Trump Is On The South Beach Diet

Why Low Carb Diets Can Kill

Popularized in the early 1970s, the Atkins Diet and other low-carb diet plans offer dieters a plan to shed pounds by radically restricting what they eat. These diets have proven to be successful for many, allowing them to shed pounds no other diet plan would take off. However, using a low-carb diet requires careful monitoring because the effects on the body can be severe.

How It Works

Under normal circumstances, you consume protein, carbohydrates and fats together in the food you eat, and your body uses these nutrients to power its internal processes. The American diet has become loaded with carbohydrates, however, and Dr. Atkins believed that this imbalance was behind the increase in obesity rates. A low-carb diet radically reduces the amount of carbohydrates consumed, often starting dieters on pure protein and fats.

Ketosis

Carbohydrates are the primary fuel for the body. When digested, they break down into glucose and other simple sugars and fuel cells, muscles and organs. Depriving the body of carbohydrates forces it into a state called ketosis, in which the digestive system converts protein and fat into glucose instead. If not carefully controlled, this can lead to muscle wastage. Low-carb diet followers must eat plenty of protein to prevent the weakening of their own muscle tissue.

Nutrition

One danger of the low-carb diet is that unless carefully monitored, it can lead to a major nutritional imbalance. Many restaurants and corporations promote products as being good for low-carb diets when in fact they may be extremely high in calories, fat and cholesterol. In addition, focusing on one type of food can lead to vitamin deficiency, requiring you to take supplements to ensure you’re getting all the nutrients you need to remain healthy.

Long-Term Effects

Another concern is that long-term studies of low-carb diets suggest they increase health risks. Low-carb diets often lead to higher saturated fat and cholesterol consumption, and over long periods of time this can lead to heart disease and other cardiovascular problems. According to a study by Dr. Frank Hu in the "Annals of Internal Medicine," people who followed a low-carb diet high in animal products had a 23 percent greater risk of death, 14 percent higher risk of heart disease and 28 percent higher risk of cancer over a 20-year period.

Low-Carb, Healthy Eating

You can reduce the health risks of a low-carb diet somewhat by consulting with a doctor before making any lifestyle changes. A nutritionist can help you choose the healthiest foods to include in your meal plan and help you avoid unhealthy pitfalls. The University of Maryland Medical Center recommends sticking to heart-friendly fats and proteins, and supplementing with low glycemic index carbohydrates like beans, whole grains, fruits and vegetables for complete nutrition. 

References (2)

• University of Maryland Medical Center: Low Carb Diets — The Right Way to Go?
• Women'sHealth.gov: Low Carb Diets Heavy on Meat May Raise Health Risks

Fat Fattens Best You Fucking Pig

Carbs have 4 calories per gram and fat has 9 calories per gram. Do the math you stupid fucker!

Some people think that gluttony is the moral failing that causes obesity. Some people actually think that people have a choice as to what they eat..

Some people see obesity as the result of gluttony and they see gluttony as a moral failing.



Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. Fat people are often pride full. What people call shame is a much needed dose of humility.

Thin Shaming vs Fat Shaming Click Here to see what is worse

Many people accused of fat shaming are worried about the fat person's health.

Click HERE to read why people think The Bible Belt is the FATTEST and most SINFUL

Gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins.

Philippians 3:19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.

Proverbs 23:20-21 Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.

Proverbs 23:2 And put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite

The Atkins Diet Is A Nightmare Diet

When Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution was first published, the President of the American College of Nutrition said, "Of all the bizarre diets that have been proposed in the last 50 years, this is the most dangerous to the public if followed for any length of time."

When the chief health officer for the State of Maryland, was asked "What's wrong with the Atkins Diet?" He replied "What's wrong with... taking an overdose of sleeping pills? You are placing your body in jeopardy." He continued "Although you can lose weight on these nutritionally unsound diets, you do so at the risk of your health and even your life." 

The Chair of Harvard's nutrition department went on record before a 1973 U.S. Senate Select Committee investigating fad diets: "The Atkins Diet is nonsense... Any book that recommends unlimited amounts of meat, butter, and eggs, as this one does, in my opinion is dangerous. The author who makes the suggestion is guilty of malpractice."

The Chair of the American Medical Association's Council on Food and Nutrition testified before the Senate Subcommittee as to why the AMA felt they had to formally publish an official condemnation of the Atkins Diet: "A careful scientific appraisal was carried out by several council and staff members, aided by outside consultants. It became apparent that the [Atkins] diet as recommended poses a serious threat to health." 

The warnings from medical authorities continue to this day. "People need to wake up to the reality," former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop writes, that the Atkins Diet is "unhealthy and can be dangerous."

The world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, calls the Atkins Diet "a nightmare of a diet." The official spokesperson of the American Dietetic Association elaborated: "The Atkins Diet and its ilk--any eating regimen that encourages gorging on bacon, cream and butter while shunning apples, all in the name of weight loss--are a dietitian's nightmare."The ADA has been warning Americans about the potential hazards of the Atkins Diet for almost 30 years now. Atkins dismissed such criticism as "dietician talk". "My English sheepdog," Atkins once said, "will figure out nutrition before the dieticians do."

The problem for Atkins (and his sheepdog), though, is that the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, agrees with the AMA and the ADA in opposing the Atkins Diet.[13] So does the American Cancer Society;[14] and the American Heart Association; and the Cleveland Clinic;[16] and Johns Hopkins;[17] and the American Kidney Fund;[18] and the American College of Sports Medicine;[19] and the National Institutes of Health.[20] 

In fact there does not seem to be a single major governmental or nonprofit medical, nutrition, or science-based organization in the world that supports the Atkins Diet. As a 2004 medical journal review concluded, the Atkins Diet "runs counter to all the current evidence-based dietary recommendations."

A 2003 review of Atkins "theories" in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition concluded: "When properly evaluated, the theories and arguments of popular low carbohydrate diet books... rely on poorly controlled, non-peer-reviewed studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric. This review illustrates the complexity of nutrition misinformation perpetrated by some popular press diet books. A closer look at the science behind the claims made for [these books] reveals nothing more than a modern twist on an antique food fad."

READ MORE ON ATKINS EXPOSED

Ketogenic Diets Are Dangerous

Ketogenic diet: Is the ultimate low-carb diet good for you? - Harvard ...

Low-Carb, High-Protein Diets: Risks (Ketosis) and Benefits - WebMD

The Hidden Dangers Of A Low Carbohydrate Diet

Here are the low carbohydrate risks, in ten steps: 

1. Your body stores carbohydrate, mostly in your liver and muscles, in the form of glycogen. Depending on your size, you can store roughly in the range of 1500-2000 calories of storage carbohydrate (although that number is fairly variable based on your fitness and size). 

2. If you’re sedentary and don’t really exercise much (which I don’t encourage), this amount of storage carbohydrate is more than sufficient to get you through a typical day. Really, your body only needs a maximum of 600 calories of carbohydrate to survive each day – and that carbohydrate can be derived from diet, or from you own storage glycogen. 

3. But if you’re active and at the same time consuming a low carbohydrate diet, you can easily burn through your liver and muscle glycogen stores in anywhere from 2 days to a couple weeks. The nice part about this, if you’re trying to lose weight, is that since glycogen carries up to four times it’s weight in water, a low carbohydrate diet can quickly shed 5-10 pounds (or more), which seems quite satisfactory. But the problem is, most of what you’ve lost is A) energy to sustain intense physical activity, muscle mass, and B) water. 

4. So now you have very little storage carbohydrate and are potentially dehydrated. If you’re an athlete or a physically active individual, this means that you’re limited to utilizing fat as a fuel for energy. Fat, through a process called “beta-oxidation”, can provide tens of thousands of calories of readily utilizable fuel, but the problem is that it burns far more slowly than carbohydrate. 

5. This means that if you’re on a strict low carbohydrate diet, you can say goodbye to intense weight training, track intervals, or just about any activity that would be consider “tempo”, “threshold”, or “intervals”. And this is the stuff that adds lean muscle to your body, boosts your metabolism and gets you fit fast – compared to a slow and sluggish slog in your “fat-burning zone”. This is not negotiable by your body. It is simple physiology. When you deplete muscle glycogen, there is a directly proportional increase in muscle fatigue, and also an increase in muscle catabolism (direct metabolism of your body’s own muscle protein, or conversion of that protein into glucose via gluconeogenesis). Many people on a low-carbohydrate diet simply stop exercising, because it can suck so much. 

6. As you lose muscle mass, your already handicapped metabolism drops even more. I will acknowledge that muscle fibers don’t burn as many calories or boost your metabolism as much as we all like to think, but this is still an important consideration for those trying to maintain lean muscle mass or tone. 

7. For active people, this trouble may all be “in vain”. Since physically active individuals and athletes are far more sensitive to insulin and less susceptible to blood sugar fluctuations, any attempt to eat low carbohydrate in conjunction with exercise, for the pure purpose of “controlling blood sugar levels” could be a mostly unnecessary endeavor anyways. 

RELATED: 

Low-Carb Diets and Brain Function | LIVESTRONG.COM

Do Low Carbohydrate Diets Make You Dumber? - Forbes

Low Carb Diet Is Bad For Thinking And Memory - Medical News Today

8. Low carbohydrate diets, if implemented improperly, result in low fiber intake from a sharp reduction in plant-based food consumption, which can increase risk of digestive cancers and cardiovascular disease, and also leads to constipation and bowel issues. In addition, a drop in fruit, vegetables, legume and grain consumption can result in inadequate phytonutrient, antioxidant, vitamin C and potassium intake. Many (but not all) low carbohydrate diets have these problems. 

9. Typical “low carbohydrate” meal replacement bars and shakes, ice creams or ice cream sandwiches, and other low carb or sugar-free snacks often contain potentially unhealthy ingredients like maltitol, and are chock full of preservatives and highly processed ingredients. If your low carbohydrate diet involves boxed, wrapped and packaged food, it probably falls into this category. 

10. There can be long term health issues as your body is chronically carbohydrate depleted over extended periods of time. Your liver is exposed to extra stress as it is forced to assist with manufacturing glucose from fats and proteins, potentially toxic amounts of ammonia are produced as proteins are converted into glucose, your body has a more difficult time producing mucus and the immune system becomes impaired as risk of pathogenic infection increases, and your body loses the ability to produce compounds called glycoproteins, which are vital to cellular functions. 

Read more at: https://bengreenfieldfitness.com/article/low-carb-ketogenic-diet-articles/the-hidden-dangers-of-a-low-carbohydrate-diet/

Carbs Are Not The Problem. Your Gluttony IS The Problem

Fat asses will blame everything but themselves for the fact that they are disgusting fat bodies. The truth is fatty, you are a weak willed glutton and you are buying every excuse that comes down the pike to justify your shameful cowardice. Truth hurts! Huh?

I've read the low carb forums and the crap the low carbdroids post. It's a fucking cult. Low carb didn't work in 1970 when that fat quack Dr Atkins pulled it out of his ignorant ass and put it in a book. If you are not too compromised by keto-genic psychosis, maybe watching this video and get un-brainwashed is something you will do.

You will have to watch it 3 times a day for it to work.

FAT FATTENS BEST

More Proof: FAT FATTENS BEST

Fat vs. Carbohydrate Overeating: Which Causes More Fat Gain?

Two human studies, published in 1995 and 2000, tested the effect of 
carbohydrate vs. fat overfeeding on body fat gain in humans.  

What did they find, and why is it important?

We know that daily calorie intake has increased the US, in parallel with the dramatic 
increase in body fatness.  These excess calories appear to have come from fat, 
carbohydrate, and protein all at the same time (although carbohydrate increased the most).  
Since the increase in calories, carbohydrate, fat, and protein all happened at the same time, 
how do we know that the obesity epidemic was due to increased calorie intake and not just increased carbohydrate or fat intake?  If our calorie intake had increased solely by the addition of 
carbohydrate or fat, would we be in the midst of an obesity epidemic?

The best way to answer this question is to examine the controlled studies that have compared carbohydrate and fat overfeeding in humans.

Horton et al.

The first study to address this question was published in 1995 by Dr. James Hill's group (1).  
The title of the paper is "Fat and Carbohydrate Overfeeding in Humans: Different Effects 
on Energy Storage".  Sounds promising for the calorie skeptics.  

Sixteen men (9 lean*, 7 obese) were overfed by 50 percent of calorie needs for 14 days, 
by adding excess fat or carbohydrate to the diet.  After a four-week break, each person 
was overfed the macronutrient they had not received the first time (randomized crossover design).  Subjects were provided with all food,  in a research kitchen, although they were allowed
 to consume some of it at home.

After 14 days, the researchers measured changes in body weight, fat mass, and lean mass. 

Here's what they found:

There were no significant differences between diets and/or groups in body weight or body composition changes.  

Carbohydrate and fat overfeeding caused nearly identical increases in body weight, fat mass,
 and lean mass, and this was true both in the lean and obese groups.  

Here's a graph of body weight changes:

And here's a graph of changes in fat mass:

Note that obese subjects seemed to gain more fat than lean subjects.  This is presumably because they were overfed by a greater absolute number of calories**.

If changes in body fatness were essentially identical during fat and carbohydrate overfeeding, why did the investigators choose to state in the title that "energy storage" differed between macronutrients?  The reason is that carbohydrate overfeeding caused an increase in carbohydrate burning and total energy expenditure, while fat overfeeding had no significant effect on fat burning or total energy expenditure.  In other words, the body "burned off" some of the extra carbohydrate, but it didn't burn off any of the extra fat.  A higher proportion of the fat calories was stored as body fat.

Yet in the end, the differences were small-- the body stored nearly all of the excess calories in both cases, and any apparent differences in energy expenditure were not reflected in fat mass***.  Calorie-for-calorie, body fat accumulation was approximately the same during fat and carbohydrate overfeeding.

Lammert et al.

The second study was published in 2000 by the research group of Dr. Bjorn Quistorff (2).  Ten pairs of lean young men were overfed by 5 megajoules (1,195 kcal) per day for 21 days, given as either a carbohydrate-rich or a fat-rich diet****.  Subjects lived and ate in a research setting the entire time.  The study was extremely well controlled.

Body composition was determined weekly by underwater weighing.  Increases in body weight were similar between groups, and increases in fat mass were almost identical:

Interestingly, the carbohydrate-overfed group actually gained more lean mass than the fat-overfed group.  It's unclear to me whether that reflects actual tissue gain, or simply increased glycogen storage.  Another interesting thing to note is that fat gain varied tremendously between individuals.  Due to genetics, physical fitness, and/or other factors, some people simply store more body fat when they eat excess calories, while others burn most of it off.  This has been confirmed repeatedly.

In any case, this study confirms that fat gain is approximately the same whether people overeat fat or carbohydrate.

Bonus Study: Hirsch et al. 

We know that carbohydrate and fat cause approximately equal fat gain per unit calorie during overfeeding, but what happens when people aren't overeating?  Does the proportion of calories supplied as fat or carbohydrate affect body fatness in that scenario?

The research group of Drs. Rudy Leibel and Jules Hirsch kept a series of subjects under metabolic ward conditions, strictly controlling the diet and dramatically varying the proportion of carbohydrate to fat, while keeping calories constant, for several months at a time (3, 4).  Here's a summary of their findings:

We showed that the carbohydrate-to fat ratio could vary widely with little or no alteration in the energy requirement for weight maintenance.  The results of a 13-week study in which an individual was fed a formula diet extremely rich in carbohydrate and low in fat for a period of 38 d and, thereafter, for a longer time, a diet rich in fat and low in carbohydrate are shown in Figure 1 [see below-- SG].  Weight varied little throughout the study and average energy intake was the same throughout...  The reason for emphasizing these findings is that under the strict conditions imposed by hospitalization and feedings of a formula diet, energy needs are the same over long periods of time even though carbohydrate-to-fat ratios vary.  Similar data were accumulated in 15 subjects.

Here, you can see the weight trajectory of the woman described above:

Over a fairly long period of time, her weight stayed within a 1 kg range, despite huge differences in diet composition.  The same thing was observed in a number of other subjects.

In other words, under non-overfeeding conditions, the carbohydrate and fat content of the diet have no measurable impact on body weight when calories are controlled.

Conclusion

There are always caveats when interpreting scientific evidence.  Here are a few for today:

• The studies we discussed were small.
• They may not have been long enough for differences to emerge.
• The overfeeding studies didn't include women.
• The overfeeding studies reported significant individual variability.  In other words, some individuals may gain body fat more readily when they overeat carbohydrate, while others may be more sensitive to fat.  Or not.  We can't really say based on these studies, but it remains possible. 

Scientific evidence is never perfect, but at some point we have to decide which hypothesis is best supported.  In this case, the clear winner is the hypothesis that total calorie intake determines body fatness, but not the proportion of dietary fat or carbohydrate.  

Based on the available evidence, the US obesity epidemic probably resulted from an increase in total calorie intake, not from changes in fat or carbohydrate intake that were acting independently of total calories.  We would likely be faced with the exact same obesity epidemic if our increased calorie intake came exclusively from fat, or exclusively from carbohydrate.

That being said, macronutrients (fat, carb, protein) are not irrelevant to body fatness!  They can impact fat storage by affecting how many calories we eat.  Added fats tend to increase calorie intake, while high-protein diets tend to decrease calorie intake.  Of course, refined and processed versions of fat and carbohydrate tend to favor higher calorie intake as well, due in part to higher calorie density and palatability.

Somewhat paradoxically, once a person is overweight or obese, increasing the proportion of protein and fat at the expense of carbohydrate can help control appetite and reduce body fatness.  During moderate carbohydrate restriction, this effect seems to depend mostly on increased protein intake, but during more extreme carbohydrate restriction, there may be a role for ketones.  I think there are still mysteries here that deserve further scientific exploration.  

* Average body fat percentage of lean group = 21.4%, which is not particularly lean for a man.  BMI = 21.3, which is low, so these people probably had a fairly undesirable body composition on average.  The investigators specifically excluded "highly trained individuals".

** Subjects received a 50% calorie excess.  Since obese people have a higher baseline calorie expenditure than lean people (25% higher in this study), the excess calories during overfeeding would be greater in an absolute sense.

*** The investigators do state that the body composition changes they measured were near the detection limit, given the short duration of overfeeding.  The subtext is that the fat overfeeding group may have ended up gaining a bit more fat if the study had lasted longer.  Personally, I'm skeptical of this possibility, due to the nearly identical body composition changes they reported and the results of Lammert et al.

*** Carb-rich: 11%, 78%, 11% of calories as fat, carb, protein.  Fat-rich: 58%, 31%, 11% of calories as fat, carb, protein.  In the carb group, a lot of the calories came from sugar (sucrose).