Oh man, he was a good guy, but he was so lost. I clearly remember one of my first memories being something about him saying he would eat ground beef and "drink the remaining fat" which I thought was just... wild. Especially because he was easily one of the bigger posters here and I thought he was just insane to eat that much fat no matter how supposedly good for you it was, especially at the expense of things like vegetables. However, things started to make more sense when he started stating how anti-exercise he was, like how miserable he felt doing it and how much he disliked sweat and I just knew that him and I were two COMPLETELY different people (he felt icky if he exercised, I feel DISGUSTING when I don't) and I could never try to eat like him and expect good things to happen. In his defense, I believe he had something similar or related to autism (aspergers?) so his revile for sweat wasn't just some "lazy fat guy" thing, but a true and honest response due to his condition. I would never want to paint him in the light of someone who was simply lazy.
Originally Posted by jimhensen
Whatever did happen to him? I actually thought many of his posts were very good. His cholesterol primer is excellent. He also did talk about being autistic, and when I asked if primal helped with that he admitted that it made no difference. Makes sense given that (edit: condition) is entirely genetic, as far as I understand it. Still, that's a tough thing to deal with when coupled with the health problems he also had. Though I remember he made a huge turn around at least, and that was awesome to read about.
Originally Posted by jimhensen
Last edited by primal pete; 07-25-2012 at 12:21 PM.
Was he an aspie? I never knew that. People on the autistic spectrum can certainly have sensory issues and although I have never heard of people on the spectrum thinking sweat is gross, it certainly wouldn't surprise me. I have actually been working with autistic children this week and none of them seem to have a problem with sweat, though everyone is different.
Originally Posted by iniQuity
I would also like to point out that even when there ARE medical issues involved, weight loss depends on caloric deficit.
I was morbidly obese my entire life (from early childhood), and after menopause, I seriously lost weight (almost 200 lbs) and am a 'normal' weight for the first time in my life at age 70.
I began eating low carb because I happen to be extremely sensitive to carbs, and I cut calories enough to lose slowly. I knew from experience that I had to watch both carbs and calories. I had already developed a goiter, but my primary physician kept assuring me that I had no thyroid problems.
I lost my first 80 lbs while hypothyroid and with escalating symptoms. It was only when I was too fatigued to complete a work day that I self-referred to an endo and was medicated appropriately. My slow thyroid simply meant that I ate fewer calories than someone else my size in order to lose. It did not prevent weight loss.
When I got down to 250 lbs, I plateaued, and I realized that I needed to cut calories further--to <1000 a day. I thought this might be 'too low' (scared by the Internet claim that no one should eat under 1200 cal), and I talked to my endo about it. He agreed that not only was I post-menopausal and hypothyroid, two things that tend to slow the metabolism, but he suspected that I have a 'genetically slow metabolism.' He not only told me that he thought about 900 cal would be 'right' for me, he has patients who can only lose on about 750 cal a day because of medical issues.
In any case, I lost the next 100 lbs eating about 900 cal a day. Since I lost steadily at only about one pound a week, clearly my deficit wasn't too large. Now I can maintain at about 1,100 cal daily. Interestingly, my 'head' would love more food, but my body is totally satisfied at this level.
I suspect that many overweight people imagine that they'll 'starve' if they eat less because they've learned to override their body's satiety signals. Mine were so repressed I didn't notice them at all.
Yes, I ate the 'right stuff'--focusing always on sufficient protein and whole foods--but I could not lose eating that way without a caloric deficit. And I couldn't use anyone else's 'number'--everyone has to find his or her own deficit level.
the last time i remember him posting he was right about at dissertation time in school, and at that point he had already backed off a bit. iniquity is right though...his earlier posts made me wonder how serious he was.
Originally Posted by primal pete
i agree about his cholesterol primer though; that thing is helpful.
This is that same damn issue where we keep getting caught up in disagreements over which side of the equation drives the other. The fact is, both sides of the equation have an effect on one another. That's why you CAN be a fat guy on a treadmill eating 1200 calories a day without losing weight. And you can be a lean guy eating 4,000 calories and never put on an ounce.
Choco - I DID read the article you linked to. And I respond by posting my own (to clear up the confusion about what is actually being argued rather than set forth an argument of my own) with my own pertinent quote:
From Do calories matter? - The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
"People like me (and others) get a bad rap from folks who lack the patience (or training, perhaps) to actually hear the entire argument through before throwing their hands in the air, waving them frantically, and screaming that we’re violating the First Law of Thermodynamics for asserting the Alternative Hypothesis (more on this below).
Let me be as crystal clear as possible, lest anyone feel the need to accuse me of suggesting the Earth is flat. The First Law of Thermodynamics is not being violated by anything I am about to explain, including the Alternative Hypothesis.
Key concept #3 – current dogma
Conventional wisdom, perhaps better referred to as Current Dogma, says that you gain weight because you eat more than you expend. This is almost true! To be 100% true, it would read: when you gain weight, it is the case that you have necessarily eaten more than you expended. Do you see the difference? It’s subtle but very important — arguably more important than any other sentence I will write. The first statement says over-eating caused you to get fat. The second one says if you got fat, you overate, but the possibility remains that another factor led to you to overeat.
If you believe Current Dogma, of course you’ll believe that “calories count” and that counting them (and minimizing them) is the only way to lose weight."
I love these CICO debates. They are so enjoyable . Really nothing new here as far as his blog. However, I'm much more interested in the other physiological ramifications and body composition than JUST weight. The more you learn in that arena the more interesting things get, so keep looking.
Oh, and RichMahogany's link sums up much of where I think the problems are too.... http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
Last edited by Neckhammer; 07-25-2012 at 12:39 PM.
It does help some people (especially eliminating gluten). I am working at a camp right now with 10 autistic kids and two of them are gluten free. I don't know how much it has helped their conditions being gluten free but they certainly aren't "cured" by any stretch of the imagination.
Originally Posted by primal pete
Since I am newish, and I certainly don't know much of the chemistry & science, but for me anyways, finding what works and doing it is easier said than done. You read this, and it sounds good. You read that, and it sounds good. And then you start mixing protocols. Even the butter in your coffee, has it's own set of protocols. It is not put butter & co in your coffee to wash down your eggs & cheese & bacon & london broil & this & that & the other. It has a place & purpose if you are following those guidelines. Trouble is for some I think, myself included, is mixing plans. As mentioned, there are a number of different plans that work if you stick to it. Right now, there are about 4 different things I would like to try to do and I have trouble focusing on doing just one at a time and see how it goes. I just want the weight gone -like yesterday - and it is hard to invest a few weeks or months at a time to see how what works before trying to implement something else.
And I track religiously daily. And I try to research something daily and sometimes it is to my detriment. And you hear ppl say I eat dairy and I gain weight. I eat this or that and I gain weight. So then when the scale isn't co-operating even though you have been in a deficit, it makes you wonder, well I had a piece of cheese last week. Or I had some greek yogurt. So maybe it makes me stall/gain also.
I dont have a purpose to my post really. I usually feel inadequate when I post anyways, because I dont have the knowledge like you guys do, but I do have the desire to learn. There is just so much information that it is hard to know what/who to believe. I want to believe it all, I want to try it all. I think many people want to and the only way to learn is to read and to ask questions. I am sure it seems like beating a dead horse when you have to say it over and over but it is actually a different horse and sometimes it is hard to search through the forums to find answers, it is just easy to ask again. It feels more personalized maybe.
Anyways, I so appreciate the forums and all the knowledge represented & shared.
Last edited by gopintos; 07-25-2012 at 12:48 PM.
Last edited by gopintos; 07-25-2012 at 12:43 PM.