Interesting theory.. it might explain why I'm struggling to lose on ND - my BMI is currently 31.9
Two years ago, after discontinuing use of insulin and starting VLC, I lost 5st - then had an accident at work (which has made me pretty much housebound) and I gained back 2st while still on a ketogenic diet. I am currently 'doing' the Newcastle Diet to try to get rid of that 2st that came and found me again but, while the diet is okay, the weightloss isn't going quite as expected - the first stone came off relatively easily but this second stone is definitely proving to be far more stubborn. I'm not too fussed about getting down to - say - 10st, but I would like to get back to being under my Personal Fat Threshold again.
I've seen a few comments from a few people here that suggest they might be in a similar range - hence me trying to find out how prevalent it is. It is one of the things I have asked the Tim Noakes study people to look into. I was part of that study and it shows that many of the people on the LCHF diet would now be characterised as " non diabetic" and also have a BMI of somewhere between 27 and 32kg/m2 after different periods on the diet.
All cause mortality is 90% of the rate of those of "normal" weight between 25-30 kg/m2 BMI and is still only 98% of normal weight right upto 35 kg/m2 BMI . Thus currently you are likely to live longer if you are quite fat compared to being slim. Yet "normal" is defined as being slim - and actually having no " discernible fat" . That message sounds suspiciously like the same old mantra about not eating fats to me. Society vilified not only eating fat, but having any fat on your body.
My theory would be as follows :
a) People eat processed foods - they get metabolically damaged - EVERYONE - thin, slim, fat, very fat. It presents itself in many ways - sure diabetes, but all manner of other things too, sometimes many of them in the same person.
b) In times of human plenty, the human body settles at a level it is comfortable to operate at - for EVERYONE - and that might be quite a wide range say 20-30 kg/m2 BMI
c) society adopted a "Low fat" mantra - food AND bodies
d) people who did not fall into the lower end of the range - get concerned that they need to lose weight - so they start to diet - and by doing so they do even more of a) than everyone else . - we give up butter, we drink skimmed milk, we avoid full fat anything - we get ever more metabolically deranged and we put on more and more weight because our insulin levels increase and that increases fat storage.
e) people who do fall into the lower end of the range don't have to diet, so they don't get sucked into the low fat mantra, - how many people do you know who are naturally slim - and love their butter ? - for me its a LOT. Thus any of those people remain more metabolically healthy because they happily tucked into all the stuff we fatties tried to avoid and as such the proportion of processed foods in their diet is lower than it is in a fatter person's diet simply because they are already fuller of the good stuff and thus stay metabolically healthier on average.
So at that point we have a society where its quite likely that your size is quite closely correlated not just to your own healthy normal , but also to your intake of processed foods - which could be rubbish junk foods or equally could be " healthy " low fat foods.- eaten in an attempt to get to a society normal which has no actual basis in research or all cause mortality
Indeed man's ability to survive historically was connected to its ability to cope during a fast - hence the prevalence of " fat is good" in some societies.
There are very many ranges that are currently promoted as being " normal" that are based on some kind of historical " fact" which may or may not be true .
I know that I am currently mentally and physically more " robust" than many of my slim peer group.
I am conscious that much of our historical data came from studies done many years ago, when actually "thinness " was more prevalent . However, whilst those people did not suffer from some of the diseases of "plenty" that we currently have, they did not necessarily live that long either - perhaps that is just the impact of modern drugs, but.....
The data that we really do not see is -
what would an Optimal weight be of a healthy, person eating real foods to satiety in the modern age in conditions of plenty.
That is because there are very few of them about - in many ways those who have overcome the diabetes diagnosis through diet only and have lost significant weight as a result whilst normalising their metabolic makers and lipid profiles may actually be the closest society will get to that in any number and lots of us seem to " stall" at weight above " normal 25 kg/m2 BMI"
My personal view is that it is quite likely that the "healthy range" is actually a lot broader than the current 20-25 kg/m2 - its probably closer to 20-30kg/m2 BMI . But healthy itself within ALL of that range - is only in relation to those who avoid eating sugar and processed foods and therefore avoid the metabolic stress that comes with that - whatever type of disease it manifests as.
