So Is Jason Fung right...or wrong...is insulin even a factor in losing weight...and other issues.
bubus05
Posts: 121 Member
I am honestly curious what our own experts on MyFitnesspal think about the guy who is kind of famous or infamous-depending on whether you believe him or not- with his views on IF, fasting and keto. He is in favour of all of these three strategies though his favourite subject seems to be fasting, so is he wrong?
On a number of posts and replies I have seen these kinds of statements 'Fung was debunked by experts with more knowledge' or 'as soon as I've seen him mention I bailed'. Whenever I mention any of these three strategies and say why I think they work I get debunked that is for sure. I was suggested to ask the community what they really think so here it is.
First my own views. I think IF, fasting, keto work. At least in my own experience they do. From almost morbid obese at 285 lbs went to 190 lbs in twelve months, not super slim, but kind of healthy weight. I am a 50 year old relatively healthy male at 5.8. I have done all three but I have to admit lately I do have cheat days with high carbs, surprisingly even for me high carbs have not really effected my weight loss, if anything I felt I had more energy to put more pressure on my trainings. The only thing I have been very consistent is being in calorie deficit. I admit Fung got me into doing keto combined with fasting, so I am kind of grateful to him. His views on how insulin levels effect weight loss seemed credible so I tried to follow his advice and I feel I am successful, never felt better. Honestly, after years of unsuccessful attempts at losing weight here is a guy who explains how to do it and it works, a damn miracle in my book. And than I read on these pages I am wrong and Fung is wrong. That he is debunked by experts. WTF??? So I went to see the other argument. What I found is that essentially both sides argue the same thing except that, Fung says you go low insulin than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The other side says no he is wrong, you go into calorie deficit than your insulin level go down and than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The question of what came first the egg or the chicken...Both sides seem to be right, with one side claiming the insulin level is not that important it is the calorie deficit that is important. True, Fung doesn't speak of the importance of calorie deficit though, what he is saying is that with weight loss one's metabolism will necessarily go down so you can't really rely on that. That makes sense too, but the argument about CICO also makes sense. So I am at a loss why I lost the weight TBH. Fung seems to be right- i mean his strategy worked for me- but he seems to be wrong too, which is it...
I am curious to hear you guys sharing your views on the subject.
On a number of posts and replies I have seen these kinds of statements 'Fung was debunked by experts with more knowledge' or 'as soon as I've seen him mention I bailed'. Whenever I mention any of these three strategies and say why I think they work I get debunked that is for sure. I was suggested to ask the community what they really think so here it is.
First my own views. I think IF, fasting, keto work. At least in my own experience they do. From almost morbid obese at 285 lbs went to 190 lbs in twelve months, not super slim, but kind of healthy weight. I am a 50 year old relatively healthy male at 5.8. I have done all three but I have to admit lately I do have cheat days with high carbs, surprisingly even for me high carbs have not really effected my weight loss, if anything I felt I had more energy to put more pressure on my trainings. The only thing I have been very consistent is being in calorie deficit. I admit Fung got me into doing keto combined with fasting, so I am kind of grateful to him. His views on how insulin levels effect weight loss seemed credible so I tried to follow his advice and I feel I am successful, never felt better. Honestly, after years of unsuccessful attempts at losing weight here is a guy who explains how to do it and it works, a damn miracle in my book. And than I read on these pages I am wrong and Fung is wrong. That he is debunked by experts. WTF??? So I went to see the other argument. What I found is that essentially both sides argue the same thing except that, Fung says you go low insulin than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The other side says no he is wrong, you go into calorie deficit than your insulin level go down and than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The question of what came first the egg or the chicken...Both sides seem to be right, with one side claiming the insulin level is not that important it is the calorie deficit that is important. True, Fung doesn't speak of the importance of calorie deficit though, what he is saying is that with weight loss one's metabolism will necessarily go down so you can't really rely on that. That makes sense too, but the argument about CICO also makes sense. So I am at a loss why I lost the weight TBH. Fung seems to be right- i mean his strategy worked for me- but he seems to be wrong too, which is it...
I am curious to hear you guys sharing your views on the subject.
4
Replies
-
I think they work!
I think they work because you eat less when you do them.
I think if they're a sustainable thing for you and easier to stick to than something more broad then go forth.
It has jack all to do with anything more magical than 'you eat fewer calories' though.17 -
and, yes, with weight loss your metabolism goes down. Becuase you're smaller. Good news though: YOU ARE STILL EATING FEWER CALORIES. It doesn't just... stop burning calories so if what you are eating is less than you need to maintain a higher weight, even if it drops you keep losing. Then what you're eating is enough for your new size with your new metabolism... you maintain.
6 -
Fung *is* a quack. Do some research to discover why.22
-
I'm not a scientist, so I can't answer the insulin part. I just know that I lost 55lbs without fasting and without keto (200-250gr of carbs a day on average).
I did a very mild IF for the 6 or 9 months of my weight loss: I found it easier to stick to my calorie goal when I skipped breakfast. Then I realized I was low on protein, so I started eating a high protein breakfast. No difference in weight loss between the two strategies. Just basic CICO.13 -
First my own views. I think IF, fasting, keto work. At least in my own experience they do. From almost morbid obese at 285 lbs went to 190 lbs in twelve months, not super slim, but kind of healthy weight. I am a 50 year old relatively healthy male at 5.8.
thanks for asking!
I can't answer the insulin part, but I'm sure someone will chime in. Important is here: It worked for you. You lost about 2lbs per week, which is great success. Would the same work for someone else? For some it would, for others it wouldn't because not everyone thrives on keto, not everyone can fast and not everyone can do IF because that's their genetic make. However, eating less than what the body burns over a period of time works for everyone, and likewise everyone will gain weight if eating structurally above maintenance calories regardless of their macro and meal timing preferences.10 -
Protein is insulinogenic. If Fung stance is that insulin is the culprit of why fat doesn't get burned, then how does he back track on protein? He even states that whey and diary proteins can make you fatter due to higher insulin response.
I'm NOT against fasting (I do a mini one myself), I just think Fung is SELECTIVE in how he addresses obesity and weight loss. He tells you some truth, but not the whole truth.
IMO, Fung is a good marketer. Create a problem and make the cure. RESULT=CASH
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
22 -
He's not quite into Dr. Oz territory, but he comes closer pretty much everyday. Insulin isn't some devil thing...it's necessary and is a chemical hormone that directs energy to every cell in your body...to say it is the "fat hormone" or whatever is either zero understanding or purposefully misleading...I'd go with the latter. Insulin directs energy to every cell in your body...it is also the chemical hormone most responsible for building muscle.
Part of the problem is that he supposes that either everyone is sick and insulin resistant...or that even if you're not, you should be eating in this certain way. Why would an otherwise healthy person want to inhibit the body from doing what it's supposed to do? For a diabetic, the problem is that insulin response is actually inadequate to bring down blood glucose levels...so the choice is to either take insulin (if insulin was so "bad" why would people have to take it as a prescription) or take measures to keep blood glucose levels down...ie IF and Keto.
Basically, for an otherwise healthy person, his rhetoric is just that...and frankly, even for a diabetic, what he prescribes isn't necessary. My dad was a type II and controlled that with diet and didn't ever do IF or Keto.19 -
As a thought experiment:
If Fung is correct at some deep universal human physiological level, how does *anyone* ever lose weight and remain at a healthy weight long term, without doing *any* of IF, fasting, or keto?
Many people here (I'm one), and (for example) in the US National Weight Control Registry say that they've lost weight and kept it off long term without using IF, fasting or keto.
How is that possible? Do you believe we're mistaken about (or misrepresenting) what we do, or our results?
There are any number of articles critiquing Fung's theories in detail, at a research-findings level, from mainstream RDs, other academics, well-credentialed trainers, and more. They're not hard to find.
But the core question is above: How do you explain results from those who didn't follow Fung's "essential" methods?
I have no doubt that IF, fasting, keto can be effective. I don't even doubt the self-reports of those who find them near-magical tools. But the Fung-theory underpinnings simply don't pass the common sense sniff test, for me, because other methods work, too.24 -
Unless you have metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance the answer is no -- it doesn't matter.
My sample of one experience is: I've followed the CICO model on both high carb and lower carb diets. At my lowest adult weight I was eating ~300 grams of carbs per day, most of them simple carbs like bread and pasta. My weight has always matched the CICO model regardless of my carb intake. I'm in weight loss mode now and eating far fewer carbs and hardly any simple carbs and the weight loss still matches the same CICO model.9 -
Also if we're being OBJECTIVE, ANY WEIGHT LOSS PLAN works if the person adhere's to it's program. Liquid diet, low carb, Keto, fasting, water diet, Nutrisystem, Weight Watchers..............................they all have testimonials and successful stories of people who ADHERRED to the program. What's the ONE FACTOR that's consistent with all............................calorie deficit.
And if one can stick with the program they lost weight with for life, they'll likely keep it off. Unfortunately, only about 10% of people who use certain programs are able to.
Which is why for most of us here who comment and advise members on here take a more sensible approach of moderation in selection of weight loss plan for individuals. And that approach will be one where people can still enjoy food and drink and learn how to be in control of calories.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
21 -
Oh check his net worth too. He's apparently worth a little over 1.2 million. I'd keep writing about pseudoscience too if I kept making that money. Regardless of what detractors say. It's like religion...............there's always going to be followers and those who'll pay.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
12 -
As a thought experiment:
If Fung is correct at some deep universal human physiological level, how does *anyone* ever lose weight and remain at a healthy weight long term, without doing *any* of IF, fasting, or keto?
Many people here (I'm one), and (for example) in the US National Weight Control Registry say that they've lost weight and kept it off long term without using IF, fasting or keto.
How is that possible? Do you believe we're mistaken about (or misrepresenting) what we do, or our results?
There are any number of articles critiquing Fung's theories in detail, at a research-findings level, from mainstream RDs, other academics, well-credentialed trainers, and more. They're not hard to find.
But the core question is above: How do you explain results from those who didn't follow Fung's "essential" methods?
I have no doubt that IF, fasting, keto can be effective. I don't even doubt the self-reports of those who find them near-magical tools. But the Fung-theory underpinnings simply don't pass the common sense sniff test, for me, because other methods work, too.
I dont believe you are mistaken or that you are misrepresenting what you do. I respect your opinion and everyone's opinion here. I kind of came to the conclusion that what works for some may or may not work for others, there is no absolute best when it comes to how to lose weight, except maybe the issue of calorie deficit, we all seem to agree on that. I can't even explain how I lost what I lost, I am happy nevertheless, much less how others lose with say a high carb diet. Whatever works works...
I agree with the above posts, this industry is a cash cow, and Fung is taking full advantage of it.3 -
As a thought experiment:
If Fung is correct at some deep universal human physiological level, how does *anyone* ever lose weight and remain at a healthy weight long term, without doing *any* of IF, fasting, or keto?
Many people here (I'm one), and (for example) in the US National Weight Control Registry say that they've lost weight and kept it off long term without using IF, fasting or keto.
How is that possible? Do you believe we're mistaken about (or misrepresenting) what we do, or our results?
There are any number of articles critiquing Fung's theories in detail, at a research-findings level, from mainstream RDs, other academics, well-credentialed trainers, and more. They're not hard to find.
But the core question is above: How do you explain results from those who didn't follow Fung's "essential" methods?
I have no doubt that IF, fasting, keto can be effective. I don't even doubt the self-reports of those who find them near-magical tools. But the Fung-theory underpinnings simply don't pass the common sense sniff test, for me, because other methods work, too.
I dont believe you are mistaken or that you are misrepresenting what you do. I respect your opinion and everyone's opinion here. I kind of came to the conclusion that what works for some may or may not work for others, there is no absolute best when it comes to how to lose weight, except maybe the issue of calorie deficit, we all seem to agree on that. I can't even explain how I lost what I lost, I am happy nevertheless, much less how others lose with say a high carb diet. Whatever works works...
I agree with the above posts, this industry is a cash cow, and Fung is taking full advantage of it.
As long as there is a calorie deficit, anyone will lose weight on any combination of macros or eating protocols. If someone only has access to a set number of calories which equals a calorie deficit for them, they will lose weight.
Since most of us have access to many, many more calories than we need, the issue becomes ADHERENCE to that calorie deficit.
Keto and IF made it easier for you to adhere to a calorie deficit and that's great. We're happy for you.
However, you'll get pushback if you suggest it is the ONLY way, or that there is something special about it for the general public. There really isn't.16 -
A critique from someone with relevant education as opposed to a kidney doctor.....
Layne Norton - BS in Biochemistry (hons) and PhD Nutritional Sciences (hons)
One of his WTF series (what the fitness!) debunking Fung's claims comprehensively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3hkAzYzfV8&feature=youtu.be
BTW - please, oh please, just stop saying "do xyz to start burning fat". You started burning fat the day you were born and will burn fat until you die.
After a carb heavy breakfast and a sports carb drink I was measured at burning 95% of my energy from fat when at rest.19 -
His approach has worked for me. I liked his book because it referenced so many studies that weren't his own.
There are so many advice plans and programs out there that aren't based on anything but the author's personal opinion or experience, or one study of a few people, or QAnon type "research" that's basically some google searches for social posts written by influencers or bloggers hoping to make a few dollars (a current pet peeve of mine). His program is based on a lot of practical experience (his own, at his clinic) and a lot of outside scientific studies that he didn't create.
I've just started this year, but have lost about 10lbs doing intermittent fasting and eating a mostly Medi diet. It's higher fat (50-60% most days), but certainly not keto. I didn't really get that the book was recommending a keto diet, either. I eat a lot of beans and lentils and quinoa, as the book suggested, so the overall % of calories from carbs that I'm eating is usually about the same as the % from protein.
I also thought a lot of it was really just common sense. You overate, or have been overeating for years? Eat less. That's not a surprise. I think anyone who's followed nutrition at all would also agree that sugar and high glycemic foods also are a problem, which is sort of his second principle. And if eating less, and cutting back on sugar doesn't work, then he suggests intermittent fasting. That also makes sense to me, just because there doesn't seem to be any good reason for eating 3 squares a day plus snacks. I work in marketing, and know the history behind a lot of the ideas like "breakfast is the most important meal of the day". They were created by advertisers selling products. We study those campaigns and how successful they are.
There's also a lot more he could be doing if this were just a cash grab. I feel like we'd see all sorts of licensed products out there, like Atkins, Weight Watchers, etc do, or at least a better website!
Long story short, I agree with you. His program has worked really well for me, at least as far as weight loss and fitness go. Along with the weight loss, I'm running at about 2 min/mile faster than I was a couple of months ago (and doing that in the morning without eating breakfast), and generally feel a lot better mentally. So my experience matches yours. I'd say if it works for you, keep it up!
And if others have found something else that works - great! Keep that up, and all the best to all of us!4 -
People get weird ideas about food.
My husband, bless him, is a *chemical engineer* - ie: he is not under or uneducated. He became completely and utterly convinced that by air frying carrots - without adding anything, just sliced carrots in an air fryer - that they were going to have many more calories.
Not more calories per volume/weight, but more calories than those same carrots had at raw weight.
Because they tasted better.
13 -
And while I am spamming this thread:
I don't doubt that every program out there will work for some people. I also don't think any single PROGRAM has any incentive to want to see people reach long term success (Ie: you need the program for it to be sustainable/know what's up OR you have to go back to the program when you fell off and buy more products/information), believe the weight loss industry is predatory and like heck will any of them get my money.
I can COUNT just fine by myself, and if I fall off going back is free and not putting money back into the pockets of an industry preying on people and incentivized to see people fail and/or stay ignorant.9 -
I am honestly curious what our own experts on MyFitnesspal think about the guy who is kind of famous or infamous-depending on whether you believe him or not- with his views on IF, fasting and keto. He is in favour of all of these three strategies though his favourite subject seems to be fasting, so is he wrong?
On a number of posts and replies I have seen these kinds of statements 'Fung was debunked by experts with more knowledge' or 'as soon as I've seen him mention I bailed'. Whenever I mention any of these three strategies and say why I think they work I get debunked that is for sure. I was suggested to ask the community what they really think so here it is.
First my own views. I think IF, fasting, keto work. At least in my own experience they do. From almost morbid obese at 285 lbs went to 190 lbs in twelve months, not super slim, but kind of healthy weight. I am a 50 year old relatively healthy male at 5.8. I have done all three but I have to admit lately I do have cheat days with high carbs, surprisingly even for me high carbs have not really effected my weight loss, if anything I felt I had more energy to put more pressure on my trainings. The only thing I have been very consistent is being in calorie deficit. I admit Fung got me into doing keto combined with fasting, so I am kind of grateful to him. His views on how insulin levels effect weight loss seemed credible so I tried to follow his advice and I feel I am successful, never felt better. Honestly, after years of unsuccessful attempts at losing weight here is a guy who explains how to do it and it works, a damn miracle in my book. And than I read on these pages I am wrong and Fung is wrong. That he is debunked by experts. WTF??? So I went to see the other argument. What I found is that essentially both sides argue the same thing except that, Fung says you go low insulin than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The other side says no he is wrong, you go into calorie deficit than your insulin level go down and than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The question of what came first the egg or the chicken...Both sides seem to be right, with one side claiming the insulin level is not that important it is the calorie deficit that is important. True, Fung doesn't speak of the importance of calorie deficit though, what he is saying is that with weight loss one's metabolism will necessarily go down so you can't really rely on that. That makes sense too, but the argument about CICO also makes sense. So I am at a loss why I lost the weight TBH. Fung seems to be right- i mean his strategy worked for me- but he seems to be wrong too, which is it...
I am curious to hear you guys sharing your views on the subject.
I get your confusion - MFP will never agree with anything that isn't straight CICO - and anything else that works towards weight loss ONLY works because it puts you in a calorie deficit. I think there is a little more nuance with regards to the influence of hormones, metabolism, gut health etc than that - but I don't know that it is enough to make a huge difference in the "real world" - because yes any calorie deficit diet will result in weight loss.
I am not familiar with Dr Fung but my own personal doctor does believe that gut health and hormones are an important factor for metabolism and weight loss (she is a gp but has specialized practice in chronic illness and funcitonal nutrition). So while I do trust her opinion, it is hard to not have doubts creep in when you hang around here and it is constantly drilled into your head that those things don't matter. It's a conundrum for sure. But what I am doing is working for me (for my health and weight loss) so I'll just stick with it.6 -
If you eat over your maintenance calories, you'll gain weight, no matter what other diet tactics you deploy.
If you eat under your maintenance calories, you'll lose weight, no matter what other diet tactics you deploy.
If there were two people, A and B, both 250 pounds and trying to get to 200, and you had to bet which one would get there, and A's methodology is to eat a 500 calorie per day deficit, and B's is to do keto and IF without cutting calories, I highly recommend you put your money on A.
Some things like IF (which I have done more or less continuously for 18 months) help people lose weight, but it's important to distinguish between "things that help you stay in a calorie deficit, which causes you to lose weight" vs "things other than calorie restriction that directly cause weight loss." I do not believe the latter exist, except perhaps at the tiniest margins where it doesn't much matter.
Nor does anyone else believe it, deep down. Everyone knows you need to say no to the chocolate chip cookies if you want to get into those college jeans, and it has nothing to do with macros or Fung. I found parts of the Fung book interesting, but in the end, if you read Fung while munching on carrot sticks, you're good to go, and if you read Fung while eating a 24 oz rib eye, you're not.10 -
karinkane2 wrote: »His approach has worked for me. I liked his book because it referenced so many studies that weren't his own.
There are so many advice plans and programs out there that aren't based on anything but the author's personal opinion or experience, or one study of a few people, or QAnon type "research" that's basically some google searches for social posts written by influencers or bloggers hoping to make a few dollars (a current pet peeve of mine). His program is based on a lot of practical experience (his own, at his clinic) and a lot of outside scientific studies that he didn't create.
I've just started this year, but have lost about 10lbs doing intermittent fasting and eating a mostly Medi diet. It's higher fat (50-60% most days), but certainly not keto. I didn't really get that the book was recommending a keto diet, either. I eat a lot of beans and lentils and quinoa, as the book suggested, so the overall % of calories from carbs that I'm eating is usually about the same as the % from protein.
I also thought a lot of it was really just common sense. You overate, or have been overeating for years? Eat less. That's not a surprise. I think anyone who's followed nutrition at all would also agree that sugar and high glycemic foods also are a problem, which is sort of his second principle. And if eating less, and cutting back on sugar doesn't work, then he suggests intermittent fasting. That also makes sense to me, just because there doesn't seem to be any good reason for eating 3 squares a day plus snacks. I work in marketing, and know the history behind a lot of the ideas like "breakfast is the most important meal of the day". They were created by advertisers selling products. We study those campaigns and how successful they are.
There's also a lot more he could be doing if this were just a cash grab. I feel like we'd see all sorts of licensed products out there, like Atkins, Weight Watchers, etc do, or at least a better website!
Long story short, I agree with you. His program has worked really well for me, at least as far as weight loss and fitness go. Along with the weight loss, I'm running at about 2 min/mile faster than I was a couple of months ago (and doing that in the morning without eating breakfast), and generally feel a lot better mentally. So my experience matches yours. I'd say if it works for you, keep it up!
And if others have found something else that works - great! Keep that up, and all the best to all of us!
In an otherwise healthy person, high GI foods aren't a problem at all. Look at blue zones...the healthiest populations in the world...they eat high carbohydrate diets to include numerous high GI foods like potatoes and rice, etc. Vegans don't seem to have a whole lot of issue with high carbs and high GI foods either. Outside of being insulin resistant, the GI of a particular food is irrelevant to an otherwise healthy person.
That's part of the problem with Fung...the GI of a potato is completely irrelevant to an otherwise healthy person...there is no reason for a healthy person to avoid high GI foods like potatoes or rice or whatever. Not everyone is sick. There is no reason that a healthy person needs to suppress the things that the human body is supposed to be doing. I mean really...my body is functioning just as it should...but hey...maybe I should alter that by suppressing insulin?
N=1...I lost 40 Lbs pretty easily back in 2012/13 and never did IF or Keto or fasting or worried about insulin, etc. I'm in the process of dumping 20 Lbs of COVID fat at the moment and also zero issues. I had rice with my broccoli beef on Friday night...I had potatoes in my green chile stew last night for dinner...I had pancakes and eggs this morning for breakfast and I'm losing weight just fine.16 -
wunderkindking wrote: »I think they work!
I think they work because you eat less when you do them.
I think if they're a sustainable thing for you and easier to stick to than something more broad then go forth.
This. 100%.6 -
I don't know who Mr. Fung is but just want to clarify that "IF, fasting, keto work" are simply two strategies, not three: fasting and keto
Intermittent fasting is just a type of fast.
Folks can fool about and otherwise experiment with their macros once they have a good handle on their calorie intake for a given period of time. If keto-type macros work for your goals, then have at it. If you find it easier to manage, in terms of your lifestyle, then do so IF-style.9 -
To elaborate, and to be honest, given your own post, I'm not even sure what the question still in your mind is.First my own views. I think IF, fasting, keto work. At least in my own experience they do. From almost morbid obese at 285 lbs went to 190 lbs in twelve months, not super slim, but kind of healthy weight. I am a 50 year old relatively healthy male at 5.8. I have done all three but I have to admit lately I do have cheat days with high carbs, surprisingly even for me high carbs have not really effected my weight loss, if anything I felt I had more energy to put more pressure on my trainings. The only thing I have been very consistent is being in calorie deficit.
This is not surprising. It's the calorie deficit, of course, that causes weight loss. So if you had/have a calorie deficit, you will lose, You yourself say that high carb days haven't affected your weight loss. Similarly, for many of us who didn't fast or do keto or IF but lost weight, it's because we ALSO had a calorie deficit.
Why do some people struggle to lose and then do keto or IF and lose? Because many people are BAD at figuring out how to get in a calorie deficit, especially if they don't have a good understanding of food (and the cals they have or what they find sating) or problematic eating behaviors or are prone to mindless eating. Many who eat high cal foods also think they don't eat much (low volume) but are shocked by the cals, and some will diet by being very restrictive and then having cheat days and not realize they could be eating so much in the cheat day to prevent the deficit.
For some of these people, something like IF (which has clear strict limits and can take off the table food in times and situations where overeating was common) or keto (which makes mindless eating harder and may take off the table foods that one tended to overeat, although eventually most can probably find substitutes) can be an easy way to create a calorie deficit, at least initially, and particularly if one is not yet good at logging or finds doing so unappealing. Also, some people struggle when dieting since they don't know what is sating to them, and many find that keto decreases appetite (many, not all).
None of this supports Fung, at least not his why. Did he find a way to give people magic mumbo jumbo to get them to try things that work for more mundane reasons? Yeah. But not because insulin blah blah, magical fasting. So I see him as a charlatan.What I found is that essentially both sides argue the same thing except that, Fung says you go low insulin than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The other side says no he is wrong, you go into calorie deficit than your insulin level go down and than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight.
No, it has nothing to do with insulin. There have been studies (Kevin Hall's, for example) comparing people in the same calorie deficit, but one group has very low insulin and one does not. The one that did not actually lost a bit more fat, although I would say they were close enough to be basically the same.
Calories are the energy that one needs to function at one's given level of activity and exercise. If you don't have enough energy to fuel everything, it needs to come from somewhere, and so the body burns fat. Period. This happens whether one IFs or ketos or whatever.
To the extent Fung claims cals don't matter, insulin somehow magically prevents weight loss and low insulin causes it, he is wrong, and like I said, being somewhat shady, I suspect. Does Fung know calories in/calories out doesn't sell books and is hard for some to accept/adhere to and also realize in his head that what he is recommending will cause a calorie deficit in many people? Well, I kind of think so, but can't know for sure.
Fung's claims are debunked not only by the many other experts who have addressed them, but by the fact that there are likely way more people on this website and the National Weight Loss Registry and, well, the world who have lost weight without doing IF or keto than those who have.
(And it's also quite possible to gain doing IF or keto, and more likely when it's not a new thing that has caused one to be extra mindful about food and eating behaviors -- something that happens with any number of new diets or new ways of eating.)9 -
Love the new photo, MaltedTea. (I need to change mine again, as it's no longer seasonal!)4
-
I am honestly curious what our own experts on MyFitnesspal think about the guy who is kind of famous or infamous-depending on whether you believe him or not- with his views on IF, fasting and keto. He is in favour of all of these three strategies though his favourite subject seems to be fasting, so is he wrong?
On a number of posts and replies I have seen these kinds of statements 'Fung was debunked by experts with more knowledge' or 'as soon as I've seen him mention I bailed'. Whenever I mention any of these three strategies and say why I think they work I get debunked that is for sure. I was suggested to ask the community what they really think so here it is.
First my own views. I think IF, fasting, keto work. At least in my own experience they do. From almost morbid obese at 285 lbs went to 190 lbs in twelve months, not super slim, but kind of healthy weight. I am a 50 year old relatively healthy male at 5.8. I have done all three but I have to admit lately I do have cheat days with high carbs, surprisingly even for me high carbs have not really effected my weight loss, if anything I felt I had more energy to put more pressure on my trainings. The only thing I have been very consistent is being in calorie deficit. I admit Fung got me into doing keto combined with fasting, so I am kind of grateful to him. His views on how insulin levels effect weight loss seemed credible so I tried to follow his advice and I feel I am successful, never felt better. Honestly, after years of unsuccessful attempts at losing weight here is a guy who explains how to do it and it works, a damn miracle in my book. And than I read on these pages I am wrong and Fung is wrong. That he is debunked by experts. WTF??? So I went to see the other argument. What I found is that essentially both sides argue the same thing except that, Fung says you go low insulin than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The other side says no he is wrong, you go into calorie deficit than your insulin level go down and than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The question of what came first the egg or the chicken...Both sides seem to be right, with one side claiming the insulin level is not that important it is the calorie deficit that is important. True, Fung doesn't speak of the importance of calorie deficit though, what he is saying is that with weight loss one's metabolism will necessarily go down so you can't really rely on that. That makes sense too, but the argument about CICO also makes sense. So I am at a loss why I lost the weight TBH. Fung seems to be right- i mean his strategy worked for me- but he seems to be wrong too, which is it...
I am curious to hear you guys sharing your views on the subject.
I get your confusion - MFP will never agree with anything that isn't straight CICO - and anything else that works towards weight loss ONLY works because it puts you in a calorie deficit. I think there is a little more nuance with regards to the influence of hormones, metabolism, gut health etc than that - but I don't know that it is enough to make a huge difference in the "real world" - because yes any calorie deficit diet will result in weight loss.
I am not familiar with Dr Fung but my own personal doctor does believe that gut health and hormones are an important factor for metabolism and weight loss (she is a gp but has specialized practice in chronic illness and funcitonal nutrition). So while I do trust her opinion, it is hard to not have doubts creep in when you hang around here and it is constantly drilled into your head that those things don't matter. It's a conundrum for sure. But what I am doing is working for me (for my health and weight loss) so I'll just stick with it.
Of course those things (bolded) are important, when it comes to effective weight loss and maintenance, and I say that as a major, quite absolutist, CICO believer. (Noting that CICO is the energy balance equation; calorie counting is the method, and IMO calorie counting will work better for some people than others, for complex reasons, just like any other method.)
Even if we talk about calorie counting (done consistently and accurately), things like hormones, gut metabolism, etc., affect the weight loss process via appetite, cravings, energy level, body composition, etc., that may either (1) reduce CO when CI is or had previously been reduced, (2) cause an individual to have a lower (or higher) effective calorie burn (perhaps even via things accurately called "metabolism") than so-called calculators predict, or (3) make a deficit calorie goal psychologically, perhaps even physically, nearly impossible subjectively to stick with.
That's without even unpacking that "accurately" term in the first sentence of the preceding paragraph. All this stuff involved in calorie counting is estimates. It's hard to think of anything top-level relevant that's an accurate *measurement* vs. estimate, for most people. (Scale weight could be close, with specialized professional scales . . . but they don't measure fat loss, just the body/gravity/earth relationship at one moment.)
Just saying "weight loss comes down to calorie deficit" (true IMO in a direct, literal sense) doesn't imply that someone can just blindly apply codified rules and everything will be fine, physically, psychologically, socially, and more. That would be silly.
I disagree that "MFP will never agree with anything that isn't straight CICO". (Even if you meant "calorie counting" rather than "the calorie balance equation".) First, "MFP" is not a unitary entity, it's a bunch of very diverse people.
There are posts here every day suggesting strategies to deal with the factors you're talking about. There are are posts here every day acknowledging that methods other than calorie counting can work (yes, by creating a deficit). There are posts here nearly every day telling certain people that maybe calorie counting is a bad idea for them (some in anorexia recovery, for example). There are posts about the science behind adaptive thermogenesis, the effect of diet breaks on hormone levels, the importance of a well rounded way of eating for gut microbiome and general health, and more . . . from CICO and calorie counting believers.
When it comes to practical weight loss, there are individual factors that matter (gut microbiome and genetics may have an influence on some of them), and there are universal systemic factors that can matter because human physiology is complicated, with lots of mutually-cross-influencing aspects. Trying to make it absolutist or black and white (log fewer calories than some calculator says, lose weight) will work for some, but there's more to it than that, sure, as a practical thing in a real human's life.
Do some CICO/calorie counting believers have an overly simplistic view, that "log fewer calories than some calculator says, lose weight" is all that there is to it? Of course. Simplistic thinking has representatives in every theoretical camp.12 -
I think there are definitely reasons a 'calorie is not a calorie'. A calorie IS a calorie but when I started tracking it was vague curiosity about protein not to lose weight. I realized quickly that I was getting something like *FIFTEEN GRAMS* of protein a day.
15.
I absolutely began to lose weight when I upped my protein.
Because 15 grams of protein a day is STUPID (there wasn't much fat either
) and I'd eaten that way for years.
When I included more protein I stayed full longer, had more energy, moved more, and started sleeping better. The thing here is, it isn't that carbs were doing something bad to me, or that protein is magic. It was that I was eating ALL out of whack. When I gained the energy to move, stopped eating to replace sleep, and stayed full longer than an hour, I was better.
But I still eat (and ate) carbs.
So, yes, absolutely more fat and protein can help - and are important - but the flip side of that is not *carbs are evil for healthy people*. it's that maybe they should not be your entire diet, for several reasons.
Also? I sort of informally IF. I don't think it does crap to my metabolism or fat burn. I do it because I find food kind of 'bleh' before about 12-2 p.m and, so, save and eat my calories later in the day. Because that's when I want to eat
ALSO ALSO as someone said calorie calculators are estimators. If you track you'll see what you need to maintain a while. MFP and other calculators are just estimates. It's typically about 200 too low for me. Why? I dunno. Lack of variance in activity levels (and betweens) offered, I choose entries that are too high, I estimate too low for exercise, whatever. But if MFP gives me 1500 to lose .5 a week, I probably need to eat about 1700. It's really consistent.9 -
I don't know who Mr. Fung is but just want to clarify that "IF, fasting, keto work" are simply two strategies, not three: fasting and keto
Intermittent fasting is just a type of fast.
Folks can fool about and otherwise experiment with their macros once they have a good handle on their calorie intake for a given period of time. If keto-type macros work for your goals, then have at it. If you find it easier to manage, in terms of your lifestyle, then do so IF-style.
I agree that that's a great photo, @MaltedTea . . . one in quite a sequence of them. Wondering if you're a photographer, or have one in your life.
Back on topic:
Maybe I was reading too much into it (I usually am), but I read it as (sort of) 3 things, possibly: (1) IF (a regular pattern practice like 5:2, 16:8 (or should that be 8:16?😆), OMAD, etc.), (2) fasting (throwing in whole fasting days, maybe multiples, but not as one of the regular pattern thingies), and (3) keto.
Of course any of them can work, properly managed.1 -
@lemurcat2 Cats are ALWAYS in season lol Thanks to you and @AnnPT77 for the PP compliment. And you're right @AnnPT77, I was thinking of IF as a sub-category of fasting.6
-
I am honestly curious what our own experts on MyFitnesspal think about the guy who is kind of famous or infamous-depending on whether you believe him or not- with his views on IF, fasting and keto. He is in favour of all of these three strategies though his favourite subject seems to be fasting, so is he wrong?
On a number of posts and replies I have seen these kinds of statements 'Fung was debunked by experts with more knowledge' or 'as soon as I've seen him mention I bailed'. Whenever I mention any of these three strategies and say why I think they work I get debunked that is for sure. I was suggested to ask the community what they really think so here it is.
First my own views. I think IF, fasting, keto work. At least in my own experience they do. From almost morbid obese at 285 lbs went to 190 lbs in twelve months, not super slim, but kind of healthy weight. I am a 50 year old relatively healthy male at 5.8. I have done all three but I have to admit lately I do have cheat days with high carbs, surprisingly even for me high carbs have not really effected my weight loss, if anything I felt I had more energy to put more pressure on my trainings. The only thing I have been very consistent is being in calorie deficit. I admit Fung got me into doing keto combined with fasting, so I am kind of grateful to him. His views on how insulin levels effect weight loss seemed credible so I tried to follow his advice and I feel I am successful, never felt better. Honestly, after years of unsuccessful attempts at losing weight here is a guy who explains how to do it and it works, a damn miracle in my book. And than I read on these pages I am wrong and Fung is wrong. That he is debunked by experts. WTF??? So I went to see the other argument. What I found is that essentially both sides argue the same thing except that, Fung says you go low insulin than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The other side says no he is wrong, you go into calorie deficit than your insulin level go down and than you start burning fat and than you will lose weight. The question of what came first the egg or the chicken...Both sides seem to be right, with one side claiming the insulin level is not that important it is the calorie deficit that is important. True, Fung doesn't speak of the importance of calorie deficit though, what he is saying is that with weight loss one's metabolism will necessarily go down so you can't really rely on that. That makes sense too, but the argument about CICO also makes sense. So I am at a loss why I lost the weight TBH. Fung seems to be right- i mean his strategy worked for me- but he seems to be wrong too, which is it...
I am curious to hear you guys sharing your views on the subject.
I get your confusion - MFP will never agree with anything that isn't straight CICO - and anything else that works towards weight loss ONLY works because it puts you in a calorie deficit. I think there is a little more nuance with regards to the influence of hormones, metabolism, gut health etc than that - but I don't know that it is enough to make a huge difference in the "real world" - because yes any calorie deficit diet will result in weight loss.
I am not familiar with Dr Fung but my own personal doctor does believe that gut health and hormones are an important factor for metabolism and weight loss (she is a gp but has specialized practice in chronic illness and funcitonal nutrition). So while I do trust her opinion, it is hard to not have doubts creep in when you hang around here and it is constantly drilled into your head that those things don't matter. It's a conundrum for sure. But what I am doing is working for me (for my health and weight loss) so I'll just stick with it.
I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone on MFP is saying gut health, hormones, etc., don't matter. One person will have a TDEE of 2100, and another person who's the same gender, height, weight, etc., will have a TDEE of 2200 or 2150 or 2035. Individual physiologies clearly differ and one's TDEE reflects the sum total of all the things that are going on inside your body, inclusive of insulin levels, other hormones, etc. etc. etc.
But in the end, you gotta be in a calorie deficit to lose weight, and the size of that calorie deficit will determine how much weight you lose. Calorie deficit has always been the most important factor, by far, in weight loss and always will be, except in the case of quite unusual medical conditions. Whether there's 5 or 10 % at the margins that can be influenced by things other than calorie deficit, who knows, but those things are hardly the basis of a successful weight loss plan. Keto, IF, all may play a peripheral role in weight loss beyond their impact on helping one stay in a deficit, but the key word there is "peripheral".6 -
General Mills originated this slogan to sell more cereal. I've had good debates with people on this and many still adhere to HAVING to eat breakfast along with thinking that people that don't aren't that healthy.karinkane2 wrote: »That also makes sense to me, just because there doesn't seem to be any good reason for eating 3 squares a day plus snacks. I work in marketing, and know the history behind a lot of the ideas like "breakfast is the most important meal of the day". They were created by advertisers selling products. We study those campaigns and how successful they are.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions