Glenn Pendlay is Pissed. Are You?

Is there any hope for the health and weight of the kids in America today? No. Not the way things are going right now. A change is badly needed. To get that more people need to react like Glenn Pendlay did in this viral blog post:

I’m pissed.

More about the free updates that people get.

More

left
What Happens If You Eat 5,800 Calories Daily on an LCHF Diet? 175
No Halloween Candy for Fat Kids 44
Panel Discussion on the Fight Against Sugar 55
A Sweet Reason to Avoid Android Phones 49
Is Potato Starch LCHF? About Resistant Starch 63
Is this the Healthy Mediterranean Diet? 21
Why are Asian Rice Eaters Thin? 289
A New Toy Measuring Blood Ketones 148
Is It Dangerous to Eat Meat Before Age 65? 48
Do You Want Sugar Or Trans Fat with Your Coffee? 43
Sugar vs Fat on BBC: Which is Worse? 122
Paleo Wars at AHS! 80
right

33 Comments

Top Comment

  1. Jenny
    This is a bit hilarious. I'm actually a swedish reader, but I thought to pop in and look at the English part of the blog. It's the same tug of war going on here.
    And oh, btw. About calories in = calories out: Sorry to disappoint, but it doesn't work that way. Check out the laws of thermodynamics - it's the first law everyone refers to when they say this crap.
    It's only appliable to closed systems. The human body is definitely not a closed system - it is an open system - and why is that? We eat, we get warm, we poop and pee.
    Therefore some people can eat more calories than their supposedly daily intake. Some have to eat less, and do you know why? Because we are all different, no body works in the same way as another body does.
    Therefore many that eats the lchf-diet can eat 3000 to 4000 kcal every day, and still lose weight! But! when we add the carbohydrates to excess the insulin stores it as fat, and we grow fat.
    And of course, not everyone is fat, even though they can eat pasta or whatever is their favorite carbohydrate form, and eat lots of candy, and drink sugared beverages several times a day.
    We that eat lchf doesn't propagate that everyone should eat it, but neither do we feel that we should eat in the "normal" way, just because it works for some people.

    For example, my little sister - not much fat on that body - but she used to eat almost only candy and chocolate throughout the day, but never gained any weight. Now she eats lchf, and feels great, and has come to the conclusion that she was addicted to chocolate (i.e. a serious addiction that she now struggles with).

    Stop thinking about the calories. Eat till you're content. Eat again when you get hungry. That's how lchf works for us. And it does wonders for us - regardless if we wanna lose weight or not. The body speaks in an amazing language, and it's not hard to learn it ;)

    Read more →

All Comments

  1. I sympathise with him. Some of the commenters are a bit off the wall though. Wow.
  2. Sandy Campbell
    I followed my grocery stores and advertising on TV right into becoming a very fat lady... Ruining my social life and health... NOT ANYMORE... I am at the YMCA and I have already lost 70 lbs and working to loose 30 more... and I will, now that I am no longer listening to TV and only walking the outer isles of the grocery store... :)
  3. mezzo
    Don't buy or eat anything that is advertised. It is really that simple.Every seen large campaign promoting butter, milk, fresh veggies, meat etc? Only crap needs advertising.
  4. Galina L.
    @Sandy,
    You lost a lot, congrats! It is great you made your diet your priority. Many people think they could compensate their poor diets with physical activity.
    I have been a member of my gym for more than 10 years, there are a lot of people there who exercise in order to be able to eat junk guilt-free, and I can see it is not working. I know how difficult it is to loose last pounds. If your stall, ditch all snacks, LC or not.
  5. Jon Weiss
    I read through part of the blog and found it to be condescending and shallow, like many who like to tell others how to live their lives.

    The problem is not all about over eating or eating the wrong foods, it has a lot to do with activity levels. If parents would get their kids outside to play rather than sitting in front of the TV or computer, the kids would be much better off.

    I am a retired soldier, I was in exceptional condition before some injuries put limits on my activity levels. The U.S. military demands that its active duty soldiers be in very good condition, yet the foods that the soldiers are served especially in the field are extremely high calorie. a typical MRE (Meal Ready To Eat) when I retired (they have changed over time) was 1500 calories per meal, 4500 calories per day, and some troops, such as infantry on the move every day will lose weight over time, even on 4500/day. So overeating is not the only problem, nor in many cases is it the problem at all. Lack of activity is a much more contributing factor than the amount of food taken in.

    In the final analysis, the way to attain and maintain a healthy weight is to toss the Height/ Weight scales in the trash, (no two people are exactly alike, and the one size fits all charts are lying to you) and then find a balance of intake vs activity and when it comes to both, all things in moderation when you reach and maintain that balance, your body will attain its own healthy weight.

    During my military career there was a constant pressure to keep the weight off, but when I was at my "optimum weight" by the "experts" calculation...I looked gaunt, felt ill and became weak.

    When I gained weight, (only 5-7 lbs over my maximum allowed weight), I felt better and performed better on the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test), the test consisted of total number of Push-Ups in 2 minutes, total number of Sit-ups in 2 minutes, and a 2 mile run.

    I routinely scored above the maximum score (the max. score measured was 300 pts., but the Army created an extended table for people wanting to excel above standards).

    Cheetos are not bad for you, "too many Cheetos" are bad for you. Mr. Pendlay tells tales of the healthy nature of eating chicken ( I suppose he means as opposed to beef as a staple) but if you sit on the couch and eat 5000 calories of chicken and do nothing you will gain weight as surly as 5000 calories of Cheetos will do to you.

  6. Jon,

    Cheetos are not bad for you, "too many Cheetos" are bad for you.

    Of course Cheetos are bad for you. Too many Cheetos are worse.

    Junk food is not "part of a healthy balanced diet". That's just marketing talk from junk food manufacturers.

    ...if you sit on the couch and eat 5000 calories of chicken and do nothing you will gain weight as surly as 5000 calories of Cheetos will do to you.

    This is simplistic and misleading logic. Exactly the kind of "logic" that makes people eat crap and gain weight every year.

    Have you ever wondered why so many people want to stuff themselves with Cheetos etc. every day on the couch, not chicken?

  7. Marcy
    This promoting and making bad food won't end as long as money is the motivating factor. There is way more profit to granola bars than plain oats and more profit in corn chips than corn. Crap snack foods are profitable and that is all the people that make them care about.
  8. Jon Weiss
    "Junk food is not "part of a healthy balanced diet". That's just marketing talk from junk food manufacturers."

    Cheetos are merely an empty calorie source much like alcohol, yet many athletes who need additional calories, use beer as a source.

    Again reflecting on my military days, I maintained a healthy weight, and stayed in excellent condition, and my diet included "BEER" and "Cheetos" I merely skipped the practice to stuffing myself with them while sitting on the sofa.

    Again, all things in moderation.

    BTW, as I stated earlier, we are each different.

    Maintaining a low BF level is not necessarily a positive for all, when I was carrying a few extra pounds, my blood serum levels were all within the norms, and while taking physical fitness tests I performed better than when I dropped the weight.

    Meanwhile a soldier in my unit who had a BF level of around 4-5% needed heart bypass surgery to clear plaque blockage of his left circumflex and marginal arteries. I suggest you stop trying to "pigeon hole" people who are not all the same. What works for one is not necessarily the right answer for all.

    The junk food makers are not the only group putting out propaganda, the "health and fitness industry" is equally guilty of propagandizing the public.

  9. Jon Weiss
    Doc,

    "Have you ever wondered why so many people want to stuff themselves with Cheetos etc. every day on the couch, not chicken?"

    There is no need for me to wonder about this, they do it because the Cheetos have a pleasing flavor, and the lemmings who suck them down by the case lot, have no self control.

    But the lack of self control of the glutton, does not make the food source bad, any more than the gun wielded by he maniacal murdered is at fault for the act of the person using it.

    If you really want to stop people from eating Cheetos, lobby Frito-lay to make them taste like tofu and bean sprouts.

  10. Alexandra M
    "But the lack of self control of the glutton, does not make the food source bad..."

    Oh boy. Judgmental much?

  11. Mike W
    To me, this guy sounds cranky and self-righteous. When I first started visiting low-carb forums 10 years ago, I thought, "gee, if low-carb eating makes you this crabby all the time, I'm staying away from it!" But I soon realized that online forums tend to be dominated by the most strident, zealous voices. I hope that most low-carbers are enjoying life and aren't walking around in a perpetual pissy state.

    I agree with Pendlay about the obvious wrongness of dietician education, conventional wisdom, and government recommendations. But as for TV commercials, lighten up. Let's face it, TV advertising is brand-driven, and there are few brand names for commodities like meat, fresh vegetables/fruit, and eggs. Healthy meals don't come out of boxes: I think the only brand name I used for last night's dinner was Morton salt. I don't care what silly things commercials are peddling, I just tune them out.

  12. Jon,

    The junk food makers are not the only group putting out propaganda, the "health and fitness industry" is equally guilty of propagandizing the public.

    Could be, however propaganda about real food will not make people fat and sick, like propaganda for sugar sweetened beverages can.

    There is no need for me to wonder about this, they do it because the Cheetos have a pleasing flavor, and the lemmings who suck them down by the case lot, have no self control.

    Right. Why think (hard work) when simple prejudice comes so much easier?

    But the lack of self control of the glutton, does not make the food source bad, any more than the gun wielded by he maniacal murdered is at fault for the act of the person using it.

    In that case there's probably nothing wrong with cigarettes, alcohol or cocaine either.

    Perhaps we should subsidize these industries too, let them sell their drugs to everyone everywhere – and let them advertise on TV to children, like the corn/soda industry.

    If you really want to stop people from eating Cheetos, lobby Frito-lay to make them taste like tofu and bean sprouts.

    As this will never happen your proposal sadly lacks any merit.

  13. Jon
    Doc,

    "Could be, however propaganda about real food will not make people fat and sick, like propaganda for sugar sweetened beverages can."

    Perhaps you need a remedial lesson in basic English?? Propaganda is a distribution of information usually slanted and often false and misleading that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the desired result in audience attitudes. So in your use here, lying is justified if it can be in any way construed as appearing healthy?

    "In that case there's probably nothing wrong with cigarettes, alcohol or cocaine either."

    Considering that they harm no one but the user I see nothing wrong with their use as long as they are retained by the user and not forced on others. There is the lame argument regarding "second hand smoke" but as a kid who grew up in house filled with smokers, and one who never picked up the habit and as a person now 54 years old with no adverse effects from that childhood environment, I doubt the accuracy of the alleged science behind the claim.

    No one is advocating subsidizing anything here, nice attempt at the straw man argument. Many in the political left, the same side of politics that advocates healthy eating, are in favor of illicit drug legalization, I am a conservative, but I have no problem with legalization either, as long as when the punitive drug laws are repealed, the funds for rehab are cut at the same time, if we are going to legalize the drugs I see no reason to compound the idiocy, by offering rehab for the fools who avail themselves of the freedom.

    "As this will never happen your proposal sadly lacks any merit."

    Actually it holds great merit since the re flavoring would get your desired end state, the fight is up to you. If you are unwilling to take up the fight it only reveals your laziness and lack of commitment.

  14. Jon
    Alexandra M

    "Oh boy. Judgmental much?"

    Not "judgmental", "observation" combined with "pragmatism". It is a fact that bad food does not make one a glutton, since the food has no inherent power of it's own. The choice is that of the individual and gluttony is a choice.

    Mike W,
    "I don't care what silly things commercials are peddling, I just tune them out."

    I do the same, but that does not mean that I only eat things that a "Dietician food NAZI" demands. I eat what I like, that which is pleasing to the palate, some times I have a dinner (or even breakfast of Pizza and Beer, other times I have a meal of raw carrots right from the garden washed down with home made fruit juice. Again, all things in moderation.

  15. Amber
    I thought we had evolved past the lazy slob theory of obesity. I guess not.
  16. Jon,

    In that case there's probably nothing wrong with cigarettes, alcohol or cocaine either.

    Considering that they harm no one but the user I see nothing wrong with their use...

    I'm sorry but you sound ignorant. Anybody with a daughter or brother or parent or friend with a severe drug addiction, or who dies prematurely from smoking, knows that many people are hurt.

    No one is advocating subsidizing anything here, nice attempt at the straw man argument.

    Wrong. Corn, i.e. the main ingredient in junk food, is already heavily subsidized in the US.

  17. Draven782
    Its not just about being over weight. It's what that kind of "food" is doing to you on the inside as well.

    Do some research on the subject by the experts and not those who have an agenda or are worried about having their funding taken away and you will see its not about "moderation" or "eat less" exercise more".

    Digging your site Doc !!!

  18. BA
    @ Jon,

    The point of view advocated on this website is not the "sloth and gluttony" school that you are advocating, it is the "Carbohydrate-Insulin" school.

    Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, or become familiarized with the "alternative hypothesis" from others such as Robert Lustig or Peter Attia before running your mouth arguing against a point of view that your posts suggest that you know absolutely nothing about.

  19. moreporkplease
    It's Lustig 101 again. Americans are addicted to sugar; most don't know it; those few who do can't admit it. Being pissed about it isn't the same as taking the strong public health measures necessary to confront the sugar and food industry lobby.

    The fight against tobacco was ugly, long, and socially divisive. The fight against sugar will be worse.

  20. Jon
    Amber,

    "I thought we had evolved past the lazy slob theory of obesity. I guess not."

    There is no "Lazy Slob Theory" the fact is that if you take in calories and burn more than you take in, you will lose weight, if you don't burn off more than you take in you gain. It is that simple.

    Doc

    "I'm sorry but you sound ignorant. Anybody with a daughter or brother or parent or friend with a severe drug addiction, or who dies prematurely from smoking, knows that many people are hurt."

    I am a former alcoholic, I was drunk for 3 years straight, suffered DT's and was diagnosed as an alcoholic, I know, I know, "once addicted... always addicted". But that too is a fallacy. I WAS an alcoholic. But about 30 years ago I had a significant event in my life. I still drink, I now have an beer or glass of wine with dinner once or twice a month, but I have lost the desire for the alcohol, the wine/beer is merely for the flavor of the beverage, and I do not drink to the point of intoxication.

    "Wrong. Corn, i.e. the main ingredient in junk food, is already heavily subsidized in the US."

    Apparently you have not been listening. Corn is a food staple for many things, not merely junk food unless you consider one of the main dietary intake items for several nations, like Mexico and many Central American nations to be "Junk Food", also the main subsidy of Corn goes to ethanol for fuel it has nothing to do with food.

    Draven782

    "Its not just about being over weight. It's what that kind of "food" is doing to you on the inside as well."

    You haven't been paying attention either, the public debate is about "Obesity" not nutritional value, besides even "so called "healthy foods" can make you fat.

    "The point of view advocated on this website is not the "sloth and gluttony" school that you are advocating, it is the "Carbohydrate-Insulin" school."

    The phony argument of "certain types of food make you fat" is an old one, but I am a living example of how that theory is so lame.

    I ate a diet that was filled with fat and cholesterol with a balance of compound and complex carbohydrates & protein, it was high in calories, and I ate that for over 20 years. I gained no weight, in fact I lost weight, because my activity level was high enough to burn it all off.

    Then about 14 years ago I put on weight. The reason was that I was injured and could no longer exercise at the same rate as before, and I kept eating the same diet.

    After putting on weight I reduced my caloric intake to meet my activity level and lost the weight.

    Now I maintain my weight by adjusting caloric intake and I still eat "junk food", just less of it.

    At Age 54 my last cardio stress test placed me in the extremely low category for heart disease risk, and my blood work shows everything on the center line.

    So, keep eating your tofu and bean sprouts if you like, I prefer to enjoy what I eat.

  21. Alexandra M
    "So, keep eating your tofu and bean sprouts if you like, I prefer to enjoy what I eat."

    Did you think this was some sort of a low fat / vegan blog?

    "Not "judgmental", "observation" combined with "pragmatism". "

    Every bigot says that.

    "It is a fact that bad food does not make one a glutton, since the food has no inherent power of it's own. The choice is that of the individual and gluttony is a choice."

    You really haven't kept up with the science, have you?

    Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism [HTML] from ajcn.org…, JA Wortman, WS Yancy, SD Phinney - … American journal of …, 2007 - Am Soc Nutrition
    The persistence of an epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes suggests that new nutritional
    strategies are needed if the epidemic is to be overcome. A promising nutritional approach
    suggested by this thematic review is carbohydrate restriction. Recent studies show that, ...
    Cited by 94 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 15 versions

    Dietary carbohydrate restriction induces a unique metabolic state positively affecting atherogenic dyslipidemia, fatty acid partitioning, and metabolic syndrome [PDF] from nmsociety.org…, ML Fernandez, RD Feinman, SD Phinney - Progress in lipid …, 2008 - Elsevier
    Abstract Abnormal fatty acid metabolism and dyslipidemia play an intimate role in the
    pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases. The availability of
    glucose and insulin predominate as upstream regulatory elements that operate through a ...
    Cited by 70 - Related articles - All 6 versions

    Comparison of low fat and low carbohydrate diets on circulating fatty acid composition and markers of inflammation[PDF] from usda.govCE Forsythe, SD Phinney, ML Fernandez… - Lipids, 2008 - Springer
    Abstract Abnormal distribution of plasma fatty acids and increased inflammation are
    prominent features of metabolic syndrome. We tested whether these components of
    metabolic syndrome, like dyslipidemia and glycemia, are responsive to carbohydrate ...
    Cited by 62 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 11 versions

    Carbohydrate restriction has a more favorable impact on the metabolic syndrome than a low fat diet [PDF] from yaboga.comJS Volek, SD Phinney, CE Forsythe, EE Quann… - Lipids, 2009 - Springer
    Abstract We recently proposed that the biological markers improved by carbohydrate
    restriction were precisely those that define the metabolic syndrome (MetS), and that the
    common thread was regulation of insulin as a control element. We specifically tested the ...
    Cited by 64 - Related articles - All 15 versions

    Limited effect of dietary saturated fat on plasma saturated fat in the context of a low carbohydrate diet [HTML] from nih.govCE Forsythe, SD Phinney, RD Feinman, BM Volk… - Lipids, 2010 - Springer
    Abstract We recently showed that a hypocaloric carbohydrate restricted diet (CRD) had two
    striking effects:(1) a reduction in plasma saturated fatty acids (SFA) despite higher intake
    than a low fat diet, and (2) a decrease in inflammation despite a significant increase in ...
    Cited by 11 - Related articles - All 9 versions

    Very-low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets revisited [PDF] from ccjm.orgJS Volek… - Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine, 2002 - ccjm.org
    ... Metabolism 2002; 51:864–870. 14. Volek JS, Gómez AL, Kraemer WJ. Fasting and postprandial
    lipopro- tein responses to a low-carbohydrate diet supplemented with n-3 fatty acids. ... J Am Diet
    Assoc 1980; 77:264–270. 19. Phinney SD, Bistrian BR, Wolfe RR, Blackburn GL. ...
    Cited by 71 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 20 versions

    These are all peer-reviewed journal articles. It took about five seconds to find them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-reviewed_scientific_journal

  22. Jon
    Alexandra M,

    "Did you think this was some sort of a low fat / vegan blog?"

    Not at all, this is a blog written by a partisan with an agenda, and t is tilted accordingly.

    "Every bigot says that."

    When all else fails resort to the Ad Hominem attack.

    "It is a fact that bad food does not make one a glutton, since the food has no inherent power of it's own. The choice is that of the individual and gluttony is a choice."

    "You really haven't kept up with the science, have you?"

    Actually, I have, and science has proven that caloric intake when balanced with caloric usage results in balance.

    As for your sources...check the key words.

    "suggests", "strategies", "approach", "suggested", "Dietary carbohydrate restriction".

    Sadly this "expert" has apparently not done any research in the differential between 'complex' and 'compound' carbohydrates, and not one of your sources mentions the effects of carbohydrate expenditures created by the O2 transport system during exercise, which is the key in usage of fat and by extension, weight loss.

  23. moreporkplease
    Dudes, there's totally no point in arguing here. I repeat my previous statement: almost no one who was not already a speaker on the low-carb cruise believes in the insulin theory.

    Nor will it be believed widely for probably 70 years, for reasons Dan Ariely discusses in his book "Predictably Irrational." Read that and you will the futility of these flamewars. The human tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts previously held beliefs means today's teenagers will literally have to die before the insulin theory could possibly be widely accepted.

    We can see the same pattern with Galileo. It was not until more than 100 years later than his ideas were widely accepted; as for evolution, even to this day it is not widely believed outside of Europe.

  24. Jon,

    ..the fact is that if you take in calories and burn more than you take in, you will lose weight, if you don't burn off more than you take in you gain. It is that simple.

    The fact is that if you want to go to the north pole you should walk more to the north than to the south. If you keep moving more to the north you will get there eventually. Polar expeditions are that simple. No need for planning.

    You're only stating the blindingly obvious. Unfortunately that simplistic advice has been shown not to work very well for people. Sort of like sending a north polar expedition with the advice to "walk more north than south."

    I am a former alcoholic, I was drunk for 3 years straight, suffered DT's and was diagnosed as an alcoholic

    And you are still claiming that drugs "harm no one but the user"? Do you have a family? What did they think?

  25. Alexandra M
    As usual you nailed it, moreporkplease.

    "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

    No more troll mix from me.

  26. Jon
    Doc,

    "The fact is that if you want to go to the north pole you should walk more to the north than to the south. If you keep moving more to the north you will get there eventually. Polar expeditions are that simple. No need for planning."

    You are comparing apples to oranges, you submit generalization (move in a cardinal direction to get to your destination) to counter simple math (subtraction from anything leaves less of it).

    The fact remains that if you input less calories than you use, you will burn body tissue, and metabolically fat goes before muscle if muscle is given even the most miniscule stimuli. Therefore less caloric intake equals fat loss.

    And you are still claiming that drugs "harm no one but the user"? Do you have a family? What did they think?

    Yes, I have family, NOW, during my alcoholic period, I didn't. My family today is unaffected by my former actions.

  27. Jon
    Alexandra M

    "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck"

    A statement proving that physicists should stick to physics, because, in general, they suck at philosophy.

    Essentially what Dr. Planck says with this statement is that there is no need to present scientific fact to prove your hypothesis, you simply need to find a sympathetic audience. Your use of this quote is quite interesting since Planck used it when attempting (and failing) to disprove one of his own theories, that being the theory of 'quantum mechanics', which he tried to disprove, in favor of 'wave theory'.

  28. Jon,
    You submit simple math, I submit simple geography. The fact remains that if you take more steps north than south you'll get to the north pole. It's just that simple.

    Oh, and did you know the cause of constipation? You guessed it: Eating more than you poop. It's that simple.

    My family today is unaffected by my former actions.

    Did you have friends back then?

  29. Moreporkplease
    Andreas,

    May I offer you some feedback? We've seen you debate many times here - on TV, on the blog, etc. You might be more successful with a different approach.

    Absolutely don't understand your conversation here, sorry. We actually agree with Jon - you have to eat less calories. You will gain weight on 12,000 calories a day unless you're Lance Armstrong. The insulin hypothesis accepts that. But the question our hypothesis answers is about the best way to eat fewer calories - by restricting carbs to lower insulin instead of counting cals.. We agree with Jon on first principles; the discussion is solely about the mechanism.

    If we insist on engaging with Jon-type people, we will have more success with this route. However we will never convince them - due to confirmation bias and social prejudices against fat people. Studies on paper will not undo social norms or human irrationality. It's far easier to change practices than beliefs.

    Please notice that Sisson never argues beliefs but only discusses practices - and always does so in a highly positive manner. He cleverly engages human irrationality for better success. Thanks for listening!

  30. Alexandra M
    "You will gain weight on 12,000 calories a day unless you're Lance Armstrong."

    I'm pretty sure that's true. ;-)

    The problem is that the sloth/gluttony people don't believe you can gain weight on 1200 calories a day when insulin levels are high, so people who really are trying very hard to follow a low fat / high carb diet, counting calories, going to the gym, and enduring low energy and incessant hunger can add "lying" to the sins they're accused of if they fail to lose weight.

  31. Jenny
    This is a bit hilarious. I'm actually a swedish reader, but I thought to pop in and look at the English part of the blog. It's the same tug of war going on here.
    And oh, btw. About calories in = calories out: Sorry to disappoint, but it doesn't work that way. Check out the laws of thermodynamics - it's the first law everyone refers to when they say this crap.
    It's only appliable to closed systems. The human body is definitely not a closed system - it is an open system - and why is that? We eat, we get warm, we poop and pee.
    Therefore some people can eat more calories than their supposedly daily intake. Some have to eat less, and do you know why? Because we are all different, no body works in the same way as another body does.
    Therefore many that eats the lchf-diet can eat 3000 to 4000 kcal every day, and still lose weight! But! when we add the carbohydrates to excess the insulin stores it as fat, and we grow fat.
    And of course, not everyone is fat, even though they can eat pasta or whatever is their favorite carbohydrate form, and eat lots of candy, and drink sugared beverages several times a day.
    We that eat lchf doesn't propagate that everyone should eat it, but neither do we feel that we should eat in the "normal" way, just because it works for some people.

    For example, my little sister - not much fat on that body - but she used to eat almost only candy and chocolate throughout the day, but never gained any weight. Now she eats lchf, and feels great, and has come to the conclusion that she was addicted to chocolate (i.e. a serious addiction that she now struggles with).

    Stop thinking about the calories. Eat till you're content. Eat again when you get hungry. That's how lchf works for us. And it does wonders for us - regardless if we wanna lose weight or not. The body speaks in an amazing language, and it's not hard to learn it ;)

  32. Moreporkplease,
    Thanks for the advice. I agree: Obviously you need a calorie deficit to lose weight. And low carb is an effective way to achieve that without hunger or even needing to count anything. It just works. LC = an easy way to achieve calorie deficit (for overweight people).

    I was perhaps being a bit too sarcastic in the discussion above.

  33. greg
    I'm not pissed about the food choices, I'm disappointed. I'm pissed that I was taught it's okay to eat that garbage in moderation and all I have to do is work it off with exercise. Now my joints hurt! THAT pisses me off.
up

Leave a Reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Pictures of participants through Gravatar