeping the same balance), you will lose weight. There is not one study in the world that has proven me wrong on this.

Whether the macros have different effects on your body or not is irrelevant. The question is whether or not eating less of what you already eat will result in weight loss, and it will (assuming your energy expenditure stays the same).

If you can find me a study where people ate fewer calories and gained weight (not water weight, I'm talking muscle and/or fat), then please show it to me. I'm very interested in how these people managed to change the laws of physics.

I've had this argument before and the only thing that ends up happening, each and every time, is that the other person says it's "indisputable" but never backs it up with data.

Trust me. This low-carb thing is a fad and it will eventually go away and be replaced by another fad at some point. Not any time soon though, from what I can tell. LOL

Post: #31

Of course gross calories are an important factor in the equation, just as important as your macronutrient ratios, I wasn't disputing that; you obviously can't eat massive quantities of fat and protein and still expect to lose weight.
I don't really see how I was advocating some "low-carb thing" or buying into any fad... My statement was simple; a low-carb diet is superior for fat loss. And, it is, plain and simple.
If you're not merely being contrarian and are actually interested in the science of why that is so, read up on ketosis.

Notice that I said fat loss, by the way... I didn't say weight loss... A high carb and low protein/fat diet (coupled with caloric restriction) will certainly enable you to lose weight, primarily, muscle weight.
Consult your nearest vegan to see an extreme of where that sort of diet leads... Skinnyfatness.

In fairness, a moderate to high carb diet is extremely beneficial in certain instances. If you're an endurance athlete like a marathon runner, you'll need to take in truly massive quantities of carbohydrates to maintain & replenish your glycogen stores. If you're a strength athlete or a bodybuilder, sufficient carb intake is similarly important for glycogen function, as well as insulin levels which is one of your body's most important means of repairing and gaining lean mass.

Post: #32

Ah, so we are not really disagreeing so much after all. Without an explanation, I was left to assume that you meant the same thing I've heard a million times over - that eating carbs make you fat regardless of caloric intake. That's just flat out wrong. And its inverse, that if you avoid carbs, you can eat any amount of calories without losing weight. Also flat out wrong.

Your post is the first reasonable one I've seen from a low-carb advocate.

Now here's the thing. You point out that you might lose more fat with low-carb. And that may or may not be true. But you can accomplish the same thing by continuing a balanced diet and working out. Plenty of people get down to below 10% and eat plenty of carbs. One *may* be more effective, but how much more? Is it worth giving up all the deliciousness of carbs just to lose your fat 10% faster? The fastest sprinter is faster than the 2nd fastest, sure, but it's only by 0.01 second. Overall, the difference is small and it only counts at the most elite levels.

By my original statement still stands. It's calorie reduction that takes off the weight. Low-carb or not, you're reducing calories whether you realize it or not. This is really all I'm saying as my main point and my second point is simply that even if low-carb were to prove a slight bit more effective at losing fat faster, is the difference significant? A fat guy takes six month to lose weight on low-cal but can eat anything he wants. Another fat guy can lose the same weight on low-carb (which is also low-cal, btw) and do it in five months - but he has to give up a whole whack of foods he loves and is surrounded by daily. The latter sounds a lot rougher to me.

What is frustrating is that people DO believe that ANY amount of carbs will make you fat. They believe horseshit like "starvation mode will make you gain weight if you reduce calories!" (it doesn't -- see Minnesota study). They believe what time you eat matters (it doesn't), they believe eating small meals matters (it doesn't). There is so much misinformation out there. Can't blame 'em for believing it the first time they hear it - after all we can't go around looking up the original studies on every piece of news we get - but when someone points out to them that it's not what it's cracked up to be and shows them why, and they STILL choose to ignore it and repeat the same dumb shit over and over again... Damn, that's frustrating to see.

The absolute fastest way to lose fat is to take a knife and cut it out. Doesn't make it the healthiest way to do so and it sounds pretty unpleasant.

Post: #33

what a bullshit article

Post: #34

(07-11-2013 05:22 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Is it just me or does "Omega-3 Fatty Acid" almost sound like it could be a username on the forum?

Post: #35

I want to change my name to "Alpha X Hamster Acid"

Post: #36

(07-12-2013 04:30 AM)ImmoralPsychology Wrote:  Now here's the thing. You point out that you might lose more fat with low-carb. And that may or may not be true. But you can accomplish the same thing by continuing a balanced diet and working out. Plenty of people get down to below 10% and eat plenty of carbs. One *may* be more effective, but how much more? Is it worth giving up all the deliciousness of carbs just to lose your fat 10% faster? The fastest sprinter is faster than the 2nd fastest, sure, but it's only by 0.01 second. Overall, the difference is small and it only counts at the most elite levels.

By my original statement still stands. It's calorie reduction that takes off the weight. Low-carb or not, you're reducing calories whether you realize it or not. This is really all I'm saying as my main point and my second point is simply that even if low-carb were to prove a slight bit more effective at losing fat faster, is the difference significant? A fat guy takes six month to lose weight on low-cal but can eat anything he wants. Another fat guy can lose the same weight on low-carb (which is also low-cal, btw) and do it in five months - but he has to give up a whole whack of foods he loves and is surrounded by daily. The latter sounds a lot rougher to me.

Extremely low carb diets are only really a consideration for competitive bodybuilders and fitness models who want to get into the low single digit bodyfat ranges (~6%), but managing the amount and type of carbs in your diet is a consideration that everyone should be concerned with to some degree.
It's ultimately an important tradeoff; it's not only that eating X amount of carbs is necessarily a bad thing in all cases, it's that within a given caloric intake range you're necessarily displacing some amount of fat and protein to make room for said carbs. Dietary fat is extremely important for your body's ability to create anabolic hormones, and dietary protein is likewise important for your muscle's synthetic protein requirements... Carbs, on the other hand, purely provide a source of calories and help your body most efficiently replenish muscle/liver glycogen and secrete insulin (both of which are primarily a pre/post workout concern, something Architekt's post above kind of alluded to).

A person taking in X amount of calories comprised excessively of carbs will have very different results in losing fat, maintaining a lean body composition, or gaining muscle in the gym compared to somebody taking in an optimal macronutrient ratio.

On a related note, another of the biggest advantages that low carb diets offer for fat loss, is that they maintain muscle mass to a much greater degree; during normal caloric deficiency your body will actually preferentially burn muscle as a source of calories over fat, whereas in a ketogenic diet the opposite is true and fat is prioritized to be burned over muscle.

Would you rather throw a substantial amount of muscle out the window in the process of losing fat, and take longer to do so, or lose more fat more quickly while also largely maintaining your existing muscle mass? I'd hardly say that's a difficult choice...

In addition to the athletic and cosmetic considerations, there are also health considerations. Managing your blood sugar and insulin levels, though hugely overlooked by most, are very important to your health and longevity.
High carb diets, outside of certain contexts, wreak utter havoc on your body. They induce oxidative stress, inflammation, and glycation everywhere in your body, which leads to visceral fat accumulation, heart disease, premature aging, and even to metabolic syndrome and diabetes in extreme instances...
Excessive carb intake in the Western diet is the main reason that America is a nation of weak, diabetic fatasses.

If you're curious where I'm getting this from, this article is a good starting point.
http://www.brinkzone.com/nutritional-sci...-calories/

Quote:Not all calories are created equal, macro nutrient ratios matter, and there’s profound effects from simple changes in those macro nutrient ratios on body comp, and tracking changes in fat vs. weight is what actually matters…

...

"The results suggest that overeating low protein diets may increase fat deposition leading to loss of lean body mass despite lesser increases in body weight."

Here's two really good and well referenced articles on the health considerations of low vs. high glycemic load diets.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2012/feb2...ges_01.htm
https://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2011/ss2...ges_01.htm

Post: #37

I just posted this over at Futurepundit:

"71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer"

What are we talking about in absolute terms? In other words, I could say that, instead of 1.7 out of 10,000 (0.017%) being inflicted with high-grade prostate cancer, 2.9 out of 10,000 (0.029%) men now are who had consumed Omega 3 fatty acids. This is a significant increase in relative terms, but in absolute terms, only one additional male is affected by fish-oil supplementation out of a male population of 10,000 souls. I'd take this risk if my chances of heart disease and other inflammatory diseases are significantly reduced, wouldn't you?

I'm always skeptical of these studies when they only cite relative changes and not absolute. My guess is that less that the number of actual individuals who are deletriously affected by Omega 3 supplementation is low.

Where's the critical analysis, Randall?

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/009138.html

Post: #38

(07-12-2013 08:40 AM)PUA_Rachacha Wrote:  I just posted this over at Futurepundit:

"71 percent increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer"

What are we talking about in absolute terms? In other words, I could say that, instead of 1.7 out of 10,000 (0.017%) being inflicted with high-grade prostate cancer, 2.9 out of 10,000 (0.029%) men now are who had consumed Omega 3 fatty acids. This is a significant increase in relative terms, but in absolute terms, only one additional male is affected by fish-oil supplementation out of a male population of 10,000 souls. I'd take this risk if my chances of heart disease and other inflammatory diseases are significantly reduced, wouldn't you?

I'm always skeptical of these studies when they only cite relative changes and not absolute. My guess is that less that the number of actual individuals who are deletriously affected by Omega 3 supplementation is low.

Where's the critical analysis, Randall?

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/009138.html

Always something to keep in mind. I noticed that about 20 years ago. The rarely tell you the absolute risk. People don't care though. They focus on the words "better", "worse", "x times" and that's about all.

Post: #39

I remember reading somewhere that all men will develop prostate cancer eventually if they live long enough, so perhaps the correlation is due to the health benefits of omega-3 oils causing people to not die of other things?

Post: #40

You dont have to worry about Omega 3. There are other natural alternatives that are good for the heart and circulation. For example, garlic, grapes and cayenne pepper just to name a few contain components that lower blood pressure and possess other health benefits.