So Is Jason Fung right...or wrong...is insulin even a factor in losing weight...and other issues.
Replies
-
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".
I'm not sure why you are quoting me, whether it is to disagree, or if you want me to respond or what. But as per the bolded part of my comment we are literally saying the same thing so.... yeah? (But note that my comment got several "disagrees" - my experience with MFP is that even mentioning the influence of another factor than CICO elicits a negative response. I don't get it, but its a calorie counting website so whatever.)4 -
The reason other people react negatively to the other aspects is when they are tied not to health but to the idea that if you eat in a particular way ( only eat 'clean' or limit carbs or never snack or skip breakfast) that calories cease to matter.
those other things may make you healthier. They make it easier to eat fewer calories.
But they do not negate the role OF calories.
Well, that, and the fact that and super restrictive stuff is much more likely to lead to 'falling off the wagon' than simply reducing your calories while eating your normal diet. Most people WILL gradually improve what they eat as they see those calorie counts come up and realize how much more than can eat when they change things--
but "DO NOT EAT ANY CARBS" is a big damn leap for a lot of people. So they fail to not eat any carbs. So they decide they can not lose weight now and to heck with it.
bad set up.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.
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".
I'm not sure why you are quoting me, whether it is to disagree, or if you want me to respond or what. But as per the bolded part of my comment we are literally saying the same thing so.... yeah? (But note that my comment got several "disagrees" - my experience with MFP is that even mentioning the influence of another factor than CICO elicits a negative response. I don't get it, but its a calorie counting website so whatever.)
I did not hit disagree on your post, but if I had to guess why others might have, it's this: "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."
(1) You seem to be saying that anything other than focusing only and exclusively on calories is frowned upon on MFP, and IME that's obviously incorrect. Calorie deficit determines whether or not one loses, but it's generally accepted here that different strategies (such as IF or keto) can help people keep a calorie deficit, and also of course that what foods one chooses can also help. And it is also common for people to talk about the importance of nutrition for health (and, sure, for gut biome). So no, the idea that MFP cares about nothing but calories and tells people that is all that matters and food choice or timing is irrelevant is IMO wrong. It's just that calories are what actually determine weight loss, so if someone is having trouble losing, that's the thing to start with.
"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."
(2) So you seem to be agreeing with the MFP consensus, it seems to me, despite seemingly attacking it as short-sighted. If certain ways of eating make a difference to the gut biome (which I'm sure they do, although that has nothing whatsoever to do with Fung) or hormones or whatnot, that ultimately still comes back to cals in vs cals out being what determines whether one gains, maintains, or loses. (For example, if you were able to eat in some special way that increased your metabolism, even significantly, that would be no different than increasing your calorie burn from exercise. You would still lose only if your calories in exceeded calories out (and metabolism would be part of what determines calories out). I think claims that there are special foods that increase metabolism are usually bunk or so tiny an effect that it doesn't matter, so for the most part someone without a calorie deficit nailed down seeking to rely on finding magic foods is a choice that will be counterproductive, and it is typically those types of claims/questions that get addressed on MFP. For example, some newbie asking if adding in ACV will cause them to lose weight by speeding up their metabolism.
Fung makes a specific claim that OP seems to buy into that it is NOT calories, but insulin, that determines weight loss, and the studies to date contradict that. There's no evidence that people lose weight by continuing to eat the same amount of cals, but in a way that causes insulin to be low -- which should be the case if Fung's claims are right.9 -
My knowledge of Dr. Fung is from reading two of his books. I like him. I think he makes sense, his books are well researched, and he has real world results to back up his hypotheses. My takeaway from his books is that he agrees obesity is caused by too many calories, but that he is more interested in addressing WHY people consume too many calories. I agree with him that CICO doesn't really tell us much of anything useful. I think Dr. Fung addresses the calories out portion of the equation really well, talking about exercise, insulin resistance, hormones, bone and muscle formation, metabolism, etc. What I took from his books is that obesity needs to be addressed from a multi system perspective, not just with the current method of judging people as moral failures for being fat. It isn't just a moral failing; it's also a physical and medical problem, and the medical community has failed us. He acknowledges that CICO is true, but he doesn't necessarily think that you take in more calories than you expend because you are a gluttonous, lazy pig of poor character. There are other factors at work such as hormones that make you hungry. And it's really hard not to eat when you're hungry all the time. I also think his advice to avoid snacking between meals is probably a good idea. His fasting protocols range from 12 hours at a time (i.e. while sleeping at night) to skipping breakfast to longer fasts for diabetics. That also seems like a good idea if it controls blood sugar the way he says (I don't have diabetes so I haven't tested it personally). He seems to object to eating a lot of sugar and junk food; that seems like a healthy approach. In his books, I did not find anywhere that he was suggesting everyone should be keto or live a life full of extended fasts. He also clearly states that insulin is only one factor in weight gain/loss.
He doesn't seem to be controversial to me or like he's pushing for any type of quackery. The things other people claim are in his book often seem controversial, but I can't find those things in his books.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".
I'm not sure why you are quoting me, whether it is to disagree, or if you want me to respond or what. But as per the bolded part of my comment we are literally saying the same thing so.... yeah? (But note that my comment got several "disagrees" - my experience with MFP is that even mentioning the influence of another factor than CICO elicits a negative response. I don't get it, but its a calorie counting website so whatever.)
I did not hit disagree on your post, but if I had to guess why others might have, it's this: "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."
(1) You seem to be saying that anything other than focusing only and exclusively on calories is frowned upon on MFP, and IME that's obviously incorrect. Calorie deficit determines whether or not one loses, but it's generally accepted here that different strategies (such as IF or keto) can help people keep a calorie deficit, and also of course that what foods one chooses can also help. And it is also common for people to talk about the importance of nutrition for health (and, sure, for gut biome). So no, the idea that MFP cares about nothing but calories and tells people that is all that matters and food choice or timing is irrelevant is IMO wrong. It's just that calories are what actually determine weight loss, so if someone is having trouble losing, that's the thing to start with.
"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."
(2) So you seem to be agreeing with the MFP consensus, it seems to me, despite seemingly attacking it as short-sighted. If certain ways of eating make a difference to the gut biome (which I'm sure they do, although that has nothing whatsoever to do with Fung) or hormones or whatnot, that ultimately still comes back to cals in vs cals out being what determines whether one gains, maintains, or loses. (For example, if you were able to eat in some special way that increased your metabolism, even significantly, that would be no different than increasing your calorie burn from exercise. You would still lose only if your calories in exceeded calories out (and metabolism would be part of what determines calories out). I think claims that there are special foods that increase metabolism are usually bunk or so tiny an effect that it doesn't matter, so for the most part someone without a calorie deficit nailed down seeking to rely on finding magic foods is a choice that will be counterproductive, and it is typically those types of claims/questions that get addressed on MFP. For example, some newbie asking if adding in ACV will cause them to lose weight by speeding up their metabolism.
Fung makes a specific claim that OP seems to buy into that it is NOT calories, but insulin, that determines weight loss, and the studies to date contradict that. There's no evidence that people lose weight by continuing to eat the same amount of cals, but in a way that causes insulin to be low -- which should be the case if Fung's claims are right.
I can only speak to my experience - which is a flurry of "disagrees" (it used to be "woos") whenever I discuss anything other than CICO. Even my short comment here, which basically agrees with pretty much the status quo, elicited three what I would describe as lectures on "how it really works", and idk how many disagrees. So yeah - it seems that the baseline is to assume that everyone who hasn't been on here for years is an uneducated "newbie" as you put it. (An old thread on the effect of menopause/hormones/sleep on weight had me give up MFP discussions completely for a while.) At this point I don't even generally participate in these types of discussions except to show some support to the OP when they are getting piled on. The tone and vibe of disdain that I get from (some) regulars on the MFP forums is how I personally experience it - but communication is a complicated thing and we all "hear" through our own filters - so of course others may experience it differently.6 -
I can only speak to my experience - which is a flurry of "disagrees" (it used to be "woos") whenever I discuss anything other than CICO.
I'd have to see the post in question (other than the one here, which I opined on already), but I will say that I talk about stuff other than CICO all the time, and while I don't monitor my disagrees much, I don't think those posts particularly attract such reactions. If you post with the assumption that "MFP" (as if there were any kind of MFP consensus) has some strawman view, like the "people at MFP don't care about nutrition" or "it's not a calorie is a calorie since broccoli has fewer cals and more nutrients than a cookie" (which FTR would be a misunderstanding of what "a calorie is a calorie" means), then yes, you will get disagrees, but likely not because people think food choice is irrelevant.Even my short comment here, which basically agrees with pretty much the status quo, elicited three what I would describe as lectures on "how it really works", and idk how many disagrees.
Well, I wasn't lecturing you on "how it really works," since so far as I can tell we largely agree, but on why you got the disagrees (IMO), and no, it's not that people on MFP disregard everything but cals and don't think food choice or food timing can ever matter for anyone. That actually strikes me as a calumny -- the implication is that people who post on MFP don't care about nutrition and are too stupid to realize that of course food choice and food timing can affect whether or not someone is able to successfully lose, merely because they note that the underlying reason is calories is vs calories out, and of course that food choice can affect health and well-being and activity level, etc. If you are trying to say something else, I am not following.So yeah - it seems that the baseline is to assume that everyone who hasn't been on here for years is an uneducated "newbie" as you put it.
I don't think of you as a "newbie" and am pretty sure that's clear enough from my post, so I don't get this response. I was talking about the advice given to people who show up with their first question (when they are just starting out with weight loss) being about some product or food or technique that they have read is supposed to magically cause weight loss in some way or, to the contrary, that some food magically impedes weight loss. Of course when people respond they say that it's calories that matter for weight loss. That doesn't mean they are saying calories are the only thing people should ever think about when eating, as you seemed to me to be suggesting.
I'm not even really sure what substantive thing you think we are disagreeing on other than that it's not fair (IMO) to claim that people on MFP only care about calories.
OP was not getting piled on. He asked a question and people were explaining why they disagreed with Fung and didn't see OP's experiences as evidence that following a super low insulin plan is necessary for weight loss. Do you think that it is? Because I didn't read you to be saying that, but if not I don't understand what your problem is with the responses.10 -
@lemurcat2 I'm honestly not even sure why you are quoting me and dissecting my response. Sorry I'm not super clear what you are asking, or if you even want me to respond.
As I said previously "communication is a complicated thing and we all "hear" through our own filters - so of course others may experience it differently."
4 -
Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.18
-
Anyone who claims to have the solution is trying to sell something, and Fung is no exception. He's not going to sell as many books if he doesn't have magic beans to peddle.13
-
Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs0 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.16 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..0 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..
BMR is the amount of calories your body burns if you stayed in bed all day and did absolutely nothing. Basically just your organs running at minimum effort. The amount of calories your body burns when just having a life comes on top of that. Thus your bmr might be just above 1200, you're still moving, working likely, having a home to run, eat, clean yourself, etc.11 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..
You have all kinds of misconceptions.
IF doesn't cause more weight loss on the same calories.
One shouldn't take a calorie deficit off BMR.
BMR is your basic calories just to stay alive while doing nothing, so that's another misstatement.
12 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..
Your deficit isn't taken from BMR...your deficit is taken from TDEE. BMR is the calories you burn merely existing on this planet and nothing else. My BMR is around 1800 calories...my TDEE is around 3000 calories...I lose about 1-1.5 Lb per week eating anywhere from 2300-2500 calories per day...far more than my BMR.5 -
cmriverside wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..
You have all kinds of misconceptions.
IF doesn't cause more weight loss on the same calories.
One shouldn't take a calorie deficit off BMR.
BMR is your basic calories just to stay alive while doing nothing, so that's another misstatement.
I dont exercise, the most activity I do is cleaning. I have some hormone issue. My acth is low as well as my thyroid but they won't treat it. I have gained 40lbs in the last year on 1200 calories. I was on birth control for 2 months and lost 30lbs eating the exact same, had to stop the birth control and gained it all back and kept gaining without changing anything until I started IF.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..
Your deficit isn't taken from BMR...your deficit is taken from TDEE. BMR is the calories you burn merely existing on this planet and nothing else. My BMR is around 1800 calories...my TDEE is around 3000 calories...I lose about 1-1.5 Lb per week eating anywhere from 2300-2500 calories per day...far more than my BMR.
What would my tdee be? I'm 4'10" 151lbs and am not active1 -
Depending on age, 1500-1600 per a calculator I've found accurate (tdeecalculator.net). Medications will certainly muddy those waters but the statement that your deficit comes from your TDEE not your BMR is still accurate.3
-
Depending on age, 1500-1600 per a calculator I've found accurate (tdeecalculator.net). Medications will certainly muddy those waters but the statement that your deficit comes from your TDEE not your BMR is still accurate.
I'm 32, if I ate 1500 calories a day I would gain even more weight.0 -
@lemurcat2 I'm honestly not even sure why you are quoting me and dissecting my response.
I think it's pretty clear from the context of the conversation -- you seemed to think that people disagreeing with one of your posts supported a claim you made about MFP in general not caring about anything but calories, so I offered some thoughts about why I thought people had likely disagreed.
Then you responded, so I responded to your response and thought we were having a conversation. You ask whether I want you to respond? I don't care, I enjoy having conversations and understanding what people think, but if it annoys you to discuss this with me, you can certainly not continue.
I will say again, people pointing out that Fung's claims about insulin and weight loss (and that one can't lose weight without eating a low insulin diet in particular) are bogus does (of course!) not mean that they think calories are all that matter for anything.10 -
As with all the best woo, there’s a grain of truth at the bottom of what Fung has to say, which makes the massive load of bs on top go down easier.
The truth is that it’s easier to not be hungry when your insulin levels aren’t flopping around like a dying fish and your blood glucose is relatively stable. For metabolically healthy people, that’s not usually a problem whatever they eat. However, most obese people are not metabolically healthy, they have some level of insulin resistence. 1 in 8 Americans are full-fledged type 2 diabetics, who definitely DO need to watch their carbs!
If you have insulin resistance then not pigging out on carbs can definitely make dieting a little simpler. Even if you don’t have insulin resistance it’s easier to get proper nutrition while eating at a caloric deficit when you avoid nutrient-poor carbs such as white bread and sweets. But there’s no need to turn it into a religion.
I’m a diabetic and I control my blood sugar well without fasting or keto, by simply eating a MODERATE amount of carbs and eating in time with my exercise needs.12 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..
Your deficit isn't taken from BMR...your deficit is taken from TDEE. BMR is the calories you burn merely existing on this planet and nothing else. My BMR is around 1800 calories...my TDEE is around 3000 calories...I lose about 1-1.5 Lb per week eating anywhere from 2300-2500 calories per day...far more than my BMR.
What would my tdee be? I'm 4'10" 151lbs and am not active
Looks like probably around 1500-1600 calories if you're pretty much sedentary. If you have hormonal issues, you may benefit from IF by keeping glucose levels down possibly...but as has been said by multiple people, the problem with Fung's work is that he either thinks everyone is sick or diseased or even if they aren't, they should be eating a certain way anyway. He markets to the masses, not just to those who have issues and for the masses without issues, his stuff is quakery. There is no reason an otherwise healthy person needs to suppress the body's normal and natural insulin response by lowering glucose levels with IF.
And yes...if you're not active at all, it makes weight loss pretty dang hard. Keep in mind that regular exercise also has a profound impact on hormone regulation in the body...is there a reason you don't exercise? 8+ years ago when I started I had pre-diabetic blood glucose levels...I started exercising regularly, and that pretty much put an end to that issue in short order.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..
Your deficit isn't taken from BMR...your deficit is taken from TDEE. BMR is the calories you burn merely existing on this planet and nothing else. My BMR is around 1800 calories...my TDEE is around 3000 calories...I lose about 1-1.5 Lb per week eating anywhere from 2300-2500 calories per day...far more than my BMR.
What would my tdee be? I'm 4'10" 151lbs and am not active
Looks like probably around 1500-1600 calories if you're pretty much sedentary. If you have hormonal issues, you may benefit from IF by keeping glucose levels down possibly...but as has been said by multiple people, the problem with Fung's work is that he either thinks everyone is sick or diseased or even if they aren't, they should be eating a certain way anyway. He markets to the masses, not just to those who have issues and for the masses without issues, his stuff is quakery. There is no reason an otherwise healthy person needs to suppress the body's normal and natural insulin response by lowering glucose levels with IF.
And yes...if you're not active at all, it makes weight loss pretty dang hard. Keep in mind that regular exercise also has a profound impact on hormone regulation in the body...is there a reason you don't exercise? 8+ years ago when I started I had pre-diabetic blood glucose levels...I started exercising regularly, and that pretty much put an end to that issue in short order.
Honestly im lazy, I'm going to be getting a treadmill soon so that will help or when it finally warms up outside.1 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..
Your deficit isn't determined by your BMR . . someone with a BMR of 1,280 could be using more calories per day depending on their lifestyle. And they wouldn't gain weight on 1,200 calories, so we're back to measuring appropriately . . .2 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »Depending on age, 1500-1600 per a calculator I've found accurate (tdeecalculator.net). Medications will certainly muddy those waters but the statement that your deficit comes from your TDEE not your BMR is still accurate.
I'm 32, if I ate 1500 calories a day I would gain even more weight.
Your diary isn't public so we have no way to assess how accurate your tracking is. I spun my wheels for like a year thinking I was doing all the right things when in actuality I was only really logging well 4.5 days/week and taking my HRM as gospel.5 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »Depending on age, 1500-1600 per a calculator I've found accurate (tdeecalculator.net). Medications will certainly muddy those waters but the statement that your deficit comes from your TDEE not your BMR is still accurate.
I'm 32, if I ate 1500 calories a day I would gain even more weight.
I still think their has to be something amiss in your logging. My wife is 46 and 5'1" and loses weight eating around 1800 calories per day...granted, she's active, but even if she wasn't particularly active, if she was really eating 1200 calories per day, the weight would be flying off.4 -
@lemurcat2 I'm honestly not even sure why you are quoting me and dissecting my response.
I think it's pretty clear from the context of the conversation -- you seemed to think that people disagreeing with one of your posts supported a claim you made about MFP in general not caring about anything but calories, so I offered some thoughts about why I thought people had likely disagreed.
Then you responded, so I responded to your response and thought we were having a conversation. You ask whether I want you to respond? I don't care, I enjoy having conversations and understanding what people think, but if it annoys you to discuss this with me, you can certainly not continue.
I will say again, people pointing out that Fung's claims about insulin and weight loss (and that one can't lose weight without eating a low insulin diet in particular) are bogus does (of course!) not mean that they think calories are all that matter for anything.
I think we basically agree anyway. I said in my first post that I think there is some nuance with regards to the influence of hormones, metabolism etc. - but I don't know that it is enough to make a huge difference and that "any calorie deficit diet will result in weight loss." I think that maybe sometimes I find the responses that it is all CICO a bit reductive - but again - maybe that is just the way I am reading it.
Probably just my problem.
I am not really familiar with Fung, my response was basically that I do think that various hormones (in general) do have an impact on weight loss, but in hindsight my response probably wasn't super helpful to the OP anyway with regards to the specifics of the question. You know, sometimes you read something and your mind goes to your own experiences and in hindsight they are only vaguely connected what the person is asking. I think I will think a bit more to what I can actually add to the conversation in future.6 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
You are overstating and over-believing in the impact of IF. And just for clarity, I have been doing IF for 21 months and intend to do it forever. I'd have to be the last person on MFP who anyone would say is anti-IF or an IF skeptic, as I truly believe that it has many benefits, and not in an academic "this is what I heard on the Internet" way as some do here, but in real, lived experience, for a fairly long time, after a lifetime of binging and obesity which IF has finally helped me get under control like nothing else ever has.
But that all said, one does not go from gaining weight to losing substantial weight with the only changing variable being the eating schedule. IF does not have that kind of direct impact on fat loss. If you were gaining weight but are now losing weight, it is because your calories consumed have decreased. If IF helped you do that, then you can join my little club of people whose life was transformed by leaning on IF to get control over caloric intake, but IF itself is a tool, not a source of the actual weight loss, which comes solely through calorie restriction. I have over 600 days on my spreadsheet of logging every single calorie in and out and getting on a scale, and I am here to tell you that if there's any direct weight loss component of IF, it is very negligible. It might account for 2 or 3 lbs of my 90 lbs lost that can't otherwise be explained by a straight up CICO calculation, and even that marginal difference could just be rounding errors and such in my various formulae.13 -
So what kind of weight did you lose? Water, fat, muscle? There's also the addressing of electrolytes (sodium, potassium, etc.) approach of exercise etc.bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
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 -
bbeyer1792 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »bbeyer1792 wrote: »Dr Fung is a quack. You lose weight when you fast for 2 days... well no sh1t sherlock! Obviously eating less is going to cause weight loss. I once saw a video where he literally said calories dont matter. And he has so many brainwashed followers. I feel so sorry for them.
I had been counting calories already at 1200 and was still gaining weight, I started 14-10 IF at the same calories and I've lost 5 lbs
If you were gaining weight at 1200 calories you were either not using a food scale and or picking incorrect items from the database.
No it was correct, my bmr is 1280 so it's already not much of a deficit..
Your deficit isn't taken from BMR...your deficit is taken from TDEE. BMR is the calories you burn merely existing on this planet and nothing else. My BMR is around 1800 calories...my TDEE is around 3000 calories...I lose about 1-1.5 Lb per week eating anywhere from 2300-2500 calories per day...far more than my BMR.
What would my tdee be? I'm 4'10" 151lbs and am not active
Looks like probably around 1500-1600 calories if you're pretty much sedentary. If you have hormonal issues, you may benefit from IF by keeping glucose levels down possibly...but as has been said by multiple people, the problem with Fung's work is that he either thinks everyone is sick or diseased or even if they aren't, they should be eating a certain way anyway. He markets to the masses, not just to those who have issues and for the masses without issues, his stuff is quakery. There is no reason an otherwise healthy person needs to suppress the body's normal and natural insulin response by lowering glucose levels with IF.
And yes...if you're not active at all, it makes weight loss pretty dang hard. Keep in mind that regular exercise also has a profound impact on hormone regulation in the body...is there a reason you don't exercise? 8+ years ago when I started I had pre-diabetic blood glucose levels...I started exercising regularly, and that pretty much put an end to that issue in short order.
Honestly im lazy, I'm going to be getting a treadmill soon so that will help or when it finally warms up outside.
Your Future Self will thank you if you develop healthier habits around exercise now
There are plenty of ways to be active inside with zero equipment. If you need suggestions, do start a new thread on this.
What does "cold" mean to you? When I was in the military in upstate New York, we were issued all sorts of cold weather gear, and I learned that one can stay warm in very cold weather when dressed properly. I bundle up and walk all winter long. Unless there's snow. On day one I shovel, and then I snow shoe. I got my parka at a thrift shop for $10 and a friend picked up the snow shoes at a yard sale for $5.
Come see our exercising in the winter threads:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10808194/winter-months
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10811010/working-out-in-winter-climates/p1
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10809157/what-s-your-plan-for-the-winter/p14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions