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?
Options
Replies
-
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.
This study isn't published yet. How did you read it?1 -
A 24-month study would help show the facts of any diet.1
-
lemurcat12 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.
This study isn't published yet. How did you read it?
I was referring to the first study referenced in the article which was published.0 -
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.2 -
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.1 -
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.0 -
He's testing different but related things, and does not believe the first study was flawed. They weren't testing keto diets, and needed to be able to decrease calories the same amount from reducing carbs and reducing fat in the first one. That's why it was not a true low carb diet -- one problem with most low carb vs. moderate fat studies (which is what most are) is that the low carb ends up also having increased protein by comparison.
On VLF diets, not for me (nor is keto), but I found this interesting: https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/0 -
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.3 -
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? lawlz1 -
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
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