At the leading edge of science; at the trailing edge of fashion
Is the body in the photo at left the new look for today’s man? If so, it appears that MD and I may have missed the boat yet again.
It seems as though we possess a positive genius for having our timing screwed up. Our past is littered with missed opportunities to promote our various books, all occasioned by situations beyond our control. Let me give you a few examples.
We were scheduled to be the guests for the biggest part of one of Soledad O’Brien’s shows when word came down that Hillary Clinton was going to declare her candidacy for the U.S. Senate. We were in NY (brought by our publisher, thank God) prepared to go on the show the next day when we got bumped to another time. Another time that never materialized.
I was scheduled to be on O’Reilly live and, in fact, was in the limo sent by Fox to take me to the studio when I got a call on my cell telling me that the Texas fugitives had been captured in Colorado. Since I was on the way, O’Reilly went ahead and did the interview, but it was taped and played a couple of months later when John Kasich (who is now apparently running for governor of Ohio) was the guest host and viewership was probably lower than had it been O’Reilly live.
MD and I were on our way to Miami (sent by our publisher once again) to appear on a couple of big live TV shows there when we got word that Elian Gonzales had been snatched by the Feds and was being sent back to Cuba. Bumped again never to return.
We were to appear one afternoon on national TV rebutting the PCRM’s Neal Barnard, who had been all over the airwaves that morning with his ridiculous ‘study’ about low-carb diets. We were in Santa Barbara at the time, and the network (I can’t remember which on now) had arranged for us to go to a local studio to be interviewed via satellite. Just as we were about to leave for the studio, we got a call telling us our gig had been canceled because Michael Jackson’s plane was en route to the Santa Barbara airport where he was to turn himself in conjunction with the sexual molestation charges. After that the news was all Michael Jackson.
I could go on, but you get the picture. MD and I seem to be snake bit when it comes to book- and/or self-promotional timing.
Now we’ve finished a book, about to be released tomorrow, that is filled with all the latest science, much of it never before published other than in scientific papers, and we may be scooped again. But in a different way.
Our new book includes info on saturated fat, fatty accumulation in the liver, diacylglycerol, D-ribose, L-leucine, visceral and subcutaneous fat, sagittal abdominal diameter, evolutionary psychology, and on and on, showing how all these things relate to the accumulation and loss of middle-aged fat. But did we come out with it too late?
Maybe so according to a recent New York Times article titled “It’s Hip to Be Round” with the distressing picture below of various potbellies emblazoned across the top of it.
If this piece is to be believed, men at least have given up the flat-belly look in favor of the more portly Ralph Kramden body habitus. If you’re of an age, you’ll remember Ralph Kramdem. He was the character Jackie Gleason played on the television show The Honeymooners. Taking a look at the photo at left. That’s Jackie playing Ralph. Remember Jackie Gleason’s nickname? The Fat Man. He was remarkable for his obesity because there was so little of it back then. Notice, too, how Jackie, aka Ralph, wouldn’t have merited a second look today. Half the people you see on TV today are more overweight. And you think we don’t have an obesity epidemic?
According to the Times:
This summer the unvarying male uniform in the precincts of Brooklyn cool has been a pair of shorts cut at knickers length, a V-neck Hanes T-shirt, a pair of generic slip-on sneakers and a straw fedora. Add a leather cuff bracelet if the coolster is gay.
In truth this get-up was pretty much the unvarying male uniform last summer also, but this year an unexpected element has been added to the look, and that is a burgeoning potbelly one might term the Ralph Kramden.
Too pronounced to be blamed on the slouchy cut of a T-shirt, too modest in size to be termed a proper beer gut, developed too young to come under the heading of a paunch, the Ralph Kramden is everywhere to be seen lately…
The article goes on to lay out what I believe is an idiotic rationale (but obviously tongue in cheek) for all this (they blame it on Obama), then adds
“I sort of think the six-pack abs obsession got so prissy it stopped being masculine,” is how Aaron Hicklin, the editor of Out, explains the emergence of the Ralph Kramden. What once seemed young and hot, for gay and straight men alike, now seems passé. Like manscaping, spray-on tans and other metrosexual affectations, having a belly one can bounce quarters off suggests that you may have too much time on your hands.
“It’s not cool to be seen spending so much time fussing around about your body,” Mr. Hicklin said.
And so guys can happily and guiltlessly go to seed.
So, there goes half our audience. Always a day late and a dollar short. I suppose we should have written a book describing how to develop the middle-aged middle before middle age.
On another note, if you still don’t think there is an obesity epidemic right now, take a look at this old video of Manhattan, NY filmed in the early 1920s.
Check at 1:50 and 9:16 to see the crowd scenes. The people look like stick people. They wouldn’t look that way if the film were made today.
And, if you want to read a little more about our new book, Tim Ferriss has excerpted part of one of the chapters here.
Last but not least, we’ve gotten some photos back of the first testimonials for our news book. The photo on the right is the before, the one on the left, after six weeks on the plan.
Just kidding, of course.
Photo credits:
So, Dr Mike, since I’m 5′ 2″, it would be better for me to take two scoops for 48g total, rather than the three at 72g?
Because I’m feeling pretty darn full after each of those 72g shakes!
I would go with the smaller shake if you’re only 5′ 2″.
Dr. Mike,
I noticed your comment on the amount of protein per shake above. I am using Jay Robb whey at 1gr carb per scoop. I was using 2 scoops based on the 160 weight and my protein per shake is 50 plus once a day I use a egg in it. I am also taking a couple boiled eggs and a pickle. This is my second day and things are going quite well. So I guess I am wondering how much protein I should be getting per shake.
Thanks Pat
Sounds like your protein is a little high. I would stick it more in the 30 g per shake range. The egg adds only about 6 g of protein, so I would use it in the calculations. But you don’t really need the egg unless your not eating any meat at all as part of your program.
Beg to differ, but excess skin does not “shrink to fit your new body” when we are talking about significant weight losses such as the 110 pounds the poster had lost.
I’ve been waiting 7 years, and it ain’t happening, lol. The only thing that has helped (besides the lower body lift I had 2 years ago) is the replacement physiological levels of leptin as part of an experimental study.
Other than damaged/redundant skin cells a major reason skin looks loose after weight loss is the fact that hyperinsulinemia causes white fat cells to multiply like a tumor in certain areas of the body – those prone to severe obesity (this is genetically determined). Leptin has helped as leptin induces white fat cell apotosis, which helps even out the appearance of the body and “loose skin”.
Unfortunately, maintaining massive weight loss results in a state of hypoleptinemia. Ignorant of the potential for morbid obesity induced by an unnatural diet, the body was designed to maintain its highest weights, it seems. It suppresses leptin production when fat cells are too small, even if total fat in kilos is normal.
But, generally speaking, no the skin does not snap back. It improves with time (because rapid weight loss related malnutrition cause skin to look unfortunate) but in the case of significant obesity it is unrealistic to expect a body as if it were never obese.
Steve G’s remark about tans reminds me of reading Gone With The Wind and how it was considered “white-trashy” in the South during the antebellum period to be a woman with a tan or freckles. For the same reason–it meant you were an outdoor worker, thus poor.
I’m about tearing my hair out over the fat acceptance blogs stating there is no obesity epidemic because they changed the BMI charts. I think I can see who’s fat and who isn’t without a chart, thank you.
Hey, with your responses to that other commenter about oxidized cholesterol in cooked meat, if someone wanted to be really anal-retentive about their cholesterol intake, the obvious answer is raw meat. What about chemical cooking, though? Like, in the Nourishing Traditions book, they have several recipes for fermented raw meat. That’s basically an acid “cooking” the exposed surfaces, like what happens when you leave a steak in a lemon juice- or vinegar-based marinade for a while.
If you could trust the meat source, I would think that would just about suffice for food prep most of the time. If a person liked raw meat, that is. My favorite cut currently is the flatiron cut, and I cook the outside just enough to take care of any bad germ issues but the inside might as well be raw. Mmmmm.
Re: the tryptophan thing… it converts to serotonin, then to melatonin. But it only makes that last conversion in darkness. Someone having trouble sleeping could try making their bedroom completely dark (or as near to it as possible) before they try bedtime tea with sugar.
Have you ever read Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar, and Survival? The author is a bit of a crackpot about replacement hormone therapy for postmenopausal women (if menopause is so bad for you, why do we go through it at all?), but she has some very interesting things to say about the relationship between indoor lighting, sleep habits, and hormone/neurotransmitter balance. I do know that when I’m high-carbing it I get insomnia a lot more often. And I sleep better since I moved to a new place with a darker bedroom.
I, too, like flatiron steaks cooked lightly. To cook them sous vide is the best. Tenderizes them so you end up with the great taste of that cut of steak and the tenderness of a filet.
I did read the book Lights Out years ago, but to tell you the truth, I can’t remember much about it.
Dr. Eades,
I just bought the book this weekend, and it is good stuff. I had been using a protocol similar to the first phase (weeks 1-2) of the plan. (In fact, it was partially based on your book “Thin So Fast”).
A few of the major differences were these: 1) I used high levels of fish oil, where I don’t see that as being recommended at all in your new book. 2) I consumed nut butter one time a day (mostly almond, but also some peanut). 3) I used a blend of whey and casein to promote satiety.
The solid meal was meat + green veggies, so essentially the same.
I had great success with this plan, and I have high hopes for following your new version of it. I am willing to forgo the nut butters and the megadoses of fish oil in lieu of organic cream/coconut milk, however, I’m curious about your recommendation to use whey instead of a whey-casein blend. I find that I am hungry pretty quickly if I drink a purely whey shake, yet a casein shake “sticks to the ribs” a bit better.
So, two part question:
1. Is there a reason you didn’t recommend casein as one of the components of the shake?
2. Do you think that using a whey/casein blend will hamper any aspect of the first two weeks?
I did a search, but the only information was on using casein to maintain after fat loss (dating back to 2005).
Dan McVicker
Casein protein isn’t a problem in the shakes. If they make you feel fuller, go for it. We’re just so used to whey protein that that’s what we think of as shake material. A whey/casein blend shouldn’t hamper anything. Sorry for the confusion.
Now apparently even actresses are “sexy” with a big belly: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551343,00.html. Perhaps you should send Ms. Aniston a copy of your new book!
I wouldn’t exactly say she’s obese, but a large belly starts with a little pooch. And 40 clearly is getting into middle-age range, so she may be suffering the same effects as the rest of us.
I did the 6 weeks, lost 3.5 ” on my lying down measurement. I want to alternate between the 3 shakes and a meal one day, pp maintenance the next day-will I still lose FAT fat doing that?
Everyone is different, but you should continue losing just fine.
I meant VAT fat?
I disagree with the idea that half the people on TV are overweight. At least, not most women on scripted dramas/sitcoms. It’s kind of “ok” for men to be. But women still have to be scary thin. You know, not even lean. And that, I think, encourages women to try out a bunch of fad diets (mostly low-fat) that cause the opposite of what’s desired.