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

Status
Not open for further replies.

pixie1

Well-Known Member
Messages
372
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
I understand the disagreement. And I’m weighing in on the side that thinks LCHF works *because* of calorie restriction. When is there not a hormonal response to food?

The whole point of LCHF is that there is no restrictions on calories. That were high fat plays the key role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flora123

ATZ

Well-Known Member
Messages
112
The trouble is that my body doesn't behave the way it is supposed to. No amount of telling it to lose weight your way works....

@zand I'll defer you to this recent bit of research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7918325

"When two 'small-eaters' were supplied with their self-reported energy intakes (approximately 5 MJ/d) for up to 28 d both subjects lost about 0.75 kg body-weight/week. These results provide no support for the existence of 'metabolically efficient' women in the community"

Women who claimed they could not lose weight on 1400 calories per day. They were supervised and actually given that amount of food and viola - they all lost weight.

People suck at estimating their intake in free living conditions - a bite here, nibble there, the piece of cake they forgot, not accounting for liquid calories, I could go on.

Their intake in the study above was verified with doubly labelled water, so we know they were lying, even if unconsciously.

That's why I hold little weight in your "self experiment" or anecdotes, you just found a way of eating for you that worked.
 

ATZ

Well-Known Member
Messages
112
The whole point of LCHF is that there is no restrictions on calories. That were high fat plays the key role.

If there is no imbalance in energy in vs energy out you will not lose weight. This isn't opinion, it's a fundamental law of physics.

If you don't restrict calories using LCHF how to you propose you are metabolizing those stored energy (fat) stores?
 

zand

Master
Messages
10,784
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
@zand I'll defer you to this recent bit of research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7918325

"When two 'small-eaters' were supplied with their self-reported energy intakes (approximately 5 MJ/d) for up to 28 d both subjects lost about 0.75 kg body-weight/week. These results provide no support for the existence of 'metabolically efficient' women in the community"

Women who claimed they could not lose weight on 1400 calories per day. They were supervised and actually given that amount of food and viola - they all lost weight.

People suck at estimating their intake in free living conditions - a bite here, nibble there, the piece of cake they forgot, not accounting for liquid calories, I could go on.

Their intake in the study above was verified with doubly labelled water, so we know they were lying, even if unconsciously.

That's why I hold little weight in your "self experiment" or anecdotes, you just found a way of eating for you that worked.

Did you not notice that I weighed food to the gram ? I always weighed my food when i was counting calories. How dare you accuse me of lying and not doiing it properly! Arrogant in the extreme but worse than that you have a closed mind and are unteachable. You have been asked what type of diabetes you have and don't reply.
 

zand

Master
Messages
10,784
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
If there is no imbalance in energy in vs energy out you will not lose weight. This isn't opinion, it's a fundamental law of physics.

If you don't restrict calories using LCHF how to you propose you are metabolizing those stored energy (fat) stores?
But the body is biology and chemistry not just physics. That's where you are going wrong.
 
M

Member496333

Guest
"I'm certain"

Code for I've no idea as I've never accurately measured my intake. And you want to pack your organs full of fat?

Nope. I’m certain means I’m certain. The code is your own interpretation based on your own bias. And I did say “instead of” storing energy by packing my organs full of fat.
 

ATZ

Well-Known Member
Messages
112
As you know restricting carbs, because we diabetic and those who are pre diabetic have become insulin resistant.
By restricting carbs, this gives the pancreas a rest, doesn't need to produce too much insulin.
Carbs have to be replaced by fats for energy, this in turn we do not need to count or restrict calories, our system utilizes these calories and fats more efficiently.
We have all felt the effects of the results of this.
Doesn't matter how much research you try to off load.

The science we have and rely on. Is blood tests. It works for us.

And I'm the one being closed minded here?

Show me one post where I've said low carb or LCHF diet's don't work? Again, i'll wait.

My point is they work by the very same mechanism as the "CICO mantra" you keep robustly denying. As I said previously, it's like trying to assign the fact you stay on the earth as a result of something other than gravity, there are fundamental rules and thermodynamics is one of them.
 
M

Member496333

Guest
Using this analogy.

You have an overweight dog. Do you restrict it's carbohydrate intake or, do you just reduce it's portion size and increase it's activity levels?

Dogs only become overweight when fed by humans. Next question? :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flora123

jjraak

Expert
Messages
7,442
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Nope. I’m certain means I’m certain. The code is your own interpretation based on your own bias. And I did say “instead of” storing energy by packing my organs full of fat.

yeah, that did look pretty clear to me as well.....:D

but there again any one who disagrees with their stated position, must be a flat earther ...:rolleyes:

"watch out jim, for the edge of the wo........:woot: "

:hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Member496333

pixie1

Well-Known Member
Messages
372
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
If there is no imbalance in energy in vs energy out you will not lose weight. This isn't opinion, it's a fundamental law of physics.

If you don't restrict calories using LCHF how to you propose you are metabolizing those stored energy (fat) stores?

Your fundamental law of physics is incorrect.
 

zand

Master
Messages
10,784
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
And I'm the one being closed minded here?

Show me one post where I've said low carb or LCHF diet's don't work? Again, i'll wait.

My point is they work by the very same mechanism as the "CICO mantra" you keep robustly denying. As I said previously, it's like trying to assign the fact you stay on the earth as a result of something other than gravity, there are fundamental rules and thermodynamics is one of them.
Actually I agree that CICO plays a part. If I were to eat 6000 cals a day I would put on weight. Your problem is that you don't understand that T2 diabetics are carb intolerant. We need to get most of our calories from protein and fat. If I have 1500 cals of carbs I will put on weight, yet if I have 2500 cals of mostly fat with some protein then I lose weight.

I so hope you take this on board. Please don't blame us all for doing it wrong. Your understanding of the subject is way too simplistic
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flora123

zand

Master
Messages
10,784
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
@zand I'll defer you to this recent bit of research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7918325

"When two 'small-eaters' were supplied with their self-reported energy intakes (approximately 5 MJ/d) for up to 28 d both subjects lost about 0.75 kg body-weight/week. These results provide no support for the existence of 'metabolically efficient' women in the community"

Women who claimed they could not lose weight on 1400 calories per day. They were supervised and actually given that amount of food and viola - they all lost weight.

People suck at estimating their intake in free living conditions - a bite here, nibble there, the piece of cake they forgot, not accounting for liquid calories, I could go on.

Their intake in the study above was verified with doubly labelled water, so we know they were lying, even if unconsciously.

That's why I hold little weight in your "self experiment" or anecdotes, you just found a way of eating for you that worked.
I wish they had asked me to join that study. I expect I would have been excluded as an anomalous result though.
 

pixie1

Well-Known Member
Messages
372
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
closed minded, these two are not listening. I can fully understand why others are not contributing in this thread. They have suffered so much because of ignorance being shown by their own team of expert.


They have suffered from obnoxious rubbish from people like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guzzler and jjraak

zand

Master
Messages
10,784
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Yes I feel.sorry for their clients. I once went to a nutritionist. The result was my body became several pounds heavier and my wallet became lighter. A naturopath is a much better bet because they will look at what is wrong with your body and help you fix it so that you can eventually lose weight. The excess weight is a symptom not a cause.
 
Last edited:

Brunneria

Guru
Retired Moderator
Messages
21,889
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Hi Everyone,

Please take note that if this discussion continues with snarky implied insults and accusations, it will be closed.

The subject is worth debate, but if people cannot stay civil, then their posts will be deleted and they will be banned from the thread. If things get too acrimonious then the whole thread will be shut down.
 
Last edited:

ATZ

Well-Known Member
Messages
112
But the body is biology and chemistry not just physics. That's where you are going wrong.

Fortunately my position is supported by science, yours is not.

Let's play the anecdote game for a second like you did with your self experiment shall we?

Here's a science teacher who lost 56lb eating only Mcdonald's for 6 months straight - if hormones were so essential to weight loss, how do you square that circle?

Or how about the Nutrition Professor who lost 27lb eating mostly junk food and Twinkies?

Or the man who ate 80% of his calories from ice cream for 100 days and lost weight?

All of these are perfect examples of how the main global permissive to weight loss is energy balance. Not hormones, not insulin and not exercise. It's eating less energy than your body requires to maintain the status quo.

If that isn't enough, thankfully we have loads of scientific research to back up that the percentage of carbs or fats in your diet makes zero difference:

"Given this new meta-analysis, I think it’s now fairly safe to say that in a general sense, equal calories from fat and carbohydrate have similar effects on energy expenditure and body fatness"
 

HSSS

Expert
Messages
7,465
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
.
Cutting carbs just leads to a reduction in calorie intake, it really is that simple.
not when they are replaced by higher calorie fats as opposed to simply omitted. My calories are undoubtedly higher on lchf.
some people find LCHF diet's great for managing hunger, so you eat less.
Sometimes. But what you do eat is higher calorie if smaller quantity.
If fat loss or gain was all about hormones and not energy balance then how are there populations living in absolutely rude health eating predominately carbohydrate based diets?
Why cannot it be about both? You cannot possibly be arguing that hormones have no effect whatsoever on weight gain or loss? Metabolically unhealthily hormones (t2 dm) without doubt has an effect on weight .
You have an overweight dog. Do you restrict it's carbohydrate intake or, do you just reduce it's portion size and increase it's activity levels?
is the dog diabetic?
 

zand

Master
Messages
10,784
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Fortunately my position is supported by science, yours is not.

Let's play the anecdote game for a second like you did with your self experiment shall we?

Here's a science teacher who lost 56lb eating only Mcdonald's for 6 months straight - if hormones were so essential to weight loss, how do you square that circle?

Or how about the Nutrition Professor who lost 27lb eating mostly junk food and Twinkies?

Or the man who ate 80% of his calories from ice cream for 100 days and lost weight?

All of these are perfect examples of how the main global permissive to weight loss is energy balance. Not hormones, not insulin and not exercise. It's eating less energy than your body requires to maintain the status quo.

If that isn't enough, thankfully we have loads of scientific research to back up that the percentage of carbs or fats in your diet makes zero difference:

"Given this new meta-analysis, I think it’s now fairly safe to say that in a general sense, equal calories from fat and carbohydrate have similar effects on energy expenditure and body fatness"
Fortunately my position is supported by personal experience, yours is not. Science is only sceince until any particular theory has been debunked. My personal experience of diets and dieting will never change. I know what I did. I know what happened and science cannot change my experience.
 
Last edited:

ATZ

Well-Known Member
Messages
112
Yes I feel.sorry for their clients. I once went to a nutritionist who 'knew it all' too. The result was my body became several pounds heavier and my wallet became lighter. A naturopath is a much better bet because they will look at what is wrong with your body and help you fix it so that you can eventually lose weight. The excess weight is a symptom not a cause.

Naturopathy is pure quackery. It is not remotely science or evidence based practice.

It encompasses being anti vax and using homeopathy

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/na...t-again-to-argue-that-they-are-science-based/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.