• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

BBC1 Wales - Fat v Carbs with Jamie Owen

ChrisSamsDad said:
In my opinion, like the NHS's advice, it's outdated and based on low-quality evidence. There is reasonable evidence that for some people LCHF works - But then similar evidence exists for the traditional low-cal diet,
Click to expand...

Exactly: because people are different, it's reasonable that the same diet doesn't work equally on all the people. If a classic low calories diet doesn't work maybe it's useful to try something different.
Anywas, as I've read somewhere seem that the basic advice on all diet is EAT MORE VEGETABLES AND LESS HEAVY PROCESSED FOOD.

I think though that we should stop calling it a name with 'high fat' in it - it's not helping, we really mean, 'not low fat' or 'reasonable fat'.
Click to expand...
I agree: high fat isn't a catchy name...
 
bulkbiker said:
Is there really any evidence for the low-cal diet working?
With newer science showing that the more you restrict your calories the slower your metabolism gets surely it is going to be debunked soon.
There are 23 pages of posts in the Success stories here which surely suggests that a low-carb way is better.
Yes I know it's anecdotal but surely enough anecdotes must add up to something? Even you are doing it...
Click to expand...

The problem is the DUK pretend that restricting calories works - by contributing to weight loss, with the overriding assumption that weight loss is the primary means for BG control.

The obvious point that restricting calories can only be done for a limited time before we become undernourished - & NEED more food - if not fatty foods then xxxxxhydrates.

Let me tell you a fairy story ...
A person was diagnosed with diabetes ^ the Dr & dietitian gave him DUK booklets to help him manage his condition. "No need to test - we'll test you every year. Don't worry - your results get worse as years go by - after all diabetes is a progressive disease. And whatever you do, DON'T consult Dr Google."

After a few years, his condition worsened, Dr prescribed tablets & assured the patient that insulin was available, The risk of blindness, amputation, kidney failure, CVD is ever increasing. Don't worry - it's what I told you to expect. DUK are the experts & they know diabetes is progressive.

Patient - "I'll try Dr Google - he's got a lot of info from diabetes patients who are living with the disease."

Dr. Google - "If you read the DUK booklets carefully you will see they tell you that all carbs metabolise to glucose & raise your blood sugar, that's why they tell you you must eat carbs with every meal. BUT if you listen to my patients you will find they control & even reduce their blood sugar by cutting carbs out of their diet. They get their energy from good clean fats that come with real food - cheese, nuts, meat etc. Try it & come back for as much advice as you want - no need for an appointment."

Patient - "Thanks - I'll try it. I've got nothing to lose except diabetes complications ...."

3 months later.

Patient - "Thanks, Dr. Google - LCHF has restored my health."

Dr. G. - "Of course - the difference between me & your GP is that I listen to real people with diabetes, rather than self-styled 'experts.' If your GP & the 'experts' at DUK actually listened to feed-back from their patients, they would KNOW the carby diet they recommend doesn't work."

Note:
8 years of DUK carby diet was destroying my health. Dr. G. gave me the LCHF advice, & I gave up all the obvious carbs. In THREE months I was out of pain, fit & well - 8 years ago.
 
IanD said:
... If your GP & the 'experts' at DUK actually listened to feed-back from their patients, they would KNOW the carby diet they recommend doesn't work."
.
Click to expand...
They do know it doesn't work, they just see it as the "natural progression" of the disease that can't be helped. And they think most of their patients are too stupid and too lazy to really follow any diet for long.
 
bulkbiker said:
Is there really any evidence for the low-cal diet working?
With newer science showing that the more you restrict your calories the slower your metabolism gets surely it is going to be debunked soon.
There are 23 pages of posts in the Success stories here which surely suggests that a low-carb way is better.
Yes I know it's anecdotal but surely enough anecdotes must add up to something? Even you are doing it...
Click to expand...
There's an, admittedly very nerdy joke about three professors on a train to Scotland, when they pass a brown cow - the professor of economics says "Oh look, cows in Scotland are brown' - the professor of mathematics corrects him "Well, there are cows in Scotland, and at least one is brown' - the Professor of Logic says - 'Well, there is at least one cow in Scotland of which one side appears to be brown'

Keeping that in mind, there is certainly anecdotal evidence on both sides, but all we can say is that LCHF diet does appear to currently be working for a large number of people, and of those people many of them report that previous attempts to control their blood sugar or lose weight on a calorie-restricting diet have failed. People who have managed to lose weight due to calorie-restricting diets maybe prevented onset of diabetes years ago, and we don't and won't see them here.

Incidentally, I don't think that LCHF doesn't slow down your metabolism - as you lose weight, you're carrying less fat and so you need fewer calories so your metabolism has slowed down.
 
ChrisSamsDad said:
There's an, admittedly very nerdy joke about three professors on a train to Scotland, when they pass a brown cow - the professor of economics says "Oh look, cows in Scotland are brown' - the professor of mathematics corrects him "Well, there are cows in Scotland, and at least one is brown' - the Professor of Logic says - 'Well, there is at least one cow in Scotland of which one side appears to be brown'

Keeping that in mind, there is certainly anecdotal evidence on both sides, but all we can say is that LCHF diet does appear to currently be working for a large number of people, and of those people many of them report that previous attempts to control their blood sugar or lose weight on a calorie-restricting diet have failed. People who have managed to lose weight due to calorie-restricting diets maybe prevented onset of diabetes years ago, and we don't and won't see them here.

Incidentally, I don't think that LCHF doesn't slow down your metabolism - as you lose weight, you're carrying less fat and so you need fewer calories so your metabolism has slowed down.
Click to expand...

That of course assumes that you are calorie restricted on LCHF.. I have never counted my calories whilst following this way of eating but I do fast thus allowing my system to rest completely rather than just feeding it smaller amounts.
 
IanD said:
The problem is the DUK pretend that restricting calories works - by contributing to weight loss, with the overriding assumption that weight loss is the primary means for BG control.

The obvious point that restricting calories can only be done for a limited time before we become undernourished - & NEED more food - if not fatty foods then xxxxxhydrates.

Let me tell you a fairy story ...
A person was diagnosed with diabetes ^ the Dr & dietitian gave him DUK booklets to help him manage his condition. "No need to test - we'll test you every year. Don't worry - your results get worse as years go by - after all diabetes is a progressive disease. And whatever you do, DON'T consult Dr Google."

After a few years, his condition worsened, Dr prescribed tablets & assured the patient that insulin was available, The risk of blindness, amputation, kidney failure, CVD is ever increasing. Don't worry - it's what I told you to expect. DUK are the experts & they know diabetes is progressive.

Patient - "I'll try Dr Google - he's got a lot of info from diabetes patients who are living with the disease."

Dr. Google - "If you read the DUK booklets carefully you will see they tell you that all carbs metabolise to glucose & raise your blood sugar, that's why they tell you you must eat carbs with every meal. BUT if you listen to my patients you will find they control & even reduce their blood sugar by cutting carbs out of their diet. They get their energy from good clean fats that come with real food - cheese, nuts, meat etc. Try it & come back for as much advice as you want - no need for an appointment."

Patient - "Thanks - I'll try it. I've got nothing to lose except diabetes complications ...."

3 months later.

Patient - "Thanks, Dr. Google - LCHF has restored my health."

Dr. G. - "Of course - the difference between me & your GP is that I listen to real people with diabetes, rather than self-styled 'experts.' If your GP & the 'experts' at DUK actually listened to feed-back from their patients, they would KNOW the carby diet they recommend doesn't work."

Note:
8 years of DUK carby diet was destroying my health. Dr. G. gave me the LCHF advice, & I gave up all the obvious carbs. In THREE months I was out of pain, fit & well - 8 years ago.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I went straight to Dr. Google! It was after I started LCHF that I met with a diabetes nurse, who told me to eat a low fat high carb diet and that if I did my diabetes would progress and that I'd be on more and more meds until finally I would be on insulin and then I'd die of heart disease. After she told me that, I told her that my diabetes would not progress. Now every six months my blood tests show that I'm very healthy and we have a nice conversation about all the meat and dairy I eat and she tells me not to eat so much that and to eat more carbs. What fun!
 
What I have learned after many years of low carb/Keto/zero carb eating is that although the current low carb mantra is "if you aren't eating carbs, you have to be eating loads of fat", it isn't true.

If you are already slim, fit, lean and healthy when embarking on LCHF, then yes, it should work. If however, you have any excess weight to lose, you need to lower the fat - quite radically in some cases. That leaves just protein and some greens. But it does work. In order to force my body to burn its own fat I have to radically lower the amount of fat I eat.

I tried LCHF. No hardship. I love fat. But I GAINED well over 30lbs and my insulin resistance worsened. My body loves to store it, but doesn't burn it very well.

I daresay that if Jamie Owen had not only followed the diet for more than 3 weeks AND lowered his fat intake until he had lost the weight, the outcome would have been far more successful.......
 
bulkbiker said:
That of course assumes that you are calorie restricted on LCHF.. I have never counted my calories whilst following this way of eating but I do fast thus allowing my system to rest completely rather than just feeding it smaller amounts.
Click to expand...
No, not all at - you very likely eat fewer calories without counting. I am extremely dubious about several different hypotheses about LCHF/Ketogenic - I don't go for the various metabolic arguments about energy burning etc. I think everything can be adequatedly explained by the appetite control you get from eating LCHF - I found that within a few days I was eating less frequently, not getting hungry between meals and able to go longer without food. That would have the effect of making me eat fewer calories and lose weight. The blood sugar lowering is for me, the most important thing - weight loss down to a normal weight and the exercise which is now possible is and excellent by-product of the diet.

There's been a pretty well conducted study, which had people locked up for 2 months on a ketogenic diet in a hospital and there they were able to measure their calorie intake and output, their whole metabolism etc, which seemed to show that it was mostly about calories in / calories out. It wasn't allowing them to eat what they want, they weren't trying to study the effect LCHF has on appetite, just the metabolism. There's a video of the findings being discussed here:
 
AliB said:
What I have learned after many years of low carb/Keto/zero carb eating is that although the current low carb mantra is "if you aren't eating carbs, you have to be eating loads of fat", it isn't true.

If you are already slim, fit, lean and healthy when embarking on LCHF, then yes, it should work. If however, you have any excess weight to lose, you need to lower the fat - quite radically in some cases. That leaves just protein and some greens. But it does work. In order to force my body to burn its own fat I have to radically lower the amount of fat I eat.

I tried LCHF. No hardship. I love fat. But I GAINED well over 30lbs and my insulin resistance worsened. My body loves to store it, but doesn't burn it very well.

I daresay that if Jamie Owen had not only followed the diet for more than 3 weeks AND lowered his fat intake until he had lost the weight, the outcome would have been far more successful.......
Click to expand...

I am coming to think that this no-weight-loss-when-lchf thing is due to insulin resistance (for some of us - can't say ALL, of course, but the theory fits for ME). I'm mentioning it since I see you are on insulin. I find that if I can lower my insulin resistance, then I lose a bit of weight on lchf, regardless of fat or calories. But then I hit another plateau, and have to try and find a way of sustain-ably lowering my IR even more. I am blessed with high insulin resistance due to a couple of medical conditions, and being obese before I found the joys of very low carbing.
 
Brunneria said:
I am coming to think that this no-weight-loss-when-lchf thing is due to insulin resistance (for some of us - can't say ALL, of course, but the theory fits for ME). I'm mentioning it since I see you are on insulin. I find that if I can lower my insulin resistance, then I lose a bit of weight on lchf, regardless of fat or calories. But then I hit another plateau, and have to try and find a way of sustain-ably lowering my IR even more. I am blessed with high insulin resistance due to a couple of medical conditions, and being obese before I found the joys of very low carbing.
Click to expand...

The conundrum is though, that insulin resistance usually starts because of weight gain, and its only by losing the weight that insulin sensitivity may be restored. But if you can't lose the weight because you are insulin resistant.........
 
Pinkorchid said:
I say it depends on the individual person as to what suits them ..there is no one size fits all especially when it come to diets... I am sure there are many on this forum who do things differently to LCHF yet are still doing well
Click to expand...

I agree - each diet has to be 'in context' of the dieter. I found this site an interesting read
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/sp3index.php (it is an american site)
Again - this is just more 'another man's ideas' so take it with a pinch of salt!
 
ChrisSamsDad said:
No, not all at - you very likely eat fewer calories without counting. I am extremely dubious about several different hypotheses about LCHF/Ketogenic - I don't go for the various metabolic arguments about energy burning etc. I think everything can be adequatedly explained by the appetite control you get from eating LCHF - I found that within a few days I was eating less frequently, not getting hungry between meals and able to go longer without food. That would have the effect of making me eat fewer calories and lose weight. The blood sugar lowering is for me, the most important thing - weight loss down to a normal weight and the exercise which is now possible is and excellent by-product of the diet.

There's been a pretty well conducted study, which had people locked up for 2 months on a ketogenic diet in a hospital and there they were able to measure their calorie intake and output, their whole metabolism etc, which seemed to show that it was mostly about calories in / calories out. It wasn't allowing them to eat what they want, they weren't trying to study the effect LCHF has on appetite, just the metabolism. There's a video of the findings being discussed here:
Click to expand...
If you go looking, there are a number of bloggers out there who are completely bemused by this and another video. One of the more comprehensive is probably Dr Michael Eades, though he's certainly not the only one:
https://proteinpower.com/drmike/201...d-cognitive-dissonance-the-kevin-hall-effect/
 
AliB said:
The conundrum is though, that insulin resistance usually starts because of weight gain, and its only by losing the weight that insulin sensitivity may be restored. But if you can't lose the weight because you are insulin resistant.........
Click to expand...
Actually, it doesn't.
Insulin resistance starts long before the weight gain.
This was shown in 1000s of examples over decades of testing by Kraft (there is a great you tube video on the subject called 'Kraft, father of the insulin assay' if you want the details. Well worth the watch).

In addition, people with PCOS and any other type of insulin resistance increasing medical condition (like myself) or meds which increase IR, became insulin resistant before the weight gain, which is a symptom, not a cause.

Of course, as soon as the weight increase becomes significant enough, then the weight itself becomes a factor too.

But the thing that came first was the IR
 
Indy51 said:
If you go looking, there are a number of bloggers out there who are completely bemused by this and another video. One of the more comprehensive is probably Dr Michael Eades, though he's certainly not the only one:
https://proteinpower.com/drmike/201...d-cognitive-dissonance-the-kevin-hall-effect/
Click to expand...
That's more of a character assassination piece than an analysis of the study. There is only a little metabolic difference, and I, for one, agree that the appetite surpressing effects are far more influential.
 
ChrisSamsDad said:
That's more of a character assassination piece than an analysis of the study. There is only a little metabolic difference, and I, for one, agree that the appetite surpressing effects are far more influential.
Click to expand...

High carb intake cause hig glucose levels that trigger high insulin production, high insulin production causes a low glucose level, that cause appetites. If one eats carb, it will cause a BG spike and so on, the net result in healthy people is overeating.
So cutting carbs for fats that aren't triggering insuline production will lower appetite, causing lower calorie intake.

Makes sense.
 
Back when I believed in low fat and calorie restriction I could lose weight on a <1900 calorie a day diet. Much more than that and no weight loss. When I tried LCHF, I found I lost weight on 2700 calories a day (about 75% calories from fat and less than 5% calories from carbs). I was quite meticulous in my calorie counting.
 
NoCrbs4Me said:
Back when I believed in low fat and calorie restriction I could lose weight on a <1900 calorie a day diet. Much more than that and no weight loss. When I tried LCHF, I found I lost weight on 2700 calories a day (about 75% calories from fat and less than 5% calories from carbs). I was quite meticulous in my calorie counting.
Click to expand...
Another small thing is that, except for highly refined or particularly simple foods the calorie intake is an estimate, and also the calorie absorbption. 100 g of oil are 900 kCal, easy, but 100 g of peanuts are really 650 kCal? One cup of Spaghetti with butter and parmesan is really 500 kCal ? Or a slice of pizza, even a simple one like Napoli or Margherita could change the caloric intake depending on cheese type and quality, the oil quantity in the sauce, and even if in the over are using salt or wheat... Are you sure that 1900 calories were actually 1900 calories?
I think that the calorie restricted diets are working not on the energy balance, but on the increased awareness one has on what to eat.

As a lighter note, I've driven when I was young I've driven a Fiat Panda 30. 600 cc air cooled 30 HP engine. Like this:
vanomotore30.jpg

Being a young student I was really aware of the mileage of the car. Even for a simple mechanical mass produced engine like this the energy consumption so themileage of a given quantity of petrol could oscillate in a 25% range.
A change of oil and new spark plugs improve the mileage, but even the temperature and the weather could change the efficiency of the system.

I think that a living thing that is more variable and more complex could have an efficiency that is really variable.

So one diet fits all does't work. :) Instead Fiat Pandas old model are running fine! My mom still drives a 1999 Panda (with the 45 HP water cooled engine and electronic injection, so without the problem with the ignition coil and the carbureator that plagued the air cooled engine...)
 
Back
Top