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

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

pdmjoker

Well-Known Member
Messages
426
Type of diabetes
Prediabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
(Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I missed it.)

I've just read an online article about how Dr Jason Fung has misinterpreted some studies and come to the incorrect conclusion that Calorie Restriction is an inadequate diet and almost bound to fail long-term:

"So where did Dr. Fung go wrong in his calculations?

Well, Dr. Fung probably failed to consider that reductions in metabolic rate should account for weight loss or gain, since a smaller body will burn fewer calories and a larger body will burn more."

Brilliant logic! Probably! They are saying that the fatter you get, the more calories you burn!

But wouldn't you not put weight on in the first place if that were the case? When did fat cells start burning, erm, fat cells?

I would agree that more muscle mass burns more calories for a given activity, but that isn't what they said...

Can anyone see a hole in my logic?

You can read the whole article here:

https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/
 
I have only scanned the article but after having wandered into another of their articles (authors identities unknown) they cite Hall et al and have a go at Taubes. This seems to be a site that relies on sales, the fitness industry seems to be feeling the pinch when it comes to weight loss strategies, and cites that 'this (CICO) has been known in science for forty years'.
Reading this is the reason I did not read the article fully.
 
A website with lots of pictures of beautiful young people with perfect bodies...preaching the dogma of the last 60 years that its all about calories as opposed to a respected practitioner with thousands of clients who have put their T2 into remission with his help... hmmm let me think about that for a nano-second...

As with everything context is key. If you are young and have no metabolic problems then eating almost anything is probably fine.. until it isn't and you develop something lovely like T2 or get fat.

The Bro science of many of these fitness trainers is great for their client base however when applied to the more mature with more "problems" it suddenly doesn't work.. but all they can then do is mock someone whose methods have proved far more effective.
Sad...for their older clients mainly..
 

The day my body decides to toe the calorie line is the day I start listening to the CICO mantra.
It hasn’t done so for the last 4 decades, so I really don’t expect it to start now.
 
To lift a quote from their article
"He even shares a couple of graphs from a few studies which show that, initially, weight loss occurs during calorically restricted diets, but then weight regain happens as weight slowly creeps back up during the months and years that follow."
That is so true - it is known as yoyo dieting and is the exoerience of most weight loss programs especially after the time period has expired and the diet ends. This is how WW et al make their money, revolving doors, repeat custom.
 
Each time I was put on a calorie restricted diet the daily calorie intake had to be reduced to achieve the same weekly reduction in weight.
I also experienced the same changes, turning very pale, unable to concentrate, no stamina, sleeping over 12 hours unless I set two alarms, lots of weeping and becoming very pessimistic.
Each time it became easier to gain weight as fat, and I lost muscle - in my early twenties I could still swing by my hands - I used to do it on my way to and from work on the climbing frame in the local park where there was a series of horizontal ladders. At the start of the dieting I weighed 147lb and had a 24 inch waist - so why I was considered over weight I do not know.
 
Oldvatr said:
initially, weight loss occurs during calorically restricted diets, but then weight regain happens as weight slowly creeps back up during the months and years that follow."
Click to expand...
So they are even admitting that their caloric restriction method is flawed yet say that Fung is wrong... an odd position to take..
 

This has happened to me - I have more than doubled my weight since I first started dieting as a teenager. I've also suffered from very bad gall stones, which I think is linked with crash dieting. And eventually going to a dieting club was only resulting in a half a pound loss a week - it was really not worth all the deprivation.
 
Don't want to comment about the diet, but can any of you tell me about dr fung's recommendation for insulin level and homa ir?, i have watched many of his videos where he emphasizes on lowering insulin and insulin resistance, but i can't find the ideal number for insulin and insulin resistance, he's never mentioned the ideal number
 
pdmjoker said:
They are saying that the fatter you get, the more calories you burn!
Click to expand...
This is correct. Even at rest, adipose tissue (the tissue which stores fat) requires energy to maintain it (around 4.5 Calories per kilogram of body weight per day), albeit not as much as other tissues such as muscle (about 13 Calories per kilogram of body weight per day). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2980962/

In addition, more energy is required to move a heavier body. As weight is lost, fewer calories are needed to do daily activities such as walking, gardening, housework etc. as well as any sports activities. Obese people have more muscle than a lean person with the same body frame because they need more muscle to move the extra weight around. As weight-loss occurs, there will be some loss of (no longer needed) muscle which will further reduce the daily energy requirements (as muscle needs more Calories to maintain it than adipose tissue)

For a 50-year old male who is 180 cm tall and does exercise 1-3 times per week, an approximate daily energy requirement is 2207 Calories at 70 kgs and 3135 Calories at 140 kgs. (Note that this is an approximation and the actual requirement may differ in individuals.) https://www.calculator.net/bmr-calculator.html
 

If you want to base it on 309 "healthy" Iranians then it looks like somewhere between 1.6 and 12.5 μU/mL should be the ref range. There are various measure for Insulin resistance mentioned in the abstract which I'll copy in below.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24530467

I'm guessing there will be considerable variation between individuals and will depend on the definition of "healthy".

This guy makes very bold statements but doesn't provide one iota of evidence..

https://www.thebloodcode.com/insulin-resistancet2-diabetes-map-test-results/
 
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.
 
well, i know about those standards/guidelines set by others, just wonder why fung himself who stresses and keeps preaching the important of lowering insulin and insulin resistance does not set his own standard? and i passed most of those requirements, except...blood sugar and HbA1c, my fasting insulin was 7.42, homa ir 1.7, TG:HDL 1.2, total body fat 21%, yet my fasting bsl was 16.5, 2hr PP 30 and HbA1c 115, when i was diagnosed, and dropped down within normal range in 5 days after taking.....18 units of insulin, and that's not only me, i've found other members of this forum who also have high BSL, although their insulin and insulin resistance are optimal
 
CICO is just a joke at this stage. Pedalled by those who think that endocrinology doesn’t matter just because they don’t understand it.
 

Before we are accused of derailing I suggest you start a thread about insulin levels and IR.
Also would be useful if you completed your profile so we know your current status and medication.
 
Thank you for the info Dark Horse. So there is some truth in what they say, but metabolic slowdown is far more profound and results in lower body temp, lower heart rate and blood pressure and physical weakness etc. They still appear to be unfairly twisting the truth ...
 
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'm probably on a hiding to nothing here, but ... Why does nobody read the links, and then the other links?

With regard to CICO, from the Dr Fung page. "Change in Body Fat = Calorie Intake – Calorie Output. Yes. This is true." Yeap, read that again folks, Fung said it was true!

He then says "Yes, if Calories In is more than Calories Out then you will gain fat. 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.". Technically he is correct in the middle part, but he is completely wrong in his conclusion and he directly contradicts his own words in the first part, and by the way this is the part linked to the highlight in the original post here. As @Dark Horse has already said an increase in weight will lead to an increase in metabolic rate, but if Fung was correct nobody would ever get fat, your body would self-correct, that patently doesn't happen. People get fatter.

Fung then references various studies, without links. And essentially states that calorie restriction diets do no work over the long term. For the most part this might be correct, but these are "intensive counseling studies" without access to the actual data we will never know if everybody stuck to their diets and exercise regimes. On the one study he quoted where he says they did stick to the diet, they simply substituted energy from fat for energy from carbs, so no real change in calories. And btw, the changes were within or close to one standard deviation and not statistically significant.

If calorie restriction didn't work, then nor would the Newcastle Diet. And I've just checked one of the shakes in the Newcastle Diet and there are three times as much protein and carbs in the shake as there are fats.

For those saying the words in the originally linked site is because that is how they earn money, how does Fung earn a living?
 
Last edited:
...as a nephrologist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…