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

[ATZ]

as testified here

supersize me..an aptly named project./

Oh my, someone who overate junk got fat and ill? Shock!

how about the guy who proved supersize me was nothing more than "junk" science? Eating McDonald's for 6 months straight, losing weigh and in the process improving all his health parameters?

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10

Overeating any food will make you fat and ill.

 

[Resurgam]

At diagnosis I was walking - and I use that term for want of anything more accurate, with two sticks, fearful of falling and full of grief. Last Tuesday I was practicing a step hop morris dance and keeping pace with the Hobos - a local side which is not known for its laid back attitude to pace. I am 68 years old.
All the argument or insults or 'this happened to these people' possible will never convince me that I do not feel a lot younger, more cheerful, more vigorous, more flexible and entirely more joyful simply by eating a diet which has a maximum of 40 gm of carb a day.

 

[Guzzler]

Click on the final link where full blood tests are discussed and their (shock) improvement while eating 805 of his calories from ice cream. Because if there's one thing we know it's that being overweight is more unhealthy than the food you eat to achieve weight loss.

Am I advocating such approaches? Not at all. They're simply great illustrations of the supposed "CICO myth" that you all seem so set on disproving. All at the same time not realising that low carb diets work by exactly the same mechanism - calorie reduction.

So, an anecdote quoted by you is science but one from me is worthy of dismissal?

The reason that anyone can overeat on ice cream is down to fructose, we are evolutionarily conditioned to gorge on fructose when available (see famine/ feast) but the problem is that it is never winter in these modern times, there is never famine - pretty hard to have a roast dinner full of proteins and fats and then eat more protein but if one is offered ice cream all of a sudden 'there's room'.

 

[Member496333]

I don’t agree that being overweight per se is unhealthy. Body fat is simply stored energy. What is unhealthy is intraorganic fat and metabolic syndrome caused by hyperinsulinemia.

 

[1spuds]

Nutritionist rate right up with American Heart IMO....based on Keyes.Diabetes experts based on American Hearts' very poor humongously damaging diet advice.Then we got Dieticians piggy backing on both.

Look at crowds from 1970,a few slightly overweight.Fast forward to today,obese everywhere,slender people the exception. What changed?EXTREMELY bad dietary advice.It was not that adults suddenly became sedentary in that time period.Vilify fat,worship carbs and sugars.That was the change.

Thats where the 'experts' in various medical disciplines have taken us .

Thats history.Thank goodness,after 50-60 years of horrendous dietary advice its finally changing.I just read some philosopher that asked....when does bad science change when new better science comes along? ONLY when they die off.Paraphrased,but thats the upshot.

 

[HSSS]

Click on the final link where full blood tests are discussed a

Could you provide another link to this info please. This goes to a Utube that doesn’t give fasting glucose or insulin results and the website he states the results are on has expired.

 

[ATZ]

Really? So I can eat energy dense sawdust and have the same response as eating steak on my weight? I can eat nothing but fiber and have the same response as eating chicken and salad?
Your CICO better have a heck of a lot of nutrition to be able to sustain a body healthfully,and that starts at the cellular level.X weight and Y amt of muscle does NOT equate to a healthy body in any way shape or form.

Strawman argument, I've never stated that.

Calories are the global permissive, but food quality also counts. It doesn't invalidate CICO that different nutrients have different hormonal effects in the body.

But thanks to well contorlled studies we know that where protien intakes are equal, manipulating the % of carbs or fat in your diet has zero impact on results:

"In August of 2015, NIH researcher Kevin Hall published a rigorous study on carb intakes and weight loss. Its design was the gold standard of fat loss trials: the participants were kept in a metabolic ward; their diets were controlled exactly.

In their typical simplistic fashion, media outlets reported the study results as “Low-carb doesn’t work!” or even “Low-carb worse than low fat!” Actually analyzing the study, however, draws a much less dramatic picture.

What the study really did is take a first step in testing the so-called “Carbohydrate-Insulin Theory of Obesity”, which points to carbs and insulin being the major factor behind weight gain. It tested a lower-carb diet (140 g/day isn’t low-carb but is lower-carb compared to the typical diet) against a super-low-fat diet (17 g/day) and found similar rates of fat loss.

There was no magic fat loss advantage in lowering carbs, even though insulin was indeed reduced. Low-carb advocates cried foul: the study wasn’t even close to being low-carb (usually less than 50 g/day). So the researchers, funded by a pro-low-carb organization, did a follow-up study at ketogenic levels. There again, however, they could attribute no fat loss advantage to the low-carb diet. Low-carb advocates were incensed, and Kevin Hall replied back to criticism repeatedly."

Full article with links to the studies: https://examine.com/nutrition/3-examples-of-fakenews-from-the-world-of-nutrition-research/

 

[1spuds]

All at the same time not realising that low carb diets work by exactly the same mechanism - calorie reduction.

And metabolism has zero effect? Not hardly.And eating massive amts of sugar is healthy?No,it isnt.

 

[Walking Girl]

The body eats its self away, which anorexia does, people combine it with exercise, such as pacing to continue. It's a mental health problem. Cannot be compared.

If people are dieting through restrictive calories to the required weight, when increasing normal or what people considered normal eating, the body maintains the fat, this is why people regain weight, food has become plentiful, the stored fat is there ready in case of reduction of food.

The mental health condition causes the food restriction, but the biological response to that restriction is the exactly same, so it can absolutely be compared.

After weight loss, I returned to what all CICO calculators tell me is “normal” - actually a bit above, and have not regained any weight. I eat when I’m hungry stop when I’m satisfied. I do not track any macronutrient, much less “carbs”. If people want to consider that unsustainable or as always being on a diet...well OK...

 

[1spuds]

CICO has no basis in a healthy body.Saying X weight means you are healthy is nonsense.I will stick to eating a nutritious balanced diet,understanding all calories are NOT the same.Not in,and not out.Pecs and Lats do not define health by a long shot.

Guess Im not allowed to refer to your 'expert' status either,though you promote it.

Im done.

 

[ATZ]

At diagnosis I was walking - and I use that term for want of anything more accurate, with two sticks, fearful of falling and full of grief. Last Tuesday I was practicing a step hop morris dance and keeping pace with the Hobos - a local side which is not known for its laid back attitude to pace. I am 68 years old.
All the argument or insults or 'this happened to these people' possible will never convince me that I do not feel a lot younger, more cheerful, more vigorous, more flexible and entirely more joyful simply by eating a diet which has a maximum of 40 gm of carb a day.

Great so you reduced your calorie intake and lost weight. Well done!

 

[Guzzler]

Strawman argument, I've never stated that.

Calories are the global permissive, but food quality also counts. It doesn't invalidate CICO that different nutrients have different hormonal effects in the body.

But thanks to well contorlled studies we know that where protien intakes are equal, manipulating the % of carbs or fat in your diet has zero impact on results:

"In August of 2015, NIH researcher Kevin Hall published a rigorous study on carb intakes and weight loss. Its design was the gold standard of fat loss trials: the participants were kept in a metabolic ward; their diets were controlled exactly.

In their typical simplistic fashion, media outlets reported the study results as “Low-carb doesn’t work!” or even “Low-carb worse than low fat!” Actually analyzing the study, however, draws a much less dramatic picture.

What the study really did is take a first step in testing the so-called “Carbohydrate-Insulin Theory of Obesity”, which points to carbs and insulin being the major factor behind weight gain. It tested a lower-carb diet (140 g/day isn’t low-carb but is lower-carb compared to the typical diet) against a super-low-fat diet (17 g/day) and found similar rates of fat loss.

There was no magic fat loss advantage in lowering carbs, even though insulin was indeed reduced. Low-carb advocates cried foul: the study wasn’t even close to being low-carb (usually less than 50 g/day). So the researchers, funded by a pro-low-carb organization, did a follow-up study at ketogenic levels. There again, however, they could attribute no fat loss advantage to the low-carb diet. Low-carb advocates were incensed, and Kevin Hall replied back to criticism repeatedly."

Full article with links to the studies: https://examine.com/nutrition/3-examples-of-fakenews-from-the-world-of-nutrition-research/

Was this Hall's Two week crossover study? The one that was found NOT to be low carb? Apples to Oranges.

See Virta Studies results for last two years, see DCUKs results.

 

[HSSS]

Strawman argument, I've never stated that.

Calories are the global permissive, but food quality also counts. It doesn't invalidate CICO that different nutrients have different hormonal effects in the body.

But thanks to well contorlled studies we know that where protien intakes are equal, manipulating the % of carbs or fat in your diet has zero impact on results:

"In August of 2015, NIH researcher Kevin Hall published a rigorous study on carb intakes and weight loss. Its design was the gold standard of fat loss trials: the participants were kept in a metabolic ward; their diets were controlled exactly.

In their typical simplistic fashion, media outlets reported the study results as “Low-carb doesn’t work!” or even “Low-carb worse than low fat!” Actually analyzing the study, however, draws a much less dramatic picture.

What the study really did is take a first step in testing the so-called “Carbohydrate-Insulin Theory of Obesity”, which points to carbs and insulin being the major factor behind weight gain. It tested a lower-carb diet (140 g/day isn’t low-carb but is lower-carb compared to the typical diet) against a super-low-fat diet (17 g/day) and found similar rates of fat loss.

There was no magic fat loss advantage in lowering carbs, even though insulin was indeed reduced. Low-carb advocates cried foul: the study wasn’t even close to being low-carb (usually less than 50 g/day). So the researchers, funded by a pro-low-carb organization, did a follow-up study at ketogenic levels. There again, however, they could attribute no fat loss advantage to the low-carb diet. Low-carb advocates were incensed, and Kevin Hall replied back to criticism repeatedly."

Full article with links to the studies: https://examine.com/nutrition/3-examples-of-fakenews-from-the-world-of-nutrition-research/

But were these participants diabetic?

There is no mention of diabetes or blood glucose or insulin in the study. Most studies deselect participants with disease such as diabetes so there is a good chance they were not diabetic with damaged metabolism.

And yet again I say this is the point you keep ignoring. And this is why we advocate low carb over any other weight loss. Because in our specific situation it makes a difference and is more effective.

 

[ATZ]

Nutritionist rate right up with American Heart IMO....based on Keyes.Diabetes experts based on American Hearts' very poor humongously damaging diet advice.Then we got Dieticians piggy backing on both.

Look at crowds from 1970,a few slightly overweight.Fast forward to today,obese everywhere,slender people the exception. What changed?EXTREMELY bad dietary advice.It was not that adults suddenly became sedentary in that time period.Vilify fat,worship carbs and sugars.That was the change.

Thats where the 'experts' in various medical disciplines have taken us .

Thats history.Thank goodness,after 50-60 years of horrendous dietary advice its finally changing.I just read some philosopher that asked....when does bad science change when new better science comes along? ONLY when they die off.Paraphrased,but thats the upshot.

Biggest difference between now and the 70s? We eat more and move less.

 

[Resurgam]

Great so you reduced your calorie intake and lost weight. Well done!

No, I actually doubled my calories, but I didn't bother to mention it as they are irrelevant in my case.

 

[1spuds]

No.We eat more energy dense processed nutritionally bereft **** foods now than ever.

 

[Dark Horse]

This is what I get. Two people join a particular thread, both in the 'industry'. A thread on a Diabetes website and they concentrate all their efforts on weight, ignore question of TOFIism and sedentary lifestyle with weight loss and studiously ignore the whole concept of metabolic syndrome, insult members' inteligence by saying;
You didn't do it right
You couldn't possibly understand
You are misremembering or telling lies
You're not putting in the work
Have you seen my credentials?!
Accuse members of slavish zealotry or Guru worship

and then leave.

That's not at all the way it appeared to me.

 

[ATZ]

Was this Hall's Two week crossover study? The one that was found NOT to be low carb? Apples to Oranges.

See Virta Studies results for last two years, see DCUKs results.

Did you actually read the link?

Hall repeated the low carb trial (140g pf carbs per day) with a ketogenic trial.

No difference in results.

 

[ATZ]

But were these participants diabetic?

There is no mention of diabetes or blood glucose or insulin in the study. Most studies deselect participants with disease such as diabetes so there is a good chance they were not diabetic with damaged metabolism.

And yet again I say this is the point you keep ignoring. And this is why we advocate low carb over any other weight loss. Because in our specific situation it makes a difference and is more effective.

@HSSS did you read the link about the Kempner diet I posted earlier?

A diet high in carbs that was hugely effective for treating overweight diabetics. You do not need special treatment to lose weight.

 

[1spuds]

So, an anecdote quoted by you is science but one from me is worthy of dismissal?

Of course.