Article by Dr. Jason Fung - interesting point of view & research
gerrielips
Posts: 180 Member
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/thoughts-on-the-pritikin-diet/
Definitely "food" for thought - a very interesting article.
Definitely "food" for thought - a very interesting article.
0
Replies
-
gerrielips wrote: »https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/thoughts-on-the-pritikin-diet/
Definitely "food" for thought - a very interesting article.
"interesting" ... as in good for a chuckle or two?0 -
I made it to the third paragraph and saw the word "Magic'0
-
Copyright ©2014 Intensive Dietary Management. LEGAL NOTICE: The contents of this website, such as text, graphics, images, and other material contained here (the “Content”) are for informational purposes only. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. The Content is not suitable for self-administration without regular monitoring by a qualified medical doctor in a supervised program. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read in our Content. If you think you may have a medical emergency or other health issues, call your doctor or 911 immediately. We do not recommend or endorse any specific tests, physicians, products, procedures, opinions, self-administration of our program or modifications to it. Reliance on any information provided through our website, its employees or others appearing on the website at the invitation of Dr. Jason Fung, is solely at your own risk. Dr. Fung and his affiliates cannot assume any professional liability for any person who does not attend at his clinic for proper training and supervision. Not all aspects of the program are necessarily disclosed on this website. Self-administration of the information contained in the Content may result in serious physical impairment or death in some cases.0
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »gerrielips wrote: »https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/thoughts-on-the-pritikin-diet/
Definitely "food" for thought - a very interesting article.
"interesting" ... as in good for a chuckle or two?
Yes, definitely yes.
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »gerrielips wrote: »https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/thoughts-on-the-pritikin-diet/
Definitely "food" for thought - a very interesting article.
"interesting" ... as in good for a chuckle or two?
Another crackpot for the file. I threw up in my mouth a little bit when I got to the part about "the deadly effects of fructose". I also noticed Taubes and Lustig mentioned by his minions in the comments section. LOL.0 -
Knew by posting this I 'd get other points of view which is important to me.
0 -
gerrielips wrote: »https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/thoughts-on-the-pritikin-diet/
Definitely "food" for thought - a very interesting article.
Very interesting article. No one above addressed the overriding concept of the article - just took potshots. OK.
For me, avoiding large quantities of foods that provoke the body's insulin production has made a significant difference in how I feel every day and has helped easily limit calories with steady weight loss as a result.0 -
Yes this was a good article, it was good for a great laugh !
This is likely the most laughable thing I've read this week !0 -
I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.0 -
determined_14 wrote: »I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I have read it twice. The "ideas" of the post are all over the place / confusing -- in part because it is referring to earlier posts. The mentions of both fructose and glycemic index/ load were off-putting for me because both are bogus concerns, although the first is more bogus than the other I had to keep reading to find something helpful. If the (and I am not sure ) point is that the insulin repose matters, most can get behind that. In practical application, that varies from person to person and no one refutes it.
The action of insulin is much more important and complicated than the post describes. The simple version -- that insulin is related to weight gain and weight loss -- that is true. Do remember that insulin is a good hormone.
We need it. 0 -
determined_14 wrote: »I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.
The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.
Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
0 -
I've seen people have success outside of the parameters he outlined in the article, and his dismissal of CICO is what makes it laughable.
Hormones? Secondary to CICO. Majoring in the minors. That's all the article was.0 -
"For example, this diet could help reduce prostate cancer, reduce insulin and medication usage for type 2 diabetes, reduce LDL oxidation, reduce breast cancer, reduce colon cancer, reduce heart disease, and improve cardiac risk factors."
Wow, you mean all the same things that simply not being obese can do?0 -
determined_14 wrote: »Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I think the main effect of hormones comes into play not during weight loss, but during weight maintenance or unregulated diet. For example, say you ate a 50 calorie surplus - very easy to do since both calories in and calories out have a margin of error. Hormones are primarily responsible for what happens to that surplus. In some people, thermogenesis or fidgeting increases a small amount, your body wastes the extra energy as heat, and no new fat is created. In others, this surplus becomes new fat.
Hormones have an even bigger role in uncontrolled diets, where changes to appetite and satiety can cause significant deficits or surpluses. Hormones were of course the driving cause behind a lot of our obesity. That's the point of CICO - since hormone control of our intake was ineffective, we replace that with an intellectual control of our intake. That's why I think hormones are less important on a tightly calorie regulated diet, because hormones are no longer the driving force behind our intake.
The good news is that in most cases, weight loss and exercise can help normalize the body's hormones, independent of which diet was used to get there.0 -
How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.determined_14 wrote: »I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.
The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.
Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
0 -
rankinsect wrote: »"For example, this diet could help reduce prostate cancer, reduce insulin and medication usage for type 2 diabetes, reduce LDL oxidation, reduce breast cancer, reduce colon cancer, reduce heart disease, and improve cardiac risk factors."
Wow, you mean all the same things that simply not being obese can do?
Those would depend on genetics and diet that are present in the non-obese person. Metabolic issues listed also exist in non obese folks at a lower percentage.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »"For example, this diet could help reduce prostate cancer, reduce insulin and medication usage for type 2 diabetes, reduce LDL oxidation, reduce breast cancer, reduce colon cancer, reduce heart disease, and improve cardiac risk factors."
Wow, you mean all the same things that simply not being obese can do?
Those would depend on genetics and diet that are present in the non-obese person. Metabolic issues listed also exist in non obese folks at a lower percentage.
On an individual level, sure, there's tons of variability, but on a population level, like what is used to determine the benefits of this (or any) diet, those are also the benefits of all weight loss in general. Simply losing weight lowers your risk of all of the above - now of course as one individual you could still get any of them even if you're thin.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.determined_14 wrote: »I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.
The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.
Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
Do you mean 'address' in the practical sense? Like food choices?0 -
I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.determined_14 wrote: »I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.
The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.
Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
Do you mean 'address' in the practical sense? Like food choices?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.determined_14 wrote: »I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.
The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.
Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
Do you mean 'address' in the practical sense? Like food choices?
Got it, I've been trying to define my choices and beliefs on healthy food choices - with great difficulty. There isn't a great single term or rigid category, but I just read a term someone used - 'fractionated' - which seems to define foods I'm more careful about eating or even avoid entirely.
It isn't really about added toxins, but being careful about eating isolated parts of foods which affect a body differently than when the food is eaten in its whole state. There isn't a definition or word, but eating things in close to their natural state or whole form is probably the best simplistic description. I don't really like that description though as it makes me think of some crazy stupid food choices and I'm not really about eating to an extreme theme.
Back to the point - it isn't really macro composition that dictates healthy diet - many different sets of macros work. But if you want to eat high carb and all your carbs are simple ones, you are gonna have a bad time of it eventually!
0 -
Why would eating a sugar beet be better than putting the sugar from that beet into another food you prepared with the same nutrients?DeguelloTex wrote: »
I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.determined_14 wrote: »I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.
The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.
Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
Do you mean 'address' in the practical sense? Like food choices?
Got it, I've been trying to define my choices and beliefs on healthy food choices - with great difficulty. There isn't a great single term or rigid category, but I just read a term someone used - 'fractionated' - which seems to define foods I'm more careful about eating or even avoid entirely.
It isn't really about added toxins, but being careful about eating isolated parts of foods which affect a body differently than when the food is eaten in its whole state. There isn't a definition or word, but eating things in close to their natural state or whole form is probably the best simplistic description. I don't really like that description though as it makes me think of some crazy stupid food choices and I'm not really about eating to an extreme theme.
Back to the point - it isn't really macro composition that dictates healthy diet - many different sets of macros work. But if you want to eat high carb and all your carbs are simple ones, you are gonna have a bad time of it eventually!
Why would you have a bad time eating simple carbs when complex carbs just get split into simple carbs by your body?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?
I thought he was referring to the processing of the food in the body rather than its composition as he also writes "Macronutrients, just as with calories is the wrong measure of a diet"0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Why would eating a sugar beet be better than putting the sugar from that beet into another food you prepared with the same nutrients?DeguelloTex wrote: »
I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.determined_14 wrote: »I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.
The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.
Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
Do you mean 'address' in the practical sense? Like food choices?
Got it, I've been trying to define my choices and beliefs on healthy food choices - with great difficulty. There isn't a great single term or rigid category, but I just read a term someone used - 'fractionated' - which seems to define foods I'm more careful about eating or even avoid entirely.
It isn't really about added toxins, but being careful about eating isolated parts of foods which affect a body differently than when the food is eaten in its whole state. There isn't a definition or word, but eating things in close to their natural state or whole form is probably the best simplistic description. I don't really like that description though as it makes me think of some crazy stupid food choices and I'm not really about eating to an extreme theme.
Back to the point - it isn't really macro composition that dictates healthy diet - many different sets of macros work. But if you want to eat high carb and all your carbs are simple ones, you are gonna have a bad time of it eventually!
Why would you have a bad time eating simple carbs when complex carbs just get split into simple carbs by your body?
This is the issue with this branch of non-peer reviewed pseudo-science. There is a denial that simple sugars are all the body can use and creates those from the more complex carbohydrates you consume. They, the "scientist" and supporters, use a set of hypothesis that are almost wholly unable to be proven, your body processes food and magics toxins in it. Offer little non-antidotal evidence and bash established, tested, medical theories by saying that people who point this out are taking potshots.
The truth is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and it is never provided by the witch doctors and snake oil salesmen.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Why would eating a sugar beet be better than putting the sugar from that beet into another food you prepared with the same nutrients?DeguelloTex wrote: »
I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does one even try to address overriding concepts like the bolded, then? It's an article of faith, not logic, reason, or empiricism.determined_14 wrote: »I'm disappointed that no one here wants to talk about the *ideas* in the article, specifically the effects of insulin response on weight, and how diet effects that.
Don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in CICO, but what I hoped some more educated minds than mine would contribute some thoughts to the idea of low-insulin-response diets and the effects hormones can have on weight and weight loss.
I've had personal success with very low carb, high fat for solving weight and health issues. I've witnessed others success with low fat, high carb. This article helps me find the common thread between some radically different strategies towards nutritional success.
The toxicity lies in the processing, not the macronutrient composition.
Addressing metabolic issues of health and weight can be assisted by choosing diet composed of foods in or very close to natural form.
Do you mean 'address' in the practical sense? Like food choices?
Got it, I've been trying to define my choices and beliefs on healthy food choices - with great difficulty. There isn't a great single term or rigid category, but I just read a term someone used - 'fractionated' - which seems to define foods I'm more careful about eating or even avoid entirely.
It isn't really about added toxins, but being careful about eating isolated parts of foods which affect a body differently than when the food is eaten in its whole state. There isn't a definition or word, but eating things in close to their natural state or whole form is probably the best simplistic description. I don't really like that description though as it makes me think of some crazy stupid food choices and I'm not really about eating to an extreme theme.
Back to the point - it isn't really macro composition that dictates healthy diet - many different sets of macros work. But if you want to eat high carb and all your carbs are simple ones, you are gonna have a bad time of it eventually!
Why would you have a bad time eating simple carbs when complex carbs just get split into simple carbs by your body?
Why? Well when you liberate the sugar from the structure nature packaged it in you change the digestion of it including increasing calories absorbed in some cases. Neither you nor I know the whole answer.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions