Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO
Options
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Dr. Fung's explanation of the 2 compartment model is still basic, but far more realistic than the CICO model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk&feature=youtu.be
What a silly video. That's not how any of this works. If you want to get technical the body is a multi compartment storage not only liver and subcutaneous fat. CICO does not claim a single compartment storage. Adaptation has nothing to do with insulin or the type of diet you are on. It's brought about strictly by certain biological and behavioral responses to caloric restriction (like decreased spontaneous non-exercise activity without being aware of it) .
The biggest loser contestants were not eating nearly enough to have a high insulin response and the grueling exercise routine likely burned through any liver glycogen. They were essentially fasting, exactly what this video is advocating. They also utilized dehydration and dropping water weight, so it's likely their diet was actually low carb since carbs tend to be stored along with water.
Nah, anyone who has actually completed a prolonged fast vs a prolonged calorie restricted diet knows there is a huge difference. During a fast, after about a day or two, you don't really feel hungry at all. During calorie restriction, it's basically all you can think about not to eat.
That's not really accurate. I've done 3 day fasts (just water, no food) for religious reasons on multiple occasions. Day 1 is not easy but days 2 and 3 are far worse. Cravings consume your every thought. All you can think about is food. Everything sounds delicious, including things you normally don't even like to eat.
I've never done a fourth day so I don't know whether or not it get's easier after day 3 or not but I can say with certainty that the first day is absolutely not the hardest.
I can tell you that it only gets worse. My wife wasn't able to eat when she had pancreatitis (and I am talking weeks at a time where the only nutrition was IV bags) and all she could think about was food. This was consistent across the board every time she was in the hospital, for over a 2 year period.2 -
I think fasting may be an entirely different experience for those who eat low carb and are accustomed to being in ketosis at least part of the time. I try to do a longer 3 or 4 day fast once a year and it's relatively painless. Hunger comes in waves in the beginning which are fairly easy to manage and once you're in deep ketosis hunger diminishes almost entirely like Crisseyda said.2
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Dr. Fung's explanation of the 2 compartment model is still basic, but far more realistic than the CICO model.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk&feature=youtu.be
What a silly video. That's not how any of this works. If you want to get technical the body is a multi compartment storage not only liver and subcutaneous fat. CICO does not claim a single compartment storage. Adaptation has nothing to do with insulin or the type of diet you are on. It's brought about strictly by certain biological and behavioral responses to caloric restriction (like decreased spontaneous non-exercise activity without being aware of it) .
The biggest loser contestants were not eating nearly enough to have a high insulin response and the grueling exercise routine likely burned through any liver glycogen. They were essentially fasting, exactly what this video is advocating. They also utilized dehydration and dropping water weight, so it's likely their diet was actually low carb since carbs tend to be stored along with water.
Nah, anyone who has actually completed a prolonged fast vs a prolonged calorie restricted diet knows there is a huge difference. During a fast, after about a day or two, you don't really feel hungry at all. During calorie restriction, it's basically all you can think about not to eat.
That's not really accurate. I've done 3 day fasts (just water, no food) for religious reasons on multiple occasions. Day 1 is not easy but days 2 and 3 are far worse. Cravings consume your every thought. All you can think about is food. Everything sounds delicious, including things you normally don't even like to eat.
I've never done a fourth day so I don't know whether or not it get's easier after day 3 or not but I can say with certainty that the first day is absolutely not the hardest.
Very interesting! I saw a docu where the film maker spent time in a famine zone, living side-by-side with the locals and by day 2 he was begging the production crew for food, he was a broken man.
What sort of things were you craving that you say you don't even like? I find this all fascinating, like how the people on those 'left in the jungle' type shows end up eating snakes and rats.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think fasting may be an entirely different experience for those who eat low carb and are accustomed to being in ketosis at least part of the time. I try to do a longer 3 or 4 day fast once a year and it's relatively painless. Hunger comes in waves in the beginning which are fairly easy to manage and once you're in deep ketosis hunger diminishes almost entirely like Crisseyda said different people.
7 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think fasting may be an entirely different experience for those who eat low carb and are accustomed to being in ketosis at least part of the time. I try to do a longer 3 or 4 day fast once a year and it's relatively painless. Hunger comes in waves in the beginning which are fairly easy to manage and once you're in deep ketosis hunger diminishes almost entirely like Crisseyda said different people.
Well that too, of course. But if your liver stores of glycogen are already depleted you're going to go into ketosis faster. And if you're accustomed to ketosis your body will already have the enzymes you need to to utilize the fat. Or perhaps that's just for nutritional ketosis?
Either or I think I'm likely right that those accustomed to ketosis have an easier time with fasting.1 -
I'm not sure hunger is tied to your body's ability to utilize fuel. Over thousands of years the body has adapted to survive periods of starvation, but hunger is useful to the body so that it will refuel when it's no longer in a situation where no fuel is available.
Nevermind that a lot of this may be due to the complete mental game that is dieting, which is completely unrelated to hormones, food availability, or whatever. I have problems controlling myself around food and eating correct portions. It's why I'm on this site. I am a binger, so one of the side effects is that when I tell myself something is off limits, but then it's around, it consumes my thought process. Totally. I think about the ice cream in my freezer all day. Sometimes I hold out. Sometimes I eat the entire container.
Again, this isn't everyone, it's a mentality I have problems with, but there is a lot more at play than just "well my body is getting the fuel it needs to provide me enough energy to get through my day".3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Dr. Fung's explanation of the 2 compartment model is still basic, but far more realistic than the CICO model.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk&feature=youtu.be
What a silly video. That's not how any of this works. If you want to get technical the body is a multi compartment storage not only liver and subcutaneous fat. CICO does not claim a single compartment storage. Adaptation has nothing to do with insulin or the type of diet you are on. It's brought about strictly by certain biological and behavioral responses to caloric restriction (like decreased spontaneous non-exercise activity without being aware of it) .
The biggest loser contestants were not eating nearly enough to have a high insulin response and the grueling exercise routine likely burned through any liver glycogen. They were essentially fasting, exactly what this video is advocating. They also utilized dehydration and dropping water weight, so it's likely their diet was actually low carb since carbs tend to be stored along with water.
Nah, anyone who has actually completed a prolonged fast vs a prolonged calorie restricted diet knows there is a huge difference. During a fast, after about a day or two, you don't really feel hungry at all. During calorie restriction, it's basically all you can think about not to eat.
That's not really accurate. I've done 3 day fasts (just water, no food) for religious reasons on multiple occasions. Day 1 is not easy but days 2 and 3 are far worse. Cravings consume your every thought. All you can think about is food. Everything sounds delicious, including things you normally don't even like to eat.
I've never done a fourth day so I don't know whether or not it get's easier after day 3 or not but I can say with certainty that the first day is absolutely not the hardest.
Very interesting! I saw a docu where the film maker spent time in a famine zone, living side-by-side with the locals and by day 2 he was begging the production crew for food, he was a broken man.
What sort of things were you craving that you say you don't even like? I find this all fascinating, like how the people on those 'left in the jungle' type shows end up eating snakes and rats.
Basically anything food. If I smelled it, I wanted it. If I saw a picture of it, I wanted it. If someone mentioned it, I wanted it.
When there was nothing influencing the cravings, I wanted pizza.
ETA: When I was a kid, if I told my papaw I was hungry he would say I didn't know what hungry was. He grew up poor in the 30s and 40s and to him, hungry didn't mean "ready to eat again." To him it meant "ready to eat anything, no matter what it is, and enjoy it."10 -
I'm not sure hunger is tied to your body's ability to utilize fuel. Over thousands of years the body has adapted to survive periods of starvation, but hunger is useful to the body so that it will refuel when it's no longer in a situation where no fuel is available.
I just listened to a podcast with Stephan Guyenet about hunger and the brain that you might be interested in. It was really fascinating stuff, IMO.
Why Do We Overeat?: Homeostatic vs. Non-homeostatic Eating
ETA: I don't have much experience with eating disorders but thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sure it'll resonate for some.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think fasting may be an entirely different experience for those who eat low carb and are accustomed to being in ketosis at least part of the time. I try to do a longer 3 or 4 day fast once a year and it's relatively painless. Hunger comes in waves in the beginning which are fairly easy to manage and once you're in deep ketosis hunger diminishes almost entirely like Crisseyda said different people.
Well that too, of course. But if your liver stores of glycogen are already depleted you're going to go into ketosis faster. And if you're accustomed to ketosis your body will already have the enzymes you need to to utilize the fat. Or perhaps that's just for nutritional ketosis?
Either or I think I'm likely right that those accustomed to ketosis have an easier time with fasting.
You are probably onto something. I think it is a harder jump to go from high carb to fasting. I've never been able to hang in there long enough to fast for more than 48 hours because of the horrible cravings and hunger pangs. I would like to attempt a fast because I read that the body will break down fat cells, release stem cells from bone marrow, and do a general "clean up" of damaged cells leaving healthier ones behind.
But I am nervous about whether it will slow my metabolism down by a couple hundred calories a week or not. My TDEE is only 1650 so I'd hate to have to maintain on any less if my body werr to become even more efficient.
Fasting is not an area of expertise for me. Although I've been looking with interest at the intermittent fasting and know I can do a 16/8 cycle okay. Studies seem to indicate fasting less than 72 hours doesn't slow metabolism much.0 -
I fasted in my late teens for "enlightenment" before I learned the hard way it was a dangerous thing to play with unsupervised. I did multiple 3-4 day fasts and two 14 day fasts. It takes exactly 4 days for me for hunger to diminish, but the thinking about food never stops. The first 3 days are literally a nightmare. One would think if you only do them occasionally it's okay, but it takes such a huge toll both mentally and physically. I kept thinking about food every waking hour and even had anxiety dreams. I started hoarding food and obsessively looking for recipes.
On the 2-week fasts even though I was not hungry by the end of it, I could not wait to eat... It took every morsel of my willpower not to eat excessively on the first fast. On the second fast I lost control. After the first few bites you are full, but then a couple of hours later, it's a ravenous hunger I would not wish on anyone. The kind of hunger that's insatiable, where even though you are full to the brim and about to throw up you are still hungry. It's hard to explain. So putting so much food into my system after 2 weeks of my digestive system not being active I ended up in the hospital with a bowel obstruction. That was the last of my "enlightenment" because it did enlighten me how stupid all of this was.7 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Dr. Fung's explanation of the 2 compartment model is still basic, but far more realistic than the CICO model.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIuj-oMN-Fk&feature=youtu.be
What a silly video. That's not how any of this works. If you want to get technical the body is a multi compartment storage not only liver and subcutaneous fat. CICO does not claim a single compartment storage. Adaptation has nothing to do with insulin or the type of diet you are on. It's brought about strictly by certain biological and behavioral responses to caloric restriction (like decreased spontaneous non-exercise activity without being aware of it) .
The biggest loser contestants were not eating nearly enough to have a high insulin response and the grueling exercise routine likely burned through any liver glycogen. They were essentially fasting, exactly what this video is advocating. They also utilized dehydration and dropping water weight, so it's likely their diet was actually low carb since carbs tend to be stored along with water.
Nah, anyone who has actually completed a prolonged fast vs a prolonged calorie restricted diet knows there is a huge difference. During a fast, after about a day or two, you don't really feel hungry at all. During calorie restriction, it's basically all you can think about not to eat.
That's not really accurate. I've done 3 day fasts (just water, no food) for religious reasons on multiple occasions. Day 1 is not easy but days 2 and 3 are far worse. Cravings consume your every thought. All you can think about is food. Everything sounds delicious, including things you normally don't even like to eat.
I've never done a fourth day so I don't know whether or not it get's easier after day 3 or not but I can say with certainty that the first day is absolutely not the hardest.
I can tell you that it only gets worse. My wife wasn't able to eat when she had pancreatitis (and I am talking weeks at a time where the only nutrition was IV bags) and all she could think about was food. This was consistent across the board every time she was in the hospital, for over a 2 year period.
This has been my experience while on npo or clear liquids and on tpn. After a month + on tpn all I wanted to do was eat everything (even if it would hurt like heck as I have Crohn's)0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm not sure hunger is tied to your body's ability to utilize fuel. Over thousands of years the body has adapted to survive periods of starvation, but hunger is useful to the body so that it will refuel when it's no longer in a situation where no fuel is available.
I just listened to a podcast with Stephan Guyenet about hunger and the brain that you might be interested in. It was really fascinating stuff, IMO.
Why Do We Overeat?: Homeostatic vs. Non-homeostatic Eating
ETA: I don't have much experience with eating disorders but thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sure it'll resonate for some.
This article helps explain hunger in a way that makes sense to me.0 -
@DebSozo everything I've read stated your metabolism actually increased during a fast. Or I could be remembering wrong. I've never heard of short term fasts having any long term impact of metabolism though.0
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »@DebSozo everything I've read stated your metabolism actually increased during a fast. Or I could be remembering wrong. I've never heard of short term fasts having any long term impact of metabolism though.
The last NIH study I saw suggested that your metabolism will slow down at 72hours of fasting. But it's been awhile since I have seen anything new. It may increase the first few days as you switch energy system. Even KH's latest study showed that (well, at least the pictures from his video showed that and he discussed it a bit), but if you are already in a glycogen depleted state, I am not sure you would see an uptick in metabolic rate.0 -
@stevencloser I think you may have misunderstood part of my post, probably because I wrote in a way that could be misinterpreted. You are correct in challenging the notion that high insulin levels produce ketones, if that is how you interpreted my post. To clarify, lipolysis in the absence of alternative fuel produces ketones and leads to ketosis.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »@amusedmonkey
I think you might enjoy this article by Dr. Fung entitled, "The Carbohydrate Insulin Hypothesis is Wrong." It made me think of you and how you seemed so stuck on defending carbohydrates. I guess you've been exposed to this theory and found problems with it? Well, I wasn't talking about that theory; hence, my confusion as to why you kept simplifying the discussion... anyway... you might find you agree with him more than you initially thought.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-wrong-hormonal-obesity-vi/
Yes, that was the theory I'm against but I also don't agree with his hypothesis. He is mixing cause and effect. Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around. When people lose weight, regardless of diet, they tend to become less insulin resistant. Case in point: from borderline diabetic to low average blood sugar values, and all it took was weight loss without much of a change in the amount or the type of carbohydrates I consume.
You should read up on the. Obesity doesn't cause insulin resistance; insulin does. Researchers can infuse healthy people with physiologic levels of insulin and induce insulin resistance fairly quickly. Many many diabetics are not obese; they can even be thin! He has a great lecture on that on his intensive dietary management blog. Additionally, he heals his type 2 diabetics by reducing their insulin levels through diet and fasting regimen.
And many many obese people are not insulin resistance as demonstrated by the fact that 66% + of the US population is overweight or obese, but not all of them are diabetic.
There are several hormones to cause the body to store fat... insulin is only one of them.
@psulemon
@amusedmonkey states: "Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around." Not true, many normal weight or even thin people are insulin resistant or type 2 diabetics. Obesity doesn't cause IR, insulin does. Here's Dr. Fung's lecture if you want to check it out:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-toxicity-cure-type-2-diabetes/
It's important to note that he is a practicing physician who treats type 2 diabetes, effectively reversing their disease (getting them off medication and exogenous insulin requirements) much faster than he reverses their obesity (because the obesity isn't what causes insulin resistance, it's elevated levels of insulin). The obesity takes longer if and when it disappears. He treats them with individualized fasting protocols and dietary management aimed at lowering insulin levels and allowing the cells to regain sensitivity.
As far as the Kevin Hall Study you shared... yeah, I've seen it before.
Let's clarify the blatant misinformation presented here. Important points are as follows:
1. The Restricted carbohydrate (RC) and Restricted fat (RF) diets both led to weight loss, more weight was lost following the RC diet.
2. Fat mass change as measured by DXA revealed significant changes from baseline, but did not detect a significant difference between RF and RC diets.
3. This study lasted 2 weeks. There were 10 men and 9 women in the study.
4. Carbohydrate restriction was only to an average of 140 grams/day--hardly a ketogenic diet.
5. They calculated daily fat balance as the difference between fat intake and net fat oxidation (i.e., fat oxidation minus de novo lipogenesis) measured by indirect calorimetry while residing in a metabolic chamber--an invented (aka made up) parameter. This means numbers compared were (a) the fat intake from from RF group (7% of total calories) minus how much fat they oxidized (on a calorie deficient diet, of course they were oxidizing body fat) vs. (b) the fat intake from the RC group (49% of total calories--a much greater number) minus how much fat they oxidized--a difference that is accounted for more than 3 times in the intake.
So in summary, the only conclusion this study supported was that if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume! We already knew that!!! This study does NOT support the hypothesis that a low fat diet results in greater total fat burning than a high fat/low carbohydrate diet.
If you look at the hard data, the only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet.
They also found decreased insulin, decreased triglycerides, and elevated HDL with the carbohydrate restricted diet - all known benefits! In short, if you make up new parameters to show the numbers you want and ignore hard data, you can make a study say what you want it to say.
The study supported that the insulin hypothesis is junk as touted be Gary Taubes and others. The fact that you dont have to restrict carbs to lose fat, is a clear indication of that. Additionally, while the RC group lost more weight, due to glycogen depletion, FFM was greater in the low fat group. The purpose of me linking this wasn't to discuss which was better, but rather dispell your constant insinuation that all things come down to insulin because a subset of people have issues with it, like diabetics.
You are touting Dr. Fungs hypotheses like they are supported by the rest of the community. If insulin caused obesity and cause diabetes, than almost every Asian person would have it. The blue zones are the healthiest and longest living place on earth and yet, they all dont it. If you look at the rest of the community, there still isn't enough conclusive evidences to know what causes insulin. The NIH would allude to the fact that obesity (particularly belly fat) is one cause. Other causes would be physcial inactivity, other medical conditions, steroid use, some medications, older age, sleep problems, especially sleep apnea, and cigarette smoking.
Regarding your first point, you ignored the fact that they had greater fat oxidation, not the ridiculous "net fat oxidation." Of course, FFM was greater in RF since it includes extracellular fluids, which we all know drop on a low carb diet. The study was a miniscule 2 weeks, and the DEXA showed no significant difference between either diet. And let's be honest too about the diets: the RF diet was too low to be considered healthy, normal, or attainable by anyone in real life (7%) and the RC was way too high to be a ketogenic diet (140 g). Again, all the study proves is what I stated: if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume. Ground-breaking.
Regarding your Asian comment. It's already been addressed in this thread. We're are not talking about the carbohysrate-insulin hypothesis--we are not talking about Taubes either. Dr. Fung does a good job explaining why that is an incomplete and inaccurate picture: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-wrong-hormonal-obesity-vi/
I disagree with you that I'm touting anything like anyone agrees or disgrees. I'm just sharing evidence. It means little to me what everyone else believes. I'm well aware that following mainstream nutritional advice would be very different from following Dr. Fung's. That's a shame. Actually, it's more than a shame when you understand the players involved and why change is not happening. You said yourself, "there still isn't enough conclusive evidences to know what causes insulin." I assume you mean insulin secretion or resistance? Bottom line is, even you acknowledge that insulin plays an very important role in weight gain and weight loss. And that's what Dr. Fung tries to tease out. What drives insulin secretion? Yes, we all know sugar and refined carbs... also steroids, certian medications (like seroquel or other antidepressants), cortisol (stress hormones), snacking between meals and through the day, artificial sweetners, the list goes on. The point is: controlling insulin is a HUGE component to controlling weight. @psulemon
To clarify the bold, it was insulin resistance. It was a quote from the NIH. I would also like to point out, that you are sharing observation, rather than evidence by a research organization. I dont know that this guys is qualify to treat his patients because they all pretty much share the same subset of metabolic issues. In those cases, specific dietary restrictions have been noted for years. It's not rocket science that people with diabetes need to moderate their carbs... The issue I have is he completely disregards calories as a function of weight loss for anyone. Essentially, he doesn't believe in the law of thermodynamics, which is an issue. Because if calories weren't an issue, then those on low carb or keto diets wouldn't be able to gain weight or muscle? Or lose or spare what they wanted. He also doesn't address any other of the weight gain hormones. i
I recognize the calories are the driver of weight loss and gain. I do also recognize the hormones (not just insulin) can affect ones ability to lose weight, not because it would disprove CICO, but rather it can alter components of the equation. PCOS has some likes to reduction in resting metabolic rate, which would also affect non exercise activity thermogenesis (more efficient metabolic rate, means less calories burned doing daily activities). This in turn would lower your TDEE and make it more difficult to lose weight. And while I cannot confirm why that happens, since I haven't researched too much, but I would suspect that a person would have longer periods of lipogenesis from elevated BG or insulin, which in turn would reduce times in lipolysis. Having said that, i do recognize, that for as much as we do know, things will change over the years. My general problem these conversations is throwing out mainstream data just because its mainstream.
Lolz. "He doesn't believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics." Nope, he just says that physics and physiology are two different sciences. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is never violated when a person goes on a calorie restricted diet, but can't easily access stored fat due to excess insulin--that's why BMR drops! The 2nd law of thermodynamics is true, but you can't use it to support a gross oversimplification like the CICO model. He's say it far better and funnier than I can, so I'll link his article: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
And no one is throwing out mainstream just "because it's mainstream." That's silly. I'm challenging the parts that are incorrect and actually harm people.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »@amusedmonkey
I think you might enjoy this article by Dr. Fung entitled, "The Carbohydrate Insulin Hypothesis is Wrong." It made me think of you and how you seemed so stuck on defending carbohydrates. I guess you've been exposed to this theory and found problems with it? Well, I wasn't talking about that theory; hence, my confusion as to why you kept simplifying the discussion... anyway... you might find you agree with him more than you initially thought.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-wrong-hormonal-obesity-vi/
Yes, that was the theory I'm against but I also don't agree with his hypothesis. He is mixing cause and effect. Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around. When people lose weight, regardless of diet, they tend to become less insulin resistant. Case in point: from borderline diabetic to low average blood sugar values, and all it took was weight loss without much of a change in the amount or the type of carbohydrates I consume.
You should read up on the. Obesity doesn't cause insulin resistance; insulin does. Researchers can infuse healthy people with physiologic levels of insulin and induce insulin resistance fairly quickly. Many many diabetics are not obese; they can even be thin! He has a great lecture on that on his intensive dietary management blog. Additionally, he heals his type 2 diabetics by reducing their insulin levels through diet and fasting regimen.
And many many obese people are not insulin resistance as demonstrated by the fact that 66% + of the US population is overweight or obese, but not all of them are diabetic.
There are several hormones to cause the body to store fat... insulin is only one of them.
@psulemon
@amusedmonkey states: "Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around." Not true, many normal weight or even thin people are insulin resistant or type 2 diabetics. Obesity doesn't cause IR, insulin does. Here's Dr. Fung's lecture if you want to check it out:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-toxicity-cure-type-2-diabetes/
It's important to note that he is a practicing physician who treats type 2 diabetes, effectively reversing their disease (getting them off medication and exogenous insulin requirements) much faster than he reverses their obesity (because the obesity isn't what causes insulin resistance, it's elevated levels of insulin). The obesity takes longer if and when it disappears. He treats them with individualized fasting protocols and dietary management aimed at lowering insulin levels and allowing the cells to regain sensitivity.
As far as the Kevin Hall Study you shared... yeah, I've seen it before.
Let's clarify the blatant misinformation presented here. Important points are as follows:
1. The Restricted carbohydrate (RC) and Restricted fat (RF) diets both led to weight loss, more weight was lost following the RC diet.
2. Fat mass change as measured by DXA revealed significant changes from baseline, but did not detect a significant difference between RF and RC diets.
3. This study lasted 2 weeks. There were 10 men and 9 women in the study.
4. Carbohydrate restriction was only to an average of 140 grams/day--hardly a ketogenic diet.
5. They calculated daily fat balance as the difference between fat intake and net fat oxidation (i.e., fat oxidation minus de novo lipogenesis) measured by indirect calorimetry while residing in a metabolic chamber--an invented (aka made up) parameter. This means numbers compared were (a) the fat intake from from RF group (7% of total calories) minus how much fat they oxidized (on a calorie deficient diet, of course they were oxidizing body fat) vs. (b) the fat intake from the RC group (49% of total calories--a much greater number) minus how much fat they oxidized--a difference that is accounted for more than 3 times in the intake.
So in summary, the only conclusion this study supported was that if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume! We already knew that!!! This study does NOT support the hypothesis that a low fat diet results in greater total fat burning than a high fat/low carbohydrate diet.
If you look at the hard data, the only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet.
They also found decreased insulin, decreased triglycerides, and elevated HDL with the carbohydrate restricted diet - all known benefits! In short, if you make up new parameters to show the numbers you want and ignore hard data, you can make a study say what you want it to say.
The study supported that the insulin hypothesis is junk as touted be Gary Taubes and others. The fact that you dont have to restrict carbs to lose fat, is a clear indication of that. Additionally, while the RC group lost more weight, due to glycogen depletion, FFM was greater in the low fat group. The purpose of me linking this wasn't to discuss which was better, but rather dispell your constant insinuation that all things come down to insulin because a subset of people have issues with it, like diabetics.
You are touting Dr. Fungs hypotheses like they are supported by the rest of the community. If insulin caused obesity and cause diabetes, than almost every Asian person would have it. The blue zones are the healthiest and longest living place on earth and yet, they all dont it. If you look at the rest of the community, there still isn't enough conclusive evidences to know what causes insulin. The NIH would allude to the fact that obesity (particularly belly fat) is one cause. Other causes would be physcial inactivity, other medical conditions, steroid use, some medications, older age, sleep problems, especially sleep apnea, and cigarette smoking.
Regarding your first point, you ignored the fact that they had greater fat oxidation, not the ridiculous "net fat oxidation." Of course, FFM was greater in RF since it includes extracellular fluids, which we all know drop on a low carb diet. The study was a miniscule 2 weeks, and the DEXA showed no significant difference between either diet. And let's be honest too about the diets: the RF diet was too low to be considered healthy, normal, or attainable by anyone in real life (7%) and the RC was way too high to be a ketogenic diet (140 g). Again, all the study proves is what I stated: if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume. Ground-breaking.
Regarding your Asian comment. It's already been addressed in this thread. We're are not talking about the carbohysrate-insulin hypothesis--we are not talking about Taubes either. Dr. Fung does a good job explaining why that is an incomplete and inaccurate picture: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-wrong-hormonal-obesity-vi/
I disagree with you that I'm touting anything like anyone agrees or disgrees. I'm just sharing evidence. It means little to me what everyone else believes. I'm well aware that following mainstream nutritional advice would be very different from following Dr. Fung's. That's a shame. Actually, it's more than a shame when you understand the players involved and why change is not happening. You said yourself, "there still isn't enough conclusive evidences to know what causes insulin." I assume you mean insulin secretion or resistance? Bottom line is, even you acknowledge that insulin plays an very important role in weight gain and weight loss. And that's what Dr. Fung tries to tease out. What drives insulin secretion? Yes, we all know sugar and refined carbs... also steroids, certian medications (like seroquel or other antidepressants), cortisol (stress hormones), snacking between meals and through the day, artificial sweetners, the list goes on. The point is: controlling insulin is a HUGE component to controlling weight. @psulemon
To clarify the bold, it was insulin resistance. It was a quote from the NIH. I would also like to point out, that you are sharing observation, rather than evidence by a research organization. I dont know that this guys is qualify to treat his patients because they all pretty much share the same subset of metabolic issues. In those cases, specific dietary restrictions have been noted for years. It's not rocket science that people with diabetes need to moderate their carbs... The issue I have is he completely disregards calories as a function of weight loss for anyone. Essentially, he doesn't believe in the law of thermodynamics, which is an issue. Because if calories weren't an issue, then those on low carb or keto diets wouldn't be able to gain weight or muscle? Or lose or spare what they wanted. He also doesn't address any other of the weight gain hormones. i
I recognize the calories are the driver of weight loss and gain. I do also recognize the hormones (not just insulin) can affect ones ability to lose weight, not because it would disprove CICO, but rather it can alter components of the equation. PCOS has some likes to reduction in resting metabolic rate, which would also affect non exercise activity thermogenesis (more efficient metabolic rate, means less calories burned doing daily activities). This in turn would lower your TDEE and make it more difficult to lose weight. And while I cannot confirm why that happens, since I haven't researched too much, but I would suspect that a person would have longer periods of lipogenesis from elevated BG or insulin, which in turn would reduce times in lipolysis. Having said that, i do recognize, that for as much as we do know, things will change over the years. My general problem these conversations is throwing out mainstream data just because its mainstream.
Lolz. "He doesn't believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics." Nope, he just says that physics and physiology are two different sciences. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is never violated when a person goes on a calorie restricted diet, but can't easily access stored fat due to excess insulin--that's why BMR drops! The 2nd law of thermodynamics is true, but you can't use it to support a gross oversimplification like the CICO model. He's say it far better and funnier than I can, so I'll link his article: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
And no one is throwing out mainstream just "because it's mainstream." That's silly. I'm challenging the parts that are incorrect and actually harm people.
How are you challenging it? All you are doing is posting one doctors opinions. It's not even research.7 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »@amusedmonkey
I think you might enjoy this article by Dr. Fung entitled, "The Carbohydrate Insulin Hypothesis is Wrong." It made me think of you and how you seemed so stuck on defending carbohydrates. I guess you've been exposed to this theory and found problems with it? Well, I wasn't talking about that theory; hence, my confusion as to why you kept simplifying the discussion... anyway... you might find you agree with him more than you initially thought.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-wrong-hormonal-obesity-vi/
Yes, that was the theory I'm against but I also don't agree with his hypothesis. He is mixing cause and effect. Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around. When people lose weight, regardless of diet, they tend to become less insulin resistant. Case in point: from borderline diabetic to low average blood sugar values, and all it took was weight loss without much of a change in the amount or the type of carbohydrates I consume.
You should read up on the. Obesity doesn't cause insulin resistance; insulin does. Researchers can infuse healthy people with physiologic levels of insulin and induce insulin resistance fairly quickly. Many many diabetics are not obese; they can even be thin! He has a great lecture on that on his intensive dietary management blog. Additionally, he heals his type 2 diabetics by reducing their insulin levels through diet and fasting regimen.
And many many obese people are not insulin resistance as demonstrated by the fact that 66% + of the US population is overweight or obese, but not all of them are diabetic.
There are several hormones to cause the body to store fat... insulin is only one of them.
@psulemon
@amusedmonkey states: "Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around." Not true, many normal weight or even thin people are insulin resistant or type 2 diabetics. Obesity doesn't cause IR, insulin does. Here's Dr. Fung's lecture if you want to check it out:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-toxicity-cure-type-2-diabetes/
It's important to note that he is a practicing physician who treats type 2 diabetes, effectively reversing their disease (getting them off medication and exogenous insulin requirements) much faster than he reverses their obesity (because the obesity isn't what causes insulin resistance, it's elevated levels of insulin). The obesity takes longer if and when it disappears. He treats them with individualized fasting protocols and dietary management aimed at lowering insulin levels and allowing the cells to regain sensitivity.
As far as the Kevin Hall Study you shared... yeah, I've seen it before.
Let's clarify the blatant misinformation presented here. Important points are as follows:
1. The Restricted carbohydrate (RC) and Restricted fat (RF) diets both led to weight loss, more weight was lost following the RC diet.
2. Fat mass change as measured by DXA revealed significant changes from baseline, but did not detect a significant difference between RF and RC diets.
3. This study lasted 2 weeks. There were 10 men and 9 women in the study.
4. Carbohydrate restriction was only to an average of 140 grams/day--hardly a ketogenic diet.
5. They calculated daily fat balance as the difference between fat intake and net fat oxidation (i.e., fat oxidation minus de novo lipogenesis) measured by indirect calorimetry while residing in a metabolic chamber--an invented (aka made up) parameter. This means numbers compared were (a) the fat intake from from RF group (7% of total calories) minus how much fat they oxidized (on a calorie deficient diet, of course they were oxidizing body fat) vs. (b) the fat intake from the RC group (49% of total calories--a much greater number) minus how much fat they oxidized--a difference that is accounted for more than 3 times in the intake.
So in summary, the only conclusion this study supported was that if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume! We already knew that!!! This study does NOT support the hypothesis that a low fat diet results in greater total fat burning than a high fat/low carbohydrate diet.
If you look at the hard data, the only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet.
They also found decreased insulin, decreased triglycerides, and elevated HDL with the carbohydrate restricted diet - all known benefits! In short, if you make up new parameters to show the numbers you want and ignore hard data, you can make a study say what you want it to say.
The study supported that the insulin hypothesis is junk as touted be Gary Taubes and others. The fact that you dont have to restrict carbs to lose fat, is a clear indication of that. Additionally, while the RC group lost more weight, due to glycogen depletion, FFM was greater in the low fat group. The purpose of me linking this wasn't to discuss which was better, but rather dispell your constant insinuation that all things come down to insulin because a subset of people have issues with it, like diabetics.
You are touting Dr. Fungs hypotheses like they are supported by the rest of the community. If insulin caused obesity and cause diabetes, than almost every Asian person would have it. The blue zones are the healthiest and longest living place on earth and yet, they all dont it. If you look at the rest of the community, there still isn't enough conclusive evidences to know what causes insulin. The NIH would allude to the fact that obesity (particularly belly fat) is one cause. Other causes would be physcial inactivity, other medical conditions, steroid use, some medications, older age, sleep problems, especially sleep apnea, and cigarette smoking.
Regarding your first point, you ignored the fact that they had greater fat oxidation, not the ridiculous "net fat oxidation." Of course, FFM was greater in RF since it includes extracellular fluids, which we all know drop on a low carb diet. The study was a miniscule 2 weeks, and the DEXA showed no significant difference between either diet. And let's be honest too about the diets: the RF diet was too low to be considered healthy, normal, or attainable by anyone in real life (7%) and the RC was way too high to be a ketogenic diet (140 g). Again, all the study proves is what I stated: if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume. Ground-breaking.
Regarding your Asian comment. It's already been addressed in this thread. We're are not talking about the carbohysrate-insulin hypothesis--we are not talking about Taubes either. Dr. Fung does a good job explaining why that is an incomplete and inaccurate picture: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-wrong-hormonal-obesity-vi/
I disagree with you that I'm touting anything like anyone agrees or disgrees. I'm just sharing evidence. It means little to me what everyone else believes. I'm well aware that following mainstream nutritional advice would be very different from following Dr. Fung's. That's a shame. Actually, it's more than a shame when you understand the players involved and why change is not happening. You said yourself, "there still isn't enough conclusive evidences to know what causes insulin." I assume you mean insulin secretion or resistance? Bottom line is, even you acknowledge that insulin plays an very important role in weight gain and weight loss. And that's what Dr. Fung tries to tease out. What drives insulin secretion? Yes, we all know sugar and refined carbs... also steroids, certian medications (like seroquel or other antidepressants), cortisol (stress hormones), snacking between meals and through the day, artificial sweetners, the list goes on. The point is: controlling insulin is a HUGE component to controlling weight. @psulemon
To clarify the bold, it was insulin resistance. It was a quote from the NIH. I would also like to point out, that you are sharing observation, rather than evidence by a research organization. I dont know that this guys is qualify to treat his patients because they all pretty much share the same subset of metabolic issues. In those cases, specific dietary restrictions have been noted for years. It's not rocket science that people with diabetes need to moderate their carbs... The issue I have is he completely disregards calories as a function of weight loss for anyone. Essentially, he doesn't believe in the law of thermodynamics, which is an issue. Because if calories weren't an issue, then those on low carb or keto diets wouldn't be able to gain weight or muscle? Or lose or spare what they wanted. He also doesn't address any other of the weight gain hormones. i
I recognize the calories are the driver of weight loss and gain. I do also recognize the hormones (not just insulin) can affect ones ability to lose weight, not because it would disprove CICO, but rather it can alter components of the equation. PCOS has some likes to reduction in resting metabolic rate, which would also affect non exercise activity thermogenesis (more efficient metabolic rate, means less calories burned doing daily activities). This in turn would lower your TDEE and make it more difficult to lose weight. And while I cannot confirm why that happens, since I haven't researched too much, but I would suspect that a person would have longer periods of lipogenesis from elevated BG or insulin, which in turn would reduce times in lipolysis. Having said that, i do recognize, that for as much as we do know, things will change over the years. My general problem these conversations is throwing out mainstream data just because its mainstream.
Lolz. "He doesn't believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics." Nope, he just says that physics and physiology are two different sciences. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is never violated when a person goes on a calorie restricted diet, but can't easily access stored fat due to excess insulin--that's why BMR drops! The 2nd law of thermodynamics is true, but you can't use it to support a gross oversimplification like the CICO model. He's say it far better and funnier than I can, so I'll link his article: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
And no one is throwing out mainstream just "because it's mainstream." That's silly. I'm challenging the parts that are incorrect and actually harm people.
Things you don't believe aren't incorrect. And again, no excess insulin when you're in a deficit, and don't come with IR again, I already said TWICE that IR reduces insulin's effect so the higher amount in your blood does nothing and I don't care about saying it again.6 -
Lolz. "He doesn't believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics." Nope, he just says that physics and physiology are two different sciences. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is never violated when a person goes on a calorie restricted diet, but can't easily access stored fat due to excess insulin--that's why BMR drops! The 2nd law of thermodynamics is true, but you can't use it to support a gross oversimplification like the CICO model. He's say it far better and funnier than I can, so I'll link his article: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
And no one is throwing out mainstream just "because it's mainstream." That's silly. I'm challenging the parts that are incorrect and actually harm people.
How are you challenging it? All you are doing is posting one doctors opinions. It's not even research.
God that was an awful article. It's full of wild assumptions and doesn't even address any of the hormones that suppress HSL while eating a high fat diet. It assumes that the moment you eat 1200 calories a day, that your metabolic rate drops to equal 1200 calories. It literally hurts my head.
5 -
Some quotes from the article that are just so wrong.
"When we stop eating, insulin starts to fall. This is the signal to first stop storing food energy.....You reduce your intake to 1200 calories per day. Since insulin remains high, you cannot get any energy from fat stores." --> How do these two together even make sense?
"So, as you reduce your caloric intake to 1200 calories in, the body is forced to reduce it’s metabolism to only 1200 calories. No energy is available anywhere else." What? No. If this were true, no one would lose weight ever.
He doesn't even come close to showing that the first law of thermodynamics is "utterly irrelevant."4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions