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: »aqsylvester wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
That is interesting, but considering every low carb study in the recent past I have seen restricts sat fat, it may be something you would want to considering. But as you stated, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand with the hundreds of studies out there.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.
Really? That's not what the researchers thought.
The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus.
I guess you can lead only a horse to water...
In rat models. By being fed a diet that no human would eat. Context and application. It is what matters.
Like I said, you can only lead a horse to water... you can't force it to drink. Well, maybe adding sugar to the water would help
As lemon said, they literally only got fed sugarwater and bread.
I hope they make a study next where all they get is olive oil and they get sick from that. I hope you come and say the same things about that study that you're saying about this.4 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
That is interesting, but considering every low carb study in the recent past I have seen restricts sat fat, it may be something you would want to considering. But as you stated, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand with the hundreds of studies out there.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.
Really? That's not what the researchers thought.
The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus.
I guess you can lead only a horse to water...
In rat models. By being fed a diet that no human would eat. Context and application. It is what matters.
Like I said, you can only lead a horse to water... you can't force it to drink. Well, maybe adding sugar to the water would help
So would you agree that a study like this is pointless as it has no human application to human dietary habits?2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.
I was consuming an average of 1800 to 1900 calories per day, but struggling to stick to that (I could do it for periods of weeks, sometimes even months, but inevitably I'd fall off plan). On low carb I found myself eating 1600-1800 without feeling hungry. I was, and remain, lightly active; I was not incorporating exercise during either the lower fat or the lower carb dieting, I only recently began incorporating exercise (about 3 months ago). My protein intake is somewhat higher now, but it was adequate then - I averaged 60-70 g per day on low fat, now I get closer to 70-80 g.
I'm sure you have run into plenty of people who had the diet that I had in my teens and twenties. And certainly I benefitted from the type of advice you would have given me. At first. To a point. But I couldn't get below 160-165lbs. I was already hungry at the level of calories I was eating, I couldn't see cutting anymore.
Something awesome happens when you get to be in your mid-thirties (at least for me!). You know yourself better and aren't so quick to throw yourself under the bus. In my youth, I blamed myself whenever I regained weight, or struggled to stay on plan, or couldn't achieve my goals. I had resigned myself to being 165 lbs and size 12/14, at best. I told myself it's just the way I was built. Or that I just wasn't disciplined enough to be successful. After my third pregnancy, facing the prospect of having to lose weight again (was 185 at that point) and struggling to do so, it finally dawned on me - I'm not undisciplined, weak-willed, or lacking self control in any other aspect of my life. Why was I doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Fortunately this was in 2013 and paleo, primal, gluten/grain free, and LCHF diets were pretty popular at that time and when I googled "what if I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight" I actually came upon these types of diets. I read up on them first, made a plan for myself that I thought would work with my life and for my goals. I committed to it for six weeks (figured I could put up with anything for six weeks).
At the end of six weeks I'd lost a modest 12 lbs (about 5 of which was water). But that wasn't the most exciting part, not by a long shot. I wasn't hungry anymore. No more snacking, no more blowing my calories at the end of the day because I couldn't take the prospect of going to bed hungry again, no more watching the clock to see when I could eat again. My energy improved - not more energy, exactly, but more steady energy levels throughout the day. No more hypoglycemic episodes, even if I skipped a snack or a meal was delayed. My eczema (chronic, moderate to severe, that I'd suffered with for seven years) disappeared. After that six week trial run, I knew that even if I never lost another single lb, I would be eating LCHF for life. In seven months I dropped from 185 to 140, the lowest weight I'd been since I was 16 years old.
Anyway, tldr - your insistence that people who are hungry on low to moderate fat diets must be doing it wrong rubbed me the wrong way because that's what I told myself at the time - that I was doing something wrong, that I wasn't strong enough, that I wasn't good enough, that "if only" I had more discipline, more willpower, more self control, that it would work. That's the message we tell people who struggle to lose weight, isn't it? Once I realized that maybe it wasn't about my character, maybe the advice I was given wasn't appropriate for me, only then did I find something that worked. The notion that failure to adhere to a low fat diet was a character flaw or a sign that I was doing something wrong, is what kept me spinning my wheels for a decade.
5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
That is interesting, but considering every low carb study in the recent past I have seen restricts sat fat, it may be something you would want to considering. But as you stated, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand with the hundreds of studies out there.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.
Really? That's not what the researchers thought.
The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus.
I guess you can lead only a horse to water...
This shows your reading bias. Diet may be a major factor in the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus.
But the researchers are not showing in any way that carb percentages in a normal diet range are a major factor.
Nor are they saying that "carbs are bad". This is an overfeed study. These rats were only allowed to drink a solution that was 8 times more sugary than regular coke.
It's an animal model at 1g/ml which would be the human equivalent of 8000+ calories per day of sugar water (not including the bread). Am I surprised that this resulted in high blood sugar and then resulted in diabetes (the body can't handle those loads)? Not at all.
The equivalent would be my making the assertion that an extended HF Keto diet causes tumors based on this study:
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep21807
Both positions are ridiculous.
13 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
5 -
This content has been removed.
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
Traditional human diets might have been higher carb, but they were lacking in processed foods. It's that simple.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
The Bacon you wrapped your steak in isn't processed? (Not to mention classified under probable carcinogens, which none of the things you listed for avoidance are)
You pick and choose your battles, don't you, Steven?
It ain't hard pointing out inconsistencies in your statements.
True, true, it's so much easier to poke holes than to add anything meaningful to a discussion.
As far as bacon, you realize one can buy uncured bacon with no added preservatives? I try to think critically about how processed a food has to become in order to get to the point of toxic--I don't really have concerns over bacon. If others do, I'm sure avoiding it is not going to hurt them
Obviously, when people squeeze oil from non-oily vegetables using pressing, solvent extraction, bleaching, deodorizing, refining, etc., I start to get suspect. Canola oil, for example, is refined from an inedible, toxic rapeseed plant. Trans fats are a by-product of the refining process. I personally wouldn't touch that stuff. It's easy for you to prop up a strawman of "processed foods" and then knock it down by arguing that anytime you alter food, it becomes processed--but again, you are adding nothing meaningful to the conversation. But I guess some men just want to watch the world burn. 1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
Traditional human diets might have been higher carb, but they were lacking in processed foods. It's that simple.
It is more than just diets... it's they live very active lifestyles. And many of us who follow higher carb diets, don't eat a lot of ultra processed foods/low nutrient foods. And ultimately, things like obesity, inactivity and genetics will play a much greater role in health than the specific components of a diet.3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
Traditional human diets might have been higher carb, but they were lacking in processed foods. It's that simple.
They also were way more active then most people are today. IMO, diet is over emphasized and exercise/activity under emphasized...1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
Traditional human diets might have been higher carb, but they were lacking in processed foods. It's that simple.
It is more than just diets... it's they live very active lifestyles. And many of us who follow higher carb diets, don't eat a lot of ultra processed foods/low nutrient foods. And ultimately, things like obesity, inactivity and genetics will play a much greater role in health than the specific components of a diet.
Lol, you beat me to it...0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
The Bacon you wrapped your steak in isn't processed? (Not to mention classified under probable carcinogens, which none of the things you listed for avoidance are)
You pick and choose your battles, don't you, Steven?
It ain't hard pointing out inconsistencies in your statements.
True, true, it's so much easier to poke holes than to add anything meaningful to a discussion.
As far as bacon, you realize one can buy uncured bacon with no added preservatives? I try to think critically about how processed a food has to become in order to get to the point of toxic--I don't really have concerns over bacon. If others do, I'm sure avoiding it is not going to hurt them Obviously, when people squeeze oil from non-oily vegetables using pressing, solvent extraction, bleaching, deodorizing, refining, etc., I start to get suspect. Canola oil, for example, is refined from an inedible, toxic rapeseed plant. Trans fats are a by-product of the refining process. I personally wouldn't touch that stuff. It's easy for you to prop up a strawman of "processed foods" and then knock it down by arguing that anytime you alter food, it becomes processed--but again, you are adding nothing meaningful to the conversation. But I guess some men just want to watch the world burn.
And everything about potato plants apart from potatoes is toxic too, what's your point?
And the person building processed food strawmen is not me. You made a list of everything one should avoid for the sole reason of "I said so". Apart from tansfats that have actually been shown to be bad.
As have processed meats like bacon. Which, by the way doesn't have to be cured, smoked foods and salted ones can have the same effects and uncured bacon often uses celery salt that is high in nitrites which is the problem with it turning carcinogenic.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
That is interesting, but considering every low carb study in the recent past I have seen restricts sat fat, it may be something you would want to considering. But as you stated, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand with the hundreds of studies out there.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.
Really? That's not what the researchers thought.
The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus.
I guess you can lead only a horse to water...
In rat models. By being fed a diet that no human would eat. Context and application. It is what matters.
Like I said, you can only lead a horse to water... you can't force it to drink. Well, maybe adding sugar to the water would help
As lemon said, they literally only got fed sugarwater and bread.
I hope they make a study next where all they get is olive oil and they get sick from that. I hope you come and say the same things about that study that you're saying about this.
I would love to see a study where they induce type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them olive oil for 8 weeks! I wonder why the researchers didn't consider this approach?
Could it be because T2DM is a disease of insulin resistance, and fats don't cause much if any insulin response? But these are just mice, not humans.
Can researchers induce insulin resistance in humans? Sure! Just give them insulin.
A 40 hr insulin infusion impaired glucose use by 15%.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00279918
Healthy men given a 96 hr infusion of IV insulin dropped insulin sensitivity by 20-40%. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7851681
So rats get T2DM in 8 weeks on white bread and sugar. Sugar and refined grains cause a much great insulin response than fat--a high fat diet actually is actually protective to the mice from T2DM. Meanwhile, humans get insulin resistance from excess insulin. Insulin resistance is the first step in full blown T2DM... and for some odd reason, we want to believe that it's all about excess calories be they from fat, protein, or refined carbohydrates. For some reason, we want to conjecture that rats can develop T2DM from overfeeding olive oil.
Smh. I can only say that prostituted mainstream organizations like the ADA have done a really really good job of misinforming the majority of people--big pharma for the win!1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
It is entirely possible that I misinterpreted lemon's comments. And it may seem like a subtle difference to some, but to me the difference between saying "you did the diet wrong" vs saying "you did the wrong diet" is huge. Huge. The former is basically saying: the diet is good, the diet is sound, all hail the diet; you suck. The latter is basically saying: you are following the diet and not seeing appropriate results; this particular diet sucks for you, time to try something different.
Personally, I'm a big believer in this philosophy as it pertains to diet - if you like what you are doing, are happy with the results, and are achieving the desired goals, great! Keep doing it. If any of the above ceases to be true, it's time to consider your alternatives.
As for the higher carb traditional diets... That's really above my pay grade. Perhaps some populations are genetically less predisposed to insulin resistance, which I believe was probably a factor in why higher carb diets were never satiating for me. I'm predominantly Anglo, Celtic, and Nordic, with a smidge of Native American. Not sure how high carb their traditional diets were...
1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
That is interesting, but considering every low carb study in the recent past I have seen restricts sat fat, it may be something you would want to considering. But as you stated, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand with the hundreds of studies out there.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.
Really? That's not what the researchers thought.
The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus.
I guess you can lead only a horse to water...
In rat models. By being fed a diet that no human would eat. Context and application. It is what matters.
Like I said, you can only lead a horse to water... you can't force it to drink. Well, maybe adding sugar to the water would help
As lemon said, they literally only got fed sugarwater and bread.
I hope they make a study next where all they get is olive oil and they get sick from that. I hope you come and say the same things about that study that you're saying about this.
I would love to see a study where they induce type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them olive oil for 8 weeks! I wonder why the researchers didn't consider this approach?
Could it be because T2DM is a disease of insulin resistance, and fats don't cause much if any insulin response? But these are just mice, not humans.
Studies of high fat and diabetes in rat models.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/suppl_3/S215.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24925705
then there are the hundreds of article of HF and STZ induced T2D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26880906
then we have the Zucker mice that get diabetes and further damage on high fat diets....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717823
And respond well to processed flour...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23229409
Can researchers induce insulin resistance in humans? Sure! Just give them insulin.
A 40 hr insulin infusion impaired glucose use by 15%.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00279918
Healthy men given a 96 hr infusion of IV insulin dropped insulin sensitivity by 20-40%. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7851681
Not sure what your point here is?
Insulin has a feedback mechanism where a drop in insulin sensitive may be a good thing as a self-regulating mechanism as insulin availability can co-mediate other mechanisms (like muscle repair).So rats get T2DM in 8 weeks on white bread and sugar. Sugar and refined grains cause a much great insulin response than fat--a high fat diet actually is actually protective to the mice from T2DM. Meanwhile, humans get insulin resistance from excess insulin. Insulin resistance is the first step in full blown T2DM... and for some odd reason, we want to believe that it's all about excess calories be they from fat, protein, or refined carbohydrates. For some reason, we want to conjecture that rats can develop T2DM from overfeeding olive oil.
Smh. I can only say that prostituted mainstream organizations like the ADA have done a really really good job of misinforming the majority of people--big pharma for the win!
And not quite... The same rats in another study on LCHF resulted in ....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11173716
"These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet aggravates diabetes mellitus in genetically diabetic rats, and that the development of diabetes mellitus is associated with the activation of the glucose-fatty acid cycle."
12 -
aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
Traditional human diets might have been higher carb, but they were lacking in processed foods. It's that simple.
As others have said, bacon is a processed food. So is the smoked salmon I had this morning, and I find it quite filling (I think it's the protein, as fat usually doesn't do it for me).
That aside, I think highly processed foods are often less filling (at least for me) than less processed foods, because of things like fiber. But that's been my argument -- it's not about macro mix, but food choice.
I see others saying that even if they focus on less processed carbs like fruits and vegetables and legumes and oats and sweet potatoes, that they find having more than a small amount of carbs makes them insatiably hungry. I'm not questioning that -- I believe them. But I think there must be some intersection psychologically with the fact that foods are so available or something, as I doubt people in these traditional societies were hungry all the time.
I know for myself that I've basically not thought about food until meal time when I'm busy and away from food all day, even when I'm doing things that make my TDEE much higher than usual and even if I'm not actually eating all that much (thinking of a service trip I once took to Nicaragua, among other things).2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
Traditional human diets might have been higher carb, but they were lacking in processed foods. It's that simple.
As others have said, bacon is a processed food. So is the smoked salmon I had this morning, and I find it quite filling (I think it's the protein, as fat usually doesn't do it for me).
That aside, I think highly processed foods are often less filling (at least for me) than less processed foods, because of things like fiber. But that's been my argument -- it's not about macro mix, but food choice.
I see others saying that even if they focus on less processed carbs like fruits and vegetables and legumes and oats and sweet potatoes, that they find having more than a small amount of carbs makes them insatiably hungry. I'm not questioning that -- I believe them. But I think there must be some intersection psychologically with the fact that foods are so available or something, as I doubt people in these traditional societies were hungry all the time.
I know for myself that I've basically not thought about food until meal time when I'm busy and away from food all day, even when I'm doing things that make my TDEE much higher than usual and even if I'm not actually eating all that much (thinking of a service trip I once took to Nicaragua, among other things).
Not sure what psychological factors would be at play... I was a stay at home mom when doing lower fat, higher fiber, and am still a stay at home mom while doing LCHF. Food is no more or less available for me now than it was then, but I am definitely more satiated eating LC. I'm more inclined to think there may be genetic differences between populations based on how the early ancestors evolved, and what diet they evolved on. For example - some racial and ethnic groups are more predisposed to being lactose intolerant. Doesn't it stand to reason that some groups would be more prone to insulin resistance? Just musing...
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.
I was consuming an average of 1800 to 1900 calories per day, but struggling to stick to that (I could do it for periods of weeks, sometimes even months, but inevitably I'd fall off plan). On low carb I found myself eating 1600-1800 without feeling hungry. I was, and remain, lightly active; I was not incorporating exercise during either the lower fat or the lower carb dieting, I only recently began incorporating exercise (about 3 months ago). My protein intake is somewhat higher now, but it was adequate then - I averaged 60-70 g per day on low fat, now I get closer to 70-80 g.
I'm sure you have run into plenty of people who had the diet that I had in my teens and twenties. And certainly I benefitted from the type of advice you would have given me. At first. To a point. But I couldn't get below 160-165lbs. I was already hungry at the level of calories I was eating, I couldn't see cutting anymore.
Something awesome happens when you get to be in your mid-thirties (at least for me!). You know yourself better and aren't so quick to throw yourself under the bus. In my youth, I blamed myself whenever I regained weight, or struggled to stay on plan, or couldn't achieve my goals. I had resigned myself to being 165 lbs and size 12/14, at best. I told myself it's just the way I was built. Or that I just wasn't disciplined enough to be successful. After my third pregnancy, facing the prospect of having to lose weight again (was 185 at that point) and struggling to do so, it finally dawned on me - I'm not undisciplined, weak-willed, or lacking self control in any other aspect of my life. Why was I doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Fortunately this was in 2013 and paleo, primal, gluten/grain free, and LCHF diets were pretty popular at that time and when I googled "what if I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight" I actually came upon these types of diets. I read up on them first, made a plan for myself that I thought would work with my life and for my goals. I committed to it for six weeks (figured I could put up with anything for six weeks).
At the end of six weeks I'd lost a modest 12 lbs (about 5 of which was water). But that wasn't the most exciting part, not by a long shot. I wasn't hungry anymore. No more snacking, no more blowing my calories at the end of the day because I couldn't take the prospect of going to bed hungry again, no more watching the clock to see when I could eat again. My energy improved - not more energy, exactly, but more steady energy levels throughout the day. No more hypoglycemic episodes, even if I skipped a snack or a meal was delayed. My eczema (chronic, moderate to severe, that I'd suffered with for seven years) disappeared. After that six week trial run, I knew that even if I never lost another single lb, I would be eating LCHF for life. In seven months I dropped from 185 to 140, the lowest weight I'd been since I was 16 years old.
Anyway, tldr - your insistence that people who are hungry on low to moderate fat diets must be doing it wrong rubbed me the wrong way because that's what I told myself at the time - that I was doing something wrong, that I wasn't strong enough, that I wasn't good enough, that "if only" I had more discipline, more willpower, more self control, that it would work. That's the message we tell people who struggle to lose weight, isn't it? Once I realized that maybe it wasn't about my character, maybe the advice I was given wasn't appropriate for me, only then did I find something that worked. The notion that failure to adhere to a low fat diet was a character flaw or a sign that I was doing something wrong, is what kept me spinning my wheels for a decade.
It's so interesting how we're all different/interact with food differently-our stories are similar, up to the point where we went down different paths for weight loss. I was also in my 30s, also had 3 pregnancies (22 months a part from the next), and also in the 180 range (I think my first weight in was 178?). However, I ended up going the IF route (oddly enough found out about on a low carb site), and lost around 50lbs only focusing on my IF rotations/cutting back on calories. I didn't experience hunger issues-even on my very low IF days (where I was consuming under 500 calories). Fast forward a bit and I'm now 3 years into maintenance, having lost around 50lbs. I'm now almost 38 years old, my maintenance range is the 120s and I'm in excellent health by every health marker my doctor goes by. I still continue to eat just about everything and still only focus on staying with my calorie goals.
I'm glad you found what works for you, best of luck to both of us as we face 40 or 50 years of maintenance yet
3 -
It seems all debates on diet devolve into "do what's right for you." And while that's all well and good to an extent, you wouldn't accept that from your doctor when it came to treating cancer or diabetes or heart disease?
Just because obesity is multi-factorial, doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking for answers. Just because your study shows something different from my study, and vice versa... There are some truths that most people can agree on. I think avoiding added sugar in one's diet is an easy one for people to understand and accept, and avoiding natural fat is conversely unhelpful.
There is one thing in common with all obesity--elevated insulin levels. And the other thing in common with all weight loss tips--lowering insulin levels. There are many approaches to this end, and they all work with varying degrees of success.
Why did almost all the Biggest Losers gain their weight back?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
It seems they lost the weight, but didn't fix the underlying cause of their obesity. Most likely, they lowered their insulin transiently to cause weight loss, but did not cure underlying insulin resistance (which differs between the liver and the skeletal muscles)--which takes a whole lot longer. The brain controls your set weight and elevated insulin levels in the brain increase hunger and block leptin (all the contestants were very low in leptin). What his study here really elucidates is that idea that obesity is about the influence hormones, not exercise and calories--and you can't fix the problem without addressing the disrupted hormonal imbalance.1 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.
I was consuming an average of 1800 to 1900 calories per day, but struggling to stick to that (I could do it for periods of weeks, sometimes even months, but inevitably I'd fall off plan). On low carb I found myself eating 1600-1800 without feeling hungry. I was, and remain, lightly active; I was not incorporating exercise during either the lower fat or the lower carb dieting, I only recently began incorporating exercise (about 3 months ago). My protein intake is somewhat higher now, but it was adequate then - I averaged 60-70 g per day on low fat, now I get closer to 70-80 g.
I'm sure you have run into plenty of people who had the diet that I had in my teens and twenties. And certainly I benefitted from the type of advice you would have given me. At first. To a point. But I couldn't get below 160-165lbs. I was already hungry at the level of calories I was eating, I couldn't see cutting anymore.
Something awesome happens when you get to be in your mid-thirties (at least for me!). You know yourself better and aren't so quick to throw yourself under the bus. In my youth, I blamed myself whenever I regained weight, or struggled to stay on plan, or couldn't achieve my goals. I had resigned myself to being 165 lbs and size 12/14, at best. I told myself it's just the way I was built. Or that I just wasn't disciplined enough to be successful. After my third pregnancy, facing the prospect of having to lose weight again (was 185 at that point) and struggling to do so, it finally dawned on me - I'm not undisciplined, weak-willed, or lacking self control in any other aspect of my life. Why was I doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Fortunately this was in 2013 and paleo, primal, gluten/grain free, and LCHF diets were pretty popular at that time and when I googled "what if I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight" I actually came upon these types of diets. I read up on them first, made a plan for myself that I thought would work with my life and for my goals. I committed to it for six weeks (figured I could put up with anything for six weeks).
At the end of six weeks I'd lost a modest 12 lbs (about 5 of which was water). But that wasn't the most exciting part, not by a long shot. I wasn't hungry anymore. No more snacking, no more blowing my calories at the end of the day because I couldn't take the prospect of going to bed hungry again, no more watching the clock to see when I could eat again. My energy improved - not more energy, exactly, but more steady energy levels throughout the day. No more hypoglycemic episodes, even if I skipped a snack or a meal was delayed. My eczema (chronic, moderate to severe, that I'd suffered with for seven years) disappeared. After that six week trial run, I knew that even if I never lost another single lb, I would be eating LCHF for life. In seven months I dropped from 185 to 140, the lowest weight I'd been since I was 16 years old.
Anyway, tldr - your insistence that people who are hungry on low to moderate fat diets must be doing it wrong rubbed me the wrong way because that's what I told myself at the time - that I was doing something wrong, that I wasn't strong enough, that I wasn't good enough, that "if only" I had more discipline, more willpower, more self control, that it would work. That's the message we tell people who struggle to lose weight, isn't it? Once I realized that maybe it wasn't about my character, maybe the advice I was given wasn't appropriate for me, only then did I find something that worked. The notion that failure to adhere to a low fat diet was a character flaw or a sign that I was doing something wrong, is what kept me spinning my wheels for a decade.
It's so interesting how we're all different/interact with food differently-our stories are similar, up to the point where we went down different paths for weight loss. I was also in my 30s, also had 3 pregnancies (22 months a part from the next), and also in the 180 range. However, I ended up going the IF route (oddly enough found out about on a low carb site), and lost around 50lbs only focusing on my IF rotations/cutting back on calories. I didn't experience hunger issues-even on my very low IF days (where I was consuming under 500 calories). Fast forward a bit and I'm now 3 years into maintenance, having lost around 50lbs. I'm now almost 38 years old, my maintenance range is the 120s and I'm in excellent health by every health marker my doctor goes by. I still continue to eat just about everything and still only focus on staying with my calorie goals.
I'm glad you found what works for you, best of luck to both of us as we face 40 or 50 years of maintenance yet
Exactly, IF is excellent at lowering insulin levels and increasing insulin sensitivity. It works to the same end as low carb or whole foods or even low calories.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.
I was consuming an average of 1800 to 1900 calories per day, but struggling to stick to that (I could do it for periods of weeks, sometimes even months, but inevitably I'd fall off plan). On low carb I found myself eating 1600-1800 without feeling hungry. I was, and remain, lightly active; I was not incorporating exercise during either the lower fat or the lower carb dieting, I only recently began incorporating exercise (about 3 months ago). My protein intake is somewhat higher now, but it was adequate then - I averaged 60-70 g per day on low fat, now I get closer to 70-80 g.
I'm sure you have run into plenty of people who had the diet that I had in my teens and twenties. And certainly I benefitted from the type of advice you would have given me. At first. To a point. But I couldn't get below 160-165lbs. I was already hungry at the level of calories I was eating, I couldn't see cutting anymore.
Something awesome happens when you get to be in your mid-thirties (at least for me!). You know yourself better and aren't so quick to throw yourself under the bus. In my youth, I blamed myself whenever I regained weight, or struggled to stay on plan, or couldn't achieve my goals. I had resigned myself to being 165 lbs and size 12/14, at best. I told myself it's just the way I was built. Or that I just wasn't disciplined enough to be successful. After my third pregnancy, facing the prospect of having to lose weight again (was 185 at that point) and struggling to do so, it finally dawned on me - I'm not undisciplined, weak-willed, or lacking self control in any other aspect of my life. Why was I doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Fortunately this was in 2013 and paleo, primal, gluten/grain free, and LCHF diets were pretty popular at that time and when I googled "what if I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight" I actually came upon these types of diets. I read up on them first, made a plan for myself that I thought would work with my life and for my goals. I committed to it for six weeks (figured I could put up with anything for six weeks).
At the end of six weeks I'd lost a modest 12 lbs (about 5 of which was water). But that wasn't the most exciting part, not by a long shot. I wasn't hungry anymore. No more snacking, no more blowing my calories at the end of the day because I couldn't take the prospect of going to bed hungry again, no more watching the clock to see when I could eat again. My energy improved - not more energy, exactly, but more steady energy levels throughout the day. No more hypoglycemic episodes, even if I skipped a snack or a meal was delayed. My eczema (chronic, moderate to severe, that I'd suffered with for seven years) disappeared. After that six week trial run, I knew that even if I never lost another single lb, I would be eating LCHF for life. In seven months I dropped from 185 to 140, the lowest weight I'd been since I was 16 years old.
Anyway, tldr - your insistence that people who are hungry on low to moderate fat diets must be doing it wrong rubbed me the wrong way because that's what I told myself at the time - that I was doing something wrong, that I wasn't strong enough, that I wasn't good enough, that "if only" I had more discipline, more willpower, more self control, that it would work. That's the message we tell people who struggle to lose weight, isn't it? Once I realized that maybe it wasn't about my character, maybe the advice I was given wasn't appropriate for me, only then did I find something that worked. The notion that failure to adhere to a low fat diet was a character flaw or a sign that I was doing something wrong, is what kept me spinning my wheels for a decade.
It's so interesting how we're all different/interact with food differently-our stories are similar, up to the point where we went down different paths for weight loss. I was also in my 30s, also had 3 pregnancies (22 months a part from the next), and also in the 180 range. However, I ended up going the IF route (oddly enough found out about on a low carb site), and lost around 50lbs only focusing on my IF rotations/cutting back on calories. I didn't experience hunger issues-even on my very low IF days (where I was consuming under 500 calories). Fast forward a bit and I'm now 3 years into maintenance, having lost around 50lbs. I'm now almost 38 years old, my maintenance range is the 120s and I'm in excellent health by every health marker my doctor goes by. I still continue to eat just about everything and still only focus on staying with my calorie goals.
I'm glad you found what works for you, best of luck to both of us as we face 40 or 50 years of maintenance yet
Exactly, IF is excellent at lowering insulin levels and increasing insulin sensitivity. It works to the same end as low carb or whole foods or even low calories.
Or even exercise...2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
Traditional human diets might have been higher carb, but they were lacking in processed foods. It's that simple.
As others have said, bacon is a processed food. So is the smoked salmon I had this morning, and I find it quite filling (I think it's the protein, as fat usually doesn't do it for me).
That aside, I think highly processed foods are often less filling (at least for me) than less processed foods, because of things like fiber. But that's been my argument -- it's not about macro mix, but food choice.
I see others saying that even if they focus on less processed carbs like fruits and vegetables and legumes and oats and sweet potatoes, that they find having more than a small amount of carbs makes them insatiably hungry. I'm not questioning that -- I believe them. But I think there must be some intersection psychologically with the fact that foods are so available or something, as I doubt people in these traditional societies were hungry all the time.
I know for myself that I've basically not thought about food until meal time when I'm busy and away from food all day, even when I'm doing things that make my TDEE much higher than usual and even if I'm not actually eating all that much (thinking of a service trip I once took to Nicaragua, among other things).
Not sure what psychological factors would be at play... I was a stay at home mom when doing lower fat, higher fiber, and am still a stay at home mom while doing LCHF. Food is no more or less available for me now than it was then, but I am definitely more satiated eating LC. I'm more inclined to think there may be genetic differences between populations based on how the early ancestors evolved, and what diet they evolved on. For example - some racial and ethnic groups are more predisposed to being lactose intolerant. Doesn't it stand to reason that some groups would be more prone to insulin resistance? Just musing...
I think one issue for all of us in this environment is finding a way to deal with how easily available food is and the attraction to it for hedonic and other reasons. I think it's a lot harder to avoid overeating in a situation like being a SAH mom in the current world vs. in a traditional society where you really couldn't and people didn't just snack for fun or because you had a taste for something. I could be totally wrong, but I suspect that most people who struggle with hunger in this society wouldn't if they were under the constraints of a more traditional society and just didn't have the option of eating at non standard (for the society, whatever those were) or non communal times, even if the food they ate did not change.
This is just a theory of mine, though -- could be wrong.
Anyway, based on this, I think a lot of what we all are doing is coming up with a strategy to prevent overeating in this rather tempting situation. One thing Brian Wansink has written about in Mindless Eating and other books is how we are presented with choices about eating so many times a day, often without realizing it -- like every time you walk through the kitchen and see cereal boxes out or some such. For me, part of that strategy has just been deciding "I don't snack." When I don't consistently and get into my good habits, I am not hungry other than at the times I am used to eating and don't really think about food at other times, whereas when I do allow myself to snack (graze during the day), I have a very different experience.
My perception is that in a lot of ways some of these "ways of eating" work similarly. For example, I used to be really weird about not eating "non natural" foods (I still am a little weird but not bordering on extreme, neurotic as I was at one time). At that time, it would simply not occur to me to eat a lot of things. I think self-identifying with a particular diet does a lot of the same thing--"oh, I am paleo, so I eat these things and not these," as well as turning it into a positive thing "I eat in this way that I like" vs. just about deprivation/not eating stuff (which can be one issue with calorie cutting -- it's just about eating less -- that can make it hard unless you are someone, like me, who enjoys the tracking and that becomes the positive change or if you make it into an overall program of eating in a particular way, like eating healthfully, which I also do).
I think to some extent the positive effects of keto are probably like the paleo ones, as well as for many people it being easier to NOT eat something rather than eat a bit of it, as you are less likely to think about it as often. But in addition, I think it is true that keto kills the appetite/desire to eat to some extent for at least a significant number of people who do it, so that also may be a way of dealing with the temptation always around us that I think can lead to a psychological desire to eat that some perceive as hunger.
Also, of course, if someone has issues with IR, the issue may be more physiological, but even then I don't think it's really just about carb percentage as IR is extremely uncommon in traditional societies.
Anyway, just thoughts and speculations, as I find all this interesting.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.
I was consuming an average of 1800 to 1900 calories per day, but struggling to stick to that (I could do it for periods of weeks, sometimes even months, but inevitably I'd fall off plan). On low carb I found myself eating 1600-1800 without feeling hungry. I was, and remain, lightly active; I was not incorporating exercise during either the lower fat or the lower carb dieting, I only recently began incorporating exercise (about 3 months ago). My protein intake is somewhat higher now, but it was adequate then - I averaged 60-70 g per day on low fat, now I get closer to 70-80 g.
I'm sure you have run into plenty of people who had the diet that I had in my teens and twenties. And certainly I benefitted from the type of advice you would have given me. At first. To a point. But I couldn't get below 160-165lbs. I was already hungry at the level of calories I was eating, I couldn't see cutting anymore.
Something awesome happens when you get to be in your mid-thirties (at least for me!). You know yourself better and aren't so quick to throw yourself under the bus. In my youth, I blamed myself whenever I regained weight, or struggled to stay on plan, or couldn't achieve my goals. I had resigned myself to being 165 lbs and size 12/14, at best. I told myself it's just the way I was built. Or that I just wasn't disciplined enough to be successful. After my third pregnancy, facing the prospect of having to lose weight again (was 185 at that point) and struggling to do so, it finally dawned on me - I'm not undisciplined, weak-willed, or lacking self control in any other aspect of my life. Why was I doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Fortunately this was in 2013 and paleo, primal, gluten/grain free, and LCHF diets were pretty popular at that time and when I googled "what if I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight" I actually came upon these types of diets. I read up on them first, made a plan for myself that I thought would work with my life and for my goals. I committed to it for six weeks (figured I could put up with anything for six weeks).
At the end of six weeks I'd lost a modest 12 lbs (about 5 of which was water). But that wasn't the most exciting part, not by a long shot. I wasn't hungry anymore. No more snacking, no more blowing my calories at the end of the day because I couldn't take the prospect of going to bed hungry again, no more watching the clock to see when I could eat again. My energy improved - not more energy, exactly, but more steady energy levels throughout the day. No more hypoglycemic episodes, even if I skipped a snack or a meal was delayed. My eczema (chronic, moderate to severe, that I'd suffered with for seven years) disappeared. After that six week trial run, I knew that even if I never lost another single lb, I would be eating LCHF for life. In seven months I dropped from 185 to 140, the lowest weight I'd been since I was 16 years old.
Anyway, tldr - your insistence that people who are hungry on low to moderate fat diets must be doing it wrong rubbed me the wrong way because that's what I told myself at the time - that I was doing something wrong, that I wasn't strong enough, that I wasn't good enough, that "if only" I had more discipline, more willpower, more self control, that it would work. That's the message we tell people who struggle to lose weight, isn't it? Once I realized that maybe it wasn't about my character, maybe the advice I was given wasn't appropriate for me, only then did I find something that worked. The notion that failure to adhere to a low fat diet was a character flaw or a sign that I was doing something wrong, is what kept me spinning my wheels for a decade.
It's so interesting how we're all different/interact with food differently-our stories are similar, up to the point where we went down different paths for weight loss. I was also in my 30s, also had 3 pregnancies (22 months a part from the next), and also in the 180 range. However, I ended up going the IF route (oddly enough found out about on a low carb site), and lost around 50lbs only focusing on my IF rotations/cutting back on calories. I didn't experience hunger issues-even on my very low IF days (where I was consuming under 500 calories). Fast forward a bit and I'm now 3 years into maintenance, having lost around 50lbs. I'm now almost 38 years old, my maintenance range is the 120s and I'm in excellent health by every health marker my doctor goes by. I still continue to eat just about everything and still only focus on staying with my calorie goals.
I'm glad you found what works for you, best of luck to both of us as we face 40 or 50 years of maintenance yet
Exactly, IF is excellent at lowering insulin levels and increasing insulin sensitivity. It works to the same end as low carb or whole foods or even low calories.
Or even exercise...
Yep. Exercise is actually a factor in both insulin sensitivity AND leptin sensitivity, from what I've read, which may explain why many people (not everyone) find that including exercise in a maintenance plan is important.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
Traditional human diets might have been higher carb, but they were lacking in processed foods. It's that simple.
As others have said, bacon is a processed food. So is the smoked salmon I had this morning, and I find it quite filling (I think it's the protein, as fat usually doesn't do it for me).
That aside, I think highly processed foods are often less filling (at least for me) than less processed foods, because of things like fiber. But that's been my argument -- it's not about macro mix, but food choice.
I see others saying that even if they focus on less processed carbs like fruits and vegetables and legumes and oats and sweet potatoes, that they find having more than a small amount of carbs makes them insatiably hungry. I'm not questioning that -- I believe them. But I think there must be some intersection psychologically with the fact that foods are so available or something, as I doubt people in these traditional societies were hungry all the time.
I know for myself that I've basically not thought about food until meal time when I'm busy and away from food all day, even when I'm doing things that make my TDEE much higher than usual and even if I'm not actually eating all that much (thinking of a service trip I once took to Nicaragua, among other things).
Not sure what psychological factors would be at play... I was a stay at home mom when doing lower fat, higher fiber, and am still a stay at home mom while doing LCHF. Food is no more or less available for me now than it was then, but I am definitely more satiated eating LC. I'm more inclined to think there may be genetic differences between populations based on how the early ancestors evolved, and what diet they evolved on. For example - some racial and ethnic groups are more predisposed to being lactose intolerant. Doesn't it stand to reason that some groups would be more prone to insulin resistance? Just musing...
I think one issue for all of us in this environment is finding a way to deal with how easily available food is and the attraction to it for hedonic and other reasons. I think it's a lot harder to avoid overeating in a situation like being a SAH mom in the current world vs. in a traditional society where you really couldn't and people didn't just snack for fun or because you had a taste for something. I could be totally wrong, but I suspect that most people who struggle with hunger in this society wouldn't if they were under the constraints of a more traditional society and just didn't have the option of eating at non standard (for the society, whatever those were) or non communal times, even if the food they ate did not change.
This is just a theory of mine, though -- could be wrong.
Anyway, based on this, I think a lot of what we all are doing is coming up with a strategy to prevent overeating in this rather tempting situation. One thing Brian Wansink has written about in Mindless Eating and other books is how we are presented with choices about eating so many times a day, often without realizing it -- like every time you walk through the kitchen and see cereal boxes out or some such. For me, part of that strategy has just been deciding "I don't snack." When I don't consistently and get into my good habits, I am not hungry other than at the times I am used to eating and don't really think about food at other times, whereas when I do allow myself to snack (graze during the day), I have a very different experience.
My perception is that in a lot of ways some of these "ways of eating" work similarly. For example, I used to be really weird about not eating "non natural" foods (I still am a little weird but not bordering on extreme, neurotic as I was at one time). At that time, it would simply not occur to me to eat a lot of things. I think self-identifying with a particular diet does a lot of the same thing--"oh, I am paleo, so I eat these things and not these," as well as turning it into a positive thing "I eat in this way that I like" vs. just about deprivation/not eating stuff (which can be one issue with calorie cutting -- it's just about eating less -- that can make it hard unless you are someone, like me, who enjoys the tracking and that becomes the positive change or if you make it into an overall program of eating in a particular way, like eating healthfully, which I also do).
I think to some extent the positive effects of keto are probably like the paleo ones, as well as for many people it being easier to NOT eat something rather than eat a bit of it, as you are less likely to think about it as often. But in addition, I think it is true that keto kills the appetite/desire to eat to some extent for at least a significant number of people who do it, so that also may be a way of dealing with the temptation always around us that I think can lead to a psychological desire to eat that some perceive as hunger.
Also, of course, if someone has issues with IR, the issue may be more physiological, but even then I don't think it's really just about carb percentage as IR is extremely uncommon in traditional societies.
Anyway, just thoughts and speculations, as I find all this interesting.
I'm a stay at home mom and have access to all sorts of food, all the time, and it's really not an issue for me? I bought my daughter a donut this morning at the grocery store when I was there, but it didn't even cross my mind to get myself a donut because I hadn't factored it into my calorie plan for the day. And that's how I interact with food at home as well. Maybe I really am a weird freak snowflake 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.
I was consuming an average of 1800 to 1900 calories per day, but struggling to stick to that (I could do it for periods of weeks, sometimes even months, but inevitably I'd fall off plan). On low carb I found myself eating 1600-1800 without feeling hungry. I was, and remain, lightly active; I was not incorporating exercise during either the lower fat or the lower carb dieting, I only recently began incorporating exercise (about 3 months ago). My protein intake is somewhat higher now, but it was adequate then - I averaged 60-70 g per day on low fat, now I get closer to 70-80 g.
I'm sure you have run into plenty of people who had the diet that I had in my teens and twenties. And certainly I benefitted from the type of advice you would have given me. At first. To a point. But I couldn't get below 160-165lbs. I was already hungry at the level of calories I was eating, I couldn't see cutting anymore.
Something awesome happens when you get to be in your mid-thirties (at least for me!). You know yourself better and aren't so quick to throw yourself under the bus. In my youth, I blamed myself whenever I regained weight, or struggled to stay on plan, or couldn't achieve my goals. I had resigned myself to being 165 lbs and size 12/14, at best. I told myself it's just the way I was built. Or that I just wasn't disciplined enough to be successful. After my third pregnancy, facing the prospect of having to lose weight again (was 185 at that point) and struggling to do so, it finally dawned on me - I'm not undisciplined, weak-willed, or lacking self control in any other aspect of my life. Why was I doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Fortunately this was in 2013 and paleo, primal, gluten/grain free, and LCHF diets were pretty popular at that time and when I googled "what if I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight" I actually came upon these types of diets. I read up on them first, made a plan for myself that I thought would work with my life and for my goals. I committed to it for six weeks (figured I could put up with anything for six weeks).
At the end of six weeks I'd lost a modest 12 lbs (about 5 of which was water). But that wasn't the most exciting part, not by a long shot. I wasn't hungry anymore. No more snacking, no more blowing my calories at the end of the day because I couldn't take the prospect of going to bed hungry again, no more watching the clock to see when I could eat again. My energy improved - not more energy, exactly, but more steady energy levels throughout the day. No more hypoglycemic episodes, even if I skipped a snack or a meal was delayed. My eczema (chronic, moderate to severe, that I'd suffered with for seven years) disappeared. After that six week trial run, I knew that even if I never lost another single lb, I would be eating LCHF for life. In seven months I dropped from 185 to 140, the lowest weight I'd been since I was 16 years old.
Anyway, tldr - your insistence that people who are hungry on low to moderate fat diets must be doing it wrong rubbed me the wrong way because that's what I told myself at the time - that I was doing something wrong, that I wasn't strong enough, that I wasn't good enough, that "if only" I had more discipline, more willpower, more self control, that it would work. That's the message we tell people who struggle to lose weight, isn't it? Once I realized that maybe it wasn't about my character, maybe the advice I was given wasn't appropriate for me, only then did I find something that worked. The notion that failure to adhere to a low fat diet was a character flaw or a sign that I was doing something wrong, is what kept me spinning my wheels for a decade.
It's so interesting how we're all different/interact with food differently-our stories are similar, up to the point where we went down different paths for weight loss. I was also in my 30s, also had 3 pregnancies (22 months a part from the next), and also in the 180 range. However, I ended up going the IF route (oddly enough found out about on a low carb site), and lost around 50lbs only focusing on my IF rotations/cutting back on calories. I didn't experience hunger issues-even on my very low IF days (where I was consuming under 500 calories). Fast forward a bit and I'm now 3 years into maintenance, having lost around 50lbs. I'm now almost 38 years old, my maintenance range is the 120s and I'm in excellent health by every health marker my doctor goes by. I still continue to eat just about everything and still only focus on staying with my calorie goals.
I'm glad you found what works for you, best of luck to both of us as we face 40 or 50 years of maintenance yet
Exactly, IF is excellent at lowering insulin levels and increasing insulin sensitivity. It works to the same end as low carb or whole foods or even low calories.
Or even exercise...
Yep. Exercise is actually a factor in both insulin sensitivity AND leptin sensitivity, from what I've read, which may explain why many people (not everyone) find that including exercise in a maintenance plan is important.
Exercise improves insulin resistance in the skeletal muscles, but not the liver. Healing it there requires some fasting and dietary changes.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.
I can absolutely agree with this. The idea that humans vary as to what type of diet works best is not illogical in the slightest. No, we're not all "special snowflakes" but satiety is a pretty subjective thing and what works for one may not work so well for another.
Cool -- and, yeah, for things like satiety we really are all different.
And for the record, my take on lemon's comment was the same as shell's above, which she's explained so well. We have people here sometimes claiming that "CICO didn't work" for them because in cutting calories they were so hungry. But of course if you are hungry you should experiment with different ways of eating -- sometimes it's a more moderate change (more vegetables, more protein), and sometimes a more dramatic one (LCHF). No one says "just cut calories and keep everything else exactly the same and don't think about things like satiety." In your case, I know you weren't saying that and I get why you may have seen the discovery of different types of diets as a paradigm shift or something, but I can also see someone just saying "more fat, hmm, that's really filling for me, less carbs, hmm, that also helps."
What always puzzles me is that so many traditional human diets are higher carb (and the blue zones are at least moderate carb) and yet I can't imagine there are a subset of people there always "starving" even when eating adequate calories. But who knows. I think a lot of the different ways of eating are ways of adjusting to food being always around/so available, though.
Traditional human diets might have been higher carb, but they were lacking in processed foods. It's that simple.
As others have said, bacon is a processed food. So is the smoked salmon I had this morning, and I find it quite filling (I think it's the protein, as fat usually doesn't do it for me).
That aside, I think highly processed foods are often less filling (at least for me) than less processed foods, because of things like fiber. But that's been my argument -- it's not about macro mix, but food choice.
I see others saying that even if they focus on less processed carbs like fruits and vegetables and legumes and oats and sweet potatoes, that they find having more than a small amount of carbs makes them insatiably hungry. I'm not questioning that -- I believe them. But I think there must be some intersection psychologically with the fact that foods are so available or something, as I doubt people in these traditional societies were hungry all the time.
I know for myself that I've basically not thought about food until meal time when I'm busy and away from food all day, even when I'm doing things that make my TDEE much higher than usual and even if I'm not actually eating all that much (thinking of a service trip I once took to Nicaragua, among other things).
Not sure what psychological factors would be at play... I was a stay at home mom when doing lower fat, higher fiber, and am still a stay at home mom while doing LCHF. Food is no more or less available for me now than it was then, but I am definitely more satiated eating LC. I'm more inclined to think there may be genetic differences between populations based on how the early ancestors evolved, and what diet they evolved on. For example - some racial and ethnic groups are more predisposed to being lactose intolerant. Doesn't it stand to reason that some groups would be more prone to insulin resistance? Just musing...
I think one issue for all of us in this environment is finding a way to deal with how easily available food is and the attraction to it for hedonic and other reasons. I think it's a lot harder to avoid overeating in a situation like being a SAH mom in the current world vs. in a traditional society where you really couldn't and people didn't just snack for fun or because you had a taste for something. I could be totally wrong, but I suspect that most people who struggle with hunger in this society wouldn't if they were under the constraints of a more traditional society and just didn't have the option of eating at non standard (for the society, whatever those were) or non communal times, even if the food they ate did not change.
This is just a theory of mine, though -- could be wrong.
Anyway, based on this, I think a lot of what we all are doing is coming up with a strategy to prevent overeating in this rather tempting situation. One thing Brian Wansink has written about in Mindless Eating and other books is how we are presented with choices about eating so many times a day, often without realizing it -- like every time you walk through the kitchen and see cereal boxes out or some such. For me, part of that strategy has just been deciding "I don't snack." When I don't consistently and get into my good habits, I am not hungry other than at the times I am used to eating and don't really think about food at other times, whereas when I do allow myself to snack (graze during the day), I have a very different experience.
My perception is that in a lot of ways some of these "ways of eating" work similarly. For example, I used to be really weird about not eating "non natural" foods (I still am a little weird but not bordering on extreme, neurotic as I was at one time). At that time, it would simply not occur to me to eat a lot of things. I think self-identifying with a particular diet does a lot of the same thing--"oh, I am paleo, so I eat these things and not these," as well as turning it into a positive thing "I eat in this way that I like" vs. just about deprivation/not eating stuff (which can be one issue with calorie cutting -- it's just about eating less -- that can make it hard unless you are someone, like me, who enjoys the tracking and that becomes the positive change or if you make it into an overall program of eating in a particular way, like eating healthfully, which I also do).
I think to some extent the positive effects of keto are probably like the paleo ones, as well as for many people it being easier to NOT eat something rather than eat a bit of it, as you are less likely to think about it as often. But in addition, I think it is true that keto kills the appetite/desire to eat to some extent for at least a significant number of people who do it, so that also may be a way of dealing with the temptation always around us that I think can lead to a psychological desire to eat that some perceive as hunger.
Also, of course, if someone has issues with IR, the issue may be more physiological, but even then I don't think it's really just about carb percentage as IR is extremely uncommon in traditional societies.
Anyway, just thoughts and speculations, as I find all this interesting.
I find it all very interesting too
I do think having more availability probably leads us to perceive hunger more often, and perhaps more acutely (out of sight, out of mind, right?). But within the constraints of the same level of food availability, I think the breakdown of the diet can have significant impact; at least it has in my case. Food is every bit as available to me as it was when I was eating lower fat - I keep plenty of easy LC compliant foods on hand (right now there are a dozen hard boiled eggs in the fridge, some leftover roast chicken, washed and chopped salad greens and veggies, frozen berries, and roasted cashews - if I was hungry I could easily put together a meal or snack); I've learned to navigate being out and about while keeping LC (convenience stores have jerky and nuts, fast food places offer side salads you can sub instead of fries and it's easy enough to ditch the bun from the sandwich, pizza places almost universally have chicken wings and salads, regular sit-down restaraunts are super easy - order a simply cooked meat/chicken/fish, get two veggie sides instead of a starch and veggie, done). My reduced appetite is most certainly physical, not psychological. Especially after three years of doing this; I understand that some people may eat less at first simply because they haven't adapted to a new way of eating, but I've defiantly adapted.
Having "rules" (I don't eat that, I do eat this) probably does make it easier to say no to certain things, or at least to keep those items occasional. Myself, I don't eat wheat as a general rule. So yes, it is easy to pass on the breadsticks or pasta. But I do indulge now and then. I think what is most striking to me is that, with my appetite reduced and eating a more satiating diet overall, I find those occasional indulgences don't trip me up anymore. In my low fat days I'd allow myself occasional "cheats" too, but I found it much harder to control myself when doing that; I'd end up eating more of the treat than I should have, feel bad/guilty, find that I would be up a couple lbs the next day, but it would take a week or longer to get back down, which was demoralizing. Now, on LCHF, I can have those occasional indulgences, exercise true moderation (feeling in control feels good!) and while I will still be up a lb or two the next day, I find it drops back off in a day or two (rather than a week or two), so I stay motivated.
Anywho... I'm rambling now. One last thing - I don't think IR is necessarily about carb percentage, so much as it is genetic (I have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes, so I'm fairly confident IR plays a role in how well I do on any given diet). In cultures with a high carb traditional diet, IR would pose a problem (overeating, never feeling full, getting overweight, etc). Those with IR in a high carb society may have ended up not being able to pass on their genes. Where as those with IR in a culture that eats lower carb would have done just fine. That's why I wonder if there are racial or ethnic variations wrt the rates of IR in different populations.
1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.
I was consuming an average of 1800 to 1900 calories per day, but struggling to stick to that (I could do it for periods of weeks, sometimes even months, but inevitably I'd fall off plan). On low carb I found myself eating 1600-1800 without feeling hungry. I was, and remain, lightly active; I was not incorporating exercise during either the lower fat or the lower carb dieting, I only recently began incorporating exercise (about 3 months ago). My protein intake is somewhat higher now, but it was adequate then - I averaged 60-70 g per day on low fat, now I get closer to 70-80 g.
I'm sure you have run into plenty of people who had the diet that I had in my teens and twenties. And certainly I benefitted from the type of advice you would have given me. At first. To a point. But I couldn't get below 160-165lbs. I was already hungry at the level of calories I was eating, I couldn't see cutting anymore.
Something awesome happens when you get to be in your mid-thirties (at least for me!). You know yourself better and aren't so quick to throw yourself under the bus. In my youth, I blamed myself whenever I regained weight, or struggled to stay on plan, or couldn't achieve my goals. I had resigned myself to being 165 lbs and size 12/14, at best. I told myself it's just the way I was built. Or that I just wasn't disciplined enough to be successful. After my third pregnancy, facing the prospect of having to lose weight again (was 185 at that point) and struggling to do so, it finally dawned on me - I'm not undisciplined, weak-willed, or lacking self control in any other aspect of my life. Why was I doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Fortunately this was in 2013 and paleo, primal, gluten/grain free, and LCHF diets were pretty popular at that time and when I googled "what if I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight" I actually came upon these types of diets. I read up on them first, made a plan for myself that I thought would work with my life and for my goals. I committed to it for six weeks (figured I could put up with anything for six weeks).
At the end of six weeks I'd lost a modest 12 lbs (about 5 of which was water). But that wasn't the most exciting part, not by a long shot. I wasn't hungry anymore. No more snacking, no more blowing my calories at the end of the day because I couldn't take the prospect of going to bed hungry again, no more watching the clock to see when I could eat again. My energy improved - not more energy, exactly, but more steady energy levels throughout the day. No more hypoglycemic episodes, even if I skipped a snack or a meal was delayed. My eczema (chronic, moderate to severe, that I'd suffered with for seven years) disappeared. After that six week trial run, I knew that even if I never lost another single lb, I would be eating LCHF for life. In seven months I dropped from 185 to 140, the lowest weight I'd been since I was 16 years old.
Anyway, tldr - your insistence that people who are hungry on low to moderate fat diets must be doing it wrong rubbed me the wrong way because that's what I told myself at the time - that I was doing something wrong, that I wasn't strong enough, that I wasn't good enough, that "if only" I had more discipline, more willpower, more self control, that it would work. That's the message we tell people who struggle to lose weight, isn't it? Once I realized that maybe it wasn't about my character, maybe the advice I was given wasn't appropriate for me, only then did I find something that worked. The notion that failure to adhere to a low fat diet was a character flaw or a sign that I was doing something wrong, is what kept me spinning my wheels for a decade.
It's so interesting how we're all different/interact with food differently-our stories are similar, up to the point where we went down different paths for weight loss. I was also in my 30s, also had 3 pregnancies (22 months a part from the next), and also in the 180 range. However, I ended up going the IF route (oddly enough found out about on a low carb site), and lost around 50lbs only focusing on my IF rotations/cutting back on calories. I didn't experience hunger issues-even on my very low IF days (where I was consuming under 500 calories). Fast forward a bit and I'm now 3 years into maintenance, having lost around 50lbs. I'm now almost 38 years old, my maintenance range is the 120s and I'm in excellent health by every health marker my doctor goes by. I still continue to eat just about everything and still only focus on staying with my calorie goals.
I'm glad you found what works for you, best of luck to both of us as we face 40 or 50 years of maintenance yet
Exactly, IF is excellent at lowering insulin levels and increasing insulin sensitivity. It works to the same end as low carb or whole foods or even low calories.
Or even exercise...
Yep. Exercise is actually a factor in both insulin sensitivity AND leptin sensitivity, from what I've read, which may explain why many people (not everyone) find that including exercise in a maintenance plan is important.
Exercise improves insulin resistance in the skeletal muscles, but not the liver. Healing it there requires some fasting and dietary changes.
The best way to support the liver is to avoid consuming things that make it work overtime in the first place. Fatty foods, alcohol and cigarettes are a good place to start...2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.
I was consuming an average of 1800 to 1900 calories per day, but struggling to stick to that (I could do it for periods of weeks, sometimes even months, but inevitably I'd fall off plan). On low carb I found myself eating 1600-1800 without feeling hungry. I was, and remain, lightly active; I was not incorporating exercise during either the lower fat or the lower carb dieting, I only recently began incorporating exercise (about 3 months ago). My protein intake is somewhat higher now, but it was adequate then - I averaged 60-70 g per day on low fat, now I get closer to 70-80 g.
I'm sure you have run into plenty of people who had the diet that I had in my teens and twenties. And certainly I benefitted from the type of advice you would have given me. At first. To a point. But I couldn't get below 160-165lbs. I was already hungry at the level of calories I was eating, I couldn't see cutting anymore.
Something awesome happens when you get to be in your mid-thirties (at least for me!). You know yourself better and aren't so quick to throw yourself under the bus. In my youth, I blamed myself whenever I regained weight, or struggled to stay on plan, or couldn't achieve my goals. I had resigned myself to being 165 lbs and size 12/14, at best. I told myself it's just the way I was built. Or that I just wasn't disciplined enough to be successful. After my third pregnancy, facing the prospect of having to lose weight again (was 185 at that point) and struggling to do so, it finally dawned on me - I'm not undisciplined, weak-willed, or lacking self control in any other aspect of my life. Why was I doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Fortunately this was in 2013 and paleo, primal, gluten/grain free, and LCHF diets were pretty popular at that time and when I googled "what if I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight" I actually came upon these types of diets. I read up on them first, made a plan for myself that I thought would work with my life and for my goals. I committed to it for six weeks (figured I could put up with anything for six weeks).
At the end of six weeks I'd lost a modest 12 lbs (about 5 of which was water). But that wasn't the most exciting part, not by a long shot. I wasn't hungry anymore. No more snacking, no more blowing my calories at the end of the day because I couldn't take the prospect of going to bed hungry again, no more watching the clock to see when I could eat again. My energy improved - not more energy, exactly, but more steady energy levels throughout the day. No more hypoglycemic episodes, even if I skipped a snack or a meal was delayed. My eczema (chronic, moderate to severe, that I'd suffered with for seven years) disappeared. After that six week trial run, I knew that even if I never lost another single lb, I would be eating LCHF for life. In seven months I dropped from 185 to 140, the lowest weight I'd been since I was 16 years old.
Anyway, tldr - your insistence that people who are hungry on low to moderate fat diets must be doing it wrong rubbed me the wrong way because that's what I told myself at the time - that I was doing something wrong, that I wasn't strong enough, that I wasn't good enough, that "if only" I had more discipline, more willpower, more self control, that it would work. That's the message we tell people who struggle to lose weight, isn't it? Once I realized that maybe it wasn't about my character, maybe the advice I was given wasn't appropriate for me, only then did I find something that worked. The notion that failure to adhere to a low fat diet was a character flaw or a sign that I was doing something wrong, is what kept me spinning my wheels for a decade.
It's so interesting how we're all different/interact with food differently-our stories are similar, up to the point where we went down different paths for weight loss. I was also in my 30s, also had 3 pregnancies (22 months a part from the next), and also in the 180 range. However, I ended up going the IF route (oddly enough found out about on a low carb site), and lost around 50lbs only focusing on my IF rotations/cutting back on calories. I didn't experience hunger issues-even on my very low IF days (where I was consuming under 500 calories). Fast forward a bit and I'm now 3 years into maintenance, having lost around 50lbs. I'm now almost 38 years old, my maintenance range is the 120s and I'm in excellent health by every health marker my doctor goes by. I still continue to eat just about everything and still only focus on staying with my calorie goals.
I'm glad you found what works for you, best of luck to both of us as we face 40 or 50 years of maintenance yet
Exactly, IF is excellent at lowering insulin levels and increasing insulin sensitivity. It works to the same end as low carb or whole foods or even low calories.
Or even exercise...
Yep. Exercise is actually a factor in both insulin sensitivity AND leptin sensitivity, from what I've read, which may explain why many people (not everyone) find that including exercise in a maintenance plan is important.
Exercise improves insulin resistance in the skeletal muscles, but not the liver. Healing it there requires some fasting and dietary changes.
The best way to support the liver is to avoid consuming things that make it work overtime in the first place. Fatty foods, alcohol and cigarettes are a good place to start...
Also fructose.
2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.
I was consuming an average of 1800 to 1900 calories per day, but struggling to stick to that (I could do it for periods of weeks, sometimes even months, but inevitably I'd fall off plan). On low carb I found myself eating 1600-1800 without feeling hungry. I was, and remain, lightly active; I was not incorporating exercise during either the lower fat or the lower carb dieting, I only recently began incorporating exercise (about 3 months ago). My protein intake is somewhat higher now, but it was adequate then - I averaged 60-70 g per day on low fat, now I get closer to 70-80 g.
I'm sure you have run into plenty of people who had the diet that I had in my teens and twenties. And certainly I benefitted from the type of advice you would have given me. At first. To a point. But I couldn't get below 160-165lbs. I was already hungry at the level of calories I was eating, I couldn't see cutting anymore.
Something awesome happens when you get to be in your mid-thirties (at least for me!). You know yourself better and aren't so quick to throw yourself under the bus. In my youth, I blamed myself whenever I regained weight, or struggled to stay on plan, or couldn't achieve my goals. I had resigned myself to being 165 lbs and size 12/14, at best. I told myself it's just the way I was built. Or that I just wasn't disciplined enough to be successful. After my third pregnancy, facing the prospect of having to lose weight again (was 185 at that point) and struggling to do so, it finally dawned on me - I'm not undisciplined, weak-willed, or lacking self control in any other aspect of my life. Why was I doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result? Fortunately this was in 2013 and paleo, primal, gluten/grain free, and LCHF diets were pretty popular at that time and when I googled "what if I'm doing everything right and still not losing weight" I actually came upon these types of diets. I read up on them first, made a plan for myself that I thought would work with my life and for my goals. I committed to it for six weeks (figured I could put up with anything for six weeks).
At the end of six weeks I'd lost a modest 12 lbs (about 5 of which was water). But that wasn't the most exciting part, not by a long shot. I wasn't hungry anymore. No more snacking, no more blowing my calories at the end of the day because I couldn't take the prospect of going to bed hungry again, no more watching the clock to see when I could eat again. My energy improved - not more energy, exactly, but more steady energy levels throughout the day. No more hypoglycemic episodes, even if I skipped a snack or a meal was delayed. My eczema (chronic, moderate to severe, that I'd suffered with for seven years) disappeared. After that six week trial run, I knew that even if I never lost another single lb, I would be eating LCHF for life. In seven months I dropped from 185 to 140, the lowest weight I'd been since I was 16 years old.
Anyway, tldr - your insistence that people who are hungry on low to moderate fat diets must be doing it wrong rubbed me the wrong way because that's what I told myself at the time - that I was doing something wrong, that I wasn't strong enough, that I wasn't good enough, that "if only" I had more discipline, more willpower, more self control, that it would work. That's the message we tell people who struggle to lose weight, isn't it? Once I realized that maybe it wasn't about my character, maybe the advice I was given wasn't appropriate for me, only then did I find something that worked. The notion that failure to adhere to a low fat diet was a character flaw or a sign that I was doing something wrong, is what kept me spinning my wheels for a decade.
It's so interesting how we're all different/interact with food differently-our stories are similar, up to the point where we went down different paths for weight loss. I was also in my 30s, also had 3 pregnancies (22 months a part from the next), and also in the 180 range. However, I ended up going the IF route (oddly enough found out about on a low carb site), and lost around 50lbs only focusing on my IF rotations/cutting back on calories. I didn't experience hunger issues-even on my very low IF days (where I was consuming under 500 calories). Fast forward a bit and I'm now 3 years into maintenance, having lost around 50lbs. I'm now almost 38 years old, my maintenance range is the 120s and I'm in excellent health by every health marker my doctor goes by. I still continue to eat just about everything and still only focus on staying with my calorie goals.
I'm glad you found what works for you, best of luck to both of us as we face 40 or 50 years of maintenance yet
Exactly, IF is excellent at lowering insulin levels and increasing insulin sensitivity. It works to the same end as low carb or whole foods or even low calories.
Or even exercise...
Yep. Exercise is actually a factor in both insulin sensitivity AND leptin sensitivity, from what I've read, which may explain why many people (not everyone) find that including exercise in a maintenance plan is important.
Exercise improves insulin resistance in the skeletal muscles, but not the liver. Healing it there requires some fasting and dietary changes.
The best way to support the liver is to avoid consuming things that make it work overtime in the first place. Fatty foods, alcohol and cigarettes are a good place to start...
Also fructose.
Disagree...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