Obesity is rising in Silicon Valley(fortune.com)
fortune.com
Obesity is rising in Silicon Valley
http://fortune.com/2015/10/23/is-silicon-valley-bad-for-your-health/
12 comments
I recently got an Apple Watch and comparing my activity on a normal weekend vs a normal weekday was staggering. When I'm not at work I live an active healthy lifestyle, at work I'm literally killing myself.
It's not about the fancy gyms free on campus or one off runs, it's that on the weekend physical activity is a normal part of my work and on the weekday it is antithetical to my work.
I, and several others, have expressed a desire to leave tech over this issue. We are active fit people who TRY to workout and eat right, but our work grinds our willingness out of us while demanding large numbers of hours being physically inactive.
It's not about the fancy gyms free on campus or one off runs, it's that on the weekend physical activity is a normal part of my work and on the weekday it is antithetical to my work.
I, and several others, have expressed a desire to leave tech over this issue. We are active fit people who TRY to workout and eat right, but our work grinds our willingness out of us while demanding large numbers of hours being physically inactive.
You could look at working remotely. You could still stay in tech but also live a healthy lifestyle.
Working remotely doesn't change either the amount of work you're expected to do or the fact that it has to be done at a computer, which basically has to be a sedentary activity.
I feel I'm a little less sedentary when working remotely. I find it easier to take a 15 min break to walk around, do my laundry, lie on the couch to read. At the office, I'm more often sitting at my desk for long period of times.
I know plenty of people that jog/hit the gym during lunch or what have you. I run almost daily after work.
If your work is busting your ass so hard you feel it's literally impossible to move at any point during the day, get a new job. That's not SV as a whole.
If your work is busting your ass so hard you feel it's literally impossible to move at any point during the day, get a new job. That's not SV as a whole.
True, but few people would argue watching TV for 6 hours every day is part of a healthy, active lifestyle. Physically, that's about the same as writing software.
Consuming vs. producing, even if sitting still, is different physiologically.
Do you have some evidence to back that up?
Its just an intuitive hypothesis. And point to note is that ever since we started doing agriculture, and that was around 20,000 years ago. We started to have more idle time for creating tools and arts, in general more sedentary than hunting/gathering. Even the works of mathematicians since several centuries ago, I can imagine, would have implied being sedentary while they worked. So software is just the latest in that chain of things since we started doing agriculture.
Certainly, we can start with the neurological effect of watching TV.
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/5jcl/5JCL59.htm
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/5jcl/5JCL59.htm
Standing desk? I mean there may be easier paths the health than leaving the industry.
Every industry has its own health hazards -- we're just now learning what they are for the computing industry. If these issues are as widespread as the article implies, it's something that needs to be attacked on a company- or industry-wide scale instead of by individuals trying to hack their way around the system.
As an individual, on the other hand, leaving the industry until they get their act together could be the best course if your circumstances allow it. Altering your own work practices and lobbying your company to pay more attention to these issues are also worth considering.
As an individual, on the other hand, leaving the industry until they get their act together could be the best course if your circumstances allow it. Altering your own work practices and lobbying your company to pay more attention to these issues are also worth considering.
That really depends on how detrimental the effects actually are and if "altering your work practices" can negate the effect then we probably shouldn't be quitting our jobs.
Latest data says that standing desks don't improve health by all that much. It's movement that counts.
Great iteration. I would argue that moving requires a lot more will power and induces more decision fatigue than just standing.
I don't think a treadmill as a desk is a great solution.
I don't think a treadmill as a desk is a great solution.
I started bike commuting for exactly this reason. It takes me a bit longer than driving would and isn't an option for those with megacommutes, but now I look forward to my commutes as the highlight of my day instead of the stressful, boring time-suck they used to be. I'm riding about 100 miles a week now.
[deleted]
I've expressed the same desire to leave tech for this very reason. I'm curious, what are some alternatives that you and your colleagues have come up with?
[deleted]
Interesting. It's actually a bit harder for me to hit my watch's activity goals on the weekend when I'm not at work. The reason is that—since I got the Apple Watch back in April—I try to make a point of walking to or from the office every day, plus I started running.
I don't think you should leave tech. You should leave an abusive employer who expects an absurd number of hours of work from you every day.
I don't think you should leave tech. You should leave an abusive employer who expects an absurd number of hours of work from you every day.
The best solution that I've come across so far is the treadmill desk. Standing desks are not much better than sitting desks. You're still basically inactive. They might be better for your back, though.
Treadmill desks don't get you fit, but they will let you move while you code/design/write/etc. You only have to do an hour or two off and on throughout the day to notice a big improvement. It's not hard to get to 10000 steps.
Treadmill desks don't get you fit, but they will let you move while you code/design/write/etc. You only have to do an hour or two off and on throughout the day to notice a big improvement. It's not hard to get to 10000 steps.
I am unwilling to accept an actual manifestation of a hamster wheel as the solution to my problem.
Variety of physicality is as important as its execution
Variety of physicality is as important as its execution
Fair enough. I basically agree. If you find a better solution when you have to code 8-12 hours a day, let me know.
Edit: Also, some people pay to walk on treadmills.
Edit: Also, some people pay to walk on treadmills.
don't you find it difficult to type/read the screen when your constantly bobbing up and down due to how the human stride works? Sure maybe your health goes up but I suspect your productivity goes way way down. Seems to me it would make far more sense to just run/jog on breaks/lunch/before/after work.
I've read that some people have trouble with this. It hasn't been a problem for me. I'm typing at my TD now. I'm not as quick when I'm typing or mousing, but I can write code without issue. Also, much of my actual development time is spent thinking and researching and walking is great for that. For those that have more trouble, taking care of more mundane tasks (email, web research, etc.) while on the TD may make it workable.
The lunchtime break is great and probably better for your actual fitness. For me, it's the 4+ hours being stationary before and after lunch that are the problem.
The lunchtime break is great and probably better for your actual fitness. For me, it's the 4+ hours being stationary before and after lunch that are the problem.
Treadmill desks don't work in the cubicle / open office environments of almost every tech company due to noise.
Treadmill desks are actually better for you than standing, because being stationary while standing can cause lower back pain too! Doing the stationary standing desk thing was the first time I felt back pain while working.
Treadmill desks are actually better for you than standing, because being stationary while standing can cause lower back pain too! Doing the stationary standing desk thing was the first time I felt back pain while working.
Yes, true. The place where I'm working laughs at the concept of a TD. Many more forward thinking companies have workout areas and places to take brief naps. Maybe in the future there will be TD areas.
This could help manage the noise and any awkwardness which might be felt by those at the TDs. It doesn't take much time on the TD to be effective. It's a way to punctuate long stretches of stasis with activity. In an environment like this, it would be easy to reserve electronically in the same way that we reserve conference rooms today. Lots of people could share a small number of desks.
This could help manage the noise and any awkwardness which might be felt by those at the TDs. It doesn't take much time on the TD to be effective. It's a way to punctuate long stretches of stasis with activity. In an environment like this, it would be easy to reserve electronically in the same way that we reserve conference rooms today. Lots of people could share a small number of desks.
Isn't it easier to just get a run during your lunch break? Most offices have showers these days it seems to be much easier to achieve than a treadmill at your desk.
It's the food.
There are 24/7 snacks everywhere, for free, and half of them are not good for you. Even if they were all good for you, you it's too easy to eat too much anyway.
Then all the provided food is given buffet style, so you cannot measure how much you eat, and the barriers to eating more are very minimal. Even services like Zesty who provide calorie counts are not useful, because they serve it buffet style and make it difficult to calculate portions. Food served is usually restaurant food too, so fat is not visible but added for flavor.
All of this combines to becoming fatter.
SV can become a force of healthy weight if they provided packaged weight loss meals that had all nutritional info on them for breakfast/lunch/dinner. Then people who wanted to lose weight would have this very convenient option to do so.
Most employers are not interested although because a very small amount of their employees will use it at a time.
There are 24/7 snacks everywhere, for free, and half of them are not good for you. Even if they were all good for you, you it's too easy to eat too much anyway.
Then all the provided food is given buffet style, so you cannot measure how much you eat, and the barriers to eating more are very minimal. Even services like Zesty who provide calorie counts are not useful, because they serve it buffet style and make it difficult to calculate portions. Food served is usually restaurant food too, so fat is not visible but added for flavor.
All of this combines to becoming fatter.
SV can become a force of healthy weight if they provided packaged weight loss meals that had all nutritional info on them for breakfast/lunch/dinner. Then people who wanted to lose weight would have this very convenient option to do so.
Most employers are not interested although because a very small amount of their employees will use it at a time.
Why can't you measure how much you eat from a buffet?
Calorie counts are often not there, the food are cooked composites where you don't know how much oil has been used for example.
Even if the counts were there, you have to bring a scale and hold up the line for everyone else for each item you dump on your plate. You'll piss off coworkers.
You also get gravity effects where if your scoop near the bottom of the serving dish, you get extra helpings of oil, adding hundreds of calories.
Even if the counts were there, you have to bring a scale and hold up the line for everyone else for each item you dump on your plate. You'll piss off coworkers.
You also get gravity effects where if your scoop near the bottom of the serving dish, you get extra helpings of oil, adding hundreds of calories.
This whole article plays out as a ringing endorsement for the ketogenic diet[1].
Most people don't realize it but a diet high in carbohydrates and sugars is lethal, and hundreds of millions of people suffer from it on a regular basis.
It's a serious lifestyle change but honestly I think many would benefit from it significantly, as adhering to it requires a basic level of self-directed education into what you eat and why it matters.
It's not just "eating more fruits and vegetables is good and eating less pizza is better."
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/keto
Most people don't realize it but a diet high in carbohydrates and sugars is lethal, and hundreds of millions of people suffer from it on a regular basis.
It's a serious lifestyle change but honestly I think many would benefit from it significantly, as adhering to it requires a basic level of self-directed education into what you eat and why it matters.
It's not just "eating more fruits and vegetables is good and eating less pizza is better."
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/keto
You could also do something more reasonable like avoiding processed carbs and sugar as much as possible. I'm not knocking keto since I've never done it but I found a common sense diet that is sustainable is the best diet. Kudos to those who can go keto for their entire lives. I certainly can't. But that doesn't mean I can't be healthy.
Ultimately being healthy isn't rocket science and doesn't require some esoteric diet. Don't eat shitty food. Move/exercise more. And lift heavy things if you want to get stronger.
Ultimately being healthy isn't rocket science and doesn't require some esoteric diet. Don't eat shitty food. Move/exercise more. And lift heavy things if you want to get stronger.
You're absolutely right, simply eating healthy and avoiding shitty food is often-times easier and more beneficial, however for weight loss and weight management I would say that keto is more effective.
After adhering to keto for some time, I've moved to a common sense diet and exercise regularly, and I've never been in better shape.
The rationale behind advocating for keto is that I honestly think it's easier for most people to adhere to it than to stick to a healthy diet and exercise regimen.
After adhering to keto for some time, I've moved to a common sense diet and exercise regularly, and I've never been in better shape.
The rationale behind advocating for keto is that I honestly think it's easier for most people to adhere to it than to stick to a healthy diet and exercise regimen.
i've lost 25 pounds on keto and low-carb. some days i eat more carbs than others because pure keto is extremely hard to sustain especially when you eat socially and aren't a teetotaler. i need to lose about 15 more to get back to my college freshman weight, so i was at the high end of 'overweight' and close to 'obese' if you look at the official classifications.
even as a keto fan, at the end of the day the most important thing is eating less calories than you expend if you want to lose a significant amount of weight in a 6-12 month period - which really means, the most important thing is for people to actually count their calories. when i first started counting there would be some days where i'd eat 4000+ calories! it's amazing i wasn't 100 pounds overweight.
there came a point where i asked myself, "why the hell am i eating this much?" after seeing 3000+ on the graph for a few days in a row, and just decided not to anymore. that was an extremely important point in the process. having to face the quantified view of your terrible choices every day has a profound effect on your decision making.
even as a keto fan, at the end of the day the most important thing is eating less calories than you expend if you want to lose a significant amount of weight in a 6-12 month period - which really means, the most important thing is for people to actually count their calories. when i first started counting there would be some days where i'd eat 4000+ calories! it's amazing i wasn't 100 pounds overweight.
there came a point where i asked myself, "why the hell am i eating this much?" after seeing 3000+ on the graph for a few days in a row, and just decided not to anymore. that was an extremely important point in the process. having to face the quantified view of your terrible choices every day has a profound effect on your decision making.
> It's not just "eating more fruits and vegetables is good and eating less pizza is better."
That would be a very good start.
There's too little scientific evidence that the ketogenic diet is beneficial. Maybe I'm wrong but it looks more like a fad supported by some nutrition gurus. It's an extreme change for an uncertain result. On the other hand, cutting out the obvious junk food is more easily achievable (but not easy) and likely to be beneficial.
That would be a very good start.
There's too little scientific evidence that the ketogenic diet is beneficial. Maybe I'm wrong but it looks more like a fad supported by some nutrition gurus. It's an extreme change for an uncertain result. On the other hand, cutting out the obvious junk food is more easily achievable (but not easy) and likely to be beneficial.
There is a fair bit of science behind it:
* British Journal of Nutrition did a study[1] whose results indicated that "achieve better long-term body weight and cardiovascular risk factor management when compared with individuals assigned to a conventional low-fat diet"
* a Swedish government advisor group at the Council on Health Technology assessment found[2] that "the nation would benefit most from a low-carb, high fat, ketogenic diet" where the study indicated benefits include "improved blood sugar, reduced body weight, and enhanced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol without adverse effects on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol"
Rejection of popular low-fat diet dogma is increasing in prevalence among the general populace, nutritional academia, and government-supported dietary guidelines.
[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...
[2] http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-obesi...
* British Journal of Nutrition did a study[1] whose results indicated that "achieve better long-term body weight and cardiovascular risk factor management when compared with individuals assigned to a conventional low-fat diet"
* a Swedish government advisor group at the Council on Health Technology assessment found[2] that "the nation would benefit most from a low-carb, high fat, ketogenic diet" where the study indicated benefits include "improved blood sugar, reduced body weight, and enhanced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol without adverse effects on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol"
Rejection of popular low-fat diet dogma is increasing in prevalence among the general populace, nutritional academia, and government-supported dietary guidelines.
[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...
[2] http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-obesi...
I jumped on the Paleo thing, because everything doctors told me to do was either wrong (eat your whole grains! eat less meat and less fat!), or impossible (go run flat out for extended periods while you weigh 340 pounds, burn tons of calories even though your body is pre-diabetic and stuck in grain/sugar-induced starvation-but-you're-a-lardass mode, so good luck getting those calories out of your fat cells to actually go burn them...)
So, yeah, modern western society? Go fuck yourself for lying to me for the first 30 years of my life. I'm now skinny, and you're all still fat. Being fat runs in your family? No, your problem is NO ONE runs in your family.
So, yeah, modern western society? Go fuck yourself for lying to me for the first 30 years of my life. I'm now skinny, and you're all still fat. Being fat runs in your family? No, your problem is NO ONE runs in your family.
I developed "Paleo" diet on my own, before I knew real Paleo diet existed.
I have thyroid disease (That is genetic, so in my case my family is "at fault", at least I am not fucked up as my aunt that ended having thyroid cancer and diabetes).
One of the first symptoms that shows in cases like mine, is skyrocketing cholesterol, immediately this resulted in doctors telling me to eat less meat, and more sugary stuff (fruits, vegetables, etc...), when I did what they wanted, my cholesterol don't changed, and my triglycerides shot up too. (mind you, this happened when I was 14 years old!)
I joined a Kung Fu academy, to try to lose the misterious weight I started gaining, I got stronger, and heavier (ie: I built up muscle, but didn't get rid of the extra water and fat).
I was alright, but I moved to another city due to college reasons, so I needed a new sport, doctors (and physical education teachers) recommended cardio, and high-reps exercise.
Also I went to dieticians, that recommended whole grains and whatnot.
My weight kept rising, and I started to weaken, at the gym after some months I could lift less weight than when I started.
Then I learned how the body process nutrients, for example eating cholesterol don't make it rise, the body disassemble it and stores the components, later if the body needs cholesterol it assembles it back, primarily out of carbohydrates.
So I theorized: if I dump carbohydrates, maybe things will get better.
I then asked the professional opinions, they all told me I was wrong, mad, whatever, and that I would fuck-up my heart, and that cabohidrates were necessary.
I still went ahead and started to eat at lunch only foliage vegetables (lettuce for example), carrots (because I like them a lot) and some source of protein (cheese, meat, sausage, whatever).
And at dinner I ate only a can of tuna.
My cholesterol suddenly dropped to high, but non-critical levels (it went from 280 to 195, with 200 being the "critical" level threshold, and I think 120 is the "safe" threshold), my triglycerides finally came back to what it was when I was 14, and my weight dropped from 130kg to 90kg (still too much though, I was supposed to weight 70kg).
Also I started to design my own exercise programs, and do heavy-lifting with free weights and low reps, and skip cardio completely for the most part (I was already reasonably active enough, I don't own a car, so anywhere I needed to go I walked).
For the first time gym felt like something that wasn't pointless, I finally started to get heavier weights over time, feel better, and get strong enough to do some day-to-day things better (Example: before this I could not grip safely in my hand a 2 liter coca-cola bottle safely if it was full, I would drop it, thus to pour drinks I used to put the bottle on the edge of the table, hold the top with one hand, the cup with another, and slowly tilt it, now I can just do like a normal person, and get the bottle with one hand in the middle and pour normally).
I am still too weak, and too overweight though, I finally started taking thyroid meds, and they helped a little, but not much, I am struggling to find a decent medic...
At least, I am not that old (I am 27), so I still have time to fix up my life, but is still a fucked up situation.
I have thyroid disease (That is genetic, so in my case my family is "at fault", at least I am not fucked up as my aunt that ended having thyroid cancer and diabetes).
One of the first symptoms that shows in cases like mine, is skyrocketing cholesterol, immediately this resulted in doctors telling me to eat less meat, and more sugary stuff (fruits, vegetables, etc...), when I did what they wanted, my cholesterol don't changed, and my triglycerides shot up too. (mind you, this happened when I was 14 years old!)
I joined a Kung Fu academy, to try to lose the misterious weight I started gaining, I got stronger, and heavier (ie: I built up muscle, but didn't get rid of the extra water and fat).
I was alright, but I moved to another city due to college reasons, so I needed a new sport, doctors (and physical education teachers) recommended cardio, and high-reps exercise.
Also I went to dieticians, that recommended whole grains and whatnot.
My weight kept rising, and I started to weaken, at the gym after some months I could lift less weight than when I started.
Then I learned how the body process nutrients, for example eating cholesterol don't make it rise, the body disassemble it and stores the components, later if the body needs cholesterol it assembles it back, primarily out of carbohydrates.
So I theorized: if I dump carbohydrates, maybe things will get better.
I then asked the professional opinions, they all told me I was wrong, mad, whatever, and that I would fuck-up my heart, and that cabohidrates were necessary.
I still went ahead and started to eat at lunch only foliage vegetables (lettuce for example), carrots (because I like them a lot) and some source of protein (cheese, meat, sausage, whatever).
And at dinner I ate only a can of tuna.
My cholesterol suddenly dropped to high, but non-critical levels (it went from 280 to 195, with 200 being the "critical" level threshold, and I think 120 is the "safe" threshold), my triglycerides finally came back to what it was when I was 14, and my weight dropped from 130kg to 90kg (still too much though, I was supposed to weight 70kg).
Also I started to design my own exercise programs, and do heavy-lifting with free weights and low reps, and skip cardio completely for the most part (I was already reasonably active enough, I don't own a car, so anywhere I needed to go I walked).
For the first time gym felt like something that wasn't pointless, I finally started to get heavier weights over time, feel better, and get strong enough to do some day-to-day things better (Example: before this I could not grip safely in my hand a 2 liter coca-cola bottle safely if it was full, I would drop it, thus to pour drinks I used to put the bottle on the edge of the table, hold the top with one hand, the cup with another, and slowly tilt it, now I can just do like a normal person, and get the bottle with one hand in the middle and pour normally).
I am still too weak, and too overweight though, I finally started taking thyroid meds, and they helped a little, but not much, I am struggling to find a decent medic...
At least, I am not that old (I am 27), so I still have time to fix up my life, but is still a fucked up situation.
Yea, definitely sucks.
If you are looking for more potential life-style coping strategies, I would highly recommend The Wahls Protocol by Dr Terry Wahls. In a nutshell, she makes the case for adjusting diet as the chemical processes needed by the body can not run if the critical processes can't run due to a nutritional limiting-reagent.
Without purchasing the book, her TED talk pretty much outlines her strategy plus the heavy use of coconut oil & milk for a paleo/keto-ish (aka, targeted keto). Consumption takes place as smoothies, salads, and with a deep variety of produce.
If you are looking for more potential life-style coping strategies, I would highly recommend The Wahls Protocol by Dr Terry Wahls. In a nutshell, she makes the case for adjusting diet as the chemical processes needed by the body can not run if the critical processes can't run due to a nutritional limiting-reagent.
Without purchasing the book, her TED talk pretty much outlines her strategy plus the heavy use of coconut oil & milk for a paleo/keto-ish (aka, targeted keto). Consumption takes place as smoothies, salads, and with a deep variety of produce.
Glad to see that somebody points this out. It's alarming when I see all the chubby faces around me painstakingly eating their salad and going to the gym but not having the slightest clue of nutrition.
It's not about eating less calories or eating low-fat. Or fruits or vegan. Or doing more exercise. It's always about carbs--avoiding carbs is the key. The most common education gaps:
1. Carbs are like crack, the more you eat the more you thrive for them, you think you are hungry but you aren't. And this is the no 1 reason that most cannot stop their obesity, they are hooked on carbs. Just go to the next supermarket and check which products have the biggest shelf space: those which have addictive ingredients, booze and sweets.
2. You have to heavily compensate carbs with protein and fat when you do low carb/keto. Eg, if I go below 70g carbs a day, I need 70g protein and 130g (!) fat a day to compensate the lower carbs intake. If you are not doing so you become hungry. Most think that fat is bad and makes you obese, what a fallacy. As long you keep you carb intake low you can consume tons of fat and you will stay forever slim. Actually it is rather a problem to get that amounts of fat in mainstream food. With protein it's even worse and more expensive.
3. The older you get the harder your body can handle carbs. People think it's normal that they get a belly at some point and they can't do anything about it. Your metabolism changes over the years and you have just to learn to manage carbs. You cannot totally avoid carbs, you still need them but know how to control the volume.
As the parent wrote, go to Reddit's Keto sub, probably the most advanced keto/low carb group. And it's not a niche diet.
Besides, I also found that when I am on carbs I am ultra ADD not able to focus on anything.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvote, I would love to know why
It's not about eating less calories or eating low-fat. Or fruits or vegan. Or doing more exercise. It's always about carbs--avoiding carbs is the key. The most common education gaps:
1. Carbs are like crack, the more you eat the more you thrive for them, you think you are hungry but you aren't. And this is the no 1 reason that most cannot stop their obesity, they are hooked on carbs. Just go to the next supermarket and check which products have the biggest shelf space: those which have addictive ingredients, booze and sweets.
2. You have to heavily compensate carbs with protein and fat when you do low carb/keto. Eg, if I go below 70g carbs a day, I need 70g protein and 130g (!) fat a day to compensate the lower carbs intake. If you are not doing so you become hungry. Most think that fat is bad and makes you obese, what a fallacy. As long you keep you carb intake low you can consume tons of fat and you will stay forever slim. Actually it is rather a problem to get that amounts of fat in mainstream food. With protein it's even worse and more expensive.
3. The older you get the harder your body can handle carbs. People think it's normal that they get a belly at some point and they can't do anything about it. Your metabolism changes over the years and you have just to learn to manage carbs. You cannot totally avoid carbs, you still need them but know how to control the volume.
As the parent wrote, go to Reddit's Keto sub, probably the most advanced keto/low carb group. And it's not a niche diet.
Besides, I also found that when I am on carbs I am ultra ADD not able to focus on anything.
EDIT: Thanks for the downvote, I would love to know why
> As the parent wrote, go to Reddit's Keto sub, probably the most advanced keto/low carb group. And it's not a niche diet.
For skeptics: http://reddit.com/r/ketoscience
For skeptics: http://reddit.com/r/ketoscience
There was one good diet sub on reddit but they banned it and it had to move to voat.
Which was that, do you recall?
You say "Carbs are like crack, the more you eat the more your thrive for them, you think you are hungry but you aren't."
Most official nutrition guidelines go along the following line: "An optimum diet contains 45 to 60% of energy from carbohydrates per day for all those over two years of age." http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expi...
I know the ketogenic diet is popular in some circles but it goes against all the official recommendations. I understand that official recommendations are not always correct, but when there's a consensus in the medical community, I would think twice before blindly following (what I perceive as) a fad.
Most official nutrition guidelines go along the following line: "An optimum diet contains 45 to 60% of energy from carbohydrates per day for all those over two years of age." http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expi...
I know the ketogenic diet is popular in some circles but it goes against all the official recommendations. I understand that official recommendations are not always correct, but when there's a consensus in the medical community, I would think twice before blindly following (what I perceive as) a fad.
There is a fair bit of science behind it:
* British Journal of Nutrition did a study[1] whose results indicated that "achieve better long-term body weight and cardiovascular risk factor management when compared with individuals assigned to a conventional low-fat diet"
* a Swedish government advisor group at the Council on Health Technology produced an assessment found[2] that "the nation would benefit most from a low-carb, high fat, ketogenic diet" where the study indicated benefits include "improved blood sugar, reduced body weight, and enhanced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol without adverse effects on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol"
Rejection of popular low-fat diet dogma is increasing in prevalence among the general populace, nutritional academia, and government-supported dietary guidelines.
The medical community often moves at a snails pace, there was once a time when doctors didn't wash their hands in hospitals because "a gentleman's hands could not be unclean."[3]
[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...
[2] http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-obesi...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with...
* British Journal of Nutrition did a study[1] whose results indicated that "achieve better long-term body weight and cardiovascular risk factor management when compared with individuals assigned to a conventional low-fat diet"
* a Swedish government advisor group at the Council on Health Technology produced an assessment found[2] that "the nation would benefit most from a low-carb, high fat, ketogenic diet" where the study indicated benefits include "improved blood sugar, reduced body weight, and enhanced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol without adverse effects on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol"
Rejection of popular low-fat diet dogma is increasing in prevalence among the general populace, nutritional academia, and government-supported dietary guidelines.
The medical community often moves at a snails pace, there was once a time when doctors didn't wash their hands in hospitals because "a gentleman's hands could not be unclean."[3]
[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...
[2] http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden-first-to-battle-obesi...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with...
Some studies say the opposite. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555979/
"Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of CVD mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is based on limited observational studies and large-scale trials on the complex interactions between low-carbohydrate diets and long-term outcomes are needed."
It's very difficult for a layman to come to a conclusion using scientific articles. There are many and they are sometimes contradictory. One should do a synthesis of the state of the art in order to draw an informed conclusion. In practice, I think it's reasonable to be conservative and follow the current consensus (given by government guidelines).
What I found disturbing is that the ketogenic diet has emerged as solution to obesity in the US. But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry. There's no need for a new miracle diet to solve it: basically, replace "low carb" with "low junk food ".
"Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and they were not significantly associated with a risk of CVD mortality and incidence. However, this analysis is based on limited observational studies and large-scale trials on the complex interactions between low-carbohydrate diets and long-term outcomes are needed."
It's very difficult for a layman to come to a conclusion using scientific articles. There are many and they are sometimes contradictory. One should do a synthesis of the state of the art in order to draw an informed conclusion. In practice, I think it's reasonable to be conservative and follow the current consensus (given by government guidelines).
What I found disturbing is that the ketogenic diet has emerged as solution to obesity in the US. But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry. There's no need for a new miracle diet to solve it: basically, replace "low carb" with "low junk food ".
But as an outsider, obesity in the US is obviously a consequence of the prevalence of junk food and the marketing power of the food industry.
That doesn't sound like the most scientifically-founded assertion to me, especially given that you're looking for scientific evidence for or against low-carbohydrate diets. I guess it also doesn't necessarily tell you whether low-carb diets are any good or not, so it's a red herring here.
A really great book that points out many studies related to low-carbohydrate diets (especially experimental studies comparing against low-fat diets) is "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living". Written by two scientists who've spent their careers studying this, they point out that almost all studies which show poor results and undesirable side effects from a low-carb diet only last a few weeks - whereas it takes a few weeks for humans to adapt to a diet like that, so a study must necessarily get over that hump before making any conclusions.
Furthermore, low-carb diets cause people to lose a lot of electrolytes, which is the main cause of bad side effects, and many studies do not tell their low-carb subjects to supplement with salts. Studies which last longer than a few weeks tend to show favorable outcomes, generally with fat loss exceeding low-fat diets and better adherence as well over the long-term. If you want more details, I'd recommend you get the book.
That doesn't sound like the most scientifically-founded assertion to me, especially given that you're looking for scientific evidence for or against low-carbohydrate diets. I guess it also doesn't necessarily tell you whether low-carb diets are any good or not, so it's a red herring here.
A really great book that points out many studies related to low-carbohydrate diets (especially experimental studies comparing against low-fat diets) is "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living". Written by two scientists who've spent their careers studying this, they point out that almost all studies which show poor results and undesirable side effects from a low-carb diet only last a few weeks - whereas it takes a few weeks for humans to adapt to a diet like that, so a study must necessarily get over that hump before making any conclusions.
Furthermore, low-carb diets cause people to lose a lot of electrolytes, which is the main cause of bad side effects, and many studies do not tell their low-carb subjects to supplement with salts. Studies which last longer than a few weeks tend to show favorable outcomes, generally with fat loss exceeding low-fat diets and better adherence as well over the long-term. If you want more details, I'd recommend you get the book.
Discussing/researching nutrition/diet is like doing computer performance analysis. Performance gains & losses by flipping some switch is magic to those unfamiliar with the mechanics, but obvious to those with an understanding of the lower-level mechanics. (e.g. loop unrolling being faster...)
There has been a tremendous corpus information that has been accruing about nutrition and metabolism, unfortunately the information is not in vogue and thus relegated to the dusty corners of libraries or the internet. Many times the data or factoid is conflated with sensational information and loses its credibility.
There are definitely several caveats that participants are usually not cognizant of when adopting a higher-protein/higher fat diet, but they usually end up making generally correct decisions which lead to the desired benefits. The caveats to keep in mind are:
* consuming oxidized fats (through high heat: fried foods) would severely increase cardiovascular risk. These fats tend to not be easily broken down the way other fats are. Restaurant oil is being constantly filtered and reused makes for highly oxidized fats. Going ketogenic with deep-fried bacon would probably accelerate the inevitable heart-attack.
* hydrogenated oils are were modified to be stable as it acts as a preservative in foods and increases shelf life. However, the stability of hydrogenated oils compared to regular oils means that the body can not easily break down the hydrogenated oils. These fats are also not good for the body to consume.
* Most oils & meats are rich in omega 6 fats, but it is the omega 3 fats that are carido-protective. Grain fed cattle & fish (farmed) skew very high for omega 6 with very little omega 3s negating their benefit for consumption. Grass fed and wild-caught fish have around a 50/50 omega 6/omega 3 ratio, which is the ideal ratio to target.
Carbs can be just as filling as protein & fats and lead to weight loss. However, carbs heavily rely on fiber to not spike glycemic load. The glycemic load of carbs will spike insulin and all the other bad effects of prolonged insulin exposure. Since glucose gets stored as glycogen in the muscle & liver, once the glycogen stores are filled up, glucose tends to not have anywhere to be stored. Excess fats can be stored inertly, indefinitely and in almost limitless quantity. Glucose doesn't have this benefit, thus it must be quickly taken up.
Insulin & Hypocretin/Orexin appear to have an inverse relationship. Insulin release shuts down the hypocretin/orexin neurotransmitters which are responsible for wakefulness and hunger. The extended insulin spike brings on drowsiness, but once the insulin goes away from lowered blood glucose levels, wakefulness and hunger return. Orexin is what is responsible for waking one up in the morning when the eyes start receiving sunlight. The insulin spike and orexin going back and forth become a non-virtuous cycle of hunger followed by eating, followed by more hunger, so on and so forth.
People who have depleted their muscular glycogen (e.g. person running marathon, lifting heavy objects, fasting) can take a huge spike of sugar/glucose and there will be a large amount of glucose uptake possible in parallel by all the glycogen-depleted muscle cells. In the agrarian society, this used to not be much of an issue as the manual toil tended to use up the glycogen available, but in today's office society, smaller muscle mass (smaller glycogen stores), along with sitting all day tend to keep insulin spiked way longer, which overworks the thyroid's generation of insulin and leads to insulin resistance.
It used to be that diabetes and obesity went hand in hand, but the increasing prevalence of skinny type-2 diabetes points to a similar problem as obese type-2 diabetes. Blood glucose & insulin are spiked too high for too long with no where to go. Ironically, many obese people tend to have a decent amount of muscle underneath their fat from carrying all the fat around and end up being able to consume the glucose faster than the skinny type-2 counterpart.
High fat, high Protein, low carb tends to cut out the high-glycemic items (junk food, soda) and the surrounding culture ends up promoting more vegetable intake, thus the benefits can get generally realized by the adopters of low-carb lifestyles.
There has been a tremendous corpus information that has been accruing about nutrition and metabolism, unfortunately the information is not in vogue and thus relegated to the dusty corners of libraries or the internet. Many times the data or factoid is conflated with sensational information and loses its credibility.
There are definitely several caveats that participants are usually not cognizant of when adopting a higher-protein/higher fat diet, but they usually end up making generally correct decisions which lead to the desired benefits. The caveats to keep in mind are:
* consuming oxidized fats (through high heat: fried foods) would severely increase cardiovascular risk. These fats tend to not be easily broken down the way other fats are. Restaurant oil is being constantly filtered and reused makes for highly oxidized fats. Going ketogenic with deep-fried bacon would probably accelerate the inevitable heart-attack.
* hydrogenated oils are were modified to be stable as it acts as a preservative in foods and increases shelf life. However, the stability of hydrogenated oils compared to regular oils means that the body can not easily break down the hydrogenated oils. These fats are also not good for the body to consume.
* Most oils & meats are rich in omega 6 fats, but it is the omega 3 fats that are carido-protective. Grain fed cattle & fish (farmed) skew very high for omega 6 with very little omega 3s negating their benefit for consumption. Grass fed and wild-caught fish have around a 50/50 omega 6/omega 3 ratio, which is the ideal ratio to target.
Carbs can be just as filling as protein & fats and lead to weight loss. However, carbs heavily rely on fiber to not spike glycemic load. The glycemic load of carbs will spike insulin and all the other bad effects of prolonged insulin exposure. Since glucose gets stored as glycogen in the muscle & liver, once the glycogen stores are filled up, glucose tends to not have anywhere to be stored. Excess fats can be stored inertly, indefinitely and in almost limitless quantity. Glucose doesn't have this benefit, thus it must be quickly taken up.
Insulin & Hypocretin/Orexin appear to have an inverse relationship. Insulin release shuts down the hypocretin/orexin neurotransmitters which are responsible for wakefulness and hunger. The extended insulin spike brings on drowsiness, but once the insulin goes away from lowered blood glucose levels, wakefulness and hunger return. Orexin is what is responsible for waking one up in the morning when the eyes start receiving sunlight. The insulin spike and orexin going back and forth become a non-virtuous cycle of hunger followed by eating, followed by more hunger, so on and so forth.
People who have depleted their muscular glycogen (e.g. person running marathon, lifting heavy objects, fasting) can take a huge spike of sugar/glucose and there will be a large amount of glucose uptake possible in parallel by all the glycogen-depleted muscle cells. In the agrarian society, this used to not be much of an issue as the manual toil tended to use up the glycogen available, but in today's office society, smaller muscle mass (smaller glycogen stores), along with sitting all day tend to keep insulin spiked way longer, which overworks the thyroid's generation of insulin and leads to insulin resistance.
It used to be that diabetes and obesity went hand in hand, but the increasing prevalence of skinny type-2 diabetes points to a similar problem as obese type-2 diabetes. Blood glucose & insulin are spiked too high for too long with no where to go. Ironically, many obese people tend to have a decent amount of muscle underneath their fat from carrying all the fat around and end up being able to consume the glucose faster than the skinny type-2 counterpart.
High fat, high Protein, low carb tends to cut out the high-glycemic items (junk food, soda) and the surrounding culture ends up promoting more vegetable intake, thus the benefits can get generally realized by the adopters of low-carb lifestyles.
The other thing that the keto proponents really don't promote (or know offhand) is that one can still reap the benefits of keto in a mild nutritional ketogenic state.
Dr. Terry Wahls in her book, "The Wahls Protocol" points out research that shows that medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) manufacture more ketones per calories than other fats. This allows for a higher uptake of carbs & protein, but with the body still generating a mild excess of ketone bodies.
MCTs are basically the richest in coconut oil and palm oil, so a MCT Keto Diet tends to be far more adoptable than a fully keto diet.
Dr. Terry Wahls in her book, "The Wahls Protocol" points out research that shows that medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) manufacture more ketones per calories than other fats. This allows for a higher uptake of carbs & protein, but with the body still generating a mild excess of ketone bodies.
MCTs are basically the richest in coconut oil and palm oil, so a MCT Keto Diet tends to be far more adoptable than a fully keto diet.
I think it's reasonable to be modeling the official recommendations as "the scientific and medical consensus," but if you looked a little into how the official guidelines are actually created--who creates them, and how the information is selected--you'd drastically downgrade your trust of them.
I did this, and found that the official guidelines have almost nothing to do with any science at all, never mind any scientific consensus.
I did this, and found that the official guidelines have almost nothing to do with any science at all, never mind any scientific consensus.
There may have been consensus on the official guidelines decades ago, but from any of the reading I did back when I was on the diet, it is largely accepted that the various food pyramids are out of date and scientifically incorrect.
> Most official nutrition guidelines [...] http://www.eufic.org/article/en/nutrition/carbohydrates/expi....
What else do you expect from Eufic? Shall they say that everybody should switch to protein? Imagine everybody would do so where should they get all the protein for all those people? And who should buy all the carb based products (wheat, sugar, ...) from all those subsidized farmers? Recommending high carb nutrition is the best and cheapest way to keep a nation calm and fed.
Besides, in Sweden 20% or more of the people are on low carb.
What else do you expect from Eufic? Shall they say that everybody should switch to protein? Imagine everybody would do so where should they get all the protein for all those people? And who should buy all the carb based products (wheat, sugar, ...) from all those subsidized farmers? Recommending high carb nutrition is the best and cheapest way to keep a nation calm and fed.
Besides, in Sweden 20% or more of the people are on low carb.
Honestly, everybody pushing their niche diet says the same thing.
That's pretty lazy thinking, lot of people say lots of things, regardless of the particular subject. Some are correct, some are incorrect. Which is this?
A lot of the keto people make the same mistakes we made in the past - demonising some foods, promoting other foods in their place, ignoring mainstream science while also ignoring the severe limitations of all nutrition science, especially to often piss-poor studies they link to.
It's not all like that, you find some people posting links to useful research and reasonable advice.
It's not all like that, you find some people posting links to useful research and reasonable advice.
Well, it depends on what your immediate goal is, if it is to lose weight, them demonizing certain foods I think isn't that inappropriate.
I'm curious what mainstream science is ignored though?
I'm curious what mainstream science is ignored though?
Except in the 80s we all demonized fat as evil, which meant food producers reduced the amount of fat in their food but substituted sugars; or we demonized saturated fats as evil, which meant food producers moved to transfats (which was catastrophic for public health).
Keto advocates ignore any suggestion that meat may increase risk of cancer; that saturated fats might not be the thing you get most of your energy from; that controlling salt intake is sensible for some people.
Science has moved on all of those things, but keto tends to see that movement, and then reject whatever the new stance is because broscience.
Keto advocates ignore any suggestion that meat may increase risk of cancer; that saturated fats might not be the thing you get most of your energy from; that controlling salt intake is sensible for some people.
Science has moved on all of those things, but keto tends to see that movement, and then reject whatever the new stance is because broscience.
Interesting, but from my participation in the community, I respectfully disagree that keto advocates reject science. There is definitely a strong attitude to reject old, now proven to be incorrect guidelines, but I in no way see that extend to new, proven science. At best, there is a reluctance to believe new theories based on spurious data (which in my opinion is the correct way to behave).
Forget keto (or any other diet for that matter). Just maintain a calorie deficit if you want to lose weight.
The easiest way to do that is to lower carbs and compensate with higher protein/fat intake. Treat carbs as fuel - if you exercise a lot and/or have a lot of stress on a particular day, then you want them. If you are a couch potato on that day, you want to limit them. If you start craving comfort food, drink some water/have a scoop of peanut butter. Then wait half an hour - most probably the cravings will be gone.
Eat lots of salad/celery/veggies just because they are good for you.
If you start having stool problems, add a couple of table spoons of wheat bran to your daily food intake. Make sure to take it with lots of water - e.g. soak the bran in hot water before eating it.
For further weight loss, consider intermittent fasting. I like this protocol:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html
But that should come later, once you are more or less lean.
Good luck! Weight loss is really easier than it seems to be. All you need is to get into the routine and from there on it's just a question of time before you become lean.
The easiest way to do that is to lower carbs and compensate with higher protein/fat intake. Treat carbs as fuel - if you exercise a lot and/or have a lot of stress on a particular day, then you want them. If you are a couch potato on that day, you want to limit them. If you start craving comfort food, drink some water/have a scoop of peanut butter. Then wait half an hour - most probably the cravings will be gone.
Eat lots of salad/celery/veggies just because they are good for you.
If you start having stool problems, add a couple of table spoons of wheat bran to your daily food intake. Make sure to take it with lots of water - e.g. soak the bran in hot water before eating it.
For further weight loss, consider intermittent fasting. I like this protocol:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html
But that should come later, once you are more or less lean.
Good luck! Weight loss is really easier than it seems to be. All you need is to get into the routine and from there on it's just a question of time before you become lean.
An article I recently read helped me make sense of the low carb/low fat dichotomy we see in the literature, both peer reviewed and popular, with plenty of anecdotal evidence on both sides.
The flowchart at http://rockstarresearch.com/these-5-genes-predict-what-kind-... helps you determine the better dieting approach of the two from your 23andMe results. It appears your genotype determines which you best respond to. According to the flowchart, I should best respond to a low fat diet: and I have seen great results from sticking to that.
On the other hand, I saw no results from almost a year of keto (with strong social support: must of my co-workers were on the same diet, which made sticking to it easy), which is in line with the predictions of that chart.
The flowchart at http://rockstarresearch.com/these-5-genes-predict-what-kind-... helps you determine the better dieting approach of the two from your 23andMe results. It appears your genotype determines which you best respond to. According to the flowchart, I should best respond to a low fat diet: and I have seen great results from sticking to that.
On the other hand, I saw no results from almost a year of keto (with strong social support: must of my co-workers were on the same diet, which made sticking to it easy), which is in line with the predictions of that chart.
Sitting all day + commute + stress is terrible. A 20 year old body can take this sort of damage and recover, but at 30 the "warranty" runs out and you're likely to find yourself facing medical problems, unless you compensate with regular exercise.
Metabolic syndrome is very real---if you eat a big breakfast and then a big lunch and you did no physical activity in between, guess what your blood glucose level will be after lunch? [Hint: not good]
One hack I'd like to share with y'all: use the Mac OS text-to-speech tool to make the computer read HN stories for you while you do exercise in the morning. ('System Preferences --> Dictation and Speech --> Speak selected text when key is pressed') A few push ups + situ ps + 1min of plank can make a big difference. Also, the more HN you read the more in shape you'll become :)
Metabolic syndrome is very real---if you eat a big breakfast and then a big lunch and you did no physical activity in between, guess what your blood glucose level will be after lunch? [Hint: not good]
One hack I'd like to share with y'all: use the Mac OS text-to-speech tool to make the computer read HN stories for you while you do exercise in the morning. ('System Preferences --> Dictation and Speech --> Speak selected text when key is pressed') A few push ups + situ ps + 1min of plank can make a big difference. Also, the more HN you read the more in shape you'll become :)
I recently bought a http://www.deskcycle.com and I have been happy so far. No long term results yet, but it's better than just sitting there typing.... (I am not affiliated w the company, just a happy consumer.)
I'm surprised the article doesn't question whether there's something about the environment itself that is contributing to these health problems.
Use of electronic devices is definitively more prevalent in Silicon Valley, and there is evidence that blue light exposure from screens or artificial light exposure at night may be harmful to health. And while this may be far fetched, there also are indications that some forms of electromagnetic radiation could potentially be harmful too.
Use of electronic devices is definitively more prevalent in Silicon Valley, and there is evidence that blue light exposure from screens or artificial light exposure at night may be harmful to health. And while this may be far fetched, there also are indications that some forms of electromagnetic radiation could potentially be harmful too.
There are also all the environmental effects of living in the 'Silicon Valley' - named as such because of all the chip manufacturing from the 60-80s. Google's campus is nearby the 'MEW Plume'[1] of trichloroethene. A few buildings on Google's campus exposed pregnant Googlers' children to significant risk of heart defects [2]. Here's a pretty good article on silicon valley's troubled environmental legacy as they try to remediate their land [3]. Not to say that the environment is causative, but it sure does not help matters of health for employees who live their lives in the area. Silicon valley still has a significantly polluted environment [4].
[1] http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Moffet-Field-Toxic-...
[2] http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/02/28/toxics-put-pregnant-...
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2014/m...
[4] http://dotspotting.org/u/302/sheets/2679#c=10.00/37.3527/-12...
[1] http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Moffet-Field-Toxic-...
[2] http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/02/28/toxics-put-pregnant-...
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2014/m...
[4] http://dotspotting.org/u/302/sheets/2679#c=10.00/37.3527/-12...
Wow, that Guardian article is really well done. Our lack of concern for the environment leaves a terrible legacy both in lives and pure dollars. 10's of billions to not even properly clean up what could have been dealt with at the source for thousands or millions. The rising number of superfund sites shows the increasing cost burden to this way of doing things - this is probably the best argument for the fiscally minded who do not identify as environmentalists.
The article explains a few ways the cleanup is spreading waste elsewhere, and it makes me wonder what similar sorts of choices we are making today in areas where the 'science isn't clear' or other excuses that were probably used in the 60s when this started. Are we changing the way we do things, or just which things are being done?
Thanks for sharing this.
The article explains a few ways the cleanup is spreading waste elsewhere, and it makes me wonder what similar sorts of choices we are making today in areas where the 'science isn't clear' or other excuses that were probably used in the 60s when this started. Are we changing the way we do things, or just which things are being done?
Thanks for sharing this.
First semester living in the Valley, I gained ~30 lbs and realized the same happened to most new employees(not as much me).
Somehow, the company gave the idea of change/disruption/... and that made us work a lot more. Sometimes, 15 hours a day in front of a computer. Still, PMs and execs always got all credit and I started focusing on myself. It was NOT worth it.
I ended up regaining my health and I always remind hardworking friends they're playing their own game.
Somehow, the company gave the idea of change/disruption/... and that made us work a lot more. Sometimes, 15 hours a day in front of a computer. Still, PMs and execs always got all credit and I started focusing on myself. It was NOT worth it.
I ended up regaining my health and I always remind hardworking friends they're playing their own game.
think SV is overweight? try going to the midwest or the south..
> the primary culprit is a diet high in processed carbohydrates and sugar.
Isn't sugar a special case of carbohydrate? The way I see it, most common carbs are sugar and starch.
I'm not trying to be nitpicky but I've been reading nutrition articles and I'd like to understand the proper terminology. I understand there are complex carbs (starch) and simple carbs (aka sugar, such as glucose and fructose).
Isn't sugar a special case of carbohydrate? The way I see it, most common carbs are sugar and starch.
I'm not trying to be nitpicky but I've been reading nutrition articles and I'd like to understand the proper terminology. I understand there are complex carbs (starch) and simple carbs (aka sugar, such as glucose and fructose).
Yes, carbohydrates are comprised of: simple sugars (e.g. glucose), more complex sugars (e.g. sucrose is a disaccharide), even more complex starches (e.g. amylose) and very complex fibers (e.g. cellulose).
Each one is processed in a different way by the body.
Each one is processed in a different way by the body.
With computer salary, we can afford many potato!
- better pay, so it's easier to eat a healthy diet
- better weather, so you can easily exercise outside every day and don't need any exercise equipment
- better public transportation / bike lanes, so living without a car is feasible.
- lots of amazing geography and ocean nearby, so I've been going hiking / surfing on days off and rarely spend my free time indoors.
There are cities with better public transit, and there are places that have nature even more accessible, but I can't think of anywhere else in the US with this combination of pay, weather, public transit and nature all in the same place.
Of course, if you have a job that requires you to spend many more than 40 hours at the computer each week, and doesn't provide healthy food, it will be more difficult to keep healthy habits.