The "metabolically healthy obese" are only 10-15% of the obese population, if I recall correctly.

Also, the "metabolically healthy obese" are only so because they're continuing to get fatter, which poses its own problems -- namely that they won't be metabolically healthy forever.  Weighing 300+ pounds poses its own health risks even if your glucose tolerance is still good.

That being said, if someone is in a strongly weight-reduced state (e.g. they started at 300# and now weigh 200#, even though their ideal weight is around 150#), the health impacts of trying to lose that last 50# against leptin and insulin dynamics probably overshadow the benefits!  However, that's not Bacon's thesis AFAIK.

JS

We have seen in studies (and I'm actually way too lazy this morning to look them up…) that overweight and obese people tend to underestimate how much they eat.  We also see many diseases correlated with a higher body fat percentage (whether that's visceral or subcutaneous is a different story.. =) ). 

To turn your back to those results while counseling obese patients is, I think, morally wrong.  Linda Bacon does such a good job of massaging and ignoring data in her published book/works that I''ve physically thunked my forehead with my hand a few times.  Book was a waste of my valuable $1.99.

Perhaps its a logical fallacy of sorts, but I just can't take her research seriously.

Absolutely.  Corporate welfare is a much greater problem than individual welfare, though the societal consequences are harder to pinpoint since corporations on welfare don't generally engage in violent crime on an individual level.  (Collective extortion is more their racket.)

I've seen the paper you linked: while they point out that lifespan is still increasing in America, functional lifespan is actually decreasing -- which strongly suggests that improved medical care is compensating for a sicker population, and America is not growing more healthy as it grows more obese.

Furthermore, Ned Kock has ably dissected the "why do overweight people live longer?" paradox in this article, and its sequel.  It turns out that having greater fat-free mass is very strongly associated with lower mortality as we age -- an effect that even shines through the prevalence of obesity among old people who are "overweight" according to BMI.

That being said, I agree that health is a better goal to pursue that an arbitrary bodyfat percentage!  However, I believe the evidence shows that a healthy weight is a salutary side effect of healthy diet.  Eating like a predator won't necessarily get you a six-pack by itself, but you shouldn't remain obese barring serious hormonal/metabolic dysfunction.  The failure of dietary therapy is an indictment of mainstream dietary advice, not an indictment of the idea that a heavy fat mass is often indicative of health issues.

JS

Not nearly as strong as you might think. See the paper I just sited on an adjacent thread (science-behind-low-carb...), by Linda Bacon:
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9
Review
Weight Science: Evaluating the Evidence for a Paradigm Shift
Linda Bacon and Lucy Aphramor

True.

And, it may be that creating a permanent dependent overclass is as bad, or even worse. The banks (multi-$trillion bailouts, free money with no strings attached), the military-industrial complex (a gigantic permanent aid-to-dependent-corporations program), and various other big welfare programs for the already-wealthy are indeed a guarantee of long-term societal dysfunction.

............

related: FREE book:
http://deanbaker.net/books/the-conservative-nanny-state.htm
The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer

That's a great article.  Cracks are spreading across the face of the dam...

JS

Paul:

"Eat like your grandmother" doesn't have the same ring to it.

Good enough for a headline! 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2105132/Damn-low-fat-diet-How-reformed-vegan-John-Nicholson-gorges-foods-granny-enjoyed--felt-better.html

It's an idea based on the fact that the carnitine shuttle is impaired in mitochondrial dysfunction.  And I seem to recall that Diane was just starting and wasn't eating a lot of red meat.  I don't know if it will help, but it seems like a rational thing to try.

JL:

You're right, it was an oversimplification.  And you're absolutely correct that the older generations are the ones most affected: people simply remain in denial that the patterns by which they've lived their entire lives don't work anymore.

Furthermore, no, a shrinking population isn't a bad thing at all.  It's only bad if you're a bank -- because fractional reserve banking depends on infinite exponential growth in order to not collapse.  That's why "economists", politicians, and other tools of the banking industry continually beat the growth drum: it's necessary to maintain the fraud they're perpetrating on all of us.

The price, of course, is continual economic collapse as the costs of failure are shifted to the people via the government, and ecological collapse as the growth drive strips unrenewable resources.

JS

Paul's point is an excellent one. Having witnessed first hand how social and political structures completely break down and then are slowly replaced, I see many parallels with what is happening today in the Western world. Many of my friends and relatives in the US simply cannot comprehend that the system they've known their whole lives can cease to function. Unfortunately, the older one is, the more difficult it is to accept and adapt. The older generations are the ones who really took it on the chin here in Russia.

In retrospect, as I think Paul is alluding to, it's amazing that the transition in Russia was as smooth as it was. Considering the country's history, the potential for violence was certainly there. I can only hope that other societies that experience similar transitions do so even more smoothly. And with the world's over population problem I'm not sure the result of a shrinking population is such a bad thing.

typically it is recommended for strength/size gains so i am wondering how it aids fat loss?

The Gnoll Credo is even more important afterward.  If we replace the current structures of "civilization" with similar structures, we'll end up in similar situations with similar problems.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme...and we've heard enough verses of the same song to know how each one ends.  War, famine, totalitarianism, collapse; verse, chorus, verse, chorus.

Diane:

You're right: under natural conditions, annuals only flourish continually under conditions hostile to perennials -- poor soil, underlying impenetrable hardpan (e.g. the Serengeti), or extensive herds of grazers and browsers.  Otherwise the natural succession takes hold and we get bushes, trees, etc.

Here are a couple hacks you might try.  It's best to change one thing at a time so you know what's doing what.  Let me know if any of them help.

-More fat calories from coconut oil, instead of butter/cream/dairy.

-Creatine supplementation -- especially if you're eating no (or not much) red meat.

-Fasting, as per Greg.  You might try IF first: eat breakfast and dinner, but no lunch (12-hour fast).  Then, once that becomes easy, try a full 24 hours: breakfast, but no lunch or dinner.  If you have the scheduling flexibility, it's best to wait until you're actually hungry to eat breakfast.

Personally I'd try them in the above order...but do what you like. 

Also keep in mind that, especially if you're active, the PHD recommendation of ~15-20% of calories from carbs may help.

Greg:

ADF is powerful, but I'm loath to recommend a full 24 hours for someone who's still struggling with adaptation.  I agree, though, that there is benefit to pushing yourself a little bit.  Sometimes we think we can't do something when it's purely a mental block.

Anecdotally, women seem to prefer eating a protein-heavy breakfast (often a late breakfast) and skipping lunch to simply skipping breakfast.  I'm experimenting with that myself.

JS

I'm not telling you that this is the solution, but personally I did alternate day fasting for 2 days per week for several weeks. At first I would be ravenously hungry on the refeeds, but gradually my hunger reduced. I lost about 7 more pounds after landing on my keto-plateau (keteau?) and the weight has stayed off. But mostly I find it interesting how a handful of nuts or an egg can satiate me now. It wasn't always that easy, and I think the ADF permanently changed something. It's easy and low-risk, so think about it at least.

I'm staying the course for that day when I finally lose weight. I don't drink any calories, except one cup of coffee with cream and I'm not doing anything like trying to simulate baked goods with almond flour or anything like that. My hunger seems to have come back a little.

I read article IV in your hungry series (I think that was the one) and that seems to fit me to a T. I think I'm hopelessly broken. I'm not even obese, nor have I ever been. I have simply always been overweight. The best I've ever come is right at the upper edge of any body mass or weight charts and I've never quite slipped over into the obese category.

If you find a cure for the broken metabolism in all your research, I'm going to be very happy to read it.

It is important for forge social relationships with neighbours, friends, local groups and so on anyway, but important for if a group reaction is needed against a sudden threat - this could be anything from the Council closing down a local childrens' play area right through to the total collapse of society. In tribal terms, this is instinctual but we are far from living instinctually today.

There are a number of writers who understand that paleo goes way beyond food, feeding, rearing and consuming, it goes into personal responsibility and into soceital responsibility. J is one of these writers, Richard Nikoley another.