Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is the Insulin Theory of Obesity Over?
Replies
-
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL
Didn't know you're eating 8000 calories for 140g to be 7%.
Fat was severely restricted to 7% of calories in the fat restricted group. In the carb restricted group, it was not 7% of calories.
I know what it was in the study. I'm just saying reducing fat to 7% would be no more weird than reducing carbs to 7%, yet a ton of people are doing exactly that.
Reducing fat to 7% and eating at a deficit is incredibly hard--you try it sometime, and tell me what you ate in a day and how you felt--in fact, try it for a month or two. That's why these guys had to be in a controlled environment. Reducing carbohydrates to 7% and eating at a deficit is so much easier that the deficit usually occurs without even trying, especially for someone with extra body fat who is eating unprocessed foods.
That being said, the original study didn't even limit carbs that significantly. It wasn't even a ketogenic diet. I guess the original study was so flawed, he had to do a follow up.
Eat nothing but fruit and veggies. Don't add oil to your salad. Done. Not exactly hard. Hell, you could add lean meats to the equation too, those are about 5% fat.
ok... not hard to plan, but extremely hard to implement... did you really miss my meaning there? lawlz
Many vegans would probably disagree with that.6 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »
I could go into an exegesis, but to keep it simple I'll say, ignore the text and just look at the hard data reported. The hard data flies in the face of their conclusion, yet they create some value called net fat oxidation that would seem to support their theory. I say "show me the money," in other words - what's statistically significant? The only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet. (I'm referring to his first study).stevencloser wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
Really? Please elaborate.
And as previous studies have shown, increased fat intake leads to increased fat oxidation but not necessarily increased body fat oxidation. Increased weight loss was likely caused by either water or muscle loss as there were insignificant differences in fat loss between the diets.
There was no significant difference in fat mass change in the two groups. So, the study was pretty much null on this point.
http://itarget.com.br/newclients/sbgg.com.br/informativos/14-09-15/1.pdf
There kinda was with their 2nd method of measuring that's supposedly more sensitive than the DXA.0 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A 24-month study would help show the facts of any diet.
I agree, I've got an N of 1 greater than 24 month study, which is sufficient for me.
True. Our own N of 1 way of eating that works for us is total validation of our WOE. I will have 24 months testing my WOE come Oct.0 -
These are high quality studies designed to test a hypothesis and they do that very well. I think any reasonable person would conclude the same thing Hall has. Low carb diets to not work by providing a metabolic advantage, everything to date indicates they work by a spontaneous reduction in appetite.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL
Didn't know you're eating 8000 calories for 140g to be 7%.
Fat was severely restricted to 7% of calories in the fat restricted group. In the carb restricted group, it was not 7% of calories.
I know what it was in the study. I'm just saying reducing fat to 7% would be no more weird than reducing carbs to 7%, yet a ton of people are doing exactly that.
Reducing fat to 7% and eating at a deficit is incredibly hard--you try it sometime, and tell me what you ate in a day and how you felt--in fact, try it for a month or two. That's why these guys had to be in a controlled environment. Reducing carbohydrates to 7% and eating at a deficit is so much easier that the deficit usually occurs without even trying, especially for someone with extra body fat who is eating unprocessed foods.
That being said, the original study didn't even limit carbs that significantly. It wasn't even a ketogenic diet. I guess the original study was so flawed, he had to do a follow up.
Eat nothing but fruit and veggies. Don't add oil to your salad. Done. Not exactly hard. Hell, you could add lean meats to the equation too, those are about 5% fat.
ok... not hard to plan, but extremely hard to implement... did you really miss my meaning there? lawlz
Many vegans would probably disagree with that.
Vegans eat a diet with 7% of calories from fat? That's news to me... I really feel sorry for any human that has to eat so little fat. I bet their brain mass would shrink... I think the WHO says no one should go below 15%.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL
Didn't know you're eating 8000 calories for 140g to be 7%.
Fat was severely restricted to 7% of calories in the fat restricted group. In the carb restricted group, it was not 7% of calories.
I know what it was in the study. I'm just saying reducing fat to 7% would be no more weird than reducing carbs to 7%, yet a ton of people are doing exactly that.
Reducing fat to 7% and eating at a deficit is incredibly hard--you try it sometime, and tell me what you ate in a day and how you felt--in fact, try it for a month or two. That's why these guys had to be in a controlled environment. Reducing carbohydrates to 7% and eating at a deficit is so much easier that the deficit usually occurs without even trying, especially for someone with extra body fat who is eating unprocessed foods.
That being said, the original study didn't even limit carbs that significantly. It wasn't even a ketogenic diet. I guess the original study was so flawed, he had to do a follow up.
Eat nothing but fruit and veggies. Don't add oil to your salad. Done. Not exactly hard. Hell, you could add lean meats to the equation too, those are about 5% fat.
ok... not hard to plan, but extremely hard to implement... did you really miss my meaning there? lawlz
Many vegans would probably disagree with that.
Vegans eat a diet with 7% of calories from fat? That's news to me... I really feel sorry for any human that has to eat so little fat. I bet their brain mass would shrink... I think the WHO says no one should go below 15%.
There certainly are vegans who do that. Raw, 80/10/10 where the 10 is an upper limit...0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A 24-month study would help show the facts of any diet.
I agree, I've got an N of 1 greater than 24 month study, which is sufficient for me.
True. Our own N of 1 way of eating that works for us is total validation of our WOE. I will have 24 months testing my WOE come Oct.
But YOU are the one always criticizing how others eat. This whole thread is about the invalidation of the theory that keto is a superior way of dieting and that calorie cutting does not work. If we are now saying that simply successfully losing weight and improving health on a diet is enough of a study, then don't we have to take into account the experience of many, many of us who have done that by cutting calories and on moderate to high carb diets (including those 80-10-10 vegans)?
If so, you can't claim your macro mix is a superior way to lose weight than how others do it or that carbs are inherently a problem or that everyone should cut carbs. Nor should you put links in threads saying that you can't lose if eating foods that result in insulin increasing temporarily or (as someone else posted here just today) that it is best to cut carbs to 5-10% to lose fat.13 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.18 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/251785680 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.3 -
queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
In other words, stop eating anything that makes life worth living.....9 -
-
annaskiski wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
In other words, stop eating anything that makes life worth living.....
Oh dear... tonight for dinner I had a bacon wrapped steak with 2 local, pastured eggs fried in grassfed butter (the yolks were a deep, beautiful orange), a side salad with olives and homemade Italian dressing. My life feels so worth living
5 -
Fruit and heavy cream... both delicious, real, low carb foods... I just do it without the sugar
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »A 24-month study would help show the facts of any diet.
I agree, I've got an N of 1 greater than 24 month study, which is sufficient for me.
True. Our own N of 1 way of eating that works for us is total validation of our WOE. I will have 24 months testing my WOE come Oct.
But YOU are the one always criticizing how others eat. This whole thread is about the invalidation of the theory that keto is a superior way of dieting and that calorie cutting does not work. If we are now saying that simply successfully losing weight and improving health on a diet is enough of a study, then don't we have to take into account the experience of many, many of us who have done that by cutting calories and on moderate to high carb diets (including those 80-10-10 vegans)?
If so, you can't claim your macro mix is a superior way to lose weight than how others do it or that carbs are inherently a problem or that everyone should cut carbs. Nor should you put links in threads saying that you can't lose if eating foods that result in insulin increasing temporarily or (as someone else posted here just today) that it is best to cut carbs to 5-10% to lose fat.
I agree with @lemurcat12 100%1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
We are in the opposite in almost everything on your list. Lowering stress, sleeping and exercise is good for health but everything is actually silly. Oh yeah, simple is better. Cheers9 -
queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
We are in the opposite in almost everything on your list. Lowering stress, sleeping and exercise is good for health but everything is actually silly. Oh yeah, simple is better. Cheers
Avoiding processed food is silly? Good luck with that.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
Your self reporting study didnt really talk about satiety... not that i saw.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
We are in the opposite in almost everything on your list. Lowering stress, sleeping and exercise is good for health but everything is actually silly. Oh yeah, simple is better. Cheers
Avoiding processed food is silly? Good luck with that.
How so? I making homemade chicken casserole with egg noodles and already grated cheese. OMG imma gonna die and family too. Call 9117 -
aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
Dont forget reducing sat fats as they have been one of the highest links to cvd.... amazing how this one tends to get lefts out.5 -
queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
I also agree with @psulemon and had the same result ( I could eat 900 cals of fats and still be hungry or I could eat a 300 cal potato and be stuffed fats don't do much for my hunger at all )
Throughout this entire process I have eaten a higher carb diet then most . I had no problem losing all of my weight and have been maintaining for close to 3 yrs now while eating between 160 to 200 carbs per day . I have a low bf% and a tight physique while enjoying the carbs I love.5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
Your self reporting study didnt really talk about satiety... not that i saw.
Did you read the study? or just paragraph abstract?
Yes, the low carb group only counted carbs, while the low fat group struggled with appetite and had to count calories in order to comply. The NY times article gives a good summary.
From the article: “[The study] shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Oh dear... tonight for dinner I had a bacon wrapped steak with 2 local, pastured eggs fried in grassfed butter (the yolks were a deep, beautiful orange), a side salad with olives and homemade Italian dressing. My life feels so worth living
Hate steak, hate eggs...bacon I'll take... (but isn't that processed?)7 -
aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
Dont forget reducing sat fats as they have been one of the highest links to cvd.... amazing how this one tends to get lefts out.
I didn't. I have no concerns whatsoever with saturated fat... in fact, THE greatest risk factor for CVD is not saturated fat consumption. It's insulin resistance.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
Dont forget reducing sat fats as they have been one of the highest links to cvd.... amazing how this one tends to get lefts out.
I didn't. I have no concerns whatsoever with saturated fat... in fact, THE greatest risk factor for CVD is not saturated fat consumption. It's insulin resistance.
Cool for you! But I think I will watch my saturated fat intake, thank you.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
annaskiski wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Oh dear... tonight for dinner I had a bacon wrapped steak with 2 local, pastured eggs fried in grassfed butter (the yolks were a deep, beautiful orange), a side salad with olives and homemade Italian dressing. My life feels so worth living
Hate steak, hate eggs...bacon I'll take... (but isn't that processed?)
I would never eat that described meal either...now or when I was obese.
Which is why I think the most important factor is finding the diet that works best for you and doing that...instead of the most important factor is convincing everyone that the diet that works best for you IS the best diet for all and all must do that diet.
That's what I get too. I like the way I eat and my family too!1 -
I think that whatever way of eating is going to work for you long term will certainly be more effective than forcing yourself to eat in a manner that either doesn't fit what your belief system and values are, or is completely different than what you are accustomed to. If you want to make smaller changes over time to lead toward something different then do it. Large scale sweeping changes are more likely going to lead to failure.
As for the OP, I'm just going to leave this here, because it amused my kitten:
5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You contradicted yourself. You state that not everyone responds the same way (I agree), but then admonish those of us who felt hungry all the time on low to moderate fat diets for "doing it wrong". Which is it? And, what, pray tell, is "doing it right" in your opinion?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions