I don't lose weight- scientific miracle?

imaginaryplant

Have them do a comprehensive thyroid test, that includes everything. Thyroid issues sometimes don't show up in the main test they do.

dbmata

more like incur a caloric deficit first, and ensure it's not just user error, then go looking for magic pills, like some thyroid phantom.

AnnBassham

I agree with eyeballpizza get some blood work. I finally went to mymedlab.com and purchased my own thyroid test and sure enough the tsh was twice what it should have been. I took the lab report to my physician and he ordered the test and confirmed I was hypothryroid and put me on synthroid before he just thought I was burnt out from working too many hours.

EvgeniZyntx

For those discussing thyroid function - significant calorie restriction, overly-intense exercise plan, lack of sleep, etc... can each induce perturbations in thyroid function and metabolism.

princessG12

this is what your looking for www.bit.ly/1iVzT3a watch the video and you will be amaze i'm sure this is what you need and take note this is note another diet pills, supplements, hard exercises and etc.. this is natural and very effective

VBnotbitter

For those discussing thyroid function - significant calorie restriction, overly-intense exercise plan, lack of sleep, etc... can each induce perturbations in thyroid function and metabolism.

In for the word "perturbation". It's a beautiful word, I shall use it more

yarwell

BTW - the generally accepted term is that VLCDs are somewhere in the <800-1000 range (depending on the person)...

not really

CODEX defines them as 450 - 800 calories

http://www.nationalobesityforum.org.uk/images/stories/_Final_version_NOF_consensus_statement_VLEDs.pdf
http://www.codexalimentarius.org/input/download/standards/296/CXS_203e.pdf
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2271.pdf

EvgeniZyntx

BTW - the generally accepted term is that VLCDs are somewhere in the <800-1000 range (depending on the person)...

not really

CODEX defines them as 450 - 800 calories

http://www.nationalobesityforum.org.uk/images/stories/_Final_version_NOF_consensus_statement_VLEDs.pdf
http://www.codexalimentarius.org/input/download/standards/296/CXS_203e.pdf
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2271.pdf

Where does <800 and 450-800 not match?

The other two hundred cals are for reasonable addition given other definitions and/or patient weight.
I'd personally prefer a definition based on calorie deficit and net cals.

yarwell

"VLCDs are somewhere in the <800-1000" is somewhat vague when a precise internationally agreed definition is available. 1000 isn't a VLCD as defined, so needs a different name, like "Low calorie diet" in the UK (bottom of the range of 1000 - whatever).

VLCDs don't really work from a deficit, more from an adequacy / safety angle. Basically a protein minimum, essential fats and mins/vits.

EvgeniZyntx

"VLCDs are somewhere in the <800-1000" is somewhat vague when a precise internationally agreed definition is available. 1000 isn't a VLCD as defined, so needs a different name, like "Low calorie diet" in the UK (bottom of the range of 1000 - whatever).

VLCDs don't really work from a deficit, more from an adequacy / safety angle. Basically a protein minimum, essential fats and mins/vits.

Well, excpet that NICE, NHS, UCLA Medical as examples still have documents and definitions that use the upper 1000 number.

For example: http://rfoweightloss.med.ucla.edu/body.cfm?id=32

I guess they didn't get the memo, so me being "vague" is actually with regards to what I've seen in the lay documentation and the research literature. Not every researcher is following the CODEX 1995 standard - if they are vague, I can only reflect that

ETA: But if you prefer that definition, we can go by that. I still fail to see the utility of a VLCD for the OP.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

fullercorp

I stopped losing weight because I was not eating enough. How many calories a day do you eat? Maybe you have been on like a life-long plateau?

With all due respect, but that is i.m.p.o.s.s.i.b.l.e....

i agree but it is interesting that years ago when i was a bulimic consuming thousands of calories and a diet of ice cream and chips, what we all deem as manufactured evil, i weighed the same- and i do mean The Same- as i do now eating a completely regulated plant based diet of under 1300-1400 calories. the ONLY thing i know is that my body likes to be this weight. it actually rebounds to this weight
(i probably should have mentioned that before; when i was a college freshman, i put on 15 pounds, went to Nutrisystem and lost it back to the magical......160, rather easily, then plateaued but i quit then so who can say if i would have lost more. my body doesn't really go much higher than that but it won't go lower. 160 IS its set point, a set point it doesn't deviate from unless i really screw w it as i did with hours and hours of working out and protein shakes).
i don't dispute anything else anyone is saying. clearly i must be eating too much. i just get pushback from people when i eat less than this. Because my 'too much' is super low. Even in THIS string you have people saying starvation mode isn't real, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is.
and for what it is worth, my GP says 'it isn't your diet'.....but she put me on weight loss pills so MFP wouldn't approve of her

ksy1969

I stopped losing weight because I was not eating enough. How many calories a day do you eat? Maybe you have been on like a life-long plateau?

With all due respect, but that is i.m.p.o.s.s.i.b.l.e....

i agree but it is interesting that years ago when i was a bulimic consuming thousands of calories and a diet of ice cream and chips, what we all deem as manufactured evil, i weighed the same- and i do mean The Same- as i do now eating a completely regulated plant based diet of under 1300-1400 calories. the ONLY thing i know is that my body likes to be this weight. it actually rebounds to this weight
(i probably should have mentioned that before; when i was a college freshman, i put on 15 pounds, went to Nutrisystem and lost it back to the magical......160, rather easily, then plateaued but i quit then so who can say if i would have lost more. my body doesn't really go much higher than that but it won't go lower. 160 IS its set point, a set point it doesn't deviate from unless i really screw w it as i did with hours and hours of working out and protein shakes).
i don't dispute anything else anyone is saying. clearly i must be eating too much. i just get pushback from people when i eat less than this. Because my 'too much' is super low. Even in THIS string you have people saying starvation mode isn't real, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is.
and for what it is worth, my GP says 'it isn't your diet'.....but she put me on weight loss pills so MFP wouldn't approve of her

@Fullercorp, here is one of my problems with all your posts. You still have not answered the basic question. Do you weigh and measure your food? Do you honestly track everything that goes into your mouth? You say you are tracking in a spreadsheet but we can't see that. I know someone personally that tracks everything and can't seem to lose weight but I also know from watching them that they are not properly weighing and measuring everything they track. They mix up snacks and such, but I don't see any measuring done, so how can they know it is only 200 calories. They can't.

Regardless of what some others are discussing in this hijacked thread, it is all about calories in versus calories out and some people like to over complicate the process (btente). In some cases there is medical reasons for not losing weight, but even then it is still about calories in versus calories out. You just have to find out with a medical professional why your body has a harder time losing weight.

SLLRunner

more like incur a caloric deficit first, and ensure it's not just user error, then go looking for magic pills, like some thyroid phantom.

I find the bold to be an odd statement. Sure, find out where you are inaccurate in your calories and/or exercise, but getting your thyroid checked at anytime is not looking for a magic pill, it's simply taking care of yourself.

Can you please explain what you mean by the bold statement?

stealthq

BTW, btente. 3000 cals of fast food and soda can easily meet all nutritional requirements AND provide more nutrients than 500 cals of spinach. Or it might meet very few. Depends on the choices the individual makes. But, I will guarantee you that it is a heck of a lot easier to get your nutritional requirements with 3000 cals to play with than < 1200 cals.

Give me one example of 3,000 calories of fast food and soda that has more nutrients than 5 lbs of spinach. And I'm not talking about non-pragmatic possibilities like a person that goes to McDonalds and orders just salad with water...

I'll give you an example that doesn't... If you ate a double quarter pounder with cheese, fries, and soft drink twice in the day you'd get less nutrition than 5 lbs of spinach. Granted the McDonald's meal has a few notable categories where it's got more such as protein and Vitamin B12, but for the whole of the essential vitamins and minerals spinach blows it away.

Also, this argument that some people managed to live with malnutrition for years and still survived ... not a great one, mmkay? Better to avoid the malnutrition in the first place, since we have the means to do so.

It's not malnutrition. The RDI is not an accurate representation of what required nutrition is. In my previous example, if you took the time to read it, you'd see that the RDI of Vitamin C is 75 mcg but as little as 10mcg is needed.

So again you move the bar. Fast food joints serve salad. Lots of people order them or they wouldn't be available (market forces and all). So how is the notion of someone ordering salad and soda improbable?

What about a taco salad? Is that fast-foody enough for you? Lots of nutrients in those, lots of people love them. How about supreme burritos - do they squeeze under your moving bar? Lettuce, tomatoes, sour cream, guacamole, beans, chicken/beef/pork, peppers, flour tortilla. Pretty wide range of nutrients. How about the soups, veg, and roast meats at Boston Market? Subs from Potbellies? Lunches from Starbucks? And yes, all of these do have a drive through, so yes, indeed, they are fast food. Sweet potato fries and chips? How about those?

Not for nothing, but it is child's play to come up with a 3000 cal meal with more nutrients than 500 cals of spinach. The funny thing is that you could actually fit 500 cals of spinach into the 3000 cal meal of fast food. Get a couple of spinach salads from Wendy's or sauteed lemon garlic spinach from Boston Market. Eat anything else to fill in remaining calories. Done.

In fact, while you would eventually die on a diet of spinach - no fats, don't you know - you could potentially do quite well on a diet of fast food. You could even have a balanced diet on it. You are simply stuck on the idea that fast food is inherently bad. It's not.

Oh, and on the malnutrition - you're the one giving the example of the potato famine in Ireland. You do realize that according to Irish historians more people died from malnutrition-related diseases during that famine than died of hunger? People who were too poor to leave Ireland or have food imported for themselves were malnourished. Many did survive the malnourishment. Still doesn't make choosing to be malnourished a great idea.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

stealthq

Just for fun (http://nutritiondata.self.com).

Spinach (1 bunch): 78 cals (largest amount on the site). Contains every nutrient (macros, vitamins and minerals) except Vitamins B12 and D. 1 g of fat only. Eat 500 cals worth and you still get no B12 or D, though you've maxed out every other vitamin and mineral around, possibly to toxic levels. Arguing that you can get plenty of D from sunlight, you still won't be living on a diet of exclusively spinach, thanks to no B12 and too low levels of fat.

Fast Food meal:

One burrito supreme w/ beef from Taco Bell: 469 cals. Contains every nutrient (macros, vitamins and minerals) except Vitamin C. Plenty of protein, plenty of fat. Even fiber.

Vitamin C can be compensated for by adding cheddar cheese or by going to McDonald's for an apple pie: 249 cals (or apple dippers, if that's not too 'improbable').

Eat 1 of these meals and you've hit every last one of your nutrients, though not up to 100% RDV. Eat multiples and you'll hit 100% RDV on most, but not all. You could live on this diet, technically, though I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

stealthq

What about a taco salad? Is that fast-foody enough for you? Lots of nutrients in those, lots of people love them. How about supreme burritos - do they squeeze under your moving bar? Lettuce, tomatoes, sour cream, guacamole, beans, chicken/beef/pork, peppers, flour tortilla. Pretty wide range of nutrients. How about the soups, veg, and roast meats at Boston Market? Subs from Potbellies? Lunches from Starbucks? And yes, all of these do have a drive through, so yes, indeed, they are fast food. Sweet potato fries and chips? How about those?

HA! None of those examples have more nutrients than 500 calories of spinach. Keep trying.

Incorrect. See previous post. Missing B12 and sufficient fat is kind of a big deal.

Get a couple of spinach salads from Wendy's or sauteed lemon garlic spinach from Boston Market. Eat anything else to fill in remaining calories. Done.

You don't know what 1 lbs of spinach is really like to eat do you? Let me enlighten you... The average fast food salad has about 1 oz of leaves which is 1/3 of a serving. You'd have to eat about 27 of those salads to get 5 lbs of leaves.

*shrug*

So what. 27 of those salads fits in 3000 cals with plenty of room to spare. You set the ridiculous ground rules (as if someone is going to be eating 500cals of spinach for a meal). Not my fault you failed to see your logical error.

Oh, and on the malnutrition - you're the one giving the example of the potato famine in Ireland. You do realize that according to Irish historians more people died from malnutrition-related diseases during that famine than died of hunger?

Is this serious? You do understand that malnutrition is a form of starvation right? Where is your ever great source that differentiates these two?

Are you serious? Malnutrition indicates you're not getting enough of a nutrient. It does not necessarily mean you are starving. Starving does, however, mean you are malnourished.

To many papers on malnutrition-related disease to list. Follow the link for more primary sources than you could read in a lifetime: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=who+malnutrition-related+disease&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=BxaGU5GLHIyYqAagiYHABw&ved=0CCYQgQMwAA

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

AllyBlue77

Nobody here is an MD so you won't get any consistent and accurate advice.

Um... You do understand that even MDs have inconsistent and inaccurate advice right? You know like Dr. Adkins, Dr. Agatston, and Dr. Joel Fuhrman just to name a few... Very inconsistent and if they're very inconsistent it means at least 2 of 3 are inaccurate.

An MD is always better than those of us without the proper training.....right?
You know? like, they go to school for like a lot of years...?


And yes there are bad MD's and there are good ones..... I didn't mean to upset you by my comment. I just think that an MD will have perhaps more insight into what's going on physically...
I still stand by what i said before OP needs to go to a medical doctor rather than diet "gurus" who are opinionated and judgmental....(which MD's can also be.... not arguing there)

There are a variety of reasons why seeing a doctor or a nutritionist makes sense - however, it doesn't negate the value of also seeking complimentary information and education from other. One can do both and use that differential engine we evolved with.

And even better than any MD is self-awareness. Which the OP is trying to get. While I agree that it is useful for people to seek professional advice, let's not silence the ongoing conversations - proactive caveat emptor.

[/quote

i agree, i still think that the number one step is to consult a professional. op seems to be pretty aware of her situation, she's stated she has suffered from an ED and I bet she's heard all of it.
didn't mean to imply to stop this enlightened thread :-) I just really was trying to reach out to op. not anybody else ( but then again I don't think they're even reading :-)

Peace :-)

AllyBlue77

An MD is always better than those of us without the proper training.....right?
You know? like, they go to school for like a lot of years...?

When it comes to nutritional advice no. A MD only receives little, if any, formal education on nutrition. The majority of nutritional programs are also funded by the food industry as well.

I've seen plenty of nutritionist and doctors give some horrendous advice. For example, a doctor once told a woman who was hypoglycemic and pregnant she should be eating Snickers and drinking Gatorade to keep her blood sugar up. That advice is asinine for many reasons. Many nutritionists still caution against fruit intake even though fruit intake has an inverse relationship with both obesity and diabetes.

And yes there are bad MD's and there are good ones..... I didn't mean to upset you by my comment. I just think that an MD will have perhaps more insight into what's going on physically...
I still stand by what i said before OP needs to go to a medical doctor rather than diet "gurus" who are opinionated and judgmental....(which MD's can also be.... not arguing there)

You didn't upset me, I'm just pointing out how absurd your comment was. And my point still stands that MDs give very conflicting, inaccurate advice on nutrition.

are you implying that OP and or I have no common sense? lol come on get real. sneakers and Gatorade? hell! I heard stories before luckily I was blessed with a brain and I can make the executive decision to change doctors ASAP!! if you read my og post I said there Are many MDs who are reluctant to further test tsh levels so I said go to an Endocrinologist!
#payattention
:-)

Unknown

This content has been removed.

AllyBlue77

are you implying that OP and or I have no common sense? lol come on get real. sneakers and Gatorade? hell! I heard stories before luckily I was blessed with a brain and I can make the executive decision to change doctors ASAP!! if you read my og post I said there Are many MDs who are reluctant to further test tsh levels so I said go to an Endocrinologist!
#payattention
:-)

In this particular case this is real story but obviously exaggerated illustration of the point. The trouble comes when you have advice that "makes sense" yet isn't scientifically validated. The three doctors I mentioned are the proponents to the Atkin's diet, the South Beach Diet, and the Eat to Live diet (a whole foods, vegetable based vegan diet). Each of these three doctors would have given conflicting advice to solve weight loss woes. Which one is right?

totally get you. I've read all those books and I would agree that they're somewhat conflicting ... we could go on and on BUT my main concern was OP because she has suffered from an ED so her system is not perhaps optimal and hence any of our advice might cause more harm than good. I dunno maybe I'm just all wrong'
I'm going back to work now!
peace!

MassiveDelta

....open your diary!

I wish I could get this as an animated tattoo

albertabeefy

No offense, but do you even science?

The term 'ketogenic' cannot be misapplied to a diet in the sciences. To be ketogenic requires a macronutrient ratio that involves ketosis, and you can't get into ketosis without severe carbohydrate restriction. Therefore, a modest-deficit "reduced carbohydrate" diet could never be a ketogenic diet from a research standpoint, and no research I've ever seen confuses the two.

Ketogenic diets are never confused as anything BUT what they are. To suggest it might be shows your lack of understanding.

First off your starting sentence makes no sense.

I guess you don't spend much time on the internet then ... it's a not-uncommon internet meme ...

Second off you cannot enter into ketosis while consuming adequate protein due to gluconeogenesis. That is why a very low carbohydrate diet that still has high protein is not a ketogenic diet. That's how they're confused. The original ketogenic diet was a 0/15/85 ratio.

I'm not trying to be rude, but check your facts before you go ranting about something with new information.

LOL at suggesting I check my facts. There is NOTHING in anything I've written that isn't factual. You cannot say the same.

Trust me when I say that I do know more about ketosis than you can likely imagine. It's very obvious you've not studied either biochemistry or medicine.

FYI your statement on ketosis is completely wrong. You absolutely enter ketosis consuming adequate protein - you only have difficulty when consuming excess. Adequate protein will vary depending on age, gender, activity/exercise levels, etc. For most women 15% is a good starting point. Those that are more active can usually do well with 20%.

Most men can start with about 20%. I'm an active exerciser and I can eat more. With my exercise levels I have no problems entering ketosis quite quickly on a 5/25/70 level. I maintain nutritional ketosis with <10 / 20-30 / 60-75.

Also of note, studies lasting 6 months of just 30% carbohydrate diets (as opposed to ketogenic) show incredible improvement in SEVERE diabetics. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/21

I'm not sure if you saw this, but I actually referenced this study earlier. The problem is you're confusing incredible improvement with reversing the condition. After 6 months the participants still had A1C levels at diabetic levels. The mean was 7.4% and diabetes is considered to be 6.5% and above.

... and I'll point out the study was NOT of a ketogenic diet. It was "low-carbohydrate" but at 30% of calories from carbohydrate, which is anywhere from THREE to SIX times the maximum carbohydrate to be ketogenic. But the fact remains that even with it NOT being ketogenic, HbA1c levels decreased sharply in these SEVERE diabetics from a baseline of 10.9 ± 1.6% to 7.8 ± 1.5% at 3 months That's a 30% improvement, and it wasn't even ketogenic.

The study you referenced was not of severe diabetics, they averaged an HbA1c of 7.4% at baseline. They only improved to 6.0% at 8 weeks. This is only a 19% improvement. It may be considered a "reversal" for those individuals, but it's actually LESS effective than the ketogenic diet referenced above.

FYI studies of true ketogenic diets also improve levels dramatically, in as little as a few days. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/9/figure/F1

You've shown nothing to suggest I'm incorrect. There simply is NO need to adopt a VLED when a VLCKD is obviously much safer overall, easier to adhere to, doesn't require continual medical supervision and just as effective at glycemic control for diabetics.

Studies of shorter duration of true ketogenic dieters show incredible improvement in only a FEW DAYS. I've personally read HUNDREDS of studies on diabetes, and dozens on intervention with ketogenic diets, and you are either severely misinformed or you're willfully spreading some rather dubious propaganda.

Keep working at trying to show me up because you haven't done it yet. I'd love to see a study you think supports this that actually does.

I have no desire nor need to "show you up". What are you, 12 years old? You are certainly acting like it, and you're failing to understand studies, apparently.

Feel free to reference the above study, or the multitude of literature available on the subject. Your attempt to disprove me by referencing a study that isn't even on a ketogenic diet is extremely illogical.

The science is clear that ketogenic diets, even in a moderate caloric deficit, are every-bit as effective at glycemic control to any VLED.

The fact remains you WILL be developing a nutrient deficiency. It's better to prevent one that have to recover from a self-imposed one.

You are actually suggesting people self-impose a nutrient deficiency. I'm stunned this thread isn't locked yet.

What? That makes no sense. How can you create a deficiency if you never become deficient in it? The definition of a nutrient deficiency is lacking in a particular nutrient, but I established that even after months of deprivation of a particular nutrient you still have enough stores to not be in a deficiency. If you were to simply eat some more after a span of months you will never have or approach deficiency.

Different nutrient stores deplete faster than others. Not to mention you're suggesting to people go on this diet WITHOUT medical supervision (when it calls for it) and as such, the dieter wouldn't even know if they are deficient or near-deficient to begin with. As such the deficiency could develop even faster.

To think you can "simply eat more after a span of months" shows you have very little understanding of the topic at-hand.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ravenstar25

Hello, i searched the boards but i am not finding exactly what i am looking for (as everyone's experience is different, of course). I have been changing my eating over the course of years but during all of my adult life, my weight has stayed the same. I just saw a post wherein someone said 'if you create a calorie deficit you WILL lose'.....but what if you don't. ever. lose? i have been a vegetarian for 23 years, I gave up diet soda 10 years ago, i became a vegan about 4 yrs ago(i occasionally eat cheese but PARSE it out but NO other dairy), i eat a plant based diet that i supplement with two protein bars a day (they have whey but they are the only low carb, low sugar, tasty ones i liked), i drink water all day, eat little meals- try to eat every three hours or so. i don't snack, i don't binge, i don't eat out. i work out but inconsistently (like everyday for a month, then not for two weeks, then again for 3 weeks, etc and this has been the case since i was 20- i am now 44). i have logged my calories to be 1200 to 1400 cals a day. I am rarely hungry. I went to a nutritionist because i started to GAIN- she said i was eating too little, so i ate a little more.....and my weight is still the same. i been around 160 exactly my whole adult life (i am 5'4"- so yes, i am decidedly overweight and no, i am no big boned. i was a chubby kid and teen for reference BUT i ate JUNK JUNK JUNK until i was about 23 and had an ED until i was 28. now i eat like a monk and no change. my blood panel was totally normal. i take no medications (except starting this week Qsymia, which i know gets no love on this site). i have been thin at two points in my life (ha!) post breakup in which i basically became manically obsessed and all i did (LITERALLY) was work out all day and drink protein shakes. Science and MFP tells me nobody should have to live this way to lose some weight. (but it illustrates it IS possible for me- just not sustainable). I am not vying for the role of Wolverine in Xmen.
so, any suggestions that i haven't heard ? has ANYONE else experience this? Made massive lifestyle changes and experience NO weight loss?

Go to a doctor. And if they won't take you seriously, go to another one. Don't listen to the people on this board, they will tell you that you're lying or worse.

My suspicion from the little bit of info you've given here is that you have a metabolism disorder like PCOS - likely triggered by the ED and worsened by veganism.

albertabeefy

Adequate in both of our usages is undefined. In my case I'm using it to define enough protein to support gluconeogenesis and in your case you mean an amount that is at least low enough to sustain ketosis.

No, if you have enough protein to cause gluconeogenesis to happen in a way that prevents ketosis, that's not ADEQUATE protein by definition of the word, it's excess. Think about it. What you're saying has nothing to do with the definition of the word ADEQUATE.

To sustain ketosis with 30% protein intake you pretty much have to be eating at a caloric deficit as well which is a secondary requirement. Ketosis has more to do with total protein intake and less to do with ratios.

Actually, I don't need to be in a deficit. I haven't run a deficit the past two weeks and I'm still in fairly deep nutritional ketosis - verified by blood ketone meter. I'm a 48 year old heavy-exerciser (6 days a week - 3 days of lifting, 3 days of HIIT and a couple other bouts of steady-state cardio) and require anywhere from 20-30% in a day depending on what I do.

You don't get reference ranges. Once you're in a designated reference range (or out of) that's the real importance. For example, you cannot assume that insulin sensitivity is proportional to reference fasting glucose ranges (i.e. having a fasting glucose of 70 mg/dL does not mean you have better insulin sensitivity than someone with 90 mg/dL). You're also defining effective in the way that suits you best where as my definition is what is actually reversing the condition. I do acknowledge their starting numbers are different but they had 6 months...

The only number one need look at for overall glycemic control is the HbA1c. (That, BTW, is the "reversal" you are talking about - the HbA1c number - which YOU brought up.) We're not talking insulin sensitivity, we're talking about improvements in HbA1c. When "low-carb" (30%) diets statistically-improve HbA1c better than your VLED, you really have no ground to start from.

Show me a study with VLED's on severe diabetics if you think it reverses the condition. I assure you there are NONE where severe diabetics (HbA1c over 10%) are "reversed" by a VLED.

Your attempt to disprove me by referencing a study that isn't even on a ketogenic diet is extremely illogical.

Here's a better example to illustrate my point http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/34, but yes I was speaking in generalities about the mislabeling of ketogenic diets. That study calls some of the diets ketogenic with 20% carbohydrate intake and they have lesser results with a similar group.

I'm guessing you didn't read it. It does not, anywhere in the full text of the study call any diet "ketogenic" that had a 20% carbohydrate intake.

You're either lying outright or misunderstanding because you're skimming articles quickly in an attempt to look correct. The study you mentioned referenced the 20% diet as 'carbohydrate restricted' - NOT ketogenic. "Recently, four studies have re-examined the effect of carbohydrate restriction on type 2 diabetes. "

Meanwhile it's not like you're pulling out any studies that actually support your point.

BTW the study you erroneously think proves your point actually proves my point. The mean HbA1c went from 7.4% to 6.3%, and over 1/3rd of the study participants were under 6.0%.

Different nutrient stores deplete faster than others. Not to mention you're suggesting to people go on this diet WITHOUT medical supervision (when it calls for it) and as such, the dieter wouldn't even know if they are deficient or near-deficient to begin with. As such the deficiency could develop even faster.

That's a complete straw man argument.

No, it's not. A straw man is a fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic. You said that a VLED doesn't create a nutrient deficiency. I outlined how it can, and I was medically correct.

BTW, leaving out the rest of the comment I posted to try to make a "straw man" out of a very-sound and medically-correct statement is VERY telling ...

Unknown

This content has been removed.