This morning I was watching the Today Show and a nutritionist came on giving tertiary nutrition advice ("don't eat while standing up because in so-and-so study people who ate standing up vs sitting down ate 30% more calories at the next meal", "have 1 or 2 indulgences on the weekend" ) and explained the "skinny solutions" for these "fat habits" (you can watch the video/ read it here- http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44063730/ns/today-today_health/). What got me was what a hot little thing the nutritionist was, a common body type among the low-fat, sometimes vegetarian, die-hard fake-healthy women (we all know the trendy yoga girls sipping their five dollar skinny soy latte) and they're hot! What gives? I've been eating and tweaking paleo for 3 1/2 years and I'm STILL fat! It really frustrates me. Can someone explain this? I don't wanna hear "well look at them in 20 years!" or "yeah but their insides are eating themselves!" etc.
I think the healthy version of SAD and the paleo diet have more similarities than differences. These pop nutritionists are most likely avoiding white flour, sugar, processed foods, and probably eat tons of salmon (the CW food of the gods) so have a somewhat decent o3:o6 ratio.
It's much easier to stay lean when not previously metabolically damaged then it is to reverse metabolic damage and lean out. Chances are these healthy looking CW people started becoming health conscious (avoiding white flour, sugar, processed foods, alcohol, smoking, and getting exercise) before they had a chance to damage themselves - i.e. at a younger age.
And Danielle, from what I saw of those AHS pics, you look great!
Because eating unhealthy food doesn't necessarily make you look bad. Especially in a world of cosmetics, like on a talk show where they have makeup people to make them look less witch-like.
Let's stop pretending that most women look good without their makeup. It just ain't true. There are exceptions, though. But let's also stop pretending that physical appearance is an air-tight marker for health. Gweneth Paltrow's osteopenia comes to mind.
Uh, now I feel dirty having to talk about this BS.
She doesn't look cute to me. She looks bony and fragile and so does the host. No thanks. I looked up the pictures of AHS mentioned above. You look way hotter. You can fill out a pare of jeans, and your face is soft and feminine.
I work in construction with lots of men. A little secret no one knows about is that we look at women when they walk by. Even if we are 20 stories up we try to figure out if it's a chick or just a guy with long hair. Anyway my point is, based on this group of men really skinny isn't a good thing.
I am not saying that you aren't skinny or what I would call healthy. I am just saying they are too skinny. In an evolutionary sense what would be the advantage for a women to be that thin? Maybe you just have better genetics hah!. Maybe you want to be thinner just to impress other women or find clothes easier or something. But if it's because you feel unattractive at the weight your at. I think you're nuts. You're radiant, beautiful and sexy.
I'm sorry I didn't answer your question.
Tolerated is not optimal... I lost a lot of my weight on a typical SAD CW diet. It works. It is not optimal for healthy and longevity, but you can look good. As I lost weight, I learned more and more about nutrition and ended up at Paleo. Most people don't do the research though.
Remember, there's lots of individual differences and some people (a small fraction, I'd say) can tolerate eating complete crap and still look good. If you can eat crap that sounds nutritious and you look good while doing it, chances are you'll become a TV nutritionist. The 100 or so other people who eat like she says will be fat and a fat nutritionist won't make it on TV. So there's selection bias that you're seeing too. Only the pretty ones make it on TV.
All depends on their particular equation. Some of the ones you speak of might spend an hour running a day and eat a low-fat diet. You can't really get fat doing that (can't get healthy either). One thing I've observed is that a lot of naturally lean people also happen to skip breakfast due to time constraints or whatever. They end up with built-in IF-ing, continual insulin sensitivity even in the presence of considerable fructose intake, and lower daily energy intake due to one meal being completely missing.
Some are much less sensitive to fructose, don't have downregulated striatal dopamine D2 receptors so they don't become addicted to hyperpalatable food etc. There are countless variables.
The grass is always greener and their adiposity or leanness is irrelevant for your goals unless you somehow actually catalog every variable and analyze it, otherwise they're just misleading anecdotes.
After I started Paleo, I dropped about 10-12 pounds and then my weight platueu out and wouldn't budge no matter how much cycling I did. Then I started working out with kettlebells and it seems to be the magic bullet! My weight is dropping slowly and steadily now and I feel great. I'm using the Skogg System. So far so good....
I think the fact that they look good is why they aren't looking beyond CW. Anyone who doesn't look good following that approach is going to shut up or look elsewhere. Therefore, alternative approaches have a disadvantage, in that the people who follow them are going to tend to look worse, at least at first. It's like observing that a large proportion of people who eat LC diets are fat. Well, yeah, that's why they eat that way.
In a sense, different nutritional theories provide filters. Those for whom a particular approach works tend to think that it must be the right answer, and that anyone for whom it failed must be doing it wrong. Those people for whom it failed, on the other hand, will usually start looking for something else. This can sometimes leave the group who stick with an approach to consist almost only of successful people, giving a skewed perspective if you don't know about the rate of attrition.
Also remember, for every hot little thing that makes it onto the Today show with "nutritional credentials," there are probably 1000 overweight, SAD eating nutritionists they would never put on TV. Kinda like everyone knows smoking is bad for you, and doctors and nurses see it first hand every day, but check the smoking area outside of your local hospital. Those guys aren't on the Today show either.