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.
'The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss' by Jason Fung
Options
Replies
-
xmichaelyx wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
No. Keto is a way of eating that keeps you from being hungry, allowing you to easily keep your calories low.
The whole "keto changes the way the body fuels itself" is misleading. Yes, you're not burning dietary carbs (because there aren't all that many). But you're still using food calories for fuel.
All weight loss is the same: Burn more than you consume.
Except it's way easier to mobilize body fat while on keto, and it's fantastic if you do endurance sports.2 -
Except it's way easier to mobilize body fat while on keto, and it's fantastic if you do endurance sports.
If that were true, we'd see professional endurance athletes on keto, rather than carb loading. You won't find anyone doing keto and riding the Tour de France, for example.
And comparing a keto and non-keto isocaloric diet, the rate of loss of body fat is not any different. Yes, in keto you burn more total fat each day, but you also consume more fat, so the actual rate of body fat loss comes down to caloric balance, like with any diet.17 -
stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
From what I know from keto groups and also personally, I'd say that for a substantial part of people who are on keto , weight loss is not their primary consideration. A lot of people are healing their type 2 diabetes and/or insulin resistance with this. For those people its a godsend. Don't scoff.
You can't heal diabetes.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
From what I know from keto groups and also personally, I'd say that for a substantial part of people who are on keto , weight loss is not their primary consideration. A lot of people are healing their type 2 diabetes and/or insulin resistance with this. For those people its a godsend. Don't scoff.
You can't heal diabetes.
Some people with type 2 diabetes respond so well to a low carb diet that they are functionally in remission, though. They can ditch their meds and drop down to much less frequent monitoring. Of course it comes back if they start eating a lot of carbs again, but I can understand why many would feel like they were cured...7 -
stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
My previous quote was questioning that "keto is a form of CICO." Can't you gain fat while eating keto if you eat too many calories? And aren't you still burning fat as fuel in a keto calorie surplus? Is Keto = CICO?0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Except it's way easier to mobilize body fat while on keto, and it's fantastic if you do endurance sports.
If that were true, we'd see professional endurance athletes on keto, rather than carb loading. You won't find anyone doing keto and riding the Tour de France, for example.
And comparing a keto and non-keto isocaloric diet, the rate of loss of body fat is not any different. Yes, in keto you burn more total fat each day, but you also consume more fat, so the actual rate of body fat loss comes down to caloric balance, like with any diet.
Better look up Cris Froome's low carb diet propelling to 3 Tour de France titles.3 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
My previous quote was questioning that "keto is a form of CICO." Can't you gain fat while eating keto if you eat too many calories? And aren't you still burning fat as fuel in a keto calorie surplus? Is Keto = CICO?
You can gain fat regardless of the diet you follow. CICO is an energy balance equation. Keto is a way of eating. Keto still follows CICO.
Unfortunately, some people think CICO is a way of eating based on misinterpretations.
Also, you do oxidize more fat on keto, but its dietary fat not body fat.2 -
rankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.
I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF:
1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety.
2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction. That's the reason why you see LCHF diets show initial greater weight loss, but that doesn't continue as the study gets longer. If you burned one pound of glycogen, the scale would drop by five pounds because you will lose water that is no longer needed to balance osmolarity. Conversely, eating a lot of carbs can make the scale jump quick, but it's not fat that's doing it.
There is also the effect that trying a new plan, one that motivates you, results intitially in higher levels of adherence and consistency. I would say this accounts for 95+% of all short term "successes"
9 -
rankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.
I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF:
1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety.
2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction. That's the reason why you see LCHF diets show initial greater weight loss, but that doesn't continue as the study gets longer. If you burned one pound of glycogen, the scale would drop by five pounds because you will lose water that is no longer needed to balance osmolarity. Conversely, eating a lot of carbs can make the scale jump quick, but it's not fat that's doing it.
There is also the effect that trying a new plan, one that motivates you, results intitially in higher levels of adherence and consistency. I would say this accounts for 95+% of all short term "successes"
Thats a good point. Its also why people always have more energy, clearer skin and etc... Power of the mind is amazing.6 -
rankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.
I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF:
1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety.
2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction. That's the reason why you see LCHF diets show initial greater weight loss, but that doesn't continue as the study gets longer. If you burned one pound of glycogen, the scale would drop by five pounds because you will lose water that is no longer needed to balance osmolarity. Conversely, eating a lot of carbs can make the scale jump quick, but it's not fat that's doing it.
1. No. They don't. Almost all low carbers have moderate protein. Some prefer a bit higher,and thpse very active individuals choose higher protein to help their goals. Most low carbers have proten in the 20-25% range.
But yes. Protein often helps with satiety. So does fat.
2. The lean mass lost due to glycogen reuduction... You mean water? Yes there is some water weight lost initially. It's just water. Most long term carbers aren't limiting carbs just to avoid the few pounds of water retention that carbs cause though.
Plus muscle glycogen stores are not chronically depleted in fat adapted individuals. Glycogen is just not needed much anymore.
Most low carbers around here still seem to say 3 or 4 is the cause for their low carb success. IMOrankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.
I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF:
1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety.
2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction. That's the reason why you see LCHF diets show initial greater weight loss, but that doesn't continue as the study gets longer. If you burned one pound of glycogen, the scale would drop by five pounds because you will lose water that is no longer needed to balance osmolarity. Conversely, eating a lot of carbs can make the scale jump quick, but it's not fat that's doing it.
There is also the effect that trying a new plan, one that motivates you, results intitially in higher levels of adherence and consistency. I would say this accounts for 95+% of all short term "successes"
Thats a good point. Its also why people always have more energy, clearer skin and etc... Power of the mind is amazing.
I think you're reaching with that. Otherwise my placebo effect has lasted 14+ months now.rankinsect wrote: »Except it's way easier to mobilize body fat while on keto, and it's fantastic if you do endurance sports.
If that were true, we'd see professional endurance athletes on keto, rather than carb loading. You won't find anyone doing keto and riding the Tour de France, for example.
And comparing a keto and non-keto isocaloric diet, the rate of loss of body fat is not any different. Yes, in keto you burn more total fat each day, but you also consume more fat, so the actual rate of body fat loss comes down to caloric balance, like with any diet.
Metabolic characteristics of keto-adapted ultra-endurance runners
Results
Peak fat oxidation was 2.3-fold higher in the LC group (1.54 ± 0.18 vs 0.67 ± 0.14 g/min; P = 0.000) and it occurred at a higher percentage of VO2max (70.3 ± 6.3 vs 54.9 ± 7.8%; P = 0.000). Mean fat oxidation during submaximal exercise was 59% higher in the LC group (1.21 ± 0.02 vs 0.76 ± 0.11 g/min; P = 0.000) corresponding to a greater relative contribution of fat (88 ± 2 vs 56 ± 8%; P = 0.000). Despite these marked differences in fuel use between LC and HC athletes, there were no significant differences in resting muscle glycogen and the level of depletion after 180 min of running (−64% from pre-exercise) and 120 min of recovery (−36% from pre-exercise).
Conclusion
Compared to highly trained ultra-endurance athletes consuming an HC diet, long-term keto-adaptation results in extraordinarily high rates of fat oxidation, whereas muscle glycogen utilization and repletion patterns during and after a 3 hour run are similar.3 -
rankinsect wrote: »Except it's way easier to mobilize body fat while on keto, and it's fantastic if you do endurance sports.
If that were true, we'd see professional endurance athletes on keto, rather than carb loading. You won't find anyone doing keto and riding the Tour de France, for example.
And comparing a keto and non-keto isocaloric diet, the rate of loss of body fat is not any different. Yes, in keto you burn more total fat each day, but you also consume more fat, so the actual rate of body fat loss comes down to caloric balance, like with any diet.
I mean endurance endurance sports, like ultra racing. I'm following the transcontinental bike race now, and man, is it an unending quest for carbohydrate rich sources. I'm training for Borders of Belgium at the moment (1000km within 75 hours, and being on keto gives me a greater freedom, without "needing" to load up on carbs every hour.
TdF is both about endurance and about needing to output crazy watts at sprints, time trials and such, it is an "endurance event" in a few aspects only.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
From what I know from keto groups and also personally, I'd say that for a substantial part of people who are on keto , weight loss is not their primary consideration. A lot of people are healing their type 2 diabetes and/or insulin resistance with this. For those people its a godsend. Don't scoff.
You can't heal diabetes.
you're right. should have written "control symptoms"2 -
I think you're reaching with that. Otherwise my placebo effect has lasted 14+ months now.
I've seen that claim come from low carbers, I've seen it from clean eaters (multiple definitions of such), I've seen it from paleo, from veg*ans, people who fasted...
It's either a perception thing or something that generally always happens when you go to eating a nutritious diet, regardless of the makeup.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »I think you're reaching with that. Otherwise my placebo effect has lasted 14+ months now.
I've seen that claim come from low carbers, I've seen it from clean eaters (multiple definitions of such), I've seen it from paleo, from veg*ans, people who fasted...
It's either a perception thing or something that generally always happens when you go to eating a nutritious diet, regardless of the makeup.
This is what I was alluding to. But it's also the fact that people go from low nutrient diet to a high nutrient diet. It's why you see those exact claims, in every single diet.
There are some anomalies though. My wife is one of them. My wife, who is non celiac, cannot have gluten in her diet. When she does, it can affect her condition and increases lethargy to a point where she has to take multiple naps in a day.0 -
Just some observations (with references) - and in the interest of self-disclosure, my way of eating is very low carb-high fat-moderate protein, is very satisfying, and is completely sustainable long term for me (ie, this is not a "diet"...it is a way of eating that I can enjoy for the rest of my life and simultaneously control my weight, cardiovascular risks, and avoid other chronic health diseases. I also omit wheat products and other gluten-containing foods, as I am gluten sensitive (NOT Celiac Disease).
"Obesity is a physiological imbalance of the body – a disease process, not the failure of an individual’s self-control. It is the fastest growing epidemic disease with >75% of Americans now being overweight or obese." (Dr. Chris Pate, MD - Board Certified American Board of Obesity Medicine, as well as board certified in family practice and a certified menopause specialist; Biosymmetry Medical Weigh Management)
Eating “low carb-high fat” surely does fly in the face of what we’ve been taught the past 40-50 years…and look where the last 40-50 years has gotten us: (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1832542)
• CICO (calories in/calories out) is not the whole picture, and all calories are not created equal. We are incredibly complicated biological machines and simplistic theories, such as the one that the number of calories you consume vs calories you expend is the ultimate determiner of body mass and weight loss, are absurd. The body does not treat a calorie of protein like a calorie of fat like a calorie of carbohydrate.
• Different strategies work for different people because complex systems are variable, i.e., the way my body functions on a given set of variables will be different from the way your body functions on that same set of variables.
• Someone commented that “Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.” TRUE! Reduced hunger is experienced by many on LCHF, but not all. FAT INTAKE DOES DEMONSTRATE A DIRECT CORRELATION WITH SATIETY. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18840358 : Title - The lipid messenger OEA links dietary fat intake to satiety. ***“The results suggest that activation of small-intestinal OEA mobilization, enabled by CD36-mediated uptake of dietary oleic acid, serves as a molecular sensor linking fat ingestion to satiety.”***
• Also, “Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.” TRUE! There are 4 categories of “whys” of the disease of obesity and obese people are obese because of any one or combination of them; they are: psychological, behavioral, biochemical/metabolic, and nutritional. The impact of “societal norms” on the psychological and behavioral components to this disease are huge determinants in the success of controlling the disease.
• Someone else commented, “I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF: 1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety. 2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction.
RE #1 - There are numerous versions of “low carb” ways of eating. “Low Carb, High Fat” way of eating does NOT increase protein consumption. Macronutrient percentages for people eating very low carb or low carb + high fat are generally in the range of 5-10% carbs, 70+% fats, and only 15-25% protein. Some people on LCHF restrict calories while others do not. “Low Carb” is a whole spectrum of variability within its numerous forms.
RE# 2 - Whether or not a low carb high fat ketogenic diet results in lean mass loss is dependent on whether you are a glucose (sugar) burner or a fat (ketone) burner. If you eat a low carb HIGH PROTEIN diet, you are still a glucose burner. 50% of the protein you eat will get converted to glucose, and this prevents you from using fat (ketones) for energy as your main fuel source. If you eat a low carb HIGH FAT diet, then you are a fat (ketone) burner and loss of lean mass is not an issue.
Susan, the bottom line is if what you've been doing isn't working, change it...but educate yourself and weigh the studies and statistics for yourself. You'll have to experiment with what works for you personally.4 -
A calorie is a measure of energy, it is not a thing you can touch. There are no "calories of protein" or "calories of carbohydrates" any more than there's a difference between "meters of lawn" vs. "meters of road".9
-
stevencloser wrote: »A calorie is a measure of energy, it is not a thing you can touch. There are no "calories of protein" or "calories of carbohydrates" any more than there's a difference between "meters of lawn" vs. "meters of road".
I don't even know why we make this argument. It's the equivalent to the argument that muscle weights more than fat. No one is disputing the measurement but rather the composition of those calories. In the end, macronutrient have little impact over fat loss.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest2 -
Because unlike the muscle vs. fat discussion, people are actually talking like there's Protein-calories, Fat-Calories Sugar-Calories, hell even a subgroup of Natural-Sugar-Calories and Added-Sugar-Calories. They're talking as if those are different things, actual graspable things somehow floating inside the food instead of the result of a measurement.10
-
stevencloser wrote: »Because unlike the muscle vs. fat discussion, people are actually talking like there's Protein-calories, Fat-Calories Sugar-Calories, hell even a subgroup of Natural-Sugar-Calories and Added-Sugar-Calories. They're talking as if those are different things, actual graspable things somehow floating inside the food instead of the result of a measurement.
Right. The difference is that no one is denying that foods are different or that macros are different or that it matters what you eat, so there's a value to insisting that "calories" not be used merely as a synonym for "food."
No one ever claims that one lb of fat weighs less than one lb of muscle. However, I know people who have told me that cheese calories go to your butt whereas vegetable calories do not (for the record, this was back when I was a teen and "going to the butt" was a bad thing -- at least where I lived).1 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
If you eat more calories than your body needs to maintain current weight, weight gain will happen no matter the macros. There have been quite a few posts where one would go on keto/low carb, not count calories, perhaps lose the initial water weight then wonder why they haven't been losing. When someone points out that they are in fact eating more calories than they need, it gets argued to the death. I have absolutely nothing against keto, but there is no way anyone can lose weight if they eat above maintenance.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 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
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions