Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
by Frederick C. Hatfield, Ph.D. Convention has it that there are three ways to lose weight: 1) dehydration, 2) fat loss, and 3) lean muscle weight loss. Fat loss is the ONLY acceptable route for you. Dehydration is never healthy or acceptable, and losing lean muscle is totally counter to everything that a healthy, fitness-oriented lifestyle stands for. According to the same conventional wisdom, fat loss can only be accomplished three ways: 1) with aerobic exercise, 2) through reduced caloric intake or 3) through a combination of the two.
Carb cycling works, the question is “why?”. I have successfully used it to drop from 9% to 7% bodyfat without a loss of any muscle mass. With carb cycling it appears you get the rapid fat loss of a low-carb diet and the ability to drop your bodyfat to a very low level without cannibalizing muscle mass or without the many other drawbacks associated with a low-carb diet.
A recent study showed just how chronic dieting can turn someone into a food addict. Bad news for yo-yo dieters this week: according to a recent study, cycles of feast and famine can create fast-food junkies–at least in rodents. The researchers put rats on a cyclic diet of 5 days of standard rat chow, followed by 2 days of the equivalent of rat fast food (high fat, high sugar, highly delicious). In other words, a compressed version of most dieters' swings between self-control and indulgence.
Food waste contributes to excess consumption of freshwater and fossil fuels which, along with methane and CO 2 emissions from decomposing food, impacts global climate change. Here, we calculate the energy content of nationwide food waste from the difference between the US food supply and the food consumed by the population. The latter was estimated using a validated mathematical model of metabolism relating body weight to the amount of food eaten. We found that US per capita food waste has progressively increased by ~50% since 1974 reaching more than 1400 kcal per person per day or 150 trillion kcal per year. Food waste now accounts for more than one quarter of the total freshwater consumption and ~300 million barrels of oil per year.
If fat people need to eat less, and body fat is a source of fuel, why do fat people need to eat anything at all? Wouldn’t they just be best of starving themselves until they fit back in the same jeans they wore when they were in their late teens? In the 1960s and 70s, that’s exactly how they treated obesity – bed rest and a bit of chicken broth. So why the sudden need for diet industries, diet foods, diet obsessions and diet doctors? It can’t all be driven by the circulation of the Daily Mail. Whatever happened with the obvious way of dieting – to stop eating?
Think of food and obesity and what do you picture? Burgers perhaps? Pizzas? Well, what if obesity was nothing to do with fatty foods? Nothing to do with exercise? And nothing to do with greed?
In 1945, several dozen American conscientious objectors volunteered to starve themselves under medical supervision. The goal was to learn how health might be restored after World War II to the wasted populations of Europe. What the volunteers endured-and what broke them-sheds light on the scourge of starvation that today afflicts some 800 million people worldwide. Human beings evolved for a bad day of hunting, a bad week of hunting, a bad crop, a bad year of crops. We were hungry even in that first Garden of Eden, what some anthropologists call the “Paleoterrific,” a world full of large animals and relatively few people.
Disclaimer: This blog post covers only a fraction of what’s wrong with “The China Study.” In the years since I wrote it, I’ve added a number of additional articles expanding on this critique and covering a great deal of new material. Please read my Forks Over Knives review for more information on what’s wrong with the conclusions drawn from Campbell’s casein/aflatoxin research, and if you’d rather look at peer-reviewed research than the words of some random internet blogger, see my collection of scientific papers based on the China Study data that contradict the claims in Campbell’s book. I’ve also responded to Campbell’s reply to my critique with a much longer, more formal analysis than the one on this page, which you can read here .