Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is the Insulin Theory of Obesity Over?
Options
Replies
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »
Which was kind of what I was getting at with my comment. I guess I should have said "avoid sugary foods" because fructose is a type of sugar that when consumed in excess can be bad for liver health, and "sugary foods" is just as vague as "fatty foods". But just as not all types of sugar are bad for the liver, not all types of fat are bad for the liver. And I don't see why one would advise others to avoid fatty foods (for liver health), but fail to mention sugary foods....
Pretty much anything is excess is not good. Which is why I am baffled at the comments over the past few pages. We are over complicating this.
5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »
Just do a simple google search, you will find plenty of information on the effects of excess fructose on the liver. Obviously the liver can only handle so much of a toxin.
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. (You can see a diagram of these at health.harvard.edu/172.) One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Virtually unknown before 1980, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease now affects up to 30% of adults in the United States and other developed countries, and between 70% and 90% of those who are obese or who have diabetes.
Early on, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is reversible. At some point, though, the liver can become inflamed. This can cause the low-grade damage known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (steato meaning fat and hepatitis meaning liver inflammation). If the inflammation becomes severe, it can lead to cirrhosis — an accumulation of scar tissue and the subsequent degeneration of liver function.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
And if you read the whole thing: Still, it’s worth cutting back on fructose. But don’t do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup
Essentially, give us junk food. Not mind blowing researching.
This also takes into consideration the average person, which in America is eating too little fruit, too much soda and is not active at all.2 -
Fructose is converted to glucose and triglycerides. Overconsumption is linked to NAFLD. There has been a large increase in NAFLD in recent years, especially among children (it used to be something rarely seen outside old age). Perhaps the largest source of fructose in the American diet is not fruit, but soda and other sweetened beverages. So advising people to help their liver by avoiding "fatty foods" is not exactly common sense. Soda is now, and has always been, a fat free food.1
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »Fructose is converted to glucose and triglycerides. Overconsumption is linked to NAFLD. There has been a large increase in NAFLD in recent years, especially among children (it used to be something rarely seen outside old age). Perhaps the largest source of fructose in the American diet is not fruit, but soda and other sweetened beverages. So advising people to help their liver by avoiding "fatty foods" is not exactly common sense. Soda is now, and has always been, a fat free food.
There are more diseases that just NAFLD. Only being concerned with one, but not others is a bit short sighted, IMO. High calorie, low nutrient foods, can contribute to weight gain, which can lead to diabetes, cvd, IR, and so much more.5 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »
Which was kind of what I was getting at with my comment. I guess I should have said "avoid sugary foods" because fructose is a type of sugar that when consumed in excess can be bad for liver health, and "sugary foods" is just as vague as "fatty foods". But just as not all types of sugar are bad for the liver, not all types of fat are bad for the liver. And I don't see why one would advise others to avoid fatty foods (for liver health), but fail to mention sugary foods....
Pretty much anything is excess is not good. Which is why I am baffled at the comments over the past few pages. We are over complicating this.
^^^^This....0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Fructose is converted to glucose and triglycerides. Overconsumption is linked to NAFLD. There has been a large increase in NAFLD in recent years, especially among children (it used to be something rarely seen outside old age). Perhaps the largest source of fructose in the American diet is not fruit, but soda and other sweetened beverages. So advising people to help their liver by avoiding "fatty foods" is not exactly common sense. Soda is now, and has always been, a fat free food.
There are more diseases that just NAFLD. Only being concerned with one, but not others is a bit short sighted, IMO. High calorie, low nutrient foods, can contribute to weight gain, which can lead to diabetes, cvd, IR, and so much more.
The comment I responded to was specifically talking about liver health. Avoiding "fatty foods" (still don't know what "fatty foods" we are talking about - that was never mentioned) is pretty useless advice. And why demonize fats as being "hard" on the liver without also mentioning how sugar can be hard on the liver?
1 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »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
No, I don't think so. What I'm saying is that being successful in these kinds of environment requires some sort of plan or strategy for many of us (those of us who have become overweight, probably, and likely many who simply prevented themselves from doing so). The point I was trying to make is that there are many different avenues to do so that work better or worse for different people. Counting calories and not changing diet is certainly one, as is planning ahead and eating based on plan. Some people perceive that as a constant struggle against what they want, whereas others take to it and find it fun. (I did, along with some other strategies, sounds like you do.)2 -
I think that does make sense, as I do think genetics plays a role. So I would think from that standpoint it could be said that genetics can set a lower bound for how many carbs a given person can tolerate.tlflag1620 wrote: »
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.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.
2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Fructose is converted to glucose and triglycerides. Overconsumption is linked to NAFLD. There has been a large increase in NAFLD in recent years, especially among children (it used to be something rarely seen outside old age). Perhaps the largest source of fructose in the American diet is not fruit, but soda and other sweetened beverages. So advising people to help their liver by avoiding "fatty foods" is not exactly common sense. Soda is now, and has always been, a fat free food.
There are more diseases that just NAFLD. Only being concerned with one, but not others is a bit short sighted, IMO. High calorie, low nutrient foods, can contribute to weight gain, which can lead to diabetes, cvd, IR, and so much more.
The comment I responded to was specifically talking about liver health. Avoiding "fatty foods" (still don't know what "fatty foods" we are talking about - that was never mentioned) is pretty useless advice. And why demonize fats as being "hard" on the liver without also mentioning how sugar can be hard on the liver?
Hydrogenated vegetable oils for one. Eliminate completely? No, not necessary. Moderate consumption, yes. But that goes for most things.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »
Just do a simple google search, you will find plenty of information on the effects of excess fructose on the liver. Obviously the liver can only handle so much of a toxin.
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. (You can see a diagram of these at health.harvard.edu/172.) One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Virtually unknown before 1980, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease now affects up to 30% of adults in the United States and other developed countries, and between 70% and 90% of those who are obese or who have diabetes.
Early on, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is reversible. At some point, though, the liver can become inflamed. This can cause the low-grade damage known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (steato meaning fat and hepatitis meaning liver inflammation). If the inflammation becomes severe, it can lead to cirrhosis — an accumulation of scar tissue and the subsequent degeneration of liver function.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
And if you read the whole thing: Still, it’s worth cutting back on fructose. But don’t do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup
Essentially, give us junk food. Not mind blowing researching.
This also takes into consideration the average person, which in America is eating too little fruit, too much soda and is not active at all.
No one ever said to give up or avoid fruit (I addressed that earlier when you asked). Why hasn't anyone addressed the whole "fatty food" comment? When I think of fatty foods I think of whole eggs, salmon, seeds and nuts, avocados, olive oil, butter, cheese, dark meat chicken... Or was J72FIT referring to "fatty foods" like packaged cookies and snack cakes, potato chips, and other junk foods (and what of fat free sodas and sports drinks)? In that case why didn't he say, avoid junk food? Why hate on fatty foods?
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
Just do a simple google search, you will find plenty of information on the effects of excess fructose on the liver. Obviously the liver can only handle so much of a toxin.
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. (You can see a diagram of these at health.harvard.edu/172.) One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Virtually unknown before 1980, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease now affects up to 30% of adults in the United States and other developed countries, and between 70% and 90% of those who are obese or who have diabetes.
Early on, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is reversible. At some point, though, the liver can become inflamed. This can cause the low-grade damage known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (steato meaning fat and hepatitis meaning liver inflammation). If the inflammation becomes severe, it can lead to cirrhosis — an accumulation of scar tissue and the subsequent degeneration of liver function.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
And if you read the whole thing: Still, it’s worth cutting back on fructose. But don’t do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup
Essentially, give us junk food. Not mind blowing researching.
This also takes into consideration the average person, which in America is eating too little fruit, too much soda and is not active at all.
No one ever said to give up or avoid fruit (I addressed that earlier when you asked). Why hasn't anyone addressed the whole "fatty food" comment? When I think of fatty foods I think of whole eggs, salmon, seeds and nuts, avocados, olive oil, butter, cheese, dark meat chicken... Or was J72FIT referring to "fatty foods" like packaged cookies and snack cakes, potato chips, and other junk foods (and what of fat free sodas and sports drinks)? In that case why didn't he say, avoid junk food? Why hate on fatty foods?tlflag1620 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
Just do a simple google search, you will find plenty of information on the effects of excess fructose on the liver. Obviously the liver can only handle so much of a toxin.
The entry of fructose into the liver kicks off a series of complex chemical transformations. (You can see a diagram of these at health.harvard.edu/172.) One remarkable change is that the liver uses fructose, a carbohydrate, to create fat. This process is called lipogenesis. Give the liver enough fructose, and tiny fat droplets begin to accumulate in liver cells (see figure). This buildup is called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, because it looks just like what happens in the livers of people who drink too much alcohol.
Virtually unknown before 1980, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease now affects up to 30% of adults in the United States and other developed countries, and between 70% and 90% of those who are obese or who have diabetes.
Early on, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is reversible. At some point, though, the liver can become inflamed. This can cause the low-grade damage known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (steato meaning fat and hepatitis meaning liver inflammation). If the inflammation becomes severe, it can lead to cirrhosis — an accumulation of scar tissue and the subsequent degeneration of liver function.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/abundance-of-fructose-not-good-for-the-liver-heart
And if you read the whole thing: Still, it’s worth cutting back on fructose. But don’t do it by giving up fruit. Fruit is good for you and is a minor source of fructose for most people. The big sources are refined sugar and high-fructose corn syrup
Essentially, give us junk food. Not mind blowing researching.
This also takes into consideration the average person, which in America is eating too little fruit, too much soda and is not active at all.
No one ever said to give up or avoid fruit (I addressed that earlier when you asked). Why hasn't anyone addressed the whole "fatty food" comment? When I think of fatty foods I think of whole eggs, salmon, seeds and nuts, avocados, olive oil, butter, cheese, dark meat chicken... Or was J72FIT referring to "fatty foods" like packaged cookies and snack cakes, potato chips, and other junk foods (and what of fat free sodas and sports drinks)? In that case why didn't he say, avoid junk food? Why hate on fatty foods?
Yes...0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »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.
It's really impossible to tell. Diet has changed so much, too, so the question is what period is important. My understanding is that IR is generally uncommon among any traditional populations on the traditional diet. It clearly has become more common in the US (and UK) in recent years, which is probably diet related but not carb % related (the amount of carbs we eat has not increased as much as people claim, as a percentage, and the amount of fat we eat has also increased, just not as much). Even the diet component is hard to say for sure because obesity is clearly a factor. (Not everyone who becomes IR is obese, but the increase in the US tracks the increase in obesity rate and we know obesity is a huge risk factor.)
If you look at where IR is common now, it is societies with higher obesity rates. Within the US it's more common in Latino and African American populations, I believe, but so is obesity.
My ethnic background is pretty much the same as you described (absent the Native American, add in a little German), and who knows. All I can say for sure is that lactose intolerance is uncommon and I love my dairy. ;-)0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Fructose is converted to glucose and triglycerides. Overconsumption is linked to NAFLD. There has been a large increase in NAFLD in recent years, especially among children (it used to be something rarely seen outside old age). Perhaps the largest source of fructose in the American diet is not fruit, but soda and other sweetened beverages. So advising people to help their liver by avoiding "fatty foods" is not exactly common sense. Soda is now, and has always been, a fat free food.
There are more diseases that just NAFLD. Only being concerned with one, but not others is a bit short sighted, IMO. High calorie, low nutrient foods, can contribute to weight gain, which can lead to diabetes, cvd, IR, and so much more.
The comment I responded to was specifically talking about liver health. Avoiding "fatty foods" (still don't know what "fatty foods" we are talking about - that was never mentioned) is pretty useless advice. And why demonize fats as being "hard" on the liver without also mentioning how sugar can be hard on the liver?
Hydrogenated vegetable oils for one. Eliminate completely? No, not necessary. Moderate consumption, yes. But that goes for most things.
Thank you for clarifying! And yes, I agree that trans fats should be avoided - they are bad for not only liver health, but for numerous other aspects of health. But just as lemon thinks "fruit" rather than "soda" when she hears the word "fructose" I think "salmon" rather than "crisco" when I hear "fat". Context is key.
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
Also fructose.
So avoid fruit?
Should I avoid fat? "Fatty foods" (whatever the hell that means) are not necessarily "taxing" on the liver - the type of fat matters. NAFLD is strongly linked to overconsumption of carbs, especially fructose. The modest amounts found in reasonable quantities of fruit probably don't pose a problem. But the alarming amounts found in soda and other heavily processed foods is concerning. Want to be kind to your liver? Avoid alcohol, cigarettes, fructose, omega 6 fats, and trans fats. (Note I said avoid, not necessarily eliminate, through in the case of cigarettes and trans fats, eliminate is probably sound advice!)
No reason to avoid omega 6 fats if you get enough omega 3. The ratio is the issue, not omega 6 being bad.
And not all highly processed foods have lots of sugar -- I dislike frozen meals, but you can definitely find examples that have no added sugar. I would agree that soda is a significant source and the amount of soda that some people consume these days (especially children) is likely a factor in some of these health issues. I'm glad I've never really liked sugary soda (I will enjoy an occasional diet soda, despite it being highly processed, and black coffee, which also is, I think).
Not trying to give you a hard time, but focusing on processing alone (as such a wide range of foods are covered by the term) rather than the actual ingredients or what is removed in a particular use seems to me to be a red herring.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
Also fructose.
So avoid fruit?
Should I avoid fat? "Fatty foods" (whatever the hell that means) are not necessarily "taxing" on the liver - the type of fat matters. NAFLD is strongly linked to overconsumption of carbs, especially fructose. The modest amounts found in reasonable quantities of fruit probably don't pose a problem. But the alarming amounts found in soda and other heavily processed foods is concerning. Want to be kind to your liver? Avoid alcohol, cigarettes, fructose, omega 6 fats, and trans fats. (Note I said avoid, not necessarily eliminate, through in the case of cigarettes and trans fats, eliminate is probably sound advice!)
No reason to avoid omega 6 fats if you get enough omega 3. The ratio is the issue, not omega 6 being bad.
And not all highly processed foods have lots of sugar -- I dislike frozen meals, but you can definitely find examples that have no added sugar. I would agree that soda is a significant source and the amount of soda that some people consume these days (especially children) is likely a factor in some of these health issues. I'm glad I've never really liked sugary soda (I will enjoy an occasional diet soda, despite it being highly processed, and black coffee, which also is, I think).
Not trying to give you a hard time, but focusing on processing alone (as such a wide range of foods are covered by the term) rather than the actual ingredients or what is removed in a particular use seems to me to be a red herring.
My biggest problem was meat. Burgers, wings, steak, and real philly cheesesteak (none of that crap that you find outside of Philly)0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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...
I'm not really sure how fatty foods hurt the liver. I've never heard that one! Fatty acids can circulate freely in the blood and can be used by all over the body. Fructose cannot. No body tissue can utilize it. It can only be broken down by the liver.
Here you are: http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/010614p48.shtml
There used to be a poster here who was on the NASH diet and at least as it was prescribed to her it was very low fat. (It seemed to be working for her, as she'd lost lots of weight and improved her health.)0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Or was J72FIT referring to "fatty foods" like packaged cookies and snack cakes, potato chips, and other junk foods (and what of fat free sodas and sports drinks)? In that case why didn't he say, avoid junk food? Why hate on fatty foods?
This is what I always say when people refer to these same foods (typically about half fat, half carbs, only a little protein) as "carbs."
Heh.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
Also fructose.
So avoid fruit?
Should I avoid fat? "Fatty foods" (whatever the hell that means) are not necessarily "taxing" on the liver - the type of fat matters. NAFLD is strongly linked to overconsumption of carbs, especially fructose. The modest amounts found in reasonable quantities of fruit probably don't pose a problem. But the alarming amounts found in soda and other heavily processed foods is concerning. Want to be kind to your liver? Avoid alcohol, cigarettes, fructose, omega 6 fats, and trans fats. (Note I said avoid, not necessarily eliminate, through in the case of cigarettes and trans fats, eliminate is probably sound advice!)
No reason to avoid omega 6 fats if you get enough omega 3. The ratio is the issue, not omega 6 being bad.
And not all highly processed foods have lots of sugar -- I dislike frozen meals, but you can definitely find examples that have no added sugar. I would agree that soda is a significant source and the amount of soda that some people consume these days (especially children) is likely a factor in some of these health issues. I'm glad I've never really liked sugary soda (I will enjoy an occasional diet soda, despite it being highly processed, and black coffee, which also is, I think).
Not trying to give you a hard time, but focusing on processing alone (as such a wide range of foods are covered by the term) rather than the actual ingredients or what is removed in a particular use seems to me to be a red herring.
Oh I agree, and I'm not usually one to harp on "processed foods". It's a meaningless term - cheese and butter are "processed" milk, olive oil is "processed" olives, the chicken I eat tonight will be "processed" (once the "process" of cooking it is complied with anyway). I just don't have a better term to use for what I'm describing.
As for omega 6:3 ratio, yes, bumping up the omega 3 helps, but reducing the omega 6 at the same time is more efficient than simply trying to up the omega 3. I guess I'm coming from a mind set where it is easier to avoid the high omega 6 oils than it is to find a way to get enough of an omega 3 intake to offset that. I like fish and all, but I'd be hard pressed to get enough if I didn't keep the omega 6 in check in the first place, kwim?
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
Also fructose.
So avoid fruit?
Should I avoid fat? "Fatty foods" (whatever the hell that means) are not necessarily "taxing" on the liver - the type of fat matters. NAFLD is strongly linked to overconsumption of carbs, especially fructose. The modest amounts found in reasonable quantities of fruit probably don't pose a problem. But the alarming amounts found in soda and other heavily processed foods is concerning. Want to be kind to your liver? Avoid alcohol, cigarettes, fructose, omega 6 fats, and trans fats. (Note I said avoid, not necessarily eliminate, through in the case of cigarettes and trans fats, eliminate is probably sound advice!)
No reason to avoid omega 6 fats if you get enough omega 3. The ratio is the issue, not omega 6 being bad.
And not all highly processed foods have lots of sugar -- I dislike frozen meals, but you can definitely find examples that have no added sugar. I would agree that soda is a significant source and the amount of soda that some people consume these days (especially children) is likely a factor in some of these health issues. I'm glad I've never really liked sugary soda (I will enjoy an occasional diet soda, despite it being highly processed, and black coffee, which also is, I think).
Not trying to give you a hard time, but focusing on processing alone (as such a wide range of foods are covered by the term) rather than the actual ingredients or what is removed in a particular use seems to me to be a red herring.
My biggest problem was meat. Burgers, wings, steak, and real philly cheesesteak (none of that crap that you find outside of Philly)
Mine was all kinds of things, but fancy cheese was up there.
I've actually never had a real philly cheesesteak -- I think the bad versions they serve outside of Philly have scared me off (my college dining hall did them occasionally, ugh). I go to Philadelphia occasionally, I really need to correct this omission.1 -
I'm not going to read several pages of posts, but here's my comment after reading the linked article: you're talking a study or two with a small number of individuals. Kevin Hall is making a truth claim based on his study. The way science works, other researchers are welcome to duplicate his results or poke holes in his methodology. Time and other studies will follow but the way the media work, they'll jump on a single study or interview with a researcher for the provocative headline value (like Nutrition Wonk's headline: "Is the Insulin Theory of Obesity Over?").
The most important statement I take away from the article is this:... possibility that the primary benefit of a lower carbohydrate diet is an increase in satiety. And if low-carb diets do have positive impacts on satiety, they can cause spontaneously lower caloric intake in an ad libitum diet...
Which is to say, in a sense, it doesn't matter whether the insulin theory turns out to be wrong or not. If an eating strategy helps you stick to your diet and reduce caloric intake without cravings or hunger, it's a good strategy. Reducing carbs, especially sugars, and increasing fiber, protein, and good fats in my diet has helped me stay on course and win the race. Low fat/high carb diets were a disaster for me. 'Nuff said.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions