Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO
Options
Replies
-
One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.0 -
One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
It also gives you an opportunity to gain some muscle while cutting.
And everything is linked to cancer, especially genetics.6 -
One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
3 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/155628340 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers4 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
Anything more concrete than a discussion paper from a pharmaceutical symposium? Or is this the best you could come up with after learning that insulin isn't a "growth factor", but rather that IGF 1 is a different hormone.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
Anything more concrete than a discussion paper from a pharmaceutical symposium? Or is this the best you could come up with after learning that insulin isn't a "growth factor", but rather that IGF 1 is a different hormone.
@FunkyTobias
Insulin promotes cell proliferation and growth. Insulin is a growth factor. Hyperinsulinemia is linked to cancer. Use of insulin injections also increases cancer risk. This is fairly common knowledge. Sorry you're confused about it.
http://m.erc.endocrinology-journals.org/content/16/2/429.full
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021594
http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/36/2/319.full.pdf
Yes, it stimulates protein synthesis in many tissues, not just muscle.
This probably also explains why fasting is associated with a reduced risk of cancers and many other degenerative diseases. As the insulin levels drop, the body is able breakdown protein instead of synthesize it, allowing it to degrade and recycle cellular components through autophagy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.1 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
1 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Actually, language like that typically refers to simple carbs instead of complex carbs. It's not specifically carbs, but typically not whole grain.1 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.9 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Sounds like one of those studies that say that your risk of a certain cancer increases by 20% if you eat saturated fat.
Sadly, the average person thinks that means that the cancer will go from 3% to 23%, when it actually means it goes from 3% to 3.6% (3% x 1.20).
And trying to figure out what else people had done in their lives for 30 years that may have increased their risk of cancer, is impossible, which, renders most of these studies meaningless and useless.
Here is a good study - 20% of Americans smoke, and 85% of lung cancer victims smoked. Now that's a real study.1 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.0 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.0 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
Option 3: 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs, eating 8 small meals a day, most of which from processed low carb foods
Option 4: 80% carbs, 10% protein, 10% fat, eating a raw vegan diet of predominantly vegetables and fruits
Option 5: 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat, eating one meal a day of mostly nutrient dense foods and some processed foods as per their preferences
Option 6: 40% carbs, 35% protein, 25% fat, eating a 100% clean lacto vegetarian diet.
Option 7...8...9...10.... you get what I'm saying.
I do know who is going to be successful with the best appetite control without having to go through all of the options: the person who chose the diet that works the best with their preferences, habits, schedule, personal hunger and satisfaction cues...etc, and it could be any of the options listed or not listed.31 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
What @amusedmonkey said.
As for the bolded, I would like to understand why you are fixated on the idea that a very vocal group of people say that only calories matter. The main advice I see given is that calories matter for weight loss, nutrition matters for health. And the plan that is most effective to reach both goals is the one that an individual can adhere to for life.9 -
I read that study about the Biggest Loser. It makes sense in a way, especially given the radical ways these people lose their weight. The body could never sustain that level of activity and calorie restriction indefinitely.
I'm sure I'll hear a fair amount of *kitten* over this, but I don't believe in strictly CICO. If you are overweight enough that any deficit will cause you to lose weight, I imagine it does work for a while, but I also do believe your body uses macros and food elements in different ways. Hunger and energy levels aside, if I ate ALL of my allowable calories in donuts, I will not lose as much weight as if I eat the same amount of calories in nutricious foods. My body comp would be completely different.1 -
I am Option 1 and I've lost over 50 pounds always being Option 1. I'm not hungry or deficient in anything. I also routinely run half marathons and have done a few fulls, a 50k, and a ~60 mile bike race.
I fail to see how that isn't a good option.6 -
aliencheesecake wrote: »I read that study about the Biggest Loser. It makes sense in a way, especially given the radical ways these people lose their weight. The body could never sustain that level of activity and calorie restriction indefinitely.
I'm sure I'll hear a fair amount of *kitten* over this, but I don't believe in strictly CICO. If you are overweight enough that any deficit will cause you to lose weight, I imagine it does work for a while, but I also do believe your body uses macros and food elements in different ways. Hunger and energy levels aside, if I ate ALL of my allowable calories in donuts, I will not lose as much weight as if I eat the same amount of calories in nutricious foods. My body comp would be completely different.
You are right about the bolded, but CICO is strictly about calories. Macros and micros matter too. I think a lot of the disagreement stems from the misunderstanding that the only thing that matters is to eat less, which frankly sounds like something an anorexic person would say. CICO applies to everyone, but it shouldn't be the only health advice that everyone applies.4 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
The most simple answer is generally always the answer. CICO or the energy balance equation can be over simplified for many peoples liking but it holds true. You may want some complicated equation based on self beliefs but that isnt how things work. I can tell you i have done 16:8 , paleo and flexible. In all cases calories where the same and roughly the same macro break out. And in call cases, i lost at the same rate. No one here is saying dont eat whole foods or eat with a sustainable way... we are saying it just doesnt matter and the only impact that these various eating style do is support compliance.12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions