So Is Jason Fung right...or wrong...is insulin even a factor in losing weight...and other issues.
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions