That's not useful information for someone looking to lose or control weight. Aside from consuming calorie-rich fat (which is essential in moderation), there are four means by which to satisfy hunger: high-fiber, high-protein, low-Glycemic Index and volume. Simple, and generally refined, carbs offer little or none of these. So a carb may be a carb, but your appetite will tell you otherwise. Also, what does a basic biochemistry course say about glucose spikes vs. more stable blood glucose levels as it relates to weight gain and other health-related issues? And, finally, while I know nothing of the Hazda tribe that you mentioned, least of all their dietary habits, I wonder how their daily lifestyle compares to ours.
The Hadza tribe are v friendly...gotta be since their fave food is honey! (well, they ain't gonna eat you now instead are they?)
Sorry for not being clear. By lifestyle, what I was referring to was their activity level compared to ours, assuming they consume as much honey as you suggest.
Someone who is obese just needs to consume less calories overall. A 40-50% calorie deficit will do the trick. Manage hunger by eating more volume of food, the food being low calorie density (think veggies). Keep protein intake at no more than 1g per pound bodyweight, probably even less say 0.8g. Lift heavy in the gym. Forget about low carbs, high carbs etc. Fat wise, make sure you have a solid intake of omega 3 (3g of fish oil daily should do it). Easy to do? Nah. But once you start, you'll find the pounds falling off...should give you enough motivation to continue.
It will tell you not to worry about it (unless you are diabetic or prediabetic). It will also tell you that protein or fat can convert into glucose (i.e. carbs) if the body chooses to do so. The metabolic pathways are quite clearly defined.
I know you're not a fan of Internet-based material, but I think you ought to make an exception for this one: http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...n-depth/glycemic-index-diet/art-20048478?pg=1 The evidence is not unequivocal, but it is worth taking into consideration.
I agree with much of what you wrote except for a couple of items, notably the 40-50% calorie deficit part. That's unsustainable and likely to rebound well before someone reaches their weight objective. A sustainable dietary regimen based on reasonable lifestyle adjustments is more likely to succeed in the longer term. Also, lifting heavy, while okay, is not absolutely necessary. What is necessary is exertion. As I noted previously, intensity is more a function of effort than it is of poundage. (And, of course, there is our difference of opinion on HIIT cardio.) Fish oil is good, but that should not preclude eating oily fish low on the food chain.
why? if eating such that hunger is managed, there is no reason why such a deficit can't be maintained for a long period. Not talking forever, but a few months at a minimum.
It tanks your metabolism. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-biggestloser-idUSKCN0Y12E9 The slower the metabolism, the more a person has to cut back on calories in order to keep from gaining weight. “There used to be a mythology that if you just exercised enough you could keep your metabolism up, but that clearly wasn’t the case, these folks were exercising an enormous amount and their metabolism was slowing by several hundred calories per day,” said senior author Kevin D. Hall of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. Their metabolisms didn’t speed up again when they regained the weight, he told Reuters Health by phone.