Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO/Thermodynamics/Insulin- discuss!!
Options
Replies
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
"Our mission is to achieve a healthier world by empowering individuals to reach their personal health and fitness goals."
That's their mission4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?
I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.
Hormones is not a "minor".
And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.9 -
Just as the concept of CICO is over-simplified, so is Fung's argument in the article promoting LCHF in order to control insulin levels.
There is no mention of the GI (glycemic index) which is a measure of whether the carbs actually are likely to promote or depress insulin release (and hence depress or increase fat metabolism) or not and there is absolutely no discussion of the effect of the consumption of protein and its interaction w/low or hi GI carbs on insulin levels and muscle loss and/or growth either.
For another level of detail in this regard, see the following article as well:
https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html
The LCHF apporoach also does not explain how I lost about 39# of BW from 196 to 157 and dropped my BF from over 20% down to 10% in a year on a high protein high carb and low fat deficit diet with a macro ratio of 40P/40C/20F, which is entirely contrary to the LCHF concept.
He does discuss GI and also Glycemic Load in his book. I've read it. It is a strange mix of woo and decent info. It applies most to obese, insulin resistant people. His final recommendations are not unreasonable for sedentary dieters as well as obese and IR people. Lower added sugars and simple carbs, up fats, moderate protein, intermittent fasting. No flash of brilliance really. When I got to the conclusions/ recommendation, I kind of felt like "really? I read this whole book just for this?" For me the most useful idea is that IF can be helpful with hunger and satiety (Ghrelin and Leptin). Not an original idea of his. Others who have written on IF have suggested this.
But he totally denies calorie counting as a factor. Also, his references to Taubes, Lustig and Wheat Belly were real eye rollers for me. His clinic focuses on the obese and IR. Thus the name of his book "The Obesity Code" His methods would likely work well for that population. For most of us, all this focusing on hormones is truly majoring in the minors and just a distraction from keeping the focusing on the key things that will make a difference. Namely, eating less and moving more. We have a whole site here dedicated to helping to that. It will and has helped most people, even many that used to be obese!7 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?
I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.
Hormones is not a "minor".
And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.
Hormones are very much a minor.
A calorie deficit: absolutely required, no way around it EVER for any sort of loss at all to occur as well as easily controlled -> major factor
Protein and exercise: Very important for body composition, i.e. fat loss vs. lean mass loss, less important the more fat you have on your body, easily controlled -> major factor
Hormones: at best make a small difference (not a "huge effect" as you call it) and are pretty much unknown variables to anyone dieting unless they're going to a doctor every other week to get them checked -> minor factor if you can even call it that.32 -
stevencloser wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?
I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.
Hormones is not a "minor".
And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.
Hormones are very much a minor.
A calorie deficit: absolutely required, no way around it EVER for any sort of loss at all to occur as well as easily controlled -> major factor
Protein and exercise: Very important for body composition, i.e. fat loss vs. lean mass loss, less important the more fat you have on your body, easily controlled -> major factor
Hormones: at best make a small difference (not a "huge effect" as you call it) and are pretty much unknown variables to anyone dieting unless they're going to a doctor every other week to get them checked -> minor factor if you can even call it that.
QTF and awesomeness!8 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?
I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.
Hormones is not a "minor".
And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.
So tell me. A 300lb female comes to you because she's been told by her doctor she needs to get control of her weight. It's the kick up her backside she needed but is overwhelmed and doesn't know where to start. She's always been overweight, grew up in a family where everyone is obese. What is your advice? Exactly as you would give it, not a vague synopsis but exactly what you would say at that initial consultation.5 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?
I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.
Hormones is not a "minor".
And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.
Just to respond about the "I don't know what you're saying". I'm supposing you mean my point about advanced aesthetic/building goals. Those are the people for whom cyclical dieting (such as Lyle McDonalds UD2.0) is going to be a consideration. Much the same as PSMF and RFL is largely going to be implemented by that category of dieter. Of course there's outliers but that's it, they're outliers, most dieters don't care about super specific protocols to squeak out every last ounce of fat over muscle loss.
For MOST dieters a KISS approach is all that's needed. Eat within your calories, don't cut too hard, take breaks, eat your protein and you should be strength training.15 -
VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?
I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.
Hormones is not a "minor".
And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.
Just to respond about the "I don't know what you're saying". I'm supposing you mean my point about advanced aesthetic/building goals. Those are the people for whom cyclical dieting (such as Lyle McDonalds UD2.0) is going to be a consideration. Much the same as PSMF and RFL is largely going to be implemented by that category of dieter. Of course there's outliers but that's it, they're outliers, most dieters don't care about super specific protocols to squeak out every last ounce of fat over muscle loss.
For MOST dieters a KISS approach is all that's needed. Eat within your calories, don't cut too hard, take breaks, eat your protein and you should be strength training.
Exactly!!0 -
This again?
First of all the good doc begins with the construction of a strawman:
"CICO adherents believe you take calories in, subtract calories out and whatever is left over is dumped into fat stores like a potato into a sack. So, they believe that fat stores are essentially unregulated. Every night, like a store manager closing its books, they imagine the body counts up calories in, calories out and deposits the rest into the fat ‘bank’. Of course, nothing is further from the truth."
This is not correct and Dr. Fung offers nothing to advancement of ideas - he's using a rhetorical tactics to maximize position.
Hormones are an extremely minor factor at play. To the point this has been repeatedly proven with clinical evidence. As evidenced by those with hormonal disorders this amounts to an ~5% decrease in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE).
So the facts indeed show that Calorie In (Primary factor) and Calorie Out (Close Secondary factor) and the dominant drivers in this equation. Hormones are truly minor, unless you believe that 5% impact is anything but. To further the absurdity of this suggestion - hormones are free cycling, so cannot be in balance if you are overweight. It's a matter of binding site affinity, so a given gland will have to overproduce to get the desired impact in an overweight person.
The root cause of the problem is Dr. Fung's deliberate attempt to misconstrue the facts and focusing on his field of expertise - one which appears to be little more than a noisy variable.10 -
I used to do 16:8 IF by default as I never used to eat breakfast...if CICO was irrelevant, I wouldn't have become obese.
I slightly reduced my calories from a maintenance level of calories and somehow I magically dropped the weight and have managed to maintain that for over four years...so not seeing how it's irrelevant.8 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.7 -
theledger5 wrote: »Read this article and a few others after a FB discussion on losing weight. I am confused now that losing weight is not just about CICO. Discuss!
https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant
Would you like to buy a bridge?2 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?3 -
I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because there is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.4 -
Nothing to add but in.0
-
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »I posted about this very topic not long ago over in the nutrition board: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10571895/the-junk-food-diet-seriously/p1
So long as you are talking about the just context of weight loss, CICO is the only variable that matters. "Eating clean" or engaging in fad diets like keto, paleo, zone, or whatever the hell else might well be successful in achieving weight loss, but only because they are conducted in a manner that ensures a calorie deficit, not because their is anything magical about emphasizing or neglecting any particular nutrient. People whose primary focus is on cutting weight are needlessly depriving themselves when they engage in these fad diets. I would also maintain that these same people are more likely to fail because their entire dietary existence is based upon a nonsense premise of "forbidden fruit". For whatever reason, some folks just feel the need to make things far more complicated than they need to be.
Whilst I mostly agree with this there are people who do switch to something like keto for the long term because it does reduce hunger and cravings. It's not for everyone and there certainly are people who engage in these restrictive diets (diet as in what they eat, not for weight loss) just because it is the latest thing. Those people certainly will have a high failure rate because it's not sustainable. That said, no harm in trying if you're doing it from a researched point of view with no magical expectations.
I am all for anything as far as diet that people can stick with as a permanent lifestyle change, but they should do so with the full knowledge of the reality of the situation and not harbor delusions based upon myth or pseudoscience. If people feel more full from keto, paleo, "eating clean" or whatever the hell else and end up eating less? Great! But they should at least be aware that their weight loss has nothing to do with their choice in food but on their caloric deficit. There are far too many people out there who actually believe that their weight loss success is tied to their fad diet of choice, which as we all know is nonsense.3 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989
This is actual scientist; from people actually trained and that conduct research. Fung is just another MD trying to play PhD/researcher to capitalize on the industry. MD's identify and treat disease. Researchers do all the upfront work.
Essentially, energy balance (CICO) is complicated and a variety of things can influence CO or absorption of CI. In the end, tracking calories over time and making adjustments is beneficial. But it does come down to CICO and in some cases you need to look at a variety of options (generally the lean treating to get leaner - thanks to adaptive thermogenesis).3 -
Just as the concept of CICO is over-simplified, so is Fung's argument in the article promoting LCHF in order to control insulin levels.
There is no mention of the GI (glycemic index) which is a measure of whether the carbs actually are likely to promote or depress insulin release (and hence depress or increase fat metabolism) or not and there is absolutely no discussion of the effect of the consumption of protein and its interaction w/low or hi GI carbs on insulin levels and muscle loss and/or growth either.
For another level of detail in this regard, see the following article as well:
https://www.bodybuilding.com/content/the-muscle-building-messenger-complete-guide-to-insulin.html
The LCHF apporoach also does not explain how I lost about 39# of BW from 196 to 157 and dropped my BF from over 20% down to 10% in a year on a high protein high carb and low fat deficit diet with a macro ratio of 40P/40C/20F, which is entirely contrary to the LCHF concept.
He does discuss GI and also Glycemic Load in his book. I've read it. It is a strange mix of woo and decent info. It applies most to obese, insulin resistant people. His final recommendations are not unreasonable for sedentary dieters as well as obese and IR people. Lower added sugars and simple carbs, up fats, moderate protein, intermittent fasting. No flash of brilliance really. When I got to the conclusions/ recommendation, I kind of felt like "really? I read this whole book just for this?" For me the most useful idea is that IF can be helpful with hunger and satiety (Ghrelin and Leptin). Not an original idea of his. Others who have written on IF have suggested this.
But he totally denies calorie counting as a factor. Also, his references to Taubes, Lustig and Wheat Belly were real eye rollers for me. His clinic focuses on the obese and IR. Thus the name of his book "The Obesity Code" His methods would likely work well for that population. For most of us, all this focusing on hormones is truly majoring in the minors and just a distraction from keeping the focusing on the key things that will make a difference. Namely, eating less and moving more. We have a whole site here dedicated to helping to that. It will and has helped most people, even many that used to be obese!
I haven't read his books, but his blog is full of ridiculousness and hyperboles. And in all reality, if I am looking to learn about IF, then I will defer to Lyle McDonald and Martin Berkhan.. really the two who were ahead of the game. Seems like Fung is just taking their work, mixing it with Taubes' theories and calling it his own plan.
But I do agree for those who are not on MFP and are overly sedentary, would probably benefit from a reduction in carbs (or concentration on low GL ones) and could try fasting as a way to control calories.5 -
I like Fung, although I know his work is largely theory.
I think reducing insulin is a healthful approach to living. I don't think keeping insulin low is crucial for weight loss. I do think low insulin (and steadier BG) is helpful for improving your health which can be very helpful when it comes to controlling your weight.... and keeping yourself healthy.
I know weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit but lowered insulin can help people hit that lower caloric intake. Just cutting a few hundred calories is not maintainable for all people, I personally have a hard time with constant hunger after a few weeks. If changing the what and when of a person's diet improves their health and helps them lose weight easier, then great!
If you are lucky enough, or young enough, to not need to do anything more cut calories to lose weight, and can successfully do that over the long term, then great. I consider you to be fortunate. I'm a bit jealous.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)For the obese and insulin resistant maybe. For the rest, not so much. Interesting that you mention hormones but never mention hunger/satiety hormones, ghrelin and leptin which are probably more significant than what you've mentioned. If you hate CICO, maybe this is not the place for you as that is this sites primary mission and many have had great results doing exactly that.
Obese and insulin resistant... That's a REALLY large number of people in North America now - it looks like over half ... a majority.
Proof source for your data of over half?
It's a bit complicated. It's a mixture of those actually diagnosed with diabetes (which includes prediabetes IIRC) and a survey of those who are undiagnosed (they did sampling/have assumptions based on criteria). It should also be noted the prediabetes creteria was decreased in the US about 5 years ago, which would increase the amount who have some sort of insulin resistance.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions