~ archived since 2018 ~

How not to be fat.

March 12, 2021

Everyone knows that being fat is unattractive.

Lately there have been a fair amount of attempts to shame men into being attracted to fat women, but since most men don't find shame to be enticing, this hasn't been effective at all and is unlikely to be in the future. And while some women carry fat better than others, for every woman, there is a level of body fat at which she becomes unattractive.

There is also a great deal of argument as to whether being fat is unhealthy or not, but since people will move heaven and earth to avoid being ugly, when they won't lift a finger to avoid dying twenty years sooner, this really doesn't matter much.

Suffice to say that you don't want to be fat.

And yet, despite the fact that women desire desperately not to be fat, and try very hard not to be, still many, many women are... in fact many more than there were in previous generations. Which makes it overwhelmingly likely that some of you reading this are fat. And that still more, perhaps even most, are fatter than you would like to be.

Now, our culture, society, and indeed medical profession has very simple instructions for not being fat: Eat less, move more. They will tell you that your body is a receptacle for something called a "calorie", and that if you eat more of these "calories" than you burn while moving around, they are going to be stored as fat. And that thus fat loss, or fat gain, is a simple matter of arithmetic.

Now, anyone whose brain has not been surgically replaced with a cauliflower can tell that this is wrong, even if they are not a macho arrogant jerk like me, and therefore are not willing to argue with the food industry, the government, the medical profession, and a whole bunch of know-it-alls quoting from what they learned in the University of It Stands to Reason, or possibly the Post-Graduate School of I Read in a Book Somewhere.

Why? Because huge numbers of people are fat now, and fifty years ago, they weren't. "Calories" didn't come into existence fifty years ago. Neither did gluttony and sloth. Unless you want to try explaining how we, for no apparent reason, birthed several successive generations who were lazier and greedier than every generation before, this simply doesn't add up.

Neither does it add up with your own experience. You know who you are. You've counted "calories". And it kinda-sorta worked. For a while. But it was really hard. And unsustainable. And you quit. Then you blamed yourself, instead of the idea, because surely if you had only stuck to it, it would have worked.

Except a program that 99% of people cannot stick to needs to take the blame for its own failures. We cannot make people fit again by simply demanding a better class of human being, with more "willpower". "Just have more willpower" isn't any easier than "just don't be fat". That's silly.

Additionally, your great-grandmother did not count "calories", because she didn't know what a "calorie" was. And she didn't do "zumba", either. Because even I don't know what that is, and please don't tell me.

So we are going to start from the basic idea that you can be slim and proportionate your whole life without ever knowing what a "calorie" is, much less counting one.

And we are going to talk about what researchers (NOT physicians, physicians are a bunch of coconuts) know about how the body stores and uses fat.

So what IS fat, anyway? Well, fat is bunch of organic stuff that your body can burn for fuel, and can store in some of your cells so you don't die when you have nothing to eat.

And right there is the answer. But you don't see it yet, because getting the answer isn't the hard part... it's asking the right question. Often the answer to our problems are right there, but we can't see them because we don't understand the problem yet.

So fat is FOR keeping you alive when you don't have anything to eat. Duh. If your body had chlorophyll, or solar panels, or plugged into a wall, and thus had a constant inflow of energy, you wouldn't need the capacity to store it at all. Your hair dryer doesn't have a battery in it, but your laptop does. That's because your hair dryer is designed to work in an environment where energy is always available, and your laptop is designed to function without an outside source of energy for at least some period of time.

So now we know that your body is designed to store fat. That's supposed to happen. And your body is also designed to burn fat. That's supposed to happen, too. And that between these two processes, you're not supposed to get so skinny you can't sustain your body temperature, and you die of cold, or so fat you can't run or climb, and you die of sabertooth tigers. You're supposed to gain a little fat, and lose a little, over and over again.

Now, your body, despite what the "calorie" people will tell you, is not a box. It doesn't just have things in it because you put them there. In order to store fat, an active biochemical set of events has to happen to turn things into fat and put them in fat (adipose) cells. In order to burn fat, another set has to happen to order to unpack the fat and send it to muscle cells.

You body doesn't get fat just because some things are lying around, and it doesn't get thin just because you're low on fuel. It gets fat, or thin, on purpose. There are control mechanisms, and things that trigger them.

So if your body is storing too much, and unpacking too little, so that you gradually expand like a balloon, than its because there is a switch (metaphorically speaking) that is stuck in one position.

Well, researchers know what this switch is, and now you will, too, because that's what we need to know.

The "switch" is two hormones: insulin, and glucagon.

Insulin stimulates cells to take up glucose from the bloodstream. Some need it to have this happen at all, some don't, but the important thing here is that adipose (fatty) cells turn this glucose (sugar) into triglycerides (fat), and store it. Beta cells in the pancreas release insulin when blood sugar is high.

Glucagon stimulates adipose cells to unpack triglycerides (fat), and release it into the blood. Other cells can burn this directly, and the liver can also convert it into glucose (sugar). Alpha cells in the pancreas release glucagon when blood sugar is low.

The important thing to understand here is that you can't have both these hormones high at once. So when your blood sugar is above a certain level, insulin stays high, and you can't burn fat, no matter how much you have, because you can't get it out of your cells.

That's the stuck switch.

If your blood sugar is too high, your insulin stays high, and you can't burn fat, you can only store it.

This is what happens when you calorie-restrict. You're eating small meals, but since you keep eating, your blood sugar stays high enough to prevent the release of glucagon in any significant amount. So if you have less energy coming in, but you can't unpack stored energy, you have to burn less, because it's physically impossible to burn energy you haven't got.

You've got loads of fat in your butt, but you're short of fuel, because you can't get it from your butt into your blood. You're hungry, and your metabolism slows to a glacial speed, because you're short of fuel.

This is why calorie-restricting diets fail. They're inefficient, because your metabolism is tanked, and they're impossible to stick to, because your brain thinks you're starving. Your brain can only see your blood, not your butt.

So what to do?

Do what this system was evolved for. Your body fat isn't evolved to sustain you when you eat a salad and a small bun. It's for when you have no food. If, instead of six small meals that don't add up to a lot of calories, you eat nothing, then your insulin will go low, all that fat can be unpacked from your butt, and you won't be hungry anymore, because why on earth would your body unpack less than it wants, now that you can unpack something?

In other words, you stop eating tiny meals, and you fast, instead.

When we understand this, we understand why grandma wasn't fat, and you are. It's not because you have less self-control than she did. It's not because she ate more than you do. It's because of what she ate and when.

She ate fat, protein, moderate amounts of starch, and almost no sugar. You eat very little fat, and a whole lot of starch, processed food, and sugar. Guess which one keeps your insulin higher longer?

If you want to be less fat, eat more fat.

She ate at mealtimes, and never in between. She didn't have plastic-wrapped convenience food. She didn't have a microwave oven. If she wanted to eat something, she had to cook it. She and her family ate at mealtimes, and not in between.

You... snack. Throughout the day. So when does insulin have a chance to drop?

If you want to stop looking like a cow, stop grazing like one.

Eating real food at defined mealtimes was enough to keep the people of 1960 thin. But if you're already fat, you have to reverse that switch harder. It's called "intermittent fasting", although it really should be called "intermittent eating", because the idea is to impose long delays between meals. When you run out of sugar, you will unpack the fat.

Sounds like starving yourself, doesn't it? But it isn't. Because "starving" is when you're running out of fuel, not when you're merrily burning it. You're not starving, you're fasting. It sounds scary, but that's only if you believe that you're just going to keep getting hungrier and hungrier when you don't eat. That's not true. You get hungry, and then you enter ketosis (the state where your body unpacks and burns fat), and you're not hungry any more.

All of those stories about medieval people spending days in "fasting and prayer" suddenly make a lot more sense. You don't actually need to shove bread into your face every two hours in order to survive. This works. There's a whole subreddit devoted to it, and you can check it out, it's full of success stories, and you can learn what eating and fasting schedules work for people.

This method works because it's sustainable. Instead of fighting your body, you're doing what your body was designed to do... store fuel, and then use it. With a little practice, you can even decide how fat you want to be. Some level of subcutaneous fat is good for you, and you can get to decide how much looks good on you.

There's a lot more science in this rabbit hole; we could talk about how "sugar" (the white stuff on your table) is poison, but "sugar" (the glucose in your blood) is the energy of life; we could talk about how fruit juice and smoothies are terrible, terrible things, we could talk about how eating anything is a nutrition label is most likely a bad idea; about how butt fat is healthy and belly fat is terrible; about where diabetes really comes from and why "life-saving" insulin injections are really expensive now; about why healthcare is so expensive now and how socialism is not the answer and will only make things far, far worse.

But the important thing to understand is:

  • Calories don't matter. Insulin matters.
  • It isn't how much you eat, it's what and when.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/RedPillWomen.

/r/RedPillWomen archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title How not to be fat.
Author Whisper
Upvotes 126
Comments 99
Date March 12, 2021 12:27 AM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit /r/RedPillWomen
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/RedPillWomen/how-not-to-be-fat.767984
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/m34yr5/how_not_to_be_fat/
Red Pill terms in post

[–]vvaternelon 99 points100 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

What is this, a crossover episode?

Calories do matter lol. So does what and when. So does exercise. Head on over to the intermittent fasting or fasting or ED subs, everyone knows this. Yes, the longer you go without eating, the more weight you lose. Yes, the less you eat, the more weight you lose. It’s all... very obvious? Not sure why you felt the need to write pages about it.

Not eating/restriction leads to binging. Also obvious. They’ll tell you that in all three subs.

Portion control, eating more nutrient rich foods, and not eating all day all help people lose/maintain weight because they limit calories.

[–]Southern_Opinion9871 9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Candy in the morning is just as bad as candy at night. The only difference is the time your body has to burn it off before resting. That’s quite literally it.

[–]Jabroni421 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This isn’t true. Sumo wrestlers workout, feast and immediately nap, as eating before sleep allows better assimilation of calories = more weight gain.

[–]MidwesternCornFed 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Candy is awesome. Bad for you. But awesome. Dang... now I want a snickers...

[–]athrowaway283222 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

exactly this

[–]EkMard 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Calorie restriction and multiple small meals lead to binging and uncontrollable hunger, as explained in the post itself. And no, all this isn't very obvious.

[–]blufairy1916 24 points25 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

How not to be fat stop eating pasta and bread.eat meat and vegtables. It's simple walk away from the carbs. Do not eat them the fat falls off. Eat the chicken ,beef,bacon and the nommy veggies drink the water . Keto works, the science of keto works. If u are fighting to lose weight try it for 1 week just 1 week. Meat veggies, and water for one week.

[–]JohnZoffman 1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

But veggies taste like shit, and have a very nasty texture

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl 8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Only if you are a bad cook.

[–]JohnZoffman 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Could you give me some tips ?

I am a very bad cook

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I can. What kind of veggies do you make/like/have access to? Veggies is a very broad category so help me narrow it down

[–]JohnZoffman 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well i dont like none of them, i havent eaten veggies for over 10 years. My vitamin, hormone and blood profile is perfect anyways.

But i feel it would be better to eat some greens, we have everything frozen. Broccoli, beans, peas. I like cucumber, green bell pepper, onions and finely chopped tomatoes with the wet part cut out

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My husband hates veggies no matter what I do. His mother ruined him and there is just no fixing it

But if your primary complaint is that they are mushy...that's a cooking issue.

With frozen vegetables put them in the microwave, covered, for a short time with a quarter inch of water. You are more or less steaming them. Do minute and see if they are hot. Then another minute. This will help not overcook them to mush. Then toss with butter or olive oil and some sea salt or a squeeze of lemon juice. This works well for steinn beans, broccoli and peas IMO.

Greens are good fried with garlic. Spinach is an easy one to start with, use fresh. Fry some chopped garlic til it smells good. Then toss in the spinach and turn it so it gets coated in the olive oil. Take it off when it's wilted. This also only takes a few minutes. Hardier greens like kale can take longer.

If those things work for you then I'd say to use the internet to branch out. Some stuff is good raw in salad (the stuff you like actually) some needs to be cooked briefly and other stuff roasted for a while. I imagine that a cookbook like How to Cook Everything or Joy of Cooking are good guides.

[–]vanilla-chiffon 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Herbs help a lot too! Olive oil, garlic powder, pepper, salt, oregano and paprika go a long way to make bland food taste amazing 🙂

[–]athrowaway283222 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

spices rlly do make or break food

[–]blufairy1916 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Try roasting your veggies. You can roast fresh veggies at 425 in your oven. Place veggies on in a baking dish toss them with olive oil, salt, pepper whatever seasoning u like. Cooking time depends on the type of veggie used. You can google that easy. :)

[–]JohnZoffman 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks. Will try in air fryer

[–]HeyWhoTookMyCookie 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

maybe try cooking a whole bunch of vegetables into soup? My mom does that, and then you don't even notice a vegetable flavour at all

[–]Rispy_Girl 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You could try carnivore

[–]Crazy_Cranberry666 13 points14 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I agree that you don't necessarily have to count calories to lose weight. I think the biggest changes in our culture are: 1. The availability of fastfood 2.busy scedules (with both partners working, kids, and hobbies, good cooking gets put in 2nd place)? 3. Eating alone. When you eat together, you automatically adjust portions to eachother. This is because in tribal times, binging while others are starving would make you very unliked.

Redpill relationships could solve most of these. It's a good idea to learn how to cook, everyone should be able to.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

  1. The availability of fastfood 2.busy scedules (with both partners working, kids, and hobbies, good cooking gets put in 2nd place)? 3. Eating alone.

Yeah, pretty much.

The two culprits, on a biochemical level, are frequent eating, and processed food.

And what you are pointing out here is some of the social-level culprits that cause people to eat processed food, and to eat frequently.

I would also add a few more to the list:

  1. Feminism has caused cooking for the family to go out of fashion.
  2. Sugar is addictive. The more they put in a food, the more of that food we buy.
  3. Corn subsidies have drastically lowered the price of sugar and other processed food.
  4. Food companies are actively promoting the myth that a calorie is just calorie, and your body treats them all the same.

... and so forth.

If people simply ate real food again, and ate it at mealtimes again, the obesity problem, and the healthcare crisis, would be solved. More radical solutions like fasting are only really needed for people whose metabolic health is already damaged.

[–]gosamadhi 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

  1. Feminism has caused cooking for the family to go out of fashion.

I don't get what's stopping men from cooking? Why only rely on women with it?

[–]femaleinmythirties 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

My husband and I love to cook. There is nothing weird or anti family about dudes cooking. Lots of chefs are male.

[–]Holzmann 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If people simply ate real food again, and ate it at mealtimes again, the obesity problem, and the healthcare crisis, would be solved.

This is absolutely true, and you can see it in action if you visit other countries. Germans, for example, have an abundance of carbs in their average diet (beer and bread, for example). But why doesn’t Germany have an obesity epidemic? Because the quality of food is generally much higher than in the US. Germans also tend to eat more at home, and less processed food.

If the US started returning en masse to home cooked and fresh cooked meals, it would have a revolutionary impact on American society.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely. People, in general, do not need to avoid carbohydrates, or fast, in order to be healthy. These are techniques for correcting a sick metabolism, and they are totally unnecessary if you never fuck up your metabolism in the first place.

One example of this is China. Chinese people ate huge amounts of white rice for hundreds of generations, and they were fine. But now China has an 11% type 2 diabetes prevalence (even greater than the 8% rate in the US).

What happened? Refined sugar.

When Chinese people damaged their metabolic mechanisms with 5-carbon sugar (fructose), now the white rice, which was perfectly fine before, became unhealthy for them. This explains the 3% difference... because Americans are eating the sugar, but not the rice.

[–]ihopemewingworks 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

And also just moving less, but I agree with you it's quite simple actually

[–]Jenna_Rink30 10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Everyone has an opinion on this. It’s not that simple. Different things work for different bodies.

I am “fat” in my mind. 163cm and a US2 / UK6 aka XS. I eat everything I want and don’t exercise much. I oscillate from feeling extremely guilty about my lifestyle and indifferent and the former is where my ED lies. I used to be a size smaller and move up and down between a US 0 and US 2.

I have gone through the ringer in terms of figuring out how to be on smaller end. And, for me, the answer is that stress makes my body get big (as it is now) and happiness make me skinnier. Diet and exercise do nothing, unless they make me feel happier.

I’ve tried CICO. I’ve tried keto. Intuitive eating, probably the smartest. Even meds for insulin resistance prescribed by an endocrinologist who couldn’t understand how I grew a dress size in a few months without making an diet / exercise changes.

TL; DR - different strokes.

[–]merabaid 15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I spent a significant amount of my work life as a health coach, specifically for healthy weight. For women especially a significant portion of your relationship with healthy weight depends on stress levels.

I always tell people start with one thing, work your way up to healthier habits gradually. Most diets create extreme stress, self judgement and low self-esteem for women. Losing weight is as much an emotional and mental journey as a physical one it pays to do it right because the repeated failures can do a number on women.

It's best if women learn to love themselves throughout the process and have patience. Our society doesn't have as much appreciation for a slow, thorough, sustainable process. Each time you lose weight to gain it back this slows the metabolism making it harder each time.

[–]Mewster181812 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Hate to disagree with you but at the end of the day it is just calories in vs calories out. Calories are a unit of energy, when you have more than the baseline your body needs they get stored as fat for later use.

Yes the body has many ways of handling and processing calories, but ultimately if you eat too many calories for your needs you get fat.

Grandma back in the day didn't need to count calories because times were different. Portion sizes were smaller(fewer calories) and life was more active(more calories burned). Back in the 1950s having cleaning appliances was a luxury, and the ones that were available were nowhere near as easy as what we have now... chores like laundry actually required elbow grease, dishes were always done by hand, vacuums weighed 3-4x as much now(plus we have robot ones that do it for you today). Most families didn't have multiple cars and walking was more common, etc.

Yes insulin and glycogen are part of the metabolic system, but they're still beholden to the basic laws of physics which is calories in vs calories out. Metabolic diseases like PCOS or Hashimotos which affect hormone production are only accountable for around 10lbs of weight gain on their own, not enough to make more people fat.

[–]SDezzles 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The body is so complicated that we still to this day can't figure out the ideal diet. Realistically, both of you have vastly oversimplified explanations of the body.

The good news is that you're also both right, to an extent. Calorie restriction and IF have both been found by the scientific community to be useful.

IF is not only useful because of caloric restrictions. There's other useful mechanisms involved, like autophagy.

[–]LateralThinker134 Stars 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The body is so complicated that we still to this day can't figure out the ideal diet.

But we can come pretty close. Problem is, the food lobbies are stupidly powerful, and they affect government, which affects media and daily recommendations and what not, and suddenly culturally certain things are just "known to be" bad for you.

Best example of this is High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), diabetes in a liquid. That stuff should be illegal, but instead it's in everything, and it's horrible for you. Want to know what is the single biggest dietary culprit to obesity? HFCS. Go look at the labels in your pantry; I'll wait.

[–]taikutsuu1 points [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

I'm really disappointed that this was pinned, first of all. I can see your flair is that of the TRP founder, so while I assume this will go nowhere I'll comment on it regardless.

Fasting is not the solution to your weight problems. Your fat won't suddenly disappear from your ass if you starve your body. Weight loss cannot target specific areas of the body. That's idiotic. Prolonged fasting is starvation that will induce the degradation of muscle, and anything else is as unscientific as the logic of an anti-vaxxer. You can't convince yourself that not feeding yourself for weeks is healthy. The bodily process doesn't magically change because you give it a different name. A significant percentage of people on the 'dedicated subreddit' meet the established diagnostic criteria for an eating disorder.

Calories absolutely do matter. Calorie-restricting diets don't fail. Like any other process in the world, they fail if the individual does not adhere to them. In long term weight loss, it is how much you eat, a little bit of what and a little bit of when. It's physics and a little bit of nutritional science and statistical evidence. The evidence on the role of insulin in weight loss is bare and is now considered an outdated idea that has been proven to be significantly less effective at managing weight or health than simple CICO. The evidence available on it is largely anecdotal and is far outmatched by the effectiveness of, again, simple CICO.

This sentiment of "sugar is poison" is actively ruining the relationships young girls have with food on the daily. Young women are developing fertility issues after years of bad eating behaviours they were taught in line with this kind of logic. Fruit juices are fine. You don't need to spread anti-science to encourage a balanced diet and sugar as part of a balanced diet has never made a person fat. The average person in the world doesn't get fries and a milkshake twice a day as is implied here.

Nothing about this post leads to genuine self improvement. Life should be lived out based on truth, and this is quite literally the opposite. I would draw out the inaccuracies further but there are quite literally too many. This post is a bunch of non-science, falsified information dolled up to sound scientific. The "calorie people" are scientists with thousands of research papers, and you are not.

This is terribly misinformed. I feel like this subreddit should be better than that.

[–]Mewster18181 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. I also felt uncomfortable seeing such blatant misinformation. While things like IF work for some people (and that's great if it's a tool they like) it's still entirely down to calorie control.

Likewise a lot of studies show calories are equal regardless of their source. The reason why nutrient dense foods are considered "diet foods" is only because things like fruits and vegetables are much more bulky and satisfying than say an equal amount of calories from cake. 300 cal of cake is a small piece and not very satisfying, 300 cal of apple us like 3-4 apples depending on their size. One of those options is obviously going to be more filling than the other, and more likely to leave someone satisfied an hour later.

Now that said obviously there are things besides calories that matter when we want to be healthy as well, which again is a good reason to include things like produce. But again this has more to do with feeling satisfied between meals, proteins, fiber, and bulk are going to increase satisfaction and make it easier to avoid overeating... but technically you can lose weight just as fast on a diet of chocolate and soda as a diet of grilled chicken and steamed vegetables so long as you're consistent about your caloric deficit.

[–]vvaternelon1 points [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I’m wondering if we should really be surprised. The men made it clear months ago this wasn’t really a space for women.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]CrazyHorseInvincibleModerator[M] -6 points-5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If I get deleted or banned then so be it.

Ask, and you shall receive.

[–]Whisper1 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

When someone says something to me that doesn't seem to make sense, I like to look at what else they have written, rather than assuming they are some sort of idiot.

I am sorry to hear you had terrible parents who tried to control your eating habits in nasty ways, and left you with an eating disorder and the persistent feeling that others are out to get you. I'm sorry to hear that your family tried to get you to actually starve yourself.

I'm sorry to hear that your feelings of being targeted are so strong that you even struggle not to attribute hostility to your new kitten.

But please understand that there are other people in the world who are not in your situation, and that is who this article is written for. Please understand that there are other people in the world who have suffered psychologically because they are persistently overweight. Those are the people I am trying to help.

I realize saying something is "anti-science" may feel good when you are angry, but calling something that doesn't make it so. If you wish to discuss, in detail, the work of Robert Lustig, exact mechanisms of fructose metabolism in the liver, how five-carbon rings get fed into citrate and the Krebs cycle, we can do that.

But I'm afraid you posted a bunch of FUD, so I'm going to have to have it removed.

This isn't about you and your struggle. The demons you face are different, and you don't have to do any of this, because this isn't the problem you have. Good luck out there.

[–]taikutsuu1 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Ah. Dragging my personal history into this as a means to discredit my criticism of you or make me feel like I'm not in the right here. My post does make sense, everything I said was correct. You can't confidently say the same, so you are bringing up my parents! Quite a thing my dad would do actually. Wonderful.

This isn't about my struggle, you are correct. It's about science and the fact that you wrote a giant post trying to discredit the established scientific consensus. You dragging my personal problems into this doesn't change the fact that this is, in fact, anti science. Saying "calories don't matter" and "sugar is poison" makes you look like the dieting equivalent of an anti vaxxer. It's true.

I'm sorry you aren't openminded enough to consider new perspectives even when they are backed by the fact that they are, in fact, the objective truth. And I'm sorry that you feel the need to assume that what I say is wrong based on the fact that it links to my personal struggles. Brining these things into this conversation is really unnecessary and has little to do with the facts of the matter, but obviously it makes you feel better. I would think that someone with RP ideologies would make an effort to look at the truth when it is so obviously laid out for them, but you seem to disagree.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You keep alluding to the existence of scientific evidence to back up your claims. The word "evidence", however, means "that which is seen". And you haven't shown us any. Do so now.

Provide either an explanation, on a biochemical level, of why chronically elevated insulin levels do not increase adiposity, or a link to a citation showing they don't.

Let me provide an example of these, regarding my claim that pentose sugars, such as fructose, are toxic.

Here is a citation of Dr. Robert Lustig explaining how fructose is toxic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpNU72dny2s. Robert H. Lustig, M.D., M.S.L. is Professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). He specialises in the field of neuroendocrinology, with an emphasis on the regulation of energy balance by the central nervous system.

Here is me providing an explanation of how fructose is toxic, by breaking down the exact mechanism whereby it causes hepatic dyslipidemia:

Fructose/sucrose and alcohol. These really fall under the category of "rebuilt food", but they are so bad that I wish to call them out separately. These not only turn directly into fat

Okay, so let's add more detail.

There is a chain of events that starts with you drinking a soda, and ends with up with those same actual carbon atoms that are in the fructose almost entirely residing in new fat cells in your liver, specifically.

The first thing that happens is that sucrase cuts the glucose-fructose bond in a microsecond, leaving you with one glucose and one fructose. This happens in the small intestine before it even hits your blood.

This is why Coke keeps saying that HFCS and "sugar" are the same thing. It's true. They are pretty much equal. Equally bad. Equally deadly. Equally poison.

The next thing that happens is that a very small amount of that fructose is phosphorylated via ketohexokinase in the boundary cells of the small intestine, to yield fructose-1-phosphate.


(We're going to skip over the rest of the fructolysis pathway here, because we're going to talk about it later, in the liver.)

This is what happens when you eat vegetables and certain fruits... and it's how your body is evolved to deal with natural fructose. Although I suspect (but do not know and cannot prove) that modern strains of some fruits may be so fructose-heavy that they overwhelm this mechanism, and pass a lot of fructose into the bloodstream.

... Which is just what happens when you eat sugar or drink soda, fruit juice, etc.

At which point it gets picked up by the liver, which is the only other organ in the body capable of significant fructolysis. So now we get to look at the whole pathway.

I'm going to copy and paste this directly from the Wikipedia article you should have read:

The first step in the metabolism of fructose is the phosphorylation of fructose to fructose 1-phosphate by fructokinase (Km = 0.5 mM, ≈ 9 mg/100 ml), thus trapping fructose for metabolism in the liver. Hexokinase IV (Glucokinase), also occurs in the liver and would be capable of phosphorylating fructose to fructose 6-phosphate (an intermediate in the gluconeogenic pathway); however, it has a relatively high Km (12 mM) for fructose and, therefore, essentially all of the fructose is converted to fructose-1-phosphate in the human liver.

Fructose-1-phosphate then undergoes hydrolysis by fructose-1-phosphate aldolase (aldolase B) to form dihydroxyacetone phosphate (DHAP) and glyceraldehyde; DHAP can either be isomerized to glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate by triosephosphate isomerase or undergo reduction to glycerol 3-phosphate by glycerol 3-phosphate dehydrogenase. The glyceraldehyde produced may also be converted to glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate by glyceraldehyde kinase or converted to glycerol 3-phosphate by glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase. The metabolism of fructose at this point yields intermediates in gluconeogenic pathway leading to glycogen synthesis, or can be oxidized to pyruvate and reduced to lactate, or be decarboxylated to acetyl CoA in the mitochondria and directed toward the synthesis of free fatty acid, resulting finally in TG synthesis.

If all of that looks like gibberish to you, that's okay, all that means is that you didn't suffer through Biochem 110A, B, and C like I did. And even now I have to read it twice, because it's been years.

What important to know is that there are two things your liver can do with fructose. Both of them have the same first step, which is conversion of fructose-1-phosphate to dihydroxyacetone phosphate and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, in equilibrium.


From there, the pathway bifurcates. One path is glycogensis, and this is, in fact, the preferred pathway:

Increased concentrations of DHAP and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate in the liver drive the gluconeogenic pathway toward glucose-6-phosphate, glucose-1-phosphate and glycogen formation. It appears that fructose is a better substrate for glycogen synthesis than glucose and that glycogen replenishment takes precedence over triglyceride formation.

That's why Gatorade actually did what it was supposed to do. It repletes the glycogen in the liver a lot faster than glucose, which is why sugary drinks are actually good for athletic performance... but, as we will see in a moment, they are still very, very bad for the athletes, who are at significant risk for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, type 2 diabetes, and/or metabolic syndrome later in life.

Ask me how I know.

The problem pathway is the second one, which is not preferred over glycogenisis, but becomes so when glycogen is repleted. It's made up of two subpaths, one from DHAP, one from GA-3-P, which both wind up in triglycerides and de novo lipogenisis.

GA-3-P is converted to pyruvate (I'm summarizing here because I'm bored of typing, and bored of stopping every thirty seconds to look stuff up because I don't remember how to spell all these names), then into the whole Krebs cycle thing, which I am not going to fucking explain: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Citric_acid_cycle_with_aconitate_2.svg.

... at which point a metric fuckton of citrate boards the citrate shuttle. (Now leaving: mitochondria. Next stop: hepatic cytoplasm.) Hence acetyl coenzyme A, hence fatty acid synthesis.

Mercifully, the second subpath is easier to summarize. DHAP to glycerol-3-phosphate by reduction via glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, and there's your fatty acid right there.

So fatty acids from both these sources are esterized into triglycerides, and we're done. (Thank fuck, because I'm having flashbacks.)

So there you have it. New fat. In your liver. That's bad. It gives you metabolic syndrome. It gives you type 2 diabetes. It kills you.

It gives us all sky-prices on insulin, and commie idiots demanding socialized medicine because they don't understand the meaning of the word "shortage".

And why? Because you stupid fuckers (Note: this was originally written for TRP) keep drinking HFCS and thinking it's okay because you work out real hard and aren't visibly fat. The fat you can see is subcutaneous fat. It's bad for your sex life, but not for your health. It's fine. Irony of ironies, some people actually are "healthy at any size", while others are totally jacked, but have fatty livers and are gonna get very sick and die.

[–]CrazyHorseInvincibleModerator[M] -4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's get this back on topic, please.

[–]CrazyHorseInvincibleModerator[M] -4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's get this back on topic, please.

[–]All_Lurk_No_Post365 7 points8 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Calorie in vs calories out is true but it's not the whole picture. Yes you can lose weight eating garbage in a caloric defecit but you will look and feel like shit, there is no cheating a healthy diet.

Second, fasting works. For about 5 weeks now I have been eating 1 big meal per day, results? I dropped from ~181 down to 174/175 @ 6'0 tall, I've hit a couple PRs in the gym and have maintained all of my strength if not gotten stronger. Look up videos on the one meal per day (OMAD)/ intermittent fasting on youtube. Also hmu if any of you have questions.

[–]Mewster18181 points [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying it doesn't work, but it works by the same mechanism that any diet works (at least the weight loss aspect, not talking about any of the other benefits) which is calorie expenditure.

It's also something that I think is a person to person preference. Some people are just not comfortable or compatible with stuff like OMAD. There are many different ways to control calorie intake and it's perfectly fine for people to like different things.

[–]All_Lurk_No_Post365 2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I understand the main thing for losing weight is being in a caloric deficit but fasting itself has added benefits that greatly aid in weight loss, hell its great even for maintaining weight. There are added health benefits to fasting such as insulin released less frequently and boosted HGH (human growth hormone)..... the last one is probably mostly a benefit for guys because that helps preserve muscles even while in a caloric deficit.

[–]Mewster18185 Star 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That's not necessarily true. IF isn't actually that well researched, and recent studies actually suggest it may actually increase muscle loss:


But again, this is one study and like I said IF isn't that well researched at this point.

[–]All_Lurk_No_Post365 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Could be, but there's also plenty of studies out there showing the benefits of fasting aka IF. For me, one meal a day has been working wonders, I'm dropping fat but my muscles and strength are still there, I love it, its the first diet/eating style I've done that isn't miserable.

[–]Mewster18185 Star 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just so you know almost all of the studies are done on animals, not humans, or aren't actually very conclusive about anything.

Again that's not to say IF isn't a great tool that work for some people. I absolutely think it does help some people. My point is that it isn't a miracle solution to weight loss that will be something for everyone, and the mechanisms by which it does work can be applied to many other methods so long as there is a consistent calorie deficit.

Pretty much any time that someone hypes that a certain diet or exercise is the "only" way it works or the solution to all of people's struggles it's almost always inaccurate and overblown. You see the same thing with keto and vegans, there are people who have great success with these diets and suggest "I like this therefore this is proven to be the best and only thing", but ultimately the reason why these diets work for weightloss is exactly the same.

[–]All_Lurk_No_Post365 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's definitely true, there's really no magic fix all diet without being in a caloric defecit. Still tho, fasting has benefits and many testimonies online help prove it's validity... I guess my point is if you're already dieting might as well take it a step further and fast for added benefits and increased weight loss

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This study used a pattern that IF experts call "16/8" (16 hours fasting and 8 of eating). This pattern is not considered sufficient for reversing obesity in patients with metabolic syndrome. It is, in fact, mostly used to get patients physically and psychologically used to fasting so the real work can begin.

16/8 is, however, often enough to prevent fat gain if sugar and other processed foods are avoided. Remember that the basic principle here is that two things matter: when you eat and what you eat.

With an inadequate modification to when obese patients eat and no modification to what obese patients eat, one would expect a small amount of progress, which is exactly what the study showed. It is noteworthy that the TRE group showed some significant progress, but the CMT group showed none.

This supports an important point I made above: that CMT is often sufficient to prevent obesity and metabolic syndrome, but TRE may be needed to reverse it (assuming both are combined with eliminating sugar and other processed foods from the diet, which I can't find any note that this study actually did).

If you would like to delve further into this, there's a couple related issues to look at:

  • The insulin/glucagon dynamic I explain above.
  • The balance of leptin and ghrelin, and how they are affected by different foods.
  • The work of Dr Robert Lustig with regard to fructose metabolism in the liver.
  • The effect of hepatic and pancreatic fat upon the insulin system.
  • The role soluble and insoluble fiber in regulating absorption and feeding the gut biome.
  • The political history of US federal government corn subsidies.
  • The pattern of diet vs obesity by country on the global stage.

There's more interesting stuff you'll run into, like insulin injection site lipomas, some of the open questions about autophagy, mTor, and rapamycin, and so forth, but those seven bullet points are really the keys to understanding the obesity epidemic.

You can drill down pretty deep into this if you're willing to take the time. The problem is how to get from the stuff that's convincing to people who are fluent in biochemistry, to an explanation that's convincing to people who have been told that CICO is "common sense" for the past fifty years.

That's tricky. Very few people are aware that the words "common sense" actually mean "I have no evidence", because when people have evidence, they present it, or point others to it. If they have to appeal to "common sense", what this means is that they have a consistent story, which explains all the facts they are aware of, but they haven't bothered to test if that is actually what is going on.

[–]LateralThinker134 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Very few people are aware that the words "common sense" actually mean "I have no evidence", because when people have evidence, they present it, or point others to it.

Amen, brother. And thank you for all of this; I was aware of most of it, but seeing it laid out by someone who has done the full research is refreshing and helpful.

[–]vvaternelon 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Boosted HGH moreso generally comes from prolonged fasting periods in the realms of 48 hours.

Unless you’re also only taking in a small amount of calories for your OMAD, you’re not boosting your HGH much, although you can get a small boost from ~24 hrs.

[–]All_Lurk_No_Post365 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah ya I think you're right, from the videos I watched I heard it starts increasing at hour 23.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. There's a lot of things we think might be beneficial about fasting, that appear to happen beyond the 24 hour mark (autophagy, boosted HGH and IGF-1, insulin sensitivity increase, etc), but we know somewhat less about how they work, when they work, and how much good they do, than we know about insulin and basic fat metabolism.

We may find out in the future that long fasts are great for X, Y, or Z, but I'm not yet confident enough to say what X, Y, or Z actually are. It's certainly possible, though.

What we do know it is that there is no fat loss without fat acid metabolism, and chronically elevated insulin greatly inhibits fatty acid metabolism, which is why that's the focus of this article.

[–]AprisElena 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

great post. the calorie shit makes no sense whatsoever. 1000 calories of steak is not the same metabolically as 1000 calories of coca cola or 1000 calories of lettuce. no thinking human could possibly believe such trash.

calorie people are usually skinny people who never had weight problems and just regurgitate whatever science fiction bullshit the white coats preach. i mean, how could they possibly understand?

[–]PrincessaRusalka 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Keto, weightlifting. Advanced-> Carnivore, cardio and fasting. Just don’t eat sugar in any form and that’s basically it. When you have the urge to eat sugar drink some bone broth or eat a fat bomb. Drink salt water. That’s it.

Most athletic women exercise enough to keep the fat off even if they do eat carbs. But most people don’t go that hard so better eat at a defecit and avoid carbs like the plague. Oh and cook your own food...

[–]tradkitty 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So much cope comments.

[–]roo_t_roo 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are many health and spiritual benefits for fasting. I have loved it in the past— it has worked for me. I’m getting back at it.

[–]Lee89407_Leon_M 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Everything OP said is true. I've lost over 13kg using intermittent fasting - high fat (zero/low carb&sugar) and i feel amazing. Literally running up mountains and breaking PB's left and right. Definitely give it a go you have nothing and everything to loose.

[–]CatArwen 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But i prefer food over people and im an autistic asexual

[–]eatavacado 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

yikes. it takes 4 days to enter ketosis, and definitely doest occur during traditional intermittent fasting (14-20 hours no eating). That comparison made you look like you don't know what your talking about.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

it takes 4 days to enter ketosis

Incorrect. You are referring to informational sources referencing a ketogenic diet (where you are eating regularly, and consume some nonzero amount of carbohydrates), rather than than resources referencing fasting.

The body has a certain number of resources it can tap for energy. It does not, however, have a stopwatch. Nor has it read the webpage you did, which says it should take "2-4" days to enter ketosis.

It cannot, therefore, consult a stopwatch, and say to itself, "well, I'm out of glycogen, but healthline dot com said I'm not allowed unpack stored triglycerides for another 72 hours, so I guess I'll just die."

Fatty acid metabolism must begin when glucose is not available. When local glycogen in muscle cells, and glycogen stored in the liver, are depleted, there's no more glucose.

But what about gluconeogenesis? Well, gluconeogenesis IS fatty acid metabolism... because fatty acids are the raw material the liver uses. No fatty acids, no gluconeogenesis. Fatty acid availability is the difference between fasting and starvation.

This kind of misinformation is a good example of why it is unhelpful to say to yourself, "I don't like this idea that someone wrote. Let me do a web search to see what I can find that contradicts it." ... instead of "Here is everything we know about this subject, what conclusions does this data support?".

[–]bchlladyfrog 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

well, I'm out of glycogen, but healthline dot com said I'm not allowed unpack stored triglycerides

:))))) good one

[–]missylizzy 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great post!

[–]CountTheBeesEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm slim. Basically I do what you advise unwittingly.

I think many people grow up with an unhealthy attitude to food, being shamed for eating a lot, whereas I was always heartily praised for finishing my plate, or asking for seconds, or for eating a lot of meat.

Funny anecdote: I went out for dinner with some "girls" from the office. It was a burger place so we all got burgers, they were pretty big. Myself and the other slim woman there finished all of ours, while the fat women picked at theirs and left a lot on their plates. It was very revealing.

[–]vvaternelon 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Revealing of what? Just curious.

[–]CountTheBeesEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Revealing that how much you eat in one sitting is not what makes you fat.

[–]Underground-anzac-99 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It could also be that being fat they eat little in public and a LOT behind closed doors. My ex-MIL who wa 5’3” and over 100kgs picked at her plate every family meal despite cooking enough to feed two armies but would inhale a box of chocolates late at night alone in front of the TV or snack all day so she could rarely eat large meals. The only bigger girl I knew who also ate a lot in public was also the only one I knew who was comfortable in herself.

I knew a very large guy who was just the same, never ate in front of others, just picked, but binge ate alone at night.

[–]CountTheBeesEndorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I have so many stories. Here's another one. My teenage brother told me a story about his friend whose mother hates sugar. He pays kids at school up to $20 for smuggling him KitKats. He eats them every day, probably more than if his mother just let him have them at home.

I wonder if the people in your story and mine had someone at home that gave them trouble for eating, leading them to this weird, illogical behaviour. Honestly it's not like they're fooling anyone... it's like eating in public is what they want to avoid, rather than being fat.

[–]Underground-anzac-99 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s also addiction, which ppl want to hide. A drunk will go out and get drunk. An alcoholic might have one drink at a party, make their excuses about having to drive then drink a bottle of whiskey at home w the cat.

[–]tradkitty 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

OP don't worry they will stay fat and it's their problem

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

don't worry

I never do.

[–]tradkitty 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link


[–]IcarusKiki 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

???? Calories don’t matter? The thing I did to lose weight was stop eating out entirely and cut out sugary sodas.

[–]LateralThinker134 Stars 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

???? Calories don’t matter? The thing I did to lose weight was stop eating out entirely and cut out sugary sodas.

Yes, they don't matter. If you replaced 1000 calories of Coke with 1000 calories of steak, you'd be in much better shape despite creating no calorie deficit.

[–]Nandemodekiru 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any advice on how to GAIN weight? My metabolism is on the other side of the spectrum; I’m constantly hungry and when I DO eat, I’m immediately overcome with fatigue and when I wake up, the process starts all over again. For reference, I’m 5’9, size 0-2, and around 120 - 130 pounds

[–]All_Lurk_No_Post365 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you tried eating more calorie dense foods? Like higher fat beef, chicken thigh instead of chicken breast? Adding olive oil to stuff maybe eating more peanut butter?

Keep me posted, I like offering diet advice to people.

[–]Astroviridae 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you been screened for food allergies or Celiac disease? Have you spoken to your pcp about this?

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you been tested for Type 1 diabetes?

Type 1 diabetes is underproduction of insulin, often due to the immune system destroying the beta cells in the pancreas which produce it. This is genetic and can onset at any time. Your physician should be able to detect it with blood tests.

T1D leads to unavoidable fat loss because, no matter how much you eat, you cannot produce insulin to stimulate uptake of glucose in adipose cells. T1D is typically treated with administration of insulin by injection, although there may be some recent breakthroughs I am unaware of.

If you have an intact ability to produce insulin, then something you might try is eating in such a way as to stimulate prolonged high insulin levels. This would be the reverse of some of the advice I give above.

I would still avoid table sugar/high fructose corn syrup/fruit juice/soda, and so on. All of these contain a five-membered carbon ring sugar called fructose which is horrible for you in ways it would take pages to explain. Yes, you'd gain weight... but at a cost of doing various horrible things to your liver. Not a good trade.

Instead, what you would want is high carbohydrate foods, eaten every few hours. Avoid grocery store bread, it's full of sugar. White rice or pasta, perhaps. The idea is to bump insulin levels up and keep them high. Then you will start storing what you eat. Starches both give you something to store as fat, and the insulin to make you store it.

Bear in mind that if you have T1D this will not work. If your body is unable to produce insulin properly, you will need medical help.

That's one of the reasons we know that the "calories in, calories out" people are wrong. Because if they weren't, type 1 diabetics could gain weight just by eating enough. They can't. If fat storage biochemistry doesn't work for you, you can't gain fat no matter how much you eat.

Get tested.

[–]ihopemewingworks -3 points-2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Sadly Intermitting fasting is horrible for women who are in their reproductive years, no doubt that it works its essentially calorie restricting since you can eat thay much in an 8h window and then I have also read that it does i crease fat burning purely just because you are fasting. But all the research has been done on men and women during menopause, their has been some small studies done on women in their reproductive years and it had the opposite effect, it's very bad for women's health.

I've seen success stories of women losing weight but a lot of women after a few months just don't feel good, they lose their periods and just have a bunch of other issues. When a woman can do it saftley is when she is ovulating. But the other times big no no.

Calorie restricting does work, and I think if you're very fat you should do that. How you don't get fat is as you say eating high fat and protein as well as not endlessly snacking. But to go from fat to normal calorie restrict, also for women id say building some muscle will help a lot, increases the metabolism and helps you age better, don't want to be weak and frail when you're older so need some muscle on you. I think how Europeans do it is helpful and I've seen many lose weight this way this is more towards women who don't have that much fat, I'd say walk more, eat healthy not sugar, eat high protein and fat but also some carbs ofc this is very very important for women's hormones, keto diets are bad for women's hormones. And some residence training and maybe cardio here and there.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Sadly Intermitting fasting is horrible for women who are in their reproductive years

If you expect people to believe you, you're going to have to explain the mechanism whereby it is "horrible".

But all the research has been done on men and women during menopause, their has been some small studies done on women in their reproductive years and it had the opposite effect, it's very bad for women's health.

Saying the word "research" is not a substitute for citing some.

some carbs ofc this is very very important for women's hormones, keto diets are bad for women's hormones.

Perhaps you would care to explain the steroid synthesis process in more detail?

[–]ihopemewingworks -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough, writing isn't my strong suit I found that this article very much explains it well. https://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent-fasting-women

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Okay. I can where after reading that, you might definitely have some ideas that fasting is bad for you.

This is why it's so important to have an understanding of how something is supposed to happen, rather than simply asking someone with a PhD and taking their word for it.

Science works through understanding, not faith.

So, let's take an example of what happens when one looks at this article, and actually reads the citations.

Here's what the author says:

In the grand scheme of health decisions, experimenting with intermittent fasting probably seems tiny. So what could it hurt to give it a shot?

Well, for some women, it’s a bigger deal than you might expect

Turns out, the hormones regulating key functions—like ovulation, metabolism, and even mood—are incredibly sensitive to your energy intake.1

Okay, so when we follow that 1, and read the abstract of the study, and dig out the relevant bit, we get this:

in some cases, excess energy storage in adipose tissue causes deficits in the pool of oxidizable fuels available for the reproductive system. Thus, in such cases, reproduction is inhibited despite a high body fat content and high plasma concentrations of hormones that are thought to stimulate reproductive processes.

(There's a lot of other stuff in there as well, but this is the most specific and relevant bit.)

So, it is technically true that this citation states how "hormones are incredibly sensitive to energy intake". But when that statement is made in the context of an article on how "Fasting may be DANGEROUS!", it becomes incredibly misleading because what the research here actually says is "being too fat can inhibit the production of sex hormones".

So the implication in the article is the exact opposite of the finding in the research paper.

This is what we call "FUD": Fear, uncertainty, doubt. It's a propaganda tactic that uses often technically true, but misleading, information about a product or practice in order to create fear of it which is not based on any concrete assessment of risk.

Let me give you some more examples of research cited by this article, and how I see its relevance.

Boutari C et al. The effect of underweight on female and male reproduction. Metabolism. 2020 June; 107:154229.

(Jesus fuck, of course being underweight is going to cause reproductive harm! Nobody is recommending being underweight! Fast to lose weight if you are too fat! What does that have to do with being underweight?)

  1. Stewart DE. Reproductive functions in eating disorders. Ann Med. 1992 Aug;24(4):287-91.

(What. The. Actual. Fuck? Fasting is bad because eating disorders are bad???? Of course eating disorders are bad. What does that have to do with fixing obesity by not shoving bagels into your face every two hours?)

I'm going to stop here, because typing out all the ways I can pick apart this article would be a significant investment of time.

The takeaway here is, if someone says "X is bad for you", ask them "How, exactly is X bad for me?", and if they just say "It causes Y.", then ask "How does it cause Y?", and wait for a clear answer.

That's why I started this discussion with a long, dull lecture on insulin and glucagon... because I'm trying not to be taken on faith. I want people to understand. That's why when someone challenged my assertion that table sugar was toxic, I responded with a detailed explanation of exactly how five-carbon sugars lead to production of massive amounts of fat in the liver, which is obviously kinda related to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

The problem with treating science as a religion is that unquestioning belief is the exact opposite of what science is about. These people who proclaim "I fucking love SCIENCE!", and demand that we treat the pronouncements of PhDs with the same respect the Greeks gave the Delphian prophecies... well, they are anti-science, and they don't even know it.

Because science is not an institution, or a body of knowledge, it's an algorithm. Examine surroundings, make hypothesis, design test, test hypothesis, tell other people. Later rinse repeat.

If you don't understand how the thing is supposed to work, you're just treating the scientist like a priest, and their statement like the bible, which is the exact opposite of the whole point.

[–]LateralThinker134 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you don't understand how the thing is supposed to work, you're just treating the scientist like a priest, and their statement like the bible, which is the exact opposite of the whole point.

Amen. ;)

[–]ihopemewingworks 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough

[–]LateralThinker134 Stars 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, checked out that and some linked stuff; no studies, no citations, just pretty infographics and reassurances. Nothing arguable because nothing concrete. I could project reasons for why they might have seen/gotten the results they did (also wow, anecdotal evidence much?) but what's the point? There's no there there. Try again.

EDIT: One simple example. The article stated how women on intermittent fasting would get hunger pangs, lose their periods, etc. and it posited reasons why, and how men aren't affected similarly. But it didn't show that the groups were the same or that there was a control. Was it just all women? In my experience, women tend to load carbs way more than men. Women who load carbs but otherwise intermittently fast (so they're not even in spitting distance of ketosis) are going to feel HORRIBLE. Hunger pangs (as mentioned in the article)? Check. I can tear apart each thing the article mentioned but, again, there's no there there to tackle. Just platitudes.

[–]SnooMaps9943 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

This is a big mess of fatlogic. The food environment we live in and the sedentary lifestyles modern humans have adopted have become MUCH more conducive to obesity than they were in previous generations.

To become and remain a healthy weight is to feed yourself an appropriate number of calories from whole food, nutritious sources, and to regularly move your body enough, preferably in a sustainable way you enjoy. “Eat less/better and move more” is truly the only advice you need.

To accomplish that simple epithet, you have to make small changes, one at a time, and cement them into habits, so as to not rely on willpower. (No one has enough willpower to rely on willpower alone. The things you do to care for your body and manage your weight have to become automatic and natural, or you will eventually be so miserable from constantly exerting willpower that you will fail.)

You have to fix your relationship with food, exercise, and your body. You must see the effort you’re putting into forming these new habits as acts of SELF-care- meaning you do them for your own benefit and in a loving, positive way, not to please anyone else, and certainly not out of shame or self-hatred. You will have to do a lot of self-reflection and figure out why you’ve been eating too much or eating unhealthily, and fix it. (Are you an emotional eater? Are you uneducated about nutrition? Do you struggle with time management, so it’s difficult to grocery shop, prepare healthy meals, and/or get your exercise in? Are you chronically dehydrated and mistake thirst for hunger? Etc. What changes can you make to make it easier for yourself to take better care of your body?)

You have to find things that work for YOU, not things that have supposedly worked for other people. There are people who prefer to eat six times a day, and there are people who eat one meal a day. There are people who function best on high-carb, low-fat diets, people who do better on high-fat, low carb diets, people who do well with mostly even macro splits, and people who don’t track or worry about macros at all and eat them in various proportions intuitively. There are people who like to eat huge volumes of lower calorie foods, and there are people who like to eat smaller portions of high calorie foods, and those in between. There are those who like to exercise in the morning and those who prefer the evening, and those who prefer short, intense workouts, and those who prefer longer, more relaxed workouts. There are people who prefer organized sports or classes, doing their own thing, going to a gym, just getting outside and moving around, cardio, weights, etc. There are many, many combinations of habits that allow you to reach and maintain a healthy weight; you should find those that works best for you, and that will maximize the ease with which you can keep them up over long periods of time. It all boils down to eating well and fewer calories, and getting enough physical activity. Don’t be afraid to experiment. Don’t undertake diets or exercise regimes that make you miserable.

You have to acknowledge that at some point, you will mess up on your diet and/or exercise plan. Nobody is perfect, and that’s okay. Forgive yourself and get back on track. You do not have to be perfect to see changes, just patient and doing the right things the majority of the time. Do not expect massive changes in weight extremely quickly; it is a marathon and not a sprint. Slow and steady wins the race.

The best way to begin is to track everything you eat, at least for a few days, and get a good understanding of where you could be doing better with your diet. BE AS HONEST AS POSSIBLE! If you lie on your food logs, you’re only sabotaging yourself and the data you’re collecting. Don’t forget about drinks, condiments, snacks, bites of food from other people’s plates, etc. I always recommend using Cronometer.com. There is a free version of the site/app, it has a comprehensive data base and barcode scanning feature, and a built-in TDEE calculator that takes into account your gender, weight, height, activity level, age, and weight goal, and tells you exactly how many calories you should eat. It also tracks all of your micro and macronutrients and can give you recommendations of what to eat more of, so you can see where you might be deficient and make corrections. The more advanced version is like 6.99 USD a month, but is not necessary for beginners. (And no, I’m not sponsored by them.)

Other habits (again, undertake changes one at a time) that you should seek to improve that absolutely make a difference in your weight, health, and well being:

-having a regular sleep schedule and getting enough sleep

-staying hydrated

-stretching/mobility exercises, like yoga

-cut out or reduce as much as possible: alcohol, caffeine, and added sugars.

-taking care of your mental and emotional health (surrounding yourself with positive, supportive people, maintaining healthy relationships and cutting out toxic ones, seeing a mental health professional if necessary and accessible, journaling or meditating, other acts of self care, etc.)

THOSE are the most important things to understand about weight management.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

This is a big mess of fatlogic.

It's not about logic. It's about evidence.

The moment people go wrong is the moment they believe they can figure the universe out of sitting down and reasoning about it, instead of testing their assumptions in an experiment.

What I did here was give a general explanation of how human fat metabolism works. Every single piece of this information is research-based and has been experimentally verified over and over again. We know exactly how insulin works. We know exactly how glucose metabolism and fatty acid metabolism work. We know exactly how the Krebs cycle works, and how fructose metabolism in the hepatic mitochondria work. There's no mystery here.

Meanwhile, you are repeating cultural myths that arose from people starting with the law of conservation of energy, and reasoning from there, without experimentally verifying any of their conclusions.

Conservation of energy is indeed something that happens in the human body, but that is the only correct assumption here. The CICO hypothesis, however, also requires the additional assumptions that eating behaviour is an independent rather than a dependent variable, that activity level is an independent rather than a dependent variable, that basal metabolic rate is constant, and that all energy sinks have accounted for.

These assumptions are not only not proven true, they are in fact proven false. And if you don't understand what I mean by independent and dependent variables, then you are so far out of your depth that the fish have lights on their noses.

You cannot figure out what the body does by reasoning about it, that is beyond your powers of reason. Any attempt to solve complex systems with pure reason inevitably ends up relying on some simplifying assumption that turns out to be wrong.

You must test and observe. Reason only helps you to understand your observations once you have made them.

[–]SnooMaps9943 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can tell people about the science behind metabolism and certain diets all you want, but the fact of the matter is that while one way of eating or exercising may be more effective in producing weight loss than others according to research, it doesn’t matter at all if people can’t stick to it. Weight management is as equally a psychological (and often emotional) matter as it is a physical one, and so what “works” for one person is not going to “work” for another. If your diet and exercise plan doesn’t fit well into your life, or trashes your mental health/happiness, what is the point? You’re sacrificing one kind of health for another. The good news is that there are many ways to personalize and tailor weight loss plans to individuals to maximize effectiveness without making people miserable. Call it woo woo bs all you want, but I actually help people get the bodies they want for a living, and I never recommend the same plan twice, nor do I ignore the psychological, emotional, and social aspects of my clients’ journeys. The success rates don’t lie.

People don’t really need to know much more than “You get fat by consuming more food (energy) than you need, and your body stores that energy as fat. The body does not use that fat until you expend more energy than you take in.” How they go about producing that energy deficit doesn’t matter as long as they aren’t literally starving themselves, becoming malnourished, or doing an extreme amount of exercise. They just need to do it consistently for a significant period of time. What helps with remaining consistent is what’s most important to know, and where most people fail.

[–]DelicateDevelopment3 Star 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The whole health and food logic is nothing but defining causalities in correlations, but most probably in the wrong direction.

healthy people sleep well - - > sleeping well will make you healthy

healthy people are active - - > activity will make you healthy

healthy people eat less - - > eating less will make you healthy


[–]femaleinmythirties 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My family takes 15-30m walk every night after dinner. In rain we bring an umbrella, in snow we we gear up to handle it.

Sometimes we do it after lunch too.

Getting up and walking prevents you from eating seconds out of boredom and it’s great for your health and social life. We know lots of our neighbors and my entire family keeps a healthy BMI probably because of this habit.

[–]Inevitable-Idea6993 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Calories definitely matter

[–]ArthurGayFrog 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Definitely fasting is the solution

[–]BossKitten 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Stop eating so much fast food. People weren’t fat 50 years ago because they had less cars and access to fast food. It’s really that easy. Cook your own food without using excess amounts of butter, salt, sugar, and oil and walk to more places. Stop eating so much burgers, pizza, queso, and restaurant sizes portions. It’s easy to be a healthy weight when you eat food in portions that are meant for normal sized people. I couldn’t read this whole thing because of the constant complaining instead of trying to just be better.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Galaxed88 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Another woman who thunks that her thoughts matter. Truly amusin See how easy that was? It isnt hard to dismiss someone or their arguments. What is difficult is to create counter arguments, which is why you dismiss OP. Go back to feasting on a Salad and microwave meals with a side of seething and $5.50 starbuck coffee

[–]magicalunicornjuice 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only “diet” that’s ever worked for me is keto and intermittent fasting. Eating mostly meat and veg with the occasional fruit is the only thing that keeps me losing. If I try to eat grains regularly again the weight comes back.

[–]5235235352 -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TLDR: eat less

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter