Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Dr Jason Fung - The Useless Concept of Calories
Options
Replies
-
But Dr Peter Attia who developed metabolic syndrome even while he was an athlete seems to be saying something similar..
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
Was a bit surprised by the amount of hostility to Fung... Maybe Attia will be in for worse :-)
I don't know myself - trying to keep an open mind I guess - so please don't flame me - I'm very sensitive and it might make me eat 300kcal (of chocolate or salmon) and then I'll have to run for 25.5 minutes to burn them off (I guess). :-)
Here's what the WHO, an international organization that is one of the de facto authorities in the world on things like that, that unlike Fung does not have to sell diet books about how everything mainstream medicine told you was a lie, has to say about calories:
"There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy
body weight and ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient
distribution expressed in energy percentage (%E). "
http://foris.fao.org/preview/25553-0ece4cb94ac52f9a25af77ca5cfba7a8c.pdf9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If calories are a lie, what would Fung (or other doctors who accept his theories) recommend for a patient who needed to gain weight or maintain their weight?
They'd probably say that you just need to add a few grams of carbs to your diet and teh evil insulinzzz would make you blow up like a balloon.
It's amazing how Fung, Attia, Taubes, et al can completely ignore the empirical evidence consisting of millions of people who have successfully lost weight/fat and vastly improved health markers by caloric restriction without lowering carb intake. Not to mention the mountains of scientific evidence (such as linked by psulemon above, for starters). It takes a special kind of stupid to blather on when you've been thoroughly and convincingly proven wrong and the rest of the scientific world is laughing at you.
[ETA:] Just to add to the links provided above, here's an article which links to 148 different studies which clearly indicate that calories do indeed matter: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
[ETA again:] Lyle McDonald's review of the Hall study (which was conducted in a metabolic ward): https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/reduced-fat-reduced-carbohydrate-diets.html/10 -
stevencloser wrote: »Either way, Fung is a nephrologist who has woven just enough actual science into all his pseudo/junk science to almost sound convincing, but he's been torn apart by plenty of experts with actual knowledge about physiology and nutrition. He's another Dr. Oz - a physician who's sold his soul to the almighty dollar, peddling snake oil and shoveling in money by the bucketloads from gullible, desperate people.
It's rather telling that when you Google his name, some of the first links to his "work" are to dietdoctor.com, Jimmy Moore's keto site and Mercola's site. You can almost fill up your woo bingo card from that first page of search results.
Isn't dietdoctor His own Site? It talks about him enough to be at least.
Funny you should ask. Unsurprisingly, he's listed on their site as an "expert contributor". And dietdoctor is hardly an unbiased source - it's nothing more than a keto propaganda website.0 -
Mr. Fung...All I could think of was this....
https://youtu.be/Yw_CtUR9Lh0?t=3m25s 2 -
Sometimes I want to stick pins in my eyes. This is one of those times3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »If calories are a lie, what would Fung (or other doctors who accept his theories) recommend for a patient who needed to gain weight or maintain their weight?
They'd probably say that you just need to add a few grams of carbs to your diet and teh evil insulinzzz would make you blow up like a balloon.
It's amazing how Fung, Attia, Taubes, et al can completely ignore the empirical evidence consisting of millions of people who have successfully lost weight/fat and vastly improved health markers by caloric restriction without lowering carb intake. Not to mention the mountains of scientific evidence (such as linked by psulemon above, for starters). It takes a special kind of stupid to blather on when you've been thoroughly and convincingly proven wrong and the rest of the scientific world is laughing at you.
[ETA:] Just to add to the links provided above, here's an article which links to 148 different studies which clearly indicate that calories do indeed matter: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
[ETA again:] Lyle McDonald's review of the Hall study (which was conducted in a metabolic ward): https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/reduced-fat-reduced-carbohydrate-diets.html/
I just bought one of Lyle's books - looking forward to reading it! Lyle wrote a book on the Ketogenic Diet right? Be interested to read that one as well.
Regarding the Kevin Hall study there's a response from Fung here - https://www.dietdoctor.com/how-kevin-hall-tried-to-kill-insulin-hypothesis-pure-spin
Kevin Hall is the expert on Biggest Loser right? Here's an article in Scientific American indicating most regain all the weight and their metabolism has slowed down long term after their weight loss.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/
I don't think they ignore caloric restriction. They allude to calories as the proximate cause but not the ultimate clause of obesity.
Eg Proximate cause of airplane crash = too much gravity, not enough lift. Ultimate cause = weather, human factors, technical factors.
So the mainstream theory on obesity is - proximate cause = we eat too many calories relative to what we expend. Ultimate cause is - we are too greedy and lazy
The hormonal theory's proximate cause = we eat too many calories (particularly of sugar and simple carbs). Ultimate cause is = simple carbs drive up blood sugar which drives up insulin to get the blood sugar down which over decades causes insulin resistance which causes obesity, diabetes (and maybe other nasties like CVD, PCOS)
In 1985 no state in the USA had an obesity rate higher than 15pc. Today most States are in the 30-40pc region. I've been alive long enough to have seen our food environment change beyond recognition. I don't think this is a co-incidence.
I don't understand why there's so much resistance to the idea that hormones drive our bodies and behaviour. We know that testosterone, oestrogen, human growth hormone, the contraceptive pill, ghrelin, leptin all have effects on our body and behaviour. We know that insulin allows glucose to enter cells. Type 1 diabetics become emaciated and die without their insulin injections. And we know that simple carbs such as flour spike blood sugar very high and produce a large insulin response from the pancreas. So how can we think that 500kcal of bread and 500kcal of avocado would have an identical profile in terms of how much of that food gets stored as fat all other things being equal? Isn't that the ultimate argument of the CICO hypothesis? Tell me if I've misunderstood it. I'm not trying to wind anyone up or win any points -just sharing where I am based on what I've read.
I don't think there's actually a conflict between the calorie theory and the hormonal theory. It's just that the we have it backwards. The hormones (insulin and dopamine) are driving many of us to consume excess calories of simple carbs and sugar and the high insulin (insulin resistance) is directing many of those excess calories to our fat stores (once the liver and muscles are full of glycogen) - until the pancreas can no longer produce enough insulin to keep up with the resistance - and then we get type 2 diabetes. And the doctors prescribe......? Insulin!
I think it's a neat theory that seems to fit the facts. It's also the theory of obesity that was held by the top European researchers who didn't survive World War II so it's not new.
20 -
15 -
The human body CANNOT create energy from nothing or make ingested energy just *poof* disappear because of hormones. If it could we would either be harvesting humans for magical Insulin or producing it in a lab to run our power grid. And the so-called "experts" that you so proudly mention are NOT experts in physiology or nutritional sciences. Just because they have letters before or after their name doesn't mean they are an expert in other fields.janejellyroll wrote: »If calories are a lie, what would Fung (or other doctors who accept his theories) recommend for a patient who needed to gain weight or maintain their weight?
They'd probably say that you just need to add a few grams of carbs to your diet and teh evil insulinzzz would make you blow up like a balloon.
It's amazing how Fung, Attia, Taubes, et al can completely ignore the empirical evidence consisting of millions of people who have successfully lost weight/fat and vastly improved health markers by caloric restriction without lowering carb intake. Not to mention the mountains of scientific evidence (such as linked by psulemon above, for starters). It takes a special kind of stupid to blather on when you've been thoroughly and convincingly proven wrong and the rest of the scientific world is laughing at you.
[ETA:] Just to add to the links provided above, here's an article which links to 148 different studies which clearly indicate that calories do indeed matter: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
[ETA again:] Lyle McDonald's review of the Hall study (which was conducted in a metabolic ward): https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/reduced-fat-reduced-carbohydrate-diets.html/
I just bought one of Lyle's books - looking forward to reading it! Lyle wrote a book on the Ketogenic Diet right? Be interested to read that one as well.
Regarding the Kevin Hall study there's a response from Fung here - https://www.dietdoctor.com/how-kevin-hall-tried-to-kill-insulin-hypothesis-pure-spin
Kevin Hall is the expert on Biggest Loser right? Here's an article in Scientific American indicating most regain all the weight and their metabolism has slowed down long term after their weight loss.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/
I don't think they ignore caloric restriction. They allude to calories as the proximate cause but not the ultimate clause of obesity.
Eg Proximate cause of airplane crash = too much gravity, not enough lift. Ultimate cause = weather, human factors, technical factors.
So the mainstream theory on obesity is - proximate cause = we eat too many calories relative to what we expend. Ultimate cause is - we are too greedy and lazy
The hormonal theory's proximate cause = we eat too many calories (particularly of sugar and simple carbs). Ultimate cause is = simple carbs drive up blood sugar which drives up insulin to get the blood sugar down which over decades causes insulin resistance which causes obesity, diabetes (and maybe other nasties like CVD, PCOS)
In 1985 no state in the USA had an obesity rate higher than 15pc. Today most States are in the 30-40pc region. I've been alive long enough to have seen our food environment change beyond recognition. I don't think this is a co-incidence.
I don't understand why there's so much resistance to the idea that hormones drive our bodies and behaviour. We know that testosterone, oestrogen, human growth hormone, the contraceptive pill, ghrelin, leptin all have effects on our body and behaviour. We know that insulin allows glucose to enter cells. Type 1 diabetics become emaciated and die without their insulin injections. And we know that simple carbs such as flour spike blood sugar very high and produce a large insulin response from the pancreas. So how can we think that 500kcal of bread and 500kcal of avocado would have an identical profile in terms of how much of that food gets stored as fat all other things being equal? Isn't that the ultimate argument of the CICO hypothesis? Tell me if I've misunderstood it. I'm not trying to wind anyone up or win any points -just sharing where I am based on what I've read.
I don't think there's actually a conflict between the calorie theory and the hormonal theory. It's just that the we have it backwards. The hormones (insulin and dopamine) are driving many of us to consume excess calories of simple carbs and sugar and the high insulin (insulin resistance) is directing many of those excess calories to our fat stores (once the liver and muscles are full of glycogen) - until the pancreas can no longer produce enough insulin to keep up with the resistance - and then we get type 2 diabetes. And the doctors prescribe......? Insulin!
I think it's a neat theory that seems to fit the facts. It's also the theory of obesity that was held by the top European researchers who didn't survive World War II so it's not new.
...............Hold on I gotta call my CPA to fix my plumbing
20 -
rileysowner wrote: »
share1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If calories are a lie, what would Fung (or other doctors who accept his theories) recommend for a patient who needed to gain weight or maintain their weight?
They'd probably say that you just need to add a few grams of carbs to your diet and teh evil insulinzzz would make you blow up like a balloon.
It's amazing how Fung, Attia, Taubes, et al can completely ignore the empirical evidence consisting of millions of people who have successfully lost weight/fat and vastly improved health markers by caloric restriction without lowering carb intake. Not to mention the mountains of scientific evidence (such as linked by psulemon above, for starters). It takes a special kind of stupid to blather on when you've been thoroughly and convincingly proven wrong and the rest of the scientific world is laughing at you.
[ETA:] Just to add to the links provided above, here's an article which links to 148 different studies which clearly indicate that calories do indeed matter: https://completehumanperformance.com/2013/07/23/why-calories-count/
[ETA again:] Lyle McDonald's review of the Hall study (which was conducted in a metabolic ward): https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/reduced-fat-reduced-carbohydrate-diets.html/
I just bought one of Lyle's books - looking forward to reading it! Lyle wrote a book on the Ketogenic Diet right? Be interested to read that one as well.
Regarding the Kevin Hall study there's a response from Fung here - https://www.dietdoctor.com/how-kevin-hall-tried-to-kill-insulin-hypothesis-pure-spin
Kevin Hall is the expert on Biggest Loser right? Here's an article in Scientific American indicating most regain all the weight and their metabolism has slowed down long term after their weight loss.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/
I don't think they ignore caloric restriction. They allude to calories as the proximate cause but not the ultimate clause of obesity.
Eg Proximate cause of airplane crash = too much gravity, not enough lift. Ultimate cause = weather, human factors, technical factors.
So the mainstream theory on obesity is - proximate cause = we eat too many calories relative to what we expend. Ultimate cause is - we are too greedy and lazy
The hormonal theory's proximate cause = we eat too many calories (particularly of sugar and simple carbs). Ultimate cause is = simple carbs drive up blood sugar which drives up insulin to get the blood sugar down which over decades causes insulin resistance which causes obesity, diabetes (and maybe other nasties like CVD, PCOS)
In 1985 no state in the USA had an obesity rate higher than 15pc. Today most States are in the 30-40pc region. I've been alive long enough to have seen our food environment change beyond recognition. I don't think this is a co-incidence.
I don't understand why there's so much resistance to the idea that hormones drive our bodies and behaviour. We know that testosterone, oestrogen, human growth hormone, the contraceptive pill, ghrelin, leptin all have effects on our body and behaviour. We know that insulin allows glucose to enter cells. Type 1 diabetics become emaciated and die without their insulin injections. And we know that simple carbs such as flour spike blood sugar very high and produce a large insulin response from the pancreas. So how can we think that 500kcal of bread and 500kcal of avocado would have an identical profile in terms of how much of that food gets stored as fat all other things being equal? Isn't that the ultimate argument of the CICO hypothesis? Tell me if I've misunderstood it. I'm not trying to wind anyone up or win any points -just sharing where I am based on what I've read.
I don't think there's actually a conflict between the calorie theory and the hormonal theory. It's just that the we have it backwards. The hormones (insulin and dopamine) are driving many of us to consume excess calories of simple carbs and sugar and the high insulin (insulin resistance) is directing many of those excess calories to our fat stores (once the liver and muscles are full of glycogen) - until the pancreas can no longer produce enough insulin to keep up with the resistance - and then we get type 2 diabetes. And the doctors prescribe......? Insulin!
I think it's a neat theory that seems to fit the facts. It's also the theory of obesity that was held by the top European researchers who didn't survive World War II so it's not new.
The problem with your example and Dr. Fung examples is the fact that no one eata like it. You cant compare bread vs avocado. That is why you have to compare two diets that hold protein and calories steady to compare results. The small increase in EE is alluded to the additional oxygen required to initially produce ketones. Whats interesting is you would think it would drive additional fat loss since it could create a larger deficit. Unfortunately, that did not occur. And when you reference other studies looking by pro low carb researches that demonstrate large increases in EE, one thing is consistent.... its that protein is never held constant and its usually blamed that when you increase fats you automatically increase proteins. Often these studies compare a lchf diet that is often 2x higher in protein.
Additionally, if you want to look at the healthiest and longest living populations in the world, they all have something in common; high carb and lower calories. The average obese nstion consumes 3k calories. The leanest nations are closer to 1700 (if i can find the Nat Geo link ill post it).
Essentially, insulin theory still has yet to have evidence to support it. There are thousands of studies that support energy balance and several studies supporting that if you equate for calories and lose weight, then metabolic markers will improve... even on a high sugar diet.
Eta: look at the spoiler link and look at Dr. Layne Nortons video on insulin. Insulin is good... the body not being able to produce enough or over produce is bad. But keep in mind that the treatment is different than cause.18 -
So the mainstream theory on obesity is - proximate cause = we eat too many calories relative to what we expend. Ultimate cause is - we are too greedy and lazy
The hormonal theory's proximate cause = we eat too many calories (particularly of sugar and simple carbs). Ultimate cause is = simple carbs drive up blood sugar which drives up insulin to get the blood sugar down which over decades causes insulin resistance which causes obesity, diabetes (and maybe other nasties like CVD, PCOS)
Translation. It's not my fault.
I'm sorry, but I got to 330+lbs because I ate too much and didn't move enough. I'm now ~220 and aiming for sub 200 by eating less and moving more. It was my fault I was morbidly obese and it's my responsibility to deal with it.
I'm curious how many times this needs to be said?
19 -
There were even studies where diabetes improved on a high sugar high carb diet, but the guy conducting them was an unethical pervert, so they're not often talked about.
The findings are still valid, though.1 -
JillianRumrill wrote: »Mr. Fung...All I could think of was this....https://youtu.be/Yw_CtUR9Lh0?t=3m25s
Not to make this a Dana Carvey thread (though that wouldn't be a bad thing) but my sisters and I drop quotes from this show at least twice a week.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Or look more closely at metabolic pathway for glucose. There are even more detailed pathways for protein and fat. My question is this: Do you see “Calories” mentioned on any part of these simplified pathways? We’ve spent the last hundred years detailing the intricacies of human metabolism. And nowhere in all of this work do you see the word “Calories”
Yeah okay. Um, the metabolic processes in our cells...the ones detailed in this article...produce energy from the chemical metabolic breakdown of fats, proteins and carbohydrates. That energy is stored in energetic bonds in ATP molecules or in the transport of electrons in NADH and FADH2 molecules that are then used by electron transport to again generate ATP. That is the energy used for the day to day operation of our bodies and it is supplied to us through both our food and our stores of those molecules in the form of fat and glycogen etc. To see this in those diagrams you kind of have to know what you are looking at. But where are calories, I don't see calories....case closed. Yeah, uh, calories...calories are just a unit of energy. Kind of like how a meter is a unit of distance and a kilogram is a unit of mass. So if you are talking about energy, you can talk about it in terms of calories. Saying "I don't see calories in this diagram so calories are irrelevant" is kind of like looking at a map that has distances in miles and saying "I don't see kilometers on here so kilometers are irrelevant!" Biochemical metabolism is about the transfer of energy...so yeah, calories (or whatever your favorite unit for measuring energy is) are relevant.
Weightloss happens when the amount of energy your body expends is greater than the amount of energy you intake. As the energy books always have to be balanced the energy comes instead through the processing and consumption of stored molecules within your body. If you want to be accurate at predicting weight loss, track energy. In terms of food energy is typically measured in calories...hence the relevance. But if you don't like the word calories for some reason feel free to track the energy in joules or in horsepower or w/e your favorite unit is.
Might need to work on that biochemistry of calories post I was thinking about making.
Please write that, I would love to read something on that that is a) accurate and b) written for a layperson. It is HARD to find something on the subject that is accessible to those without a science background but who still want to understand the actual processes involved and not a quack diet doctor's interpretation of such. I want the first-year-undergrad explanation, not the PhD dissertation one or the women's magazine one.9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »So the mainstream theory on obesity is - proximate cause = we eat too many calories relative to what we expend. Ultimate cause is - we are too greedy and lazy
The hormonal theory's proximate cause = we eat too many calories (particularly of sugar and simple carbs). Ultimate cause is = simple carbs drive up blood sugar which drives up insulin to get the blood sugar down which over decades causes insulin resistance which causes obesity, diabetes (and maybe other nasties like CVD, PCOS)
Translation. It's not my fault.
I'm sorry, but I got to 330+lbs because I ate too much and didn't move enough. I'm now ~220 and aiming for sub 200 by eating less and moving more. It was my fault I was morbidly obese and it's my responsibility to deal with it.
I'm curious how many times this needs to be said?
Also, if the causation in the hormonal theory is insulin resistance, how come there are people who are overweight and even obese without being IR?
But in any case, I agree with you. The hormonal theory seems to be an effort to tell people they couldn't help but overeat or that it was not their own chosen actions (overeating) that caused their weight gain. Ugh.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There were even studies where diabetes improved on a high sugar high carb diet, but the guy conducting them was an unethical pervert, so they're not often talked about.
The findings are still valid, though.
Many, even.
https://deniseminger.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/
And the current plant-based gurus like Campbell and Fuhrman and the rest report the same kind of miraculous results with T2D as the low carbers.3 -
Boom! I'll just leave this here
https://medium.com/personal-growth/the-useless-concept-of-calories-50831730cc81
That wasn't nice of you... At least you could have brown-bagged it.20 -
That was a waste of 4 minutes.....
You actually bothered to click the link?
I'm not interested in anything Fung has to say. He's a woo-spouting crackpot and is a laughingstock amongst evidence-based nutrition/physiology experts.
It was humorous when he popped into the ISSN (International Society of Sports Nutrition) Facebook group. He was absolutely crucified in there.
Now THAT'S a link I'd click!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »So the mainstream theory on obesity is - proximate cause = we eat too many calories relative to what we expend. Ultimate cause is - we are too greedy and lazy
The hormonal theory's proximate cause = we eat too many calories (particularly of sugar and simple carbs). Ultimate cause is = simple carbs drive up blood sugar which drives up insulin to get the blood sugar down which over decades causes insulin resistance which causes obesity, diabetes (and maybe other nasties like CVD, PCOS)
Translation. It's not my fault.
I'm sorry, but I got to 330+lbs because I ate too much and didn't move enough. I'm now ~220 and aiming for sub 200 by eating less and moving more. It was my fault I was morbidly obese and it's my responsibility to deal with it.
I'm curious how many times this needs to be said?
Also, if the causation in the hormonal theory is insulin resistance, how come there are people who are overweight and even obese without being IR?
But in any case, I agree with you. The hormonal theory seems to be an effort to tell people they couldn't help but overeat or that it was not their own chosen actions (overeating) that caused their weight gain. Ugh.
That's an excellent point. I've never had IR, and I was obese class II.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions