Fast Metabolism Diet
Replies
-
OP I see this is your second post. Welcome and don't worry too much about the discussion above, it happens.
Important thing is you don't get discouraged and do a lot of research here on the forums and on the web. Really the most important diet choice you make is the one you can stick to the rest of your life so you can maintain. Lots of valuable information here though.
Best of luck!7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.
Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.
To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.
Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.
To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.
I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.
A few random articles
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx
A few random studies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.
The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full
Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects
and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.
I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Setting medical conditions aside, CICO is the only way to lose weight.
Really....sugar is not evil, it does not have magic properties to keep fat on your body. You lost weight because your intake became less than your output, whether you want to admit that or not. Unfortunately, none of us get to be special snowflakes (and, believe me, if we could, I'd be first in line proclaiming I was a special snowflake.
)
There is a wealth of research showing you are wrong. I used to believe the same, I was wrong and ended torturing myself for years because of it. Fructose is a serious problem in the quantities it is consumed in our modern diets. It isn't the only issue but for me it was a driving issue.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/sugar-101-how-harmful-is-sugar-part-i
Dr. Attia doesn't completely agree with Dr. Lustig, he thinks even too much glucose is harmful. Both agree too much sugar is a major problem. Very few people consume sugar at less than 20g / day in the modern industrialized world. Most diets are way over 50g / day. That is the problem, the amount. 50g a day is over 18kg / year (40 lbs).
It is clear that different people have different tolerance levels. Mine is probably on the lower side as is Dr. Attia's. That doesn't make us special snowflakes, it is just part of being human. There are metabolically healthy people that consume a great deal of refined sugar, they might be the special snowflakes.
PS. I know that many here that probably couldn't even begin to pass an organic chemistry test will claim these doctors and researchers are fruitcakes.
That's not a peer reviewed study, it's a personal blog.
Just because you feel that sugar was not good for you, and eliminating it helped cut those extra calories that led to weight loss, does not mean it's bad at all, or even bad for everyone else or anyone else. However, I respect that you might believe sugar is bad for you.
There are no special snowflakes. Sugar does not cause weight gain, a surplus of calories does and it does not matter where those calories comes from. 7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
That study in no way supports the whole of what you're saying.
How does it refute CICO, for example?2 -
Yet another thread derailed.....
I feel sorry for the OP.10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.
Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.
To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.
I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.
A few random articles
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx
A few random studies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.
The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full
Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects
and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.
I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.
DUDE... I don't think goalposts have moved this fast since some got knocked over in a hurricane or something.
Where have you been, the insulin theory of weight gain is DOA.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
Hopefully someone will come along and post to the actual study. My Googlefu is failing me this morning.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.
Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.
To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.
I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.
A few random articles
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx
A few random studies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.
The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full
Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects
and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.
I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.
DUDE... I don't think goalposts have moved this fast since some got knocked over in a hurricane or something.
Where have you been, the insulin theory of weight gain is DOA.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
Hopefully someone will come along and post to the actual study. My Googlefu is failing me this morning.
It's linked in your link, but just small as a (1) reference.
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(15)00350-2.pdf3 -
I'm not new here but have been gone a long time.
CICO works with few exceptions.
Carbohydrates are metabolized more or less effectively by different people. A persons insulin response and effectiveness will change the outcome. Yes, you can be a special snowflake!
Thermodynamics probably does apply, but the system is far too complicated to do the math. Too many unknowns. As far as the closed system goes, you could break the system down into a series of steps. But it still seems a little fuzzy to me.
For me cico works. I ignore the calculators and have found a caloric intake that works for me. That being said, carbohydrates are not my friend. I feel better physically and mentally with a lower carbohydrate intake.
At least some of the "research" above was specifically designed to prove a theory and then sell books. I've been down many paths and have been totally sold on one theory or another. In the end, it seems that all of the takes on the perfect diet intentionally leave out real data and information that does not agree with their theory. In the end, my grandmothers theory of "everything in moderation" still seems the best:)
3 -
BlackTimber wrote: »I'm not new here but have been gone a long time.
CICO works with few exceptions.
Carbohydrates are metabolized more or less effectively by different people. A persons insulin response and effectiveness will change the outcome. Yes, you can be a special snowflake!
Thermodynamics probably does apply, but the system is far too complicated to do the math. Too many unknowns. As far as the closed system goes, you could break the system down into a series of steps. But it still seems a little fuzzy to me.
For me cico works. I ignore the calculators and have found a caloric intake that works for me. That being said, carbohydrates are not my friend. I feel better physically and mentally with a lower carbohydrate intake.
At least some of the "research" above was specifically designed to prove a theory and then sell books. I've been down many paths and have been totally sold on one theory or another. In the end, it seems that all of the takes on the perfect diet intentionally leave out real data and information that does not agree with their theory. In the end, my grandmothers theory of "everything in moderation" still seems the best:)
Actually, people with medical conditions are not special snowflakes, they are people with medical conditions who have to reconfigure their calorie goals to find their calorie deficit.
A special snowflake is the common dieter who insist that weight loss is not dependent upon a calorie deficit, but the elimination of certain foods or a certain diet type.
So, no....none of us gt to be special snowflakes.
10 -
I once gave this diet a try because it didn't involve a lot of restriction. Or so it seemed. The no fat days are horrid. The days with almost no veggies are also horrid. This thing is one of the worst I have ever seen. This woman has people eating 5-6 cups of fruit and vegetable in a single sitting. 4 cups of chili etc.... if you go by what she says to go by. The more you weight you want to lose the more food you should shovel down the gullet. I say find some other way.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.
Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.
To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.
I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.
A few random articles
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx
A few random studies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.
The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full
Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects
and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.
I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.
DUDE... I don't think goalposts have moved this fast since some got knocked over in a hurricane or something.
Where have you been, the insulin theory of weight gain is DOA.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
Hopefully someone will come along and post to the actual study. My Googlefu is failing me this morning.
It's linked in your link, but just small as a (1) reference.
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(15)00350-2.pdf
Thank you. I was sure Guyenet had to have a reference, but for the life of me, my still sleep bleary eyes couldn't find it!1 -
BlackTimber wrote: »I'm not new here but have been gone a long time.
CICO works with few exceptions.
Carbohydrates are metabolized more or less effectively by different people. A persons insulin response and effectiveness will change the outcome. Yes, you can be a special snowflake!
Thermodynamics probably does apply, but the system is far too complicated to do the math. Too many unknowns. As far as the closed system goes, you could break the system down into a series of steps. But it still seems a little fuzzy to me.
For me cico works. I ignore the calculators and have found a caloric intake that works for me. That being said, carbohydrates are not my friend. I feel better physically and mentally with a lower carbohydrate intake.
At least some of the "research" above was specifically designed to prove a theory and then sell books. I've been down many paths and have been totally sold on one theory or another. In the end, it seems that all of the takes on the perfect diet intentionally leave out real data and information that does not agree with their theory. In the end, my grandmothers theory of "everything in moderation" still seems the best:)
Actually, people with medical conditions are not special snowflakes, they are people with medical conditions who have to reconfigure their calorie goals to find their calorie deficit.
A special snowflake is the common dieter who insist that weight loss is not dependent upon a calorie deficit, but the elimination of certain foods or a certain diet type.
So, no....none of us gt to be special snowflakes.
Or as Lyle McDonald so eloquently states it: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/
[ETA:] And the insulin fairy is about as real as the tooth fairy. Both are cute stories, but entirely based upon fiction.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.
Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.
To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.
I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.
A few random articles
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx
A few random studies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.
The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full
Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects
and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.
I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.
DUDE... I don't think goalposts have moved this fast since some got knocked over in a hurricane or something.
Where have you been, the insulin theory of weight gain is DOA.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
Hopefully someone will come along and post to the actual study. My Googlefu is failing me this morning.
5 day diet studies, wow ... that refutes nothing. It is possible to find various studies that show conflicting information. One needs to look a little deeper.
For people that are reversing type 2 diabetes, they are often fasting for weeks to get the great results. Insulin resistance isn't something that is modify on a few days of a sudo-low carb diet.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.
Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.
To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.
I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.
A few random articles
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx
A few random studies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.
The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full
Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects
and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.
I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.
DUDE... I don't think goalposts have moved this fast since some got knocked over in a hurricane or something.
Where have you been, the insulin theory of weight gain is DOA.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
Hopefully someone will come along and post to the actual study. My Googlefu is failing me this morning.
5 day diet studies, wow ... that refutes nothing. It is possible to find various studies that show conflicting information. One needs to look a little deeper.
For people that are reversing type 2 diabetes, they are often fasting for weeks to get the great results. Insulin resistance isn't something that is modify on a few days of a sudo-low carb diet.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
I guess we missed the part of the OP's post where she said she was insulin resistant and trying to reverse type 2 diabetes.6 -
Yet another thread derailed.....
I feel sorry for the OP.
I'm beginning to feel like I need to start placing bets on how long before each new thread gets detailed into yet another 'sugar is evil' thread. Getting kinda old, and rude, derailing everyone else's threads to a usually unrelated personal crusade.13 -
BlackTimber wrote: »I'm not new here but have been gone a long time.
CICO works with few exceptions.
Carbohydrates are metabolized more or less effectively by different people. A persons insulin response and effectiveness will change the outcome. Yes, you can be a special snowflake!
Thermodynamics probably does apply, but the system is far too complicated to do the math. Too many unknowns. As far as the closed system goes, you could break the system down into a series of steps. But it still seems a little fuzzy to me.
For me cico works. I ignore the calculators and have found a caloric intake that works for me. That being said, carbohydrates are not my friend. I feel better physically and mentally with a lower carbohydrate intake.
At least some of the "research" above was specifically designed to prove a theory and then sell books. I've been down many paths and have been totally sold on one theory or another. In the end, it seems that all of the takes on the perfect diet intentionally leave out real data and information that does not agree with their theory. In the end, my grandmothers theory of "everything in moderation" still seems the best:)
Calorie restriction diets typically do work short term, there isn't any dispute of that. However people are using thermodynamics mumbo jumbo that they don't understand to justify a reductionism that is absurd. For the most part people just parrot it without any understanding of it.
For most people diets fail and within a year they are back at the same weight or a higher weight. This even happens to people that maintain the diet. There is a much smaller group of people that don't have this loss of diet effectiveness. The fact that the diet industry is a multi-billion dollar growth business should indicate just it isn't simple for most people.
As for selling books, it isn't a good way to make a living for most people. However the actual research is unrelated to book publications. In the case of doctors they are typically running clinics and the blogs and books mainly support those businesses. That is pretty common. However by a large part the people doing that are in pretty firm agreement that there is a lot more involved with fat storage than just calories. The CICO and just move theories are largely pushed by larger organizations.
Anyway the fact that CICO works for you doesn't mean it is an universal truth. I was a firm believer that CICO and exercise were all that was there was to it until I went 2 years busting my butt, starving and only gained weight 2kg, follow an amazing easy 8 kg weight loss in a few months without hunger by just limiting my consumption of refined sugar. My weight is even lower now, but I've changed more things so I can't just credit it to reduced refined sugar. At least in my case I now know that some types of calories really only prevent me from reaching my weight goals.0 -
Anvil_Head wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.
Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.
To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.
I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.
A few random articles
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx
A few random studies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.
The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full
Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects
and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.
I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.
DUDE... I don't think goalposts have moved this fast since some got knocked over in a hurricane or something.
Where have you been, the insulin theory of weight gain is DOA.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
Hopefully someone will come along and post to the actual study. My Googlefu is failing me this morning.
5 day diet studies, wow ... that refutes nothing. It is possible to find various studies that show conflicting information. One needs to look a little deeper.
For people that are reversing type 2 diabetes, they are often fasting for weeks to get the great results. Insulin resistance isn't something that is modify on a few days of a sudo-low carb diet.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
I guess we missed the part of the OP's post where she said she was insulin resistant and trying to reverse type 2 diabetes.
That has to do with how fat storage works. I was replying to the post about the research.0 -
@dykask, why don't you start your own thread in the debate area about how CICO doesn't work. I'd like to ask what you consider short term.1
-
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.4
-
BlackTimber wrote: »I'm not new here but have been gone a long time.
CICO works with few exceptions.
Carbohydrates are metabolized more or less effectively by different people. A persons insulin response and effectiveness will change the outcome. Yes, you can be a special snowflake!
Thermodynamics probably does apply, but the system is far too complicated to do the math. Too many unknowns. As far as the closed system goes, you could break the system down into a series of steps. But it still seems a little fuzzy to me.
For me cico works. I ignore the calculators and have found a caloric intake that works for me. That being said, carbohydrates are not my friend. I feel better physically and mentally with a lower carbohydrate intake.
At least some of the "research" above was specifically designed to prove a theory and then sell books. I've been down many paths and have been totally sold on one theory or another. In the end, it seems that all of the takes on the perfect diet intentionally leave out real data and information that does not agree with their theory. In the end, my grandmothers theory of "everything in moderation" still seems the best:)
Actually, people with medical conditions are not special snowflakes, they are people with medical conditions who have to reconfigure their calorie goals to find their calorie deficit.
A special snowflake is the common dieter who insist that weight loss is not dependent upon a calorie deficit, but the elimination of certain foods or a certain diet type.
So, no....none of us gt to be special snowflakes.
EVERYONE metabolizes carbohydrates a little differently. NOT medical conditions. SORRY, you are just desperately trying to hold onto your over simplified theory.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »@dykask, why don't you start your own thread in the debate area about how CICO doesn't work. I'd like to ask what you consider short term.
Done that, it doesn't work because there are too many people here pushing their CICO/exercise agenda. There are a bunch of people here that jump on anyone not spouting their dogma. It is a very hostile environment. There is a mentality that is all about logging, portion control and moving more ... anything outside of that just isn't even listened too by that crowd.
I don't have any personal agenda other than trying to understand what is working or not working better. After years of pain and suffering from trying to follow the CICO method, I cured my hunger problem and I lost a good chunk of weight without suffering. It was also very easy to do once I figured out what was holding me back. Now I'm running out of weight to lose and I'm focused on better health.
It just irks me when someone that wasn't around when I lost the weight thinks they know what I did and says I don't know what I did. Also, for the record I've never referred to sugar as evil, I'm not that stupid. (That is the CICO pushers saying that. It is a lame attempt to try and minimize comments they don't agree with.)
As for the CICO topic, there is a great deal written about it all over the web. A thread here won't change anyone's mind. Besides it is thrown into almost every thread, it is pretty much endless and mindless here. Probably a decade from now, those same people will be saying they tried to tell people it wasn't just about total calories.
The problem is you can't prove what you're saying because you didn't log. It would be nice if you'd confine your proselytizing to one thread instead of turning every thread into ... this.
5 -
Anvil_Head wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.
Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.
To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.
I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.
A few random articles
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx
A few random studies
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.
The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full
Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects
and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385
Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.
I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.
DUDE... I don't think goalposts have moved this fast since some got knocked over in a hurricane or something.
Where have you been, the insulin theory of weight gain is DOA.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
Hopefully someone will come along and post to the actual study. My Googlefu is failing me this morning.
5 day diet studies, wow ... that refutes nothing. It is possible to find various studies that show conflicting information. One needs to look a little deeper.
For people that are reversing type 2 diabetes, they are often fasting for weeks to get the great results. Insulin resistance isn't something that is modify on a few days of a sudo-low carb diet.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
I guess we missed the part of the OP's post where she said she was insulin resistant and trying to reverse type 2 diabetes.
That has to do with how fat storage works. I was replying to the post about the research.
Except you're wrong about how fat storage works.2 -
BlackTimber wrote: »BlackTimber wrote: »I'm not new here but have been gone a long time.
CICO works with few exceptions.
Carbohydrates are metabolized more or less effectively by different people. A persons insulin response and effectiveness will change the outcome. Yes, you can be a special snowflake!
Thermodynamics probably does apply, but the system is far too complicated to do the math. Too many unknowns. As far as the closed system goes, you could break the system down into a series of steps. But it still seems a little fuzzy to me.
For me cico works. I ignore the calculators and have found a caloric intake that works for me. That being said, carbohydrates are not my friend. I feel better physically and mentally with a lower carbohydrate intake.
At least some of the "research" above was specifically designed to prove a theory and then sell books. I've been down many paths and have been totally sold on one theory or another. In the end, it seems that all of the takes on the perfect diet intentionally leave out real data and information that does not agree with their theory. In the end, my grandmothers theory of "everything in moderation" still seems the best:)
Actually, people with medical conditions are not special snowflakes, they are people with medical conditions who have to reconfigure their calorie goals to find their calorie deficit.
A special snowflake is the common dieter who insist that weight loss is not dependent upon a calorie deficit, but the elimination of certain foods or a certain diet type.
So, no....none of us gt to be special snowflakes.
EVERYONE metabolizes carbohydrates a little differently. NOT medical conditions. SORRY, you are just desperately trying to hold onto your over simplified theory.
Not to the extent that CICO does not matter.
Don't be sorry, it's science. 3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »@dykask, why don't you start your own thread in the debate area about how CICO doesn't work. I'd like to ask what you consider short term.
Done that, it doesn't work because there are too many people here pushing their CICO/exercise agenda. There are a bunch of people here that jump on anyone not spouting their dogma. It is a very hostile environment. There is a mentality that is all about logging, portion control and moving more ... anything outside of that just isn't even listened too by that crowd.
I don't have any personal agenda other than trying to understand what is working or not working better. After years of pain and suffering from trying to follow the CICO method, I cured my hunger problem and I lost a good chunk of weight without suffering. It was also very easy to do once I figured out what was holding me back. Now I'm running out of weight to lose and I'm focused on better health.
It just irks me when someone that wasn't around when I lost the weight thinks they know what I did and says I don't know what I did. Also, for the record I've never referred to sugar as evil, I'm not that stupid. (That is the CICO pushers saying that. It is a lame attempt to try and minimize comments they don't agree with.)
As for the CICO topic, there is a great deal written about it all over the web. A thread here won't change anyone's mind. Besides it is thrown into almost every thread, it is pretty much endless and mindless here. Probably a decade from now, those same people will be saying they tried to tell people it wasn't just about total calories.
How wonderful that you accomplished weight loss without literally counting calories!
Still doesn't mean that CICO didn't work for you. It simply means that you found a sustainable way for you to eat at a deficit, hence you dropped your weight. There are as many successes for those who don't literally count calories as with those who do.
There are all kinds of things written all over the web, especially about weight loss methods that are nothing but hyperbole based on myth and a desire to sell product.3 -
-
BlackTimber wrote: »BlackTimber wrote: »I'm not new here but have been gone a long time.
CICO works with few exceptions.
Carbohydrates are metabolized more or less effectively by different people. A persons insulin response and effectiveness will change the outcome. Yes, you can be a special snowflake!
Thermodynamics probably does apply, but the system is far too complicated to do the math. Too many unknowns. As far as the closed system goes, you could break the system down into a series of steps. But it still seems a little fuzzy to me.
For me cico works. I ignore the calculators and have found a caloric intake that works for me. That being said, carbohydrates are not my friend. I feel better physically and mentally with a lower carbohydrate intake.
At least some of the "research" above was specifically designed to prove a theory and then sell books. I've been down many paths and have been totally sold on one theory or another. In the end, it seems that all of the takes on the perfect diet intentionally leave out real data and information that does not agree with their theory. In the end, my grandmothers theory of "everything in moderation" still seems the best:)
Actually, people with medical conditions are not special snowflakes, they are people with medical conditions who have to reconfigure their calorie goals to find their calorie deficit.
A special snowflake is the common dieter who insist that weight loss is not dependent upon a calorie deficit, but the elimination of certain foods or a certain diet type.
So, no....none of us gt to be special snowflakes.
EVERYONE metabolizes carbohydrates a little differently. NOT medical conditions. SORRY, you are just desperately trying to hold onto your over simplified theory.
The Krebs cycle in your body works the same as the Krebs cycle in mine.4 -
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
3 -
Stupid facts getting in the way of your feelers again I see.
Some of the facts are:
1) No one can actually accurately count calories in. Weight of food isn't enough because the makeup of food also varies and the base values are just estimates. The variations over geographic regions can be large. There are also variations in food based on what the weather was, the soil conditions and how the food was grown.
2) The way calories are measured isn't the way calories are metabolized in the body. Different types of food is handled differently and even that varies depending on the needs of the body.
3) There are many types of proteins, sugars and fats and the different types often metabolize completely differently. It isn't as simple as proteins, carbs and fats.
4) Absorption what makes it into the bloodstream varies by many factors including the nutrients in the food, physical factors and even the bacterial mix living in the gut. (Typically over 100 trillion bacteria of several thousand different types.)
5) No one can accurately measure how many calories are used every day. Even doing that in a lab is difficult and open to many errors. Again people of the same mass can use widely different amounts of calories.
6) There are wide variations in peoples body functions and even small differences have large impacts on energy usages. These functions are largely out of people's direct control and these functions vary over time.
7) Pretty much everything in the human body is driven by hormones. That goes from building or losing muscles, body temperature to storage of fat. For example a man and woman of the same mass eating the same amount with the same activity level will result in the woman have much higher bodyfat than the man. That is hormones in action.
CICO is basically a gross reductionism which ignores a lot of important variables.
Not seeing the forest for the trees, are you?4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »@dykask, why don't you start your own thread in the debate area about how CICO doesn't work. I'd like to ask what you consider short term.
Done that, it doesn't work because there are too many people here pushing their CICO/exercise agenda. There are a bunch of people here that jump on anyone not spouting their dogma. It is a very hostile environment. There is a mentality that is all about logging, portion control and moving more ... anything outside of that just isn't even listened too by that crowd.
I don't have any personal agenda other than trying to understand what is working or not working better. After years of pain and suffering from trying to follow the CICO method, I cured my hunger problem and I lost a good chunk of weight without suffering. It was also very easy to do once I figured out what was holding me back. Now I'm running out of weight to lose and I'm focused on better health.
It just irks me when someone that wasn't around when I lost the weight thinks they know what I did and says I don't know what I did. Also, for the record I've never referred to sugar as evil, I'm not that stupid. (That is the CICO pushers saying that. It is a lame attempt to try and minimize comments they don't agree with.)
As for the CICO topic, there is a great deal written about it all over the web. A thread here won't change anyone's mind. Besides it is thrown into almost every thread, it is pretty much endless and mindless here. Probably a decade from now, those same people will be saying they tried to tell people it wasn't just about total calories.
How wonderful that you accomplished weight loss without literally counting calories!
Still doesn't mean that CICO didn't work for you. It simply means that you found a sustainable way for you to eat at a deficit, hence you dropped your weight. There are as many successes for those who don't literally count calories as with those who do.
There are all kinds of things written all over the web, especially about weight loss methods that are nothing but hyperbole based on myth and a desire to sell product.
Again another person that claims they know what I'm doing what I did more than I do. You are simply incorrect. I spent two years torturing myself tying to make calorie deficit and exercise work after it quite working for me. While I could move my weight, it wouldn't stick. Then I started changing what foods I ate and that made a huge difference in both my weight and workout performance. Even eating more calories than before, I lost weight with less exercise time. I did start the changes with a minor additional deficit but quickly started adding back healthy foods. I ended up losing 8kg and eating more per day than what I was doing for two years but a different mix of food and largely free of refined sugar. The main benefit was the loss of the driving hunger.
Now my weight is a couple kg lower, but I'm playing around with meal timing and other ideas. I'm going to start measuring bio markers like blood glucose and chart those and make decisions about what I do. However I'm at a different point now from where I was a the beginning of the year having reduced my body fat by about 8%. (~28% to ~20%) My goal is to reduce my insulin resistance at this point and move my body fat down to about 15%. However at this point I could care less about how many calories I eat, I care about how I feel and how my body is responding. I'm not going to torture myself anymore with trying to maintain calorie deficits which I can't even really control.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions