Have you had success because of The Obesity Code (book)?

AmyG1982

I'm not looking for a debate on if the theories in this book are correct or not or if there are other ways to achieve weight loss so please don't start...

I'm curious, has anyone read The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss by Dr. Jason Fung and lost more weight after following his advice? Just curious if anyone who's struggled to lose the traditional calories in vs. calories out way has had more success following what he suggests?

Muscleflex79

not trying to debate, but you won't find much support for his theories on a calorie counting website - meaning you won't find a lot that have followed his advice and had success.

BrettWithPKU

Some of us don't know what Dr Fung recommends. What is it?
I doubt it'll replace what I'm already doing, but it should open up some good, healthy banter!

AmyG1982

@BDonjon, you'd have to read the book lol anything I tell you you'd just be like "that's not right"... he lists a lot of studies and stuff to try and break down "bad science" of dieting. But he basically says that calorie counting is not the best or most effective way to lose weight and its more of a processed carb/sugar thing. There's a lot more to it than that of course. Its been a very interesting read for me. But Muscieflex makes a good point, probably the wrong place to ask about this topic.

Gallowmere1984

No, I found success because math isn't hard.

That said, thank you for reminding me about this book. I disagree with Fung on several key points, but I'm always interested in reading his thoughts on things, as his clinic does get results, even if we disagree on the mechanisms.

toxikon

I've not read the book, but I agree that it's all about calorie-in, calorie-out.

BUT - I am always my most successful when I follow a strict keto diet. Because high-fat, moderate protein and low-carb keeps me FULL. When I follow keto, I find it hard to even scratch 1200 calories a day. But when I eat high-carb, I often feel very hungry even at 1600+ calories.

So in that sense - weight loss is much, much easier for me on keto. But it's damn hard to stick to.

AmyG1982

@toxikon, I totally agree I'm way more satiated doing low carb but I do miss my treats lol. Its an interesting read with some interesting theories if you want to check it out... He's pretty funny so even though its sciency its still a good read.

BrettWithPKU

I can appreciate cutting down on processed foods, carbs, and sugars. If for no other reason--and this is something that applies to me but perhaps not everyone--carbs generally aren't filling. Sugar's definitely not filling.

I have a history with the Paleo diet in conjunction with a calorie goal, so I know that when you do Paleo right, you can meet a calorie goal while never feeling hungry.

I suppose the inverse could be true as well (and I'd be curious if Dr Fung endorses this idea): If you do a carb/sugar/processed food-restrictive diet properly and make sure it's sustainable such that you don't get hungry (but don't stuff yourself every meal either) then, yes, perhaps calorie counting isn't necessary.

Me? I'm a numbers guy; I prefer to calorie count.

AmyG1982

I love the idea of not having to count. If his theories are correct and you eat good food at the right times your body will burn off the extra calories through a whole bunch of body processes... I should say I haven't finished reading the book so I don't know all the ins and outs but I like what I've read so far. Counting gets tiring.

JustinRa

I think Dr. Fung's points make a ton of sense. Calorie counting isn't the answer for long term success. Also, I think intermittent fasting to "reset" works for a lot of people. It sounds daunting, but it really isn't.

ccrdragon

AmyG1982 wrote: »

I love the idea of not having to count. If his theories are correct and you eat good food at the right times your body will burn off the extra calories through a whole bunch of body processes... I should say I haven't finished reading the book so I don't know all the ins and outs but I like what I've read so far. Counting gets tiring.

Gotta disagree with the whole concept of the body 'burning off the extra calories'. The human body is an incredible machine when it comes to it's own survival and simply throwing away calories that could be stored and used at a later time to prevent the body's demise doesn't make evolutionary or logical sense.

I agree that you might have more energy and you might be fidgety or more active because of the extra energy and find that you burn more calories that way, but for the body to simply throw away excess calories just doesn't make any sense.

amusedmonkey

AmyG1982 wrote: »

I love the idea of not having to count. If his theories are correct and you eat good food at the right times your body will burn off the extra calories through a whole bunch of body processes... I should say I haven't finished reading the book so I don't know all the ins and outs but I like what I've read so far. Counting gets tiring.

While the "idea" of not having to count may sound appealing, the reality of it may or may not agree with what is in the book for one simple reason: the body will burn off calories if you eat fewer calories than you burn, and if his methods make you eat less spontaneously then, yes, it would work. Unfortunately, that's something you will have to find out for yourself as there is a possibility that you are not one of those people who reduce their caloric intake spontaneously on low carb (I know I am not).

If the "facts" he is stating are indeed facts, why is this such a polarizing topic? Why do you see groups doing the exact opposite, eating 80% of their intake in carbs and sugar, eating all day, and swearing left and right that their way is the only way that will keep you full? Why is it that if I don't have a starch with a meal I get hungry shortly after? Why are people successfully losing weight on all kinds of macro distributions and feeding schedules, from 8 meals a day to longer fasts? The answer is simple, because whatever method people are attributing their success to simply made them eat fewer calories.

I'm not saying this to rain on your parade, but to help you stay grounded in real facts not embellishments specifically crafted for financial gain. This way if something doesn't work for you, you will know exactly why and simply try something else instead of blaming yourself or thinking that your metabolism is doomed. There is no harm in trying his methods if you want to see if it helps you control your intake more intuitively, but there is also freedom in knowing that if you find it too restricting or unsustainable you have a million other options to explore because it really is about calories and sustainability.

mmapags

JustinRaphael wrote: »

I think Dr. Fung's points make a ton of sense. Calorie counting isn't the answer for long term success. Also, I think intermittent fasting to "reset" works for a lot of people. It sounds daunting, but it really isn't.

There is no science that backs up IF doing any kind of reset. It is a calorie intake management tool and cam help lower insulin resistance in those that are concerned about that. FOR, I am a longtime practitioner of IF and have researched thoroughly.

Silentpadna

JustinRaphael wrote: »

I think Dr. Fung's points make a ton of sense. Calorie counting isn't the answer for long term success. Also, I think intermittent fasting to "reset" works for a lot of people. It sounds daunting, but it really isn't.

I can't comment on whether they make sense or not, but one thing I do know: Calorie counting is the only thing that does make sense for long term. Whether you formally count or whether you've gotten to the point of controlling portions, you are still counting. If you eat a low-sugar, low carb or whatever and lose weight by the energy balance. If you are losing, you are loosely counting calories. If you are gaining and you reduce intake, guess what? You are still loosely counting calories. Basically the only thing that works long-term is being in control of intake and burn.

I don't know what a "reset" means, but I do 16:8 IF as an intake control method - so that my calorie counting works. What's daunting to me is trying a program that doesn't really help me know if my nutrition requirements are being met. Calorie counting is not just energy balance, but it also helps in know whether you are getting the things your body needs.

nvmomketo

I read his book and found it compliments my ketogenic diet, even though his diet is more LCHF with fasting. I think it is a good read, written in simple terms for the layman diabetic... I think that is the key thing to remember for this book: it was written to improve the health of those with insulin resistance, or to help prevent insulin resistance through dietary means. It was NOT written for the slim, fit 25 year old who is working out 7+ hours per week. Nor was it written for the few metabolically healthy overweight individuals.

The book is essentially a diet for diabetics that can be used to improve or reverse their insulin resistance. It is a weight loss book only in that losing weight often helps diabetics and because many will start losing weight if they cut starchy and sugary carbs from their diet nevermind stop eating every couple of hours.

I really wonder where people got the idea that we should eat every couple of hours. We're not grazers...

I found his info on how fasting helps (reset) insulin resistance interesting if basic, and it led to me reearching more in that area. Fasting does appear to help most diabetics improve their insulin resistance. If I fast my BG numbers are always wonderful, and it lasts for a while too.

I have found that IF does not help my numbers though due to the dawn phenomenom. On the other hand, a fast of 2 or 3 days works wonders.

One area I wonder about is fasting with a higher carb diet. He doesn't really address that I found. Whenomeone first goes LCHF or fasts, protein is used to make glycogen at first. I imagine muscle wasting would occur if you aren't eating protein. Once the body starts using ketones and fat for glucose production it becomes a non-issue so fasting with a LCHF diet seems to spare muscles.

But fasting on a higher carb diet? I wonder if your muscles would experience more wasting because the body has to repeatedly adjust to no carbs (or calories).

cwolfman13

AmyG1982 wrote: »

I love the idea of not having to count. If his theories are correct and you eat good food at the right times your body will burn off the extra calories through a whole bunch of body processes... I should say I haven't finished reading the book so I don't know all the ins and outs but I like what I've read so far. Counting gets tiring.

Your body isn't going to just burn off excess calories. If you eat maintenance calories you will maintain...surplus you will gain, regardless of the composition of your diet.

I eat a largely whole foods based diet because it is easier for me to maintain weight without counting...but I gain about 10 Lbs every winter...my excess calories in winter aren't being burned off...

mmapags

nvmomketo wrote: »

I read his book and found it compliments my ketogenic diet, even though his diet is more LCHF with fasting. I think it is a good read, written in simple terms for the layman diabetic... I think that is the key thing to remember for this book: it was written to improve the health of those with insulin resistance, or to help prevent insulin resistance through dietary means. It was NOT written for the slim, fit 25 year old who is working out 7+ hours per week. Nor was it written for the few metabolically healthy overweight individuals.

The book is essentially a diet for diabetics that can be used to improve or reverse their insulin resistance. It is a weight loss book only in that losing weight often helps diabetics and because many will start losing weight if they cut starchy and sugary carbs from their diet nevermind stop eating every couple of hours.

I really wonder where people got the idea that we should eat every couple of hours. We're not grazers...

I found his info on how fasting helps (reset) insulin resistance interesting if basic, and it led to me reearching more in that area. Fasting does appear to help most diabetics improve their insulin resistance. If I fast my BG numbers are always wonderful, and it lasts for a while too.

I have found that IF does not help my numbers though due to the dawn phenomenom. On the other hand, a fast of 2 or 3 days works wonders.

One area I wonder about is fasting with a higher carb diet. He doesn't really address that I found. Whenomeone first goes LCHF or fasts, protein is used to make glycogen at first. I imagine muscle wasting would occur if you aren't eating protein. Once the body starts using ketones and fat for glucose production it becomes a non-issue so fasting with a LCHF diet seems to spare muscles.

But fasting on a higher carb diet? I wonder if your muscles would experience more wasting because the body has to repeatedly adjust to no carbs (or calories).

Lol, no! You don't go catabolic in 16 or even 24 or 36 hours.

AnvilHead

JustinRaphael wrote: »

I think Dr. Fung's points make a ton of sense. Calorie counting isn't the answer for long term success. Also, I think intermittent fasting to "reset" works for a lot of people. It sounds daunting, but it really isn't.

Do they? Science says otherwise: https://myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/

Fung is nothing but another woo peddler, mangling and cherrypicking science to make a buck. He's the new Dr. Oz.

GottaBurnEmAll

Honestly, it's best to ignore Fung's rhetoric (because it's a sales pitch) and take away the following:

• Ketogenic or other LCHF plans work wonderfully for some people to naturally control hunger/cravings and help them achieve a caloric deficit through dietary satisfaction.
• Some people who are insulin resistant do best on this type of plan, though there are exceptions due to dietary preference/compliance issues. They do better with moderate carb plans.
• Intermittent fasting is nothing more than a tool to help people regulate their caloric intake and appetite. It doesn't boost anything, reset anything, or charge anything. I'm a big fan of it myself, but find it's important to correct misconceptions surrounding it.
• Successful weight loss is always achieved through caloric restriction, no matter how that caloric restriction happens. No matter how much of a shell game Fung wants to play with his plan, it still boils down to caloric restriction.

OP, you can still do a regular old LCHF or ketogenic plan without necessarily buying into Fung's theories (because they are bogus). I'd suggest joining the Low Carber Daily group here.

community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group

bmeadows380

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Honestly, it's best to ignore Fung's rhetoric (because it's a sales pitch) and take away the following:

• Ketogenic or other LCHF plans work wonderfully for some people to naturally control hunger/cravings and help them achieve a caloric deficit through dietary satisfaction.
• Some people who are insulin resistant do best on this type of plan, though there are exceptions due to dietary preference/compliance issues. They do better with moderate carb plans.
• Intermittent fasting is nothing more than a tool to help people regulate their caloric intake and appetite. It doesn't boost anything, reset anything, or charge anything. I'm a big fan of it myself, but find it's important to correct misconceptions surrounding it.
• Successful weight loss is always achieved through caloric restriction, no matter how that caloric restriction happens. No matter how much of a shell game Fung wants to play with his plan, it still boils down to caloric restriction.

OP, you can still do a regular old LCHF or ketogenic plan without necessarily buying into Fung's theories (because they are bogus). I'd suggest joining the Low Carber Daily group here.

community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group

I'm glad to see this viewpoint because my brother recently jumped onto Dr. Fung's wagon, so to speak, and was pushing pretty hard for me to try it. I just can't bring myself to do the IF thing, but have seen very good success with simple calorie counting with about 40 - 45% carbs and the rest balanced between protein and fats. I figured that CICO was working just fine for me, so why mess with it? But it led to a pretty intense discussion lol

My brother is one to jump onto fads, though. He insists he does his research, but he usually just ends up with a bunch of sites to support the idea he's following, such as back when he was carb cycling.....

GottaBurnEmAll

bmeadows380 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Honestly, it's best to ignore Fung's rhetoric (because it's a sales pitch) and take away the following:

• Ketogenic or other LCHF plans work wonderfully for some people to naturally control hunger/cravings and help them achieve a caloric deficit through dietary satisfaction.
• Some people who are insulin resistant do best on this type of plan, though there are exceptions due to dietary preference/compliance issues. They do better with moderate carb plans.
• Intermittent fasting is nothing more than a tool to help people regulate their caloric intake and appetite. It doesn't boost anything, reset anything, or charge anything. I'm a big fan of it myself, but find it's important to correct misconceptions surrounding it.
• Successful weight loss is always achieved through caloric restriction, no matter how that caloric restriction happens. No matter how much of a shell game Fung wants to play with his plan, it still boils down to caloric restriction.

OP, you can still do a regular old LCHF or ketogenic plan without necessarily buying into Fung's theories (because they are bogus). I'd suggest joining the Low Carber Daily group here.

community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group

I'm glad to see this viewpoint because my brother recently jumped onto Dr. Fung's wagon, so to speak, and was pushing pretty hard for me to try it. I just can't bring myself to do the IF thing, but have seen very good success with simple calorie counting with about 40 - 45% carbs and the rest balanced between protein and fats. I figured that CICO was working just fine for me, so why mess with it? But it led to a pretty intense discussion lol

My brother is one to jump onto fads, though. He insists he does his research, but he usually just ends up with a bunch of sites to support the idea he's following, such as back when he was carb cycling.....

There are many, many people who NEED breakfast. For them IF would be disastrous.

I'm a person for whom eating breakfast sets off an appetite switch. I eat first thing? I'm ravenous alllllll day. So IF is a logical choice for me.

It's really not more complicated or mysterious than that.

If you find you're more hungry later in the day for skipping breakfast? Eat breakfast. If you find that you eat more by eating breakfast? Skip breakfast. There, that's the big secret trick to how IF works to regulate appetite. In plain English, without a bunch of gobbletygook to mess with your head.

I do best myself with a pretty high carb diet (around 50-55%) and only need around 40-45 g of fat a day. The rest is protein.

I used to do fads. I learned better.

Fung has been very persuasive to a lot of people. We've had quite a few of his true believers come here before. It makes me sad, because weight loss is a simple subject, and what he tells people obfuscates the simplicity of how it works. Even if you want to low carb, there's a simpler explanation than what he offers for why it's helpful for some people to low carb, and it's just frustrating to see misinformation being put forth the way he peddles it.