Dr Jason Fung mauled by impeccable logic of Calorie Restriction fans...

[Richard'63]

@Guzzler Didn't really understand your comment unless it was about how he earns his money. How many books has he written, where do the profits go? How much do those retreats cost and what is the profit? Does he sell diet or nutritional programs?

 

[Guzzler]

@Guzzler Didn't really understand your comment unless it was about how he earns his money. How many books has he written, where do the profits go? How much do those retreats cost and what is the profit? Does he sell diet or nutritional programs?

Earning a living is not a crime. Peddling dogma to protect one's only income by attacking experts in their field who come to the realisation that they can no longer sit by and watch their patients getting sicker, fatter and requiring amputations, dialysis and stenting is a more admirable trait?

 

[DCUKMod]

Let's keep this civil folks, please

 

[Richard'63]

Whilst I am tempted to follow your choice of words. It seems that you haven't actually read the articles in question.Especially since the articles were about weight loss and not diabetes.

 

[Guzzler]

Whilst I am tempted to follow your choice of words. It seems that you haven't actually read the articles in question.Especially since the articles were about weight loss and not diabetes.

As a personal choice I tend not to read articles if the author does not put his/her name to them.

 

[Richard'63]

I quoted Fung's own words from his own website.

 

[Diakat]

OK guys, leave it there or deletions will be made.

 

[Guzzler]

I quoted Fung's own words from his own website.

Apologies, I was referring to the article in the OP.

 

[pdmjoker]

I'm probably on a hiding to nothing here, but ... Why does nobody read the links, and then the other links?

You are correct that Fung's chatty style has lead to some slippage in his logic. EG where he has "But if you eat more Calories, you will burn more calories. If you eat less calories, you will burn less. So there is no overall change in body fatness." isn't 100% accurate. However, the main thrust of metabolic slowdown scuppering long-term calorie restriction is true and can be found in the 1919 US medical book entitled A Biometric Study of Basal Metabolism in Man. Many people have found weight-loss stalling even though they strictly stick to the diet.

Sam Feltham did an "experiment" where he ate 5000-odd calories a day of high carb food for 21 days and did indeed put on weight. He also ate 5000-odd calories a day of low carb high fat diet for 21 days and didn't put on the expected weight:
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
(I got a security warning for that page, but it seems OK...)
Low Carb means insulin (a fat storage hormone) isn't triggered so much so the body reacts v differently even if caloric value is the same. I am not saying Sam Feltham "proved" this, he merely illustrated the point.

 

[bulkbiker]

If calorie restriction didn't work, then nor would the Newcastle Diet.

To be accurate if by "work" you mean lead to maintained long term weight loss then they don't "work". That's why most people regain their lost weigh and usually a bit more.. "the biggest loser study" e.g.
Even ND has only got a remission rate of 36% after 24 months even with pre selected candidates on specific medicine regimes.

 

[Resurgam]

That sounds exactly what I would expect from calorie restriction and metabolic slowdown. Were you accused of lacking "will power" when the poorly formulated dietary regime you were prescribed failed for physiological reasons? I was, and it is really unfair...

I have been called a liar, delusional, a glutton, and various other unpleasant things - I have even been threatened with being 'taken and fed properly' - though just who would do the taking and where to was never clear.

 

[Adm_Mad]

Well if we are going by personal experiences, mine is that if I don’t calorie restrict my blood sugar soars and stays high even if all I’ve eaten for six days is ground beef, bacon, a few cabbage leaves, salt and pepper and water. So maybe it might be good (or at least just compassionate) to remember that this is an extremely complicated and contradictory disease and as amazing as following any particular guru may have been for you, their holy scripture might not be what’s best for everyone.

I’m so sorry if this seems hostile, I don’t mean it to be. I just want to stick me neck out and say that something that seems to work for a lot of the prolific posters here doesn’t work for me, in the hope that it reassures lurkers who have similar differing experiences but feel too intimidated to speak up, as showing doubt in certain scriptures here seems to be frowned on, LOL.

 

[AnthonyDee]

I don't see the problem with the article, to be honest...

We do know that fat stores are, in essence, energy stores (1g of body fat stores 9 calories), and that body fat gain and loss are the result of a chronic imbalance between energy intake and output, right?

I think the question isn't whether or not CICO applies (it always does) but what's the best dietary approach for someone with diabetes to better control calorie intake and output.

 

[jpscloud]

I'd just add a point here - CICO doesn't work for type 1 diabetics, does it? For many type 1s, no matter how much food you eat, you would not gain weight without some exogenous insulin. This for me proves that CICO cannot be the answer to weight loss, since most individuals who gain large amounts of weight are likely to be insulin resistant to some degree.

Sustained weight loss must therefore be achieved by reducing insulin in the system, rather than by simply reducing calories.

I learned that from Jason Fung, to give credit where it's due.

 

[Member496333]

I'd just add a point here - CICO doesn't work for type 1 diabetics, does it? For many type 1s, no matter how much food you eat, you would not gain weight without some exogenous insulin. This for me proves that CICO cannot be the answer to weight loss, since most individuals who gain large amounts of weight are likely to be insulin resistant to some degree.

Sustained weight loss must therefore be achieved by reducing insulin in the system, rather than by simply reducing calories.

I learned that from Jason Fung, to give credit where it's due.

Absolutely. CICO ignores how the energy is used and distributed by hormonal regulation once inside the body. Which is why it’s almost entirely pointless in the obesity/weight loss debate. To paraphrase Fung - obesity is a hormonal imbalance, rather than an energy one. Of course the entire point of this particular discussion is that some people disagree with him, but I assert that these people don’t know what they’re talking about.

 

[NicoleC1971]

Low carbing and keto diet approaches don't require a personal trainer..... that money stays in your pocket and not in the pockets of trainers. I think more and more people are getting positive results on LC or keto and saying bye bye to trainers or no longer considering the services of one, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with the motivation behind that article.

I am a trainer and am constantly refuting the CICO theory so that older clients do not restrict their nutrients and spend hours trying to burn off calories on a cross trainer/bike only to find that they are ravenous but have only qualified for a dijestive biscuit! And don't get me started on the healthy snacks in our gym (post workout low fat naturally sweet flapjack anyone?). There is definitely no money in telling people to eat (real) food and aim for metabolic health over calorie burn/steps taken!
Incidentally did anyone read the article in New Scientist:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...everything-you-know-about-nutrition-is-wrong/
Does well on debunking nutritional science but eventually returns to the 'everything in moderation'/eating too much of anything is bad and people can reverse their diabetes via low fat or low carb without much evidence to support her view. I don't really see a contradiction between CICO and the hormonal theory btw; the latter puts the emphasis on eating foods that allow your body to liberate stored fat whilst not making you insanely hungry but is based on the premise that you will store less fat and move more once you've repaired your metabolism.

 

[Guzzler]

I'd just add a point here - CICO doesn't work for type 1 diabetics, does it? For many type 1s, no matter how much food you eat, you would not gain weight without some exogenous insulin. This for me proves that CICO cannot be the answer to weight loss, since most individuals who gain large amounts of weight are likely to be insulin resistant to some degree.

Sustained weight loss must therefore be achieved by reducing insulin in the system, rather than by simply reducing calories.

I learned that from Jason Fung, to give credit where it's due.

Good point.

 

[lucylocket61]

Possibly stupid question alert:

If Fung is completely right, why do I have to keep an eye on the calorie intake as well as my carb intake?

 

[AnthonyDee]

I'd just add a point here - CICO doesn't work for type 1 diabetics, does it? For many type 1s, no matter how much food you eat, you would not gain weight without some exogenous insulin. This for me proves that CICO cannot be the answer to weight loss, since most individuals who gain large amounts of weight are likely to be insulin resistant to some degree.

Sustained weight loss must therefore be achieved by reducing insulin in the system, rather than by simply reducing calories.

I learned that from Jason Fung, to give credit where it's due.

I would argue that this is the perfect example showing that CICO applies.

Have you considered WHY type 1 diabetics lose weight?

Simply put, with type 1 diabetes, there is an insufficient production of insulin. This means that insulin is not present when a type 1 diabetic person eats, so, rather than using/storing the carbs and protein ingested (through the action of insulin), these end up being excreted through the urine.

Since calories from the food ingested are lost in urine, rather than utilized, the diabetic person will end up losing weight because they are in a calorie deficit (i.e. although they ingest the energy, they never really absorb it).

 

[Guzzler]

I would argue that this is the perfect example showing that CICO applies.

Have you considered WHY type 1 diabetics lose weight?

Simply put, with type 1 diabetes, there is an insufficient production of insulin. This means that insulin is not present when a type 1 diabetic person eats, so, rather than using/storing the carbs and protein ingested (through the action of insulin), these end up being excreted through the urine.

Since calories from the food ingested are lost in urine, rather than utilized, the diabetic person will end up losing weight because they are in a calorie deficit (i.e. although they ingest the energy, they never really absorb it).

Which is a metabolic (biochemical) argument rather than a mathematics one.