Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO
Replies
-
That's success then. Just iterating that there a lots and lots of ways people who are lean eat and stay lean which doesn't revolve around "dieting" plan.
Ah, ok. "a small subset of people struggle with excessive insulin production," and meanwhile half the US is either diabetic or prediabetic.
"you can get fat even with lots of foods that dont drive insulin" Of course you can! It's just not as easy, quick, or enjoyable. Most people are not getting fat and IR because they are overeating whole foods.
Well, actually, it's not half. Potentially, about 1 out of 3 have diabetes. Of which, 9.3% are confirmed, and the rest are undiagnosed, which means it's estimated based on some population survey. Also, this takes into consideration that the US reduced the standard for what they consider prediabetic.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics/2014statisticsreport.html
You are also failing to recognize that you can have a low to moderate fat diet with all whole foods, just like you can have a low carb diet or even keto full of ultra processed foods. Meaning, when dieting or trying to live a healthy life, food quality is important.
No, you are pigeonholing me--just like you did by bringing in Taubes and the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis. Any diet with all whole foods is going to have protective and satiating elements, such as fiber, which will mitigate the insulin response of those foods. Also, I never said insulin was the ONLY hormone, just the most prevailing one.
And excuse me, but even 1 in 3 does not sound like a "small subset."
Once you consider NAFLD, PCOS and Alzheimer's, along with people who have prediabetes and T2D, whether they realize it or not, those with IR is closer to 50%.
Because "short term" success doesn't usually lead to long term lifestyle change?What I don't understand is why people quibble with other people who are successfully making adaptations in their diets that benefit them and do no harm?
There are lots of people who engage in low carb dieting to lose weight, but unsuccessful maintain it because they couldn't adapt to it long term.
I'm one of those trainers that don't believe in dieting, doesn't believe in "clean eating", and directly deal with people on an everyday basis of implementing weight loss and fitness. In the beginning, I was taught the "clean eating" and low carb, regimens to advise to my clients. Did they lose weight? Sure. But a few months later, I'd see them again with weight regained. So could that be harm? Psychologically I guess it could be. Getting down to a certain weight, then regaining could easily give the person a sense of failure and conceding that it's too hard to stay lean, so why even bother.
There are some ways that work better for others, but the reality is CICO is the gist of weight loss/gain/maintenance regardless of how it's approached.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
As you know, the bolded is true of all diets. It has to be maintainable.
I eat LCHF. The first 4-5 months I lost weight while doing it. The last 7-8 months I have maintained while doing it. I don't consider it a "diet" but just the way I eat for improved health.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
So special needs usually means there's issues with their health to begin with. Yes, metabolism is real, but it STILL relies on CICO for weight maintenance/gain/loss. It may be harder for someone with health issues, but it doesn't negate the formula.Galadrial60 wrote: »Oh honey...wrong forum. People who never had metabolism issues DON'T BELIEVE it. I read the same article you did. I found it fascinating. I also work with special needs adults in group home settings. We give our clients low fat, healthy balanced meals. They have no access to food unless we serve it. Yet 6 adults are all over the charts in terms of weight. They are served identical portions...but the ones who are inclined to thin tend to stay that way...and the ones who go to heavy don't lose any weight. They also have about the same amount of exercise in a day. You can say it isn't scientific...but it's hard to ignore a year of observation. Metabolism is real.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Obesity isn't a disease though. It's directly a calorie in/out issue. It may be a condition due to the health issue. Granted hormonal issues really can complicate it.The diabetes epidemic is nothing but good news to the only 3 companies in the US that produce insulin: Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. With that kind of money on the line, do you think they would be careless enough to share nutrition advice that actually enabled people to prevent their potential or stop their current use of insulin?
LOL No. Big pharma likes non-compliant patients.
You better believe it! XD
My point is that you're laying a whole lotta s.h.i.t. at the feet of "big pharma," but as a nurse, I can tell you that so many people can't lay off the damn ice cream and chips and incorporate a friggin' salad every so often to drop some tonnage and reverse or at least diminish some of their health problems. You are outside your mind if you think those companies are fostering disease. They just happen to be profiting because fat bas.tards can't shut their pie holes.
Job security.
Yup, I'm a nurse too. I see you've bought into the same lie as many other healthcare professionals: blame the patient.
I'm past that now, but I understand. I used to have the same damning perspective.
EDIT: in case anyone was wondering, this person poignantly expresses exactly how most doctors and nurses judge you for being sick and obese.
I have a niece who has a thyroid disease. She's obese. We don't blame her for it, due to her condition, but she can make better choices when she eats. And I'll be the first to say that it is tough, especially when your family has parties every weekend and food is a big part of family get togethers.
People that are obese, can lose weight, but it take much more effort and discipline due to the complications of physical movement and likely hormonal issues. It's not impossible or there wouldn't be any success stories.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
stevencloser wrote: »So, what of the things are BS IYO? Eating amounts of food according to your activity level?
A varied diet of healthy foods?
Lots of vegetables and fruit?
Limiting trans fats and sat fats?
Not too much salt?
Reducing added sugars?
Sensible amounts of alcohol?
Making sustainable changes?
Man, just look at all that crap.
It's funny how you left out certian items that even you know are indefensible garbage.
The only thing wrong is that breakfast stimulates the metabolism.
The things I listed are unquestionably true, the other things I left out are a matter of preference.
So again, since you said it's mostly BS. What is BS of all those things? Because there's literally just 1 thing in the list that is incorrect.
In before "eat all the saturated fat your body can hold because it's gud for you"2 -
It truly terrifies me that there are medical professionals out there that just dismiss knowledge that we have to our best current abilities because of YouTube.
I am sad to see the people coming in here from time to time interpreting this study the way that I worried they would - that it's not even worth it to lose weight because the Biggest Loser contestants gained it back and harmed their bodies in the process.12 -
The diabetes epidemic is nothing but good news to the only 3 companies in the US that produce insulin: Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. With that kind of money on the line, do you think they would be careless enough to share nutrition advice that actually enabled people to prevent their potential or stop their current use of insulin?
LOL No. Big pharma likes non-compliant patients.
You better believe it! XD
My point is that you're laying a whole lotta s.h.i.t. at the feet of "big pharma," but as a nurse, I can tell you that so many people can't lay off the damn ice cream and chips and incorporate a friggin' salad every so often to drop some tonnage and reverse or at least diminish some of their health problems. You are outside your mind if you think those companies are fostering disease. They just happen to be profiting because fat bas.tards can't shut their pie holes.
Job security.
Yup, I'm a nurse too. I see you've bought into the same lie as many other healthcare professionals: blame the patient.
I'm past that now, but I understand. I used to have the same damning perspective.
EDIT: in case anyone was wondering, this person poignantly expresses exactly how most doctors and nurses judge you for being sick and obese.
Right. Because it's totally Big Pharma's fault that I'm sick and obese*. Had nothing to do with my own lack of personal responsibility to care for myself throughout the years.
I wonder who an obese doctor would blame for his obesity?
*I'm not, but when I was fat I knew exactly who to blame.5 -
Obesity isn't a disease though. It's directly a calorie in/out issue. It may be a condition due to the health issue. Granted hormonal issues really can complicate it.
I have a niece who has a thyroid disease. She's obese. We don't blame her for it, due to her condition, but she can make better choices when she eats. And I'll be the first to say that it is tough, especially when your family has parties every weekend and food is a big part of family get togethers.
People that are obese, can lose weight, but it take much more effort and discipline due to the complications of physical movement and likely hormonal issues. It's not impossible or there wouldn't be any success stories.
Just curious - does this mean you disagree with the American Medical Association who has defined obesity as a disease since 2013?
Karen
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »So, what of the things are BS IYO? Eating amounts of food according to your activity level?
A varied diet of healthy foods?
Lots of vegetables and fruit?
Limiting trans fats and sat fats?
Not too much salt?
Reducing added sugars?
Sensible amounts of alcohol?
Making sustainable changes?
Man, just look at all that crap.
It's funny how you left out certian items that even you know are indefensible garbage.
The only thing wrong is that breakfast stimulates the metabolism.
The things I listed are unquestionably true, the other things I left out are a matter of preference.
So again, since you said it's mostly BS. What is BS of all those things? Because there's literally just 1 thing in the list that is incorrect.
In before "eat all the saturated fat your body can hold because it's gud for you"
I don't even know where to start with that horrible advice. You already claim it's "unquestionably true," but hopefully my response can help someone else.
I feel I've thoroughly explained how excess insulin promotes both diabetes and obesity. It's a direct causal effect. Give people insulin: they get hungry, they gain weight, they develop insulin resistance. Completely take away insulin (as in the case of type 1 diabetes, for example): you get extreme weight loss.
If the body responded to all foods exactly the same, balancing calories with activity level would be all you need to know for weight loss--yet, that diet seems to fail time and time again (as evidenced by the origin of this thread). However, the body doesn't respond the same to all foods. Different foods promote different hormonal responses. Additionally, some foods are more nutrient dense and satiating, while other are not.
There is nothing in whole grains, for example, that you can't get from other foods with a whole lot less carbohydrate and calorie density. Not to mention, the vast majority of "whole grains" available on the market are nothing more than pulverized flour, which has separated the fiber from the starch, negating its benefit, causing large spikes in both blood glucose and insulin.
If people are trying to prevent or treat type 2 diabetes, the goal is to lower insulin levels. A low fat diet is simply a terrible idea. Fats stimulate very little insulin response, and they are satiating. They are an excellent source of calories for healing insulin resistance and promoting weight loss. Fats from nature are completely benign, and there are mountains of evidence available to question and disprove the tired diet-heart hypothesis (dietary cholesterol causes heart disease). Take the Framingham Study, for example. Once they went back and looked at the data, separating man-made fats from natural fats: margarine was linked to heart disease, while butter was linked to heart health. Clearly made-made fats with excess omega 6s and trans fats are toxic. The big picture here is that not all foods are created equal, and when you start looking at the details, foods in their natural state do the best job of keeping the heart healthy and keeping insulin levels normal.
Additionally, grazing throughout the day is another terrible idea. You're just continuously spiking insulin levels, protecting that stored fat from being used for energy. Avoiding snacking, skipping meals, and intermittent fasting are extremely powerful techniques for healing insulin resistance, allowing insulin levels to drop, and letting the body shift toward using stored glycogen and fat for energy.
The advice sucks, IMO. But what really sucks is how many people are struggling, hungry all the time, eating processed garbage that they think is "healthy," white-knuckling their way to weight loss, killing their metabolisms, and being blamed by everyone around them (including the healthcare professionals) for their failure.
Here's a literature review for you from Diabesity on effective treatments for hyperinsulinemia and the related metabolic diseases: http://diabesity.ejournals.ca/index.php/diabesity/article/viewFile/21/65
It comes down to exercise, carbohydrate restriction, and fasting. There ya go!4 -
While I do know some people who seemingly did/do well on a low fat diet, my experience was dramatic. I did lose weight on low fat. But I also lost hair, suffered dry skin, constipation, and although I didn't realize it, my brain was foggy. When I stalled out on a low fat Weight Watchers approach, I decided what the heck this isn't working and went to Atkins. All of a sudden I could think again, it was like waking up from a "stupid" dream and realizing I was a much smarter cookie than I remembered being. I got Atkins' flu, though, and that was pretty unacceptable. Being the stubborn person I am, I stuck with it. Now I realize that for me, something inbetween (imagine that) is optimal. I eat about 60 net carbs a day, adequate protein, 1200-1300 calories and I am feeling terrific. I eat 3 meals a day or 2 meals and one snackmeal. This might not work for everyone, but I am energetic, not sleepy after meals, not achey, not stupid. I sort of naturally do a 16/8 pattern. And I would agree that past attempts have definitely involved some white knuckling, teeth gritting, breath holding days while this is the opposite. I have found what works for me.
Karen3 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »While I do know some people who seemingly did well on a low fat diet, my experience was dramatic. I did lose weight on low fat. But I also lost hair, suffered dry skin, constipation, and although I didn't realize it, my brain was foggy. When I stalled out on a low fat Weight Watchers approach, I decided what the heck this isn't working and went to Atkins. All of a sudden I could think again, it was like waking up from a "stupid" dream and realizing I was a much smarter cookie than I remembered being. I got Atkins' flu, though, and that was pretty unacceptable. Being the stubborn person I am, I stuck with it. Now I realize that for me, something inbetween (imagine that) is optimal. I eat about 60 net carbs a day, adequate protein, 1200-1300 calories and I am feeling terrific. I eat 3 meals a day or 2 meals and one snackmeal. This might not work for everyone, but I am energetic, not sleepy after meals, not achey, not stupid. I sort of naturally do a 16/8 pattern. And I would agree that past attempts have definitely involved some white knuckling, teeth gritting, breath holding days while this is the opposite. I have found what works for me.
Karen
The funny thing is, all the people who follow LCHF always talk about low fat diets, but only a very small subset of members on this board actually follow a low fat diet, and they are typically vegan/vegetarian. Most of us follow moderator fat diets (I personally get 80-100g). And your experiences with low fat would be mine with low carb. So to each their own I say.7 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »While I do know some people who seemingly did well on a low fat diet, my experience was dramatic. I did lose weight on low fat. But I also lost hair, suffered dry skin, constipation, and although I didn't realize it, my brain was foggy. When I stalled out on a low fat Weight Watchers approach, I decided what the heck this isn't working and went to Atkins. All of a sudden I could think again, it was like waking up from a "stupid" dream and realizing I was a much smarter cookie than I remembered being. I got Atkins' flu, though, and that was pretty unacceptable. Being the stubborn person I am, I stuck with it. Now I realize that for me, something inbetween (imagine that) is optimal. I eat about 60 net carbs a day, adequate protein, 1200-1300 calories and I am feeling terrific. I eat 3 meals a day or 2 meals and one snackmeal. This might not work for everyone, but I am energetic, not sleepy after meals, not achey, not stupid. I sort of naturally do a 16/8 pattern. And I would agree that past attempts have definitely involved some white knuckling, teeth gritting, breath holding days while this is the opposite. I have found what works for me.
Karen
I had a very similar experience and do better on 16/8 . I also do better eating 3 meals instead of 6. I would get cravings eating so many small meals (probably from releasing insulin all day). I cut down on white refined flour, high fructose corn syrup, and sugar. I eat more vegetables and combine the carbs I eat in a meal with protein. These things prevent cravings for me. I don't know why certain people have a problem with me cutting out sugar? I don't have the sluggish chronic fatigue and muscle pain and am more alert and happy.
The problem that I have is getting enough healthy fat in while staying at 1200 calories. Oil has a lot of calories, so I ended up cutting them out as much as possible, and my weight loss stalled. Now I am on a plateau with only 10 pounds left to go. I'm thinking of temporarily going high fat low carb short term to lose a few pounds and then will go back to the low glycemic program I prefer for maintenance. I don't want keto flu and want to be smart about how to do this properly.
I had posted a link to an interesting Harvard study discussing about the differences between low-glycemic, high fat/low carb or high carb/low fat up-thread. They found that low glycemic is effective as is low carb/ high fat. I have trouble staying on high fat/low carb long term because I will miss my favorite foods within a few weeks. It is easy for me to switch from my favorites to low-glycemic versions instead.
I am familiar with the white knuckling with high carb/low fat. So I'm going to experiment to find out what macro percentage combo works optimally for me. If other people like another method that is perfectly great! Go for it! But people who try to stick with something that isn't working for them should try to find their success path and switch things up, IMO.
2 -
I don't even know where to start with that horrible advice. You already claim it's "unquestionably true," but hopefully my response can help someone else.
I feel I've thoroughly explained how excess insulin promotes both diabetes and obesity. It's a direct causal effect. Give people insulin: they get hungry, they gain weight, they develop insulin resistance. Completely take away insulin (as in the case of type 1 diabetes, for example): you get extreme weight loss.
If the body responded to all foods exactly the same, balancing calories with activity level would be all you need to know for weight loss--yet, that diet seems to fail time and time again (as evidenced by the origin of this thread). However, the body doesn't respond the same to all foods. Different foods promote different hormonal responses. Additionally, some foods are more nutrient dense and satiating, while other are not.
There is nothing in whole grains, for example, that you can't get from other foods with a whole lot less carbohydrate and calorie density. Not to mention, the vast majority of "whole grains" available on the market are nothing more than pulverized flour, which has separated the fiber from the starch, negating its benefit, causing large spikes in both blood glucose and insulin.
If people are trying to prevent or treat type 2 diabetes, the goal is to lower insulin levels. A low fat diet is simply a terrible idea. Fats stimulate very little insulin response, and they are satiating. They are an excellent source of calories for healing insulin resistance and promoting weight loss. Fats from nature are completely benign, and there are mountains of evidence available to question and disprove the tired diet-heart hypothesis (dietary cholesterol causes heart disease). Take the Framingham Study, for example. Once they went back and looked at the data, separating man-made fats from natural fats: margarine was linked to heart disease, while butter was linked to heart health. Clearly made-made fats with excess omega 6s and trans fats are toxic. The big picture here is that not all foods are created equal, and when you start looking at the details, foods in their natural state do the best job of keeping the heart healthy and keeping insulin levels normal.
Additionally, grazing throughout the day is another terrible idea. You're just continuously spiking insulin levels, protecting that stored fat from being used for energy. Avoiding snacking, skipping meals, and intermittent fasting are extremely powerful techniques for healing insulin resistance, allowing insulin levels to drop, and letting the body shift toward using stored glycogen and fat for energy.
The advice sucks, IMO. But what really sucks is how many people are struggling, hungry all the time, eating processed garbage that they think is "healthy," white-knuckling their way to weight loss, killing their metabolisms, and being blamed by everyone around them (including the healthcare professionals) for their failure.
Here's a literature review for you from Diabesity on effective treatments for hyperinsulinemia and the related metabolic diseases: http://diabesity.ejournals.ca/index.php/diabesity/article/viewFile/21/65
It comes down to exercise, carbohydrate restriction, and fasting. There ya go!
You didn't thoroughly explain how excessive insulin works. You linked us to an article of ones guys hypothesis based on ridiculous assumptions. Of course someone, who has normal insulin production, would gain weight when you overload their body with more insulin. You would get the same response if you could get your body to over produce the enzyme ASP because it will suppress HSL. It's literally a ludicrous argument.
Regarding the bold, I know how much you love your way of eating and that is awesome, but it doesn't take away the fact that all diets have roughly a 80-90% failure rate. That is why there are so many methods out there. You need to find a dietary style that supports your goals. And there is no universal one size fits all.
Regarding your grazing comment. That is utterly false. You assume that people only snack with pure carbs and it completely ignores a persons ability to regulate insulin. In fact, some people do very well with eating often. The only thing that matters is having longer periods of lipolysis compared to lipogenesis. Holding calories and macros equivalent, fasting will not promote greater fat loss.7 -
@psulemon When I was eating a low fat diet it was truly low fat (</= 22g/d). I wouldn't know what people who follow LCHF "always talk about". I don't follow anything now except what works for me, so if it fits into some formula, so be it.
I now eat about 60% of the fat you eat, @psulemon, and it feels like plenty, so it's all relative, I guess. My 1200-1300 calories is usually about 60net grams carb, 90-100g protein, and about 50-60g fat. Works really well for me. I have energy for exercise, don't feel hungry, have good hair & skin, no heartburn.
I have 2 vegetarian friends who thrive on a high carb, adequate fat, lower protein diet, though. They don't seem to have issues with insulin resistance and they are both apparently experiencing optimal health. That diet would not work for me.0 -
I don't even know where to start with that horrible advice. You already claim it's "unquestionably true," but hopefully my response can help someone else.
I feel I've thoroughly explained how excess insulin promotes both diabetes and obesity. It's a direct causal effect. Give people insulin: they get hungry, they gain weight, they develop insulin resistance. Completely take away insulin (as in the case of type 1 diabetes, for example): you get extreme weight loss.
If the body responded to all foods exactly the same, balancing calories with activity level would be all you need to know for weight loss--yet, that diet seems to fail time and time again (as evidenced by the origin of this thread). However, the body doesn't respond the same to all foods. Different foods promote different hormonal responses. Additionally, some foods are more nutrient dense and satiating, while other are not.
There is nothing in whole grains, for example, that you can't get from other foods with a whole lot less carbohydrate and calorie density. Not to mention, the vast majority of "whole grains" available on the market are nothing more than pulverized flour, which has separated the fiber from the starch, negating its benefit, causing large spikes in both blood glucose and insulin.
If people are trying to prevent or treat type 2 diabetes, the goal is to lower insulin levels. A low fat diet is simply a terrible idea. Fats stimulate very little insulin response, and they are satiating. They are an excellent source of calories for healing insulin resistance and promoting weight loss. Fats from nature are completely benign, and there are mountains of evidence available to question and disprove the tired diet-heart hypothesis (dietary cholesterol causes heart disease). Take the Framingham Study, for example. Once they went back and looked at the data, separating man-made fats from natural fats: margarine was linked to heart disease, while butter was linked to heart health. Clearly made-made fats with excess omega 6s and trans fats are toxic. The big picture here is that not all foods are created equal, and when you start looking at the details, foods in their natural state do the best job of keeping the heart healthy and keeping insulin levels normal.
Additionally, grazing throughout the day is another terrible idea. You're just continuously spiking insulin levels, protecting that stored fat from being used for energy. Avoiding snacking, skipping meals, and intermittent fasting are extremely powerful techniques for healing insulin resistance, allowing insulin levels to drop, and letting the body shift toward using stored glycogen and fat for energy.
The advice sucks, IMO. But what really sucks is how many people are struggling, hungry all the time, eating processed garbage that they think is "healthy," white-knuckling their way to weight loss, killing their metabolisms, and being blamed by everyone around them (including the healthcare professionals) for their failure.
Here's a literature review for you from Diabesity on effective treatments for hyperinsulinemia and the related metabolic diseases: http://diabesity.ejournals.ca/index.php/diabesity/article/viewFile/21/65
It comes down to exercise, carbohydrate restriction, and fasting. There ya go!
You didn't thoroughly explain how excessive insulin works. You linked us to an article of ones guys hypothesis based on ridiculous assumptions. Of course someone, who has normal insulin production, would gain weight when you overload their body with more insulin. You would get the same response if you could get your body to over produce the enzyme ASP because it will suppress HSL. It's literally a ludicrous argument.
Regarding the bold, I know how much you love your way of eating and that is awesome, but it doesn't take away the fact that all diets have roughly a 80-90% failure rate. That is why there are so many methods out there. You need to find a dietary style that supports your goals. And there is no universal one size fits all.
Regarding your grazing comment. That is utterly false. You assume that people only snack with pure carbs and it completely ignores a persons ability to regulate insulin. In fact, some people do very well with eating often. The only thing that matters is having longer periods of lipolysis compared to lipogenesis. Holding calories and macros equivalent, fasting will not promote greater fat loss.
There is a percentage of the population who can lose weight by simply dropping daily calories no matter what the combo. They don't have issues with insulin resistance. Often those are the ones who tell the ones who do have to drop carbs down that their perspective is false because it doesn't work in their experience.2 -
Hell big pharma is the reason why insulin shots exist.
NOPE, the man who won the Nobel for isolating insulin, Dr. Banting, gave his patent away for free because he believed this life-saving drug should be available to everyone who needed it. Big Pharma is the reason new (but not necessarily more effective) versions of insulin are constantly created when patents run out so that they can keep the prices as high as possible.
Insulin is an amazing drug for type 1 diabetics. It's the reason two of my immediate family members are still alive today. Insulin, however, is a horrible treatment for type 2 diabetics, and does nothing to cure the root cause of their disease, but instead exacerbates it.
Lantus was #6 in the top 10 most profitable drugs in 2014, grossing 7.28 billion. http://qz.com/349929/best-selling-drugs-in-the-world/
The diabetes epidemic is nothing but good news to the only 3 companies in the US that produce insulin: Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. With that kind of money on the line, do you think they would be careless enough to share nutrition advice that actually enabled people to prevent their potential or stop their current use of insulin?
That nutrition advice is confusing garbage for good reason.
@psulemon
Searching through the web you can find so many examples of people who stopped T2 diabetes in its tracks by not listening to the stupid ADA, and not listening to their stupid doctor. They simply cut out refined sugar, fruit juice and grains from their diet, limited fruit consumption, and Voila! - no T2 diabetes.
But without funding from Big Pharma, the ADA would be mostly out of business. So they recommend a too-high carb diet, which keeps people or makes people diabetic. It is criminal, and it is a disgrace.
And if you watch cable news, you are inundated with the latest and greatest diabetes drug. And next year there will be another one that reduces blood sugars 1% more than the current one.
Dr. Banting is rolling in his grave.4 -
Long rant about how insulin is horriblestevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »So, what of the things are BS IYO? Eating amounts of food according to your activity level?
A varied diet of healthy foods?
Lots of vegetables and fruit?
Limiting trans fats and sat fats?
Not too much salt?
Reducing added sugars?
Sensible amounts of alcohol?
Making sustainable changes?
Man, just look at all that crap.
It's funny how you left out certian items that even you know are indefensible garbage.
The only thing wrong is that breakfast stimulates the metabolism.
The things I listed are unquestionably true, the other things I left out are a matter of preference.
So again, since you said it's mostly BS. What is BS of all those things? Because there's literally just 1 thing in the list that is incorrect.
In before "eat all the saturated fat your body can hold because it's gud for you"
You still haven't anwered my question.
What was *kitten*?
The part about making changes that are sustainable for you?
Or eating your veggies?
Having a varied diet to get all your nutrients?
3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Hell big pharma is the reason why insulin shots exist.
NOPE, the man who won the Nobel for isolating insulin, Dr. Banting, gave his patent away for free because he believed this life-saving drug should be available to everyone who needed it. Big Pharma is the reason new (but not necessarily more effective) versions of insulin are constantly created when patents run out so that they can keep the prices as high as possible.
Insulin is an amazing drug for type 1 diabetics. It's the reason two of my immediate family members are still alive today. Insulin, however, is a horrible treatment for type 2 diabetics, and does nothing to cure the root cause of their disease, but instead exacerbates it.
Lantus was #6 in the top 10 most profitable drugs in 2014, grossing 7.28 billion. http://qz.com/349929/best-selling-drugs-in-the-world/
The diabetes epidemic is nothing but good news to the only 3 companies in the US that produce insulin: Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. With that kind of money on the line, do you think they would be careless enough to share nutrition advice that actually enabled people to prevent their potential or stop their current use of insulin?
That nutrition advice is confusing garbage for good reason.
@psulemon
Searching through the web you can find so many examples of people who stopped T2 diabetes in its tracks by not listening to the stupid ADA, and not listening to their stupid doctor. They simply cut out refined sugar, fruit juice and grains from their diet, limited fruit consumption, and Voila! - no T2 diabetes.
But without funding from Big Pharma, the ADA would be mostly out of business. So they recommend a too-high carb diet, which keeps people or makes people diabetic. It is criminal, and it is a disgrace.
And if you watch cable news, you are inundated with the latest and greatest diabetes drug. And next year there will be another one that reduces blood sugars 1% more than the current one.
Dr. Banting is rolling in his grave.
That isn't how government works.
5 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Hell big pharma is the reason why insulin shots exist.
NOPE, the man who won the Nobel for isolating insulin, Dr. Banting, gave his patent away for free because he believed this life-saving drug should be available to everyone who needed it. Big Pharma is the reason new (but not necessarily more effective) versions of insulin are constantly created when patents run out so that they can keep the prices as high as possible.
Insulin is an amazing drug for type 1 diabetics. It's the reason two of my immediate family members are still alive today. Insulin, however, is a horrible treatment for type 2 diabetics, and does nothing to cure the root cause of their disease, but instead exacerbates it.
Lantus was #6 in the top 10 most profitable drugs in 2014, grossing 7.28 billion. http://qz.com/349929/best-selling-drugs-in-the-world/
The diabetes epidemic is nothing but good news to the only 3 companies in the US that produce insulin: Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novo Nordisk. With that kind of money on the line, do you think they would be careless enough to share nutrition advice that actually enabled people to prevent their potential or stop their current use of insulin?
That nutrition advice is confusing garbage for good reason.
@psulemon
Searching through the web you can find so many examples of people who stopped T2 diabetes in its tracks by not listening to the stupid ADA, and not listening to their stupid doctor. They simply cut out refined sugar, fruit juice and grains from their diet, limited fruit consumption, and Voila! - no T2 diabetes.
But without funding from Big Pharma, the ADA would be mostly out of business. So they recommend a too-high carb diet, which keeps people or makes people diabetic. It is criminal, and it is a disgrace.
And if you watch cable news, you are inundated with the latest and greatest diabetes drug. And next year there will be another one that reduces blood sugars 1% more than the current one.
Dr. Banting is rolling in his grave.
That isn't how government works.
It's how the ADA works. You should see their suggested recipes. Carbs and sugar to diabetics, which spikes blood sugar, which requires insulin and/or the other newfangled drugs Big Pharma is making big bucks on. It is a disgrace.3 -
@gonetothedogs19
You are absolutely correct.
The dieticians who do diabetic teaching follow ADA guidelines, & teach both Type I and Type II diabetics to eat two 15-30g carb snacks per day and three 45-60g carb meals each day for up to 240g carbs per day...almost 1000 calories of carbs... and to their credit, they used to teach 45g carb per snack and 75g per meal, so this is an improvement. Type I diabetes & Type II diabetes are polar opposites as far as management and should not have EVER been lumped together in diabetic teaching guidelines. I went to diabetic teaching classes with a newly diagnosed relative 3 years ago.
My doctor, who just happens to be a non-surgical Bariatric Endocrinologist NEVER sends his patients for diabetic teaching because they are still in the dark ages about the impact of carbs on insulin-resistant patients. I am not diabetic, but probably pre-diabetic. Do I wish I could eat 240g carbs per day? Yes. Isn't going to happen.
I am so lucky to have a doctor who is brilliant and understands insulin resistance.5 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »@gonetothedogs19
You are absolutely correct.
The dieticians who do diabetic teaching follow ADA guidelines, & teach both Type I and Type II diabetics to eat two 15-30g carb snacks per day and three 45-60g carb meals each day for up to 240g carbs per day...almost 1000 calories of carbs... and to their credit, they used to teach 45g carb per snack and 75g per meal, so this is an improvement. Type I diabetes & Type II diabetes are polar opposites as far as management and should not have EVER been lumped together in diabetic teaching guidelines. I went to diabetic teaching classes with a newly diagnosed relative 3 years ago.
My doctor, who just happens to be a non-surgical Bariatric Endocrinologist NEVER sends his patients for diabetic teaching because they are still in the dark ages about the impact of carbs on insulin-resistant patients. I am not diabetic, but probably pre-diabetic. Do I wish I could eat 240g carbs per day? Yes. Isn't going to happen.
I am so lucky to have a doctor who is brilliant and understands insulin resistance.
I realize I am suggesting a conspiracy theory (Big Pharma funds the ADA, so in turn the ADA recommends bad diets to diabetics, making them reliant on Big Pharma). And I hate conspiracy theories.
The only other explanation is that the ADA would be completely embarrassed and humiliated if they admitted that their dietary advise for the last 40 years has been a disaster.
So it's one or the other - conspiracy, or the inability to admit they were wrong. There can be no other explanations.3 -
It is so very sad when individuals are given advice that doesn't work for them and then are made to feel like they aren't following the program(even when they are). Sad indeed. And then patients are falsely accused of not following the bad advice that was given to them because they aren't getting expected results doctors would expect.. The doctors in good faith are (at times) only passing on faulty recommendations from organizations thinking that it is good advice.2
-
Personal agenda is deep in this thread. To each their own.15
-
queenliz99 wrote: »Personal agenda is deep in this thread. To each their own.
^^ This. Not only this thread.1 -
After being up and down 100+ pounds I can tell you that if you are only concerned about the scale you are going to fail!
I am no scientist, I only speak for my own body. The reality is if you lose weight fast the body fights to add it back. They say 80% diet and 20% exercise for weightloss. The truth is you need continous exercise when you lose weight. You have to fool the body and spend time keeping it off for a substaintal time.
Again, I am no scientist but I am also not a desperate reality TV star. It takes 3 months of consistency to make it a habit. No crash course will resolve that. It's reports like these that feed into hysteria.
Truth is the modern western diet has tooo many calories. Too much processed food. Too little nutritionally dense food. Want to live a long life? Want to weigh less?
Consume less.
0 -
There are a lot of endocrinologists out there who do get it. This has no bearing on people who are not insulin resistant (like the friends I alluded to in an earlier post who eat about 80% carbs and are thriving.)0
-
KetoneKaren wrote: »While I do know some people who seemingly did well on a low fat diet, my experience was dramatic. I did lose weight on low fat. But I also lost hair, suffered dry skin, constipation, and although I didn't realize it, my brain was foggy. When I stalled out on a low fat Weight Watchers approach, I decided what the heck this isn't working and went to Atkins. All of a sudden I could think again, it was like waking up from a "stupid" dream and realizing I was a much smarter cookie than I remembered being. I got Atkins' flu, though, and that was pretty unacceptable. Being the stubborn person I am, I stuck with it. Now I realize that for me, something inbetween (imagine that) is optimal. I eat about 60 net carbs a day, adequate protein, 1200-1300 calories and I am feeling terrific. I eat 3 meals a day or 2 meals and one snackmeal. This might not work for everyone, but I am energetic, not sleepy after meals, not achey, not stupid. I sort of naturally do a 16/8 pattern. And I would agree that past attempts have definitely involved some white knuckling, teeth gritting, breath holding days while this is the opposite. I have found what works for me.
Karen
The funny thing is, all the people who follow LCHF always talk about low fat diets, but only a very small subset of members on this board actually follow a low fat diet, and they are typically vegan/vegetarian. Most of us follow moderator fat diets (I personally get 80-100g). And your experiences with low fat would be mine with low carb. So to each their own I say.
After "awesome"ing this post, I just wanted to highlight it again. It always seems the argument is High Fat vs Low Fat. Most people I know, regardless of their carb level, eat a moderate fat diet. But the assumption always seems to be if you aren't eating LCHF, you are eating the typical 1980's-rice cakes-Jane Fonda aerobics-loving low fat diet. It's a false dichotomy; there is a lot of in between.8 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »While I do know some people who seemingly did/do well on a low fat diet, my experience was dramatic. I did lose weight on low fat. But I also lost hair, suffered dry skin, constipation, and although I didn't realize it, my brain was foggy.
I actually do quite well on low fat. I lost a bunch of weight doing low fat once (I felt great and effortlessly was not hungry, since for me eating lots of vegetables and fruit works well). I changed my diet to a higher (not high) fat one, since I simply like a lot of fattier foods (olive oil, cheese, eggs, nuts, chicken with skin, a variety of cuts of meat, although not the highest fat ones most of the time), so enjoyed my diet more when it was less restrictive. But I felt perfectly good and energetic on the lower fat plan.
Subsequently I did a plant based Lent (I traditionally do vegetarian Lent and wanted to try something more difficult), and because I didn't really focus on getting plant-based sources of fat it ended up being quite low fat. I wasn't trying to lose weight but I felt really good and all my clothes quickly became too big. (I regained once I changed my diet back.)
I will probably stay with moderate fat, moderate carbs (for me that's a lot more carbs than for you -- I do about 40-50% carbs at maintenance, since there's no need to eat more than 20% protein and 30% fat tends to work well for me -- this is where I naturally tend to fall since I don't really focus on how many carbs vs. fat, just protein minimum and eating lots of vegetables and a good diet overall). But that's not because I think lower fat would have any negative effects for me at all. I also found this series quite interesting (I've linked it before): https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/
On the whole I think macro choice is going to be individual, although I do agree with those who find the Blue Zones compelling evidence against the idea (annoyingly preached by some) that carbs are bad and we should all be low carb.1 -
NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »New York Times story details that a study of Biggest Loser contestants found they regained much of the weight they lost and ruined their metabolism -- all had metabolisms that burned much less than a person their weight should have been burning.
So, OK, it is CICO, but if you're overweight and trying to lose weight, it may mean that your calories in is a lot lower than your calculated BMR or TDEE. So the question is, how do we get our BMR really tested....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
This study debunks the popular myth that metabolism isn't slowed by dieting.
For people who ate an aggressively low number of calories while doing an aggressively high amount of exercise for an extended period of time, yes. Not the conditions the average person diets under.
My body fights to put back weight and I have never eaten aggressively lower than 1200 calories while exercising for an extended time. I'm happy you don't experience this. I struggle to lose pounds and my body seriously wants to put them back as soon as I go back to maintenance mode. It is a battle! Now I actively diet just to stay at maintenance weight, so I feel like I am always dieting. My Body Used To Work INTUITUVELY to maintain. Now I must force it to maintain at my new and lower weight.
This is interesting, and I'm curious what precisely you mean. When you say your body "fights" do you mean you are hungry? Or just that you easily regain when not watching calories? That you think you gain on fewer calories than you should (so that you have had metabolic adaptation)? Have you done the math to see if your TDEE has changed beyond what would be expected over time?
I used to be able to maintain at an acceptable weight without thinking about it at all, and now I cannot, but I don't think the reason is physical. I think it has to do with activity and environment. (And when I'm active and mindful I tend to be able to maintain okay, although if I let one or the other drop I can put back on weight quite easily.)1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Personal agenda is deep in this thread. To each their own.
Yup.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »New York Times story details that a study of Biggest Loser contestants found they regained much of the weight they lost and ruined their metabolism -- all had metabolisms that burned much less than a person their weight should have been burning.
So, OK, it is CICO, but if you're overweight and trying to lose weight, it may mean that your calories in is a lot lower than your calculated BMR or TDEE. So the question is, how do we get our BMR really tested....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
This study debunks the popular myth that metabolism isn't slowed by dieting.
For people who ate an aggressively low number of calories while doing an aggressively high amount of exercise for an extended period of time, yes. Not the conditions the average person diets under.
My body fights to put back weight and I have never eaten aggressively lower than 1200 calories while exercising for an extended time. I'm happy you don't experience this. I struggle to lose pounds and my body seriously wants to put them back as soon as I go back to maintenance mode. It is a battle! Now I actively diet just to stay at maintenance weight, so I feel like I am always dieting. My Body Used To Work INTUITUVELY to maintain. Now I must force it to maintain at my new and lower weight.
This is interesting, and I'm curious what precisely you mean. When you say your body "fights" do you mean you are hungry? Or just that you easily regain when not watching calories? That you think you gain on fewer calories than you should (so that you have had metabolic adaptation)? Have you done the math to see if your TDEE has changed beyond what would be expected over time?
I used to be able to maintain at an acceptable weight without thinking about it at all, and now I cannot, but I don't think the reason is physical. I think it has to do with activity and environment. (And when I'm active and mindful I tend to be able to maintain okay, although if I let one or the other drop I can put back on weight quite easily.)
We have such different experiences that I realize I couldn't possibly explain this sufficiently to satisfy you.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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