The #1 Cause of Obesity: Insulin

tigersword

Show us a list of studies that meet your standards and show that low carb diets are worse please ? Seems to me they either come out better or the same,

I looked at each of the studies you provided to disprove that and the only thing that stands out to me is "greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets" and "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate."

Admittedly, I don't understand a lot of what I'm reading but your studies seem to confirm that low carb diets ARE more effective.

28. Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter? J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5 Suppl 1):S24-8. [Medline]

Greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets (<90 g/day) compared with traditional low-fat (<25% of energy), hypocaloric diets, implying a 233 kcal/day greater energy deficit. It has therefore been suggested that a low-carbohydrate diet may provide a metabolic advantage (an increase in energy expenditure), resulting in a positive effect on weight loss and maintenance. However, a review of studies in which 24-hour energy expenditure was measured did not provide evidence to support a metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets and showed little evidence of a metabolic advantage of high-protein (>25% of energy) diets. Nonetheless, diets high in protein, but either low or modest in carbohydrate, have resulted in greater weight losses than traditional low-fat diets.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15867892

29. Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S. [Medline]

Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/5/899S.full

30. Davy KP, et al. Regulation of macronutrient balance in healthy young and older men. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Oct;25(10):1497-502. [Medline]

To determine the influence of age on the ability to adjust macronutrient oxidation to changes in diet composition. Our hypothesis was that the ability to adjust macronutrient oxidation to changes in diet composition would be impaired with age. I didn't understand what that was saying but here's the link:

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/11673772/Regulation_of_macronutrient_balance_in_healthy_young_and_older_men_

31. Roy HJ, et al. Substrate oxidation and energy expenditure in athletes and nonathletes consuming isoenergetic high- and low- fat diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Mar;67(3):405-11. [Medline]

The resoults from this study show that in healthy young men, fuel oxidation shifts both actuely and chromically to apporximate the macronutrient composition of the diet. There were no differences in any aspect of substrate balance in AT athletes, WT athletes, or NA men by group Again, I didn't understand it but I'm not sure that a study on three healthly, athletic men can tell us anything about what's happening is the obese.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/67/3/405.full.pdf

32. Thomas CD, et al. Nutrient balance and energy expenditure during ad libitum feeding of high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 May;55(5):934-42. [Medline]

To study the influence of diet composition on regulation of body weight, we fed 21 weight-stable subjects (11 lean, 10 obese) high-carbohydrate (HC) and high-fat (HF) diets for 1 wk each. Although diet composition was fixed, total energy intake was unrestricted. Subjects had a higher energy intake on the HF (11,039 +/- 2700 kJ/d) than on the HC (10,672 +/- 2617 kJ/d) diet (P less than 0.05), but energy expenditure was not different between diets. On day 7 of the HC diet, carbohydrate (CHO) oxidation was significantly related to CHO intake with the slope of the regression line 0.99, suggesting that overall CHO balance was near zero. However, the slope of the regression line was greater for obese than for lean subjects. On day 7 of the HF diet, fat oxidation was significantly related to fat intake but the slope of the line was 0.50, suggesting that overall fat balance was positive. However, this relationship was due entirely to lean subjects, with obese subjects showing no relationship between fat intake and oxidation. I'm not sure what the first part is really saying but is the last line saying that lean and obese subjects responded completely different?

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/1570800/Nutrient_balance_and_energy_expenditure_during_ad_libitum_feeding_of_high_fat_and_high_carbohydrate_diets_in_humans_

33. Hill JO, et al. Nutrient balance in humans: effects of diet composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Jul;54(1):10-7. [Medline]

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of alterations in diet composition on energy expenditure and nutrient balance in humans. Eight adults (three men, five women) ate a high-carbohydrate (60% of calories from carbohydrate) and a high-fat (60% of calories from fat) diet for 7 d each according to a randomized, crossover design. Six subjects were studied for an additional week on a mixed diet (45% of calories from fat). For each subject, total caloric intake was identical on all diets and was intended to provide the subject's maintenance energy requirements. All subjects spent days 3 and 7 of each week in a whole-room indirect calorimeter. Diet composition did not affect total daily energy expenditure but did affect daily nutrient oxidation by rapidly shifting substrate oxidation to more closely reflect the composition of the diet. These results show that diet composition can affect substrate oxidation without producing measurable effects on total energy expenditure. What's substrate oxidation?

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/2058571/Nutrient_balance_in_humans:_effects_of_diet_composition_

34. Rumpler WV, et al. Energy-intake restriction and diet- composition effects on energy expenditure in men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Feb;53(2):430-6. [Medline]

I couldn't find it.

35. Lean ME, James WP. Metabolic effects of isoenergetic nutrient exchange over 24 hours in relation to obesity in women. Int J Obes. 1988;12(1):15-27. [Medline]

Twenty-four hour whole body indirect calorimetry has been used to study the effects of feeding, during a sedentary test day, isoenergetic diets which varied in fat (3 or 40 per cent of total energy) and carbohydrate (82 or 45 per cent) content. Three groups of women were studied: lean, obese and 'post-obese' after slimming. Diets weren't compared at all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3360561

36. Abbott WG, et al. Energy expenditure in humans: effects of dietary fat and carbohydrate. Am J Physiol. 1990 Feb;258(2 Pt 1):E347-51. [Medline]

A high-dietary fat intake may be an important environmental factor leading to obesity in some people. The mechanism could be either a decrease in energy expenditure and/or an increase in caloric intake. To determine the relative importance of these mechanisms we measured 24-h energy expenditure in a whole body calorimeter in 14 nondiabetic subjects and in six subjects with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, eating isocaloric, weight-maintenance, high-fat, and high-carbohydrate diets. All subjects were Pima Indians. In nondiabetics, the mean total 24-h energy expenditure was similar (2,436 +/- 103 vs. 2,359 +/- 82 kcal/day) on high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets, respectively. The means for sleeping and resting metabolic rates, thermic effect of food, and spontaneous physical activity were unchanged. Similar results were obtained in the diabetic subjects. In summary, using a whole body calorimeter, we found no evidence of a decrease in 24-h energy expenditure on a high-fat diet compared with a high-carbohydrate diet.
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/2305878/Energy_expenditure_in_humans:_effects_of_dietary_fat_and_carbohydrate_

37. Yerboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Effects of dietary fat and carbohydrate exchange on human energy metabolism. Appetite. 1996 Jun;26(3):287-300. [Medline]

Short-term effects of low-fat (10% fat energy), mixed (30% fat energy), and high-fat (50% fat energy) diets on 24-h energy expenditure, and on its components sleeping metabolic rate, diet induced thermogenesis and energy expenditure for physical activity were studied for 3 days using a respiration chamber in twelve normal-weight female volunteers classified as restrained or unrestrained eaters. There were no significant differences in any of the four measures between the restrained and unrestrained eating subjects on any of the diets. Within the group of restrained eaters, 24-h energy expenditure was significantly decreased during consumption of the mixed diet (8.21 +/- 0.21 MJ/d; p < 0.01) and tended to be decreased on the high-fat diet (8.22 +/- 0.25 MJ/d; p = 0.055), relative to the low-fat diet (8.58 +/- 0.21 MJ/d). Diet composition had no effect on 24-h energy expenditure in the women with unrestrained eating. The results suggest that a low-fat diet would be beneficial in the treatment of obesity, especially if subjects have a restrained type of eating behaviour. Where are the carbs?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800484

38. Astrup A, et al. Failure to increase lipid oxidation in response to increasing dietary fat content in formerly obese women. Am J Physiol. 1994 Apr;266(4 Pt 1):E592-9. [Medline]

Decreasing the dietary fat content increased 24-h EE in the postobese women (P = 0.02), whereas it was unaffected in the control group. Independent of energy balance, an increase in dietary fat content to 50% fat energy results in preferential fat storage, impaired suppression of carbohydrate oxidation, and reduction of 24-h EE in postobese women. Is that why low carb diets work so well--obese people have impaired carb oxidation?

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/8178980/Failure_to_increase_lipid_oxidation_in_response_to_increasing_dietary_fat_content_in_formerly_obese_women_

39. Whitehead JM, McNeill G, Smith JS. The effect of protein intake on 24-h energy expenditure during energy restriction. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Aug;20(8):727-32. [Medline]

CONCLUSIONS:
Maintaining protein intake reduces the decrease in energy expenditure during energy restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8856395

Notice where it said weight loss was higher, but no metabolic advantage was found, even though they expected one? That's because the extra weight lost on a low carb diet is water, not fat. When you extend studies out to a year, rather than 12 weeks, weight loss is equal, because the loss in water weight catches up in the higher carb group.

Also, your comment on study 38. That study wasn't done on obese women, it was done on healthy weight women, who were obese. Women who gained weight and then lost it. It showed they were more likely to store fat while eating a high fat diet.

Your comment on 35. Did you miss the part of the abstract that said they used 2 different diets, one that was 3% fat, 82% carb, and the other that was 40% fat, 45% carb, (both diets being 15% protein?) And you only posted part of the abstract, so you left out this line: There were no large differences in energy expenditure between the two diets or between the groups but the thermogenic effect of the high carbohydrate diet was significantly greater than that of the high fat diet (5.8 vs 3.5 per cent of energy expenditure: P less than 0.01).
No significant differences in energy expenditure with either diet. I'd say diets were compared.

For your comment on 37, do the math. Protein and calories are constants, when fat is increased or decreased, carbs are changed to compensate.

For study 32, that study essentially says that people on high fat diets eat more, and gain more fat, because humans are much more efficient at oxidizing carbohydrates for energy than fat, so higher fat intake, along with higher calorie intake, leads to more fat storage. From the actual study (you can download it from pubmed:) Our results suggest that HF diets are more obesity producing than are HC diets. This is because there was a greater total energy intake on HF than on HC diets and because humans have a lesser ability to increase fat oxidation in response to increased fat intake than to increase carbohydrate oxidation in response to increased carbohydrate intake.

Also, substrate oxidation is a catchall term for protein, fat, and carbohydrate oxidation. "Burning calories" is oxidation. You burn fat by oxidizing it, same with burning carbs or protein. So saying that "varying substrate oxidation had no effect on total energy expenditure" means that it doesn't matter what combinations of carb, protein, and fat you eat, you will expend the same amount of energy either way.

LPCoder

This was great. Thanks for posting!

Lay821

BUMP FOR LATER

Acg67

Lol at this thread

AlabasterVerve

tigersword, thanks for breaking down these studies so I can understand them and get a jist of what the summaries are saying. I can appreciate that you (and a lot of others) don't see anything in the research that shows a LCHF or Paleo type diets have anything to recommend them beyond personal preference because of the studies you listed.

But when the very studies that were linked to to disprove that these diets have any advantage have statements saying the diets are shown to be more effective and further research needs to be done to understand why. Then you add to that the seventeen studies I listed earlier AND my own personal experience these last few weeks on a lower carb diet I just can't reconcile what you're saying the science proves with the growing success people seem to be having with these diets.

I absolutely believe calories in/calories out on any diet works but I really can't understand the unwillingness to entertain the idea that there's something more driving the obesity epidemic other than laziy people eating too much. Hopefully time and more well conducted studies will tell.

Some people still claim that weight loss studies do not show any advantage for low carb diets. Unbelievably enough, that is what many so called experts still believe.

It’s either ignorance or science denial.

There are at least seventeen modern scientific studies of the highest quality (RCT) that show significantly better weight loss with low carb diets:

http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

Acg67

tigersword, thanks for breaking down these studies so I can understand them and get a jist of what the summaries are saying. I can appreciate that you (and a lot of others) don't see anything in the research that shows a LCHF or Paleo type diets have anything to recommend them beyond personal preference because of the studies you listed.

But when the very studies that were linked to to disprove that these diets have any advantage have statements saying the diets are shown to be more effective and further research needs to be done to understand why. Then you add to that the seventeen studies I listed earlier AND my own personal experience these last few weeks on a lower carb diet I just can't reconcile what you're saying the science proves with the growing success people seem to be having with these diets.

I absolutely believe calories in/calories out on any diet works but I really can't understand the unwillingness to entertain the idea that there's something more driving the obesity epidemic other than laziy people eating too much. Hopefully time and more well conducted studies will tell.

Some people still claim that weight loss studies do not show any advantage for low carb diets. Unbelievably enough, that is what many so called experts still believe.

It’s either ignorance or science denial.

There are at least seventeen modern scientific studies of the highest quality (RCT) that show significantly better weight loss with low carb diets:

http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb

weefreemen

It seems to me that society is always looking for a blame or a reason, rather than accepting people are over eating and not exercising, except for extremely uncommon instances the vast majority of weight gain and obesity is simply too many calories, too much sugar and zero exercise. Common sense dictates that anything in moderation is generally healthy, that would obviously preclude anything unhealthy right, Two examples that I have recently witnessed both I admit are extremes but they remain valid nontheless. I recently had to attend the emergency room for an asthma attack that got out of hand, whilst there a young boy in the next bed was violently ill and in severe abdominal pain. I guess him to be about 7 with two obese parents and he would have been an estimated 60 lbs over weight himself. When asked by the doctors what he had eaten that day his response was, potato chips, and nothing but, except for the coke... Recently whilst shopping for frozen yogourt there was a morbidly obese woman in a motorised scooter buying ice cream by the pail. Granted these are extremes but they indicate the problem with society and overeating. Low carb diets were originally thought good weight loss regimes for severely overweight people, the one main downside is they are difficult to maintain for life. Ever wonder why there is always a new diet craze, it is because we are always looking for an easy way to lose weight. There isn't one, it's by calorie deficit, exercise and hard work. That's why most of us have ended up at this website. If a programme works for you then well and good, but please always check with your doctor, I used to do Atkins until quite my accident I mentioned it to by kidney specialist (only have 1 kidney), he absolutely freaked on me and said it was far too much work on an already overworked kidney, so please always check that is is okay for you.

Hendrix7

Your anecdotal evidence from being on a low carb diet 'for a few weeks' it not really a strong argument. I'm personally still losing weight on a moderate carbs diet, but that's irrelevant also.

And how do you care to explain protein eliciting high insulin responses? Protein and carbohydrates both spike insulin to similar levels when you eat. If insulin is what makes us fat, then protein must be just as bad as carbs.

This.

AlabasterVerve

Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb

Actually, my focus is on the health benefits of a low carb diet since cancer, diabetes and heart disease are in my family. That's what convinced me to try what I considered a fad diet for the last twenty years.

What I didn't expect was how I would feel after a few short weeks of lowering my carbs even though I'd been eating what I thought was a healthy diet of lean meat, nuts, low fat dairy, whole grains and plenty of fruits and vegetables for the last six months and losing weight just fine. So I guess the only thing further to add to that is I hope I'm part of the group who experience greater fat loss and that the research into low carb diets continues so we can find out more--and that someone else found the links I posted in the beginning helpful.

llstacy

Thanks for the links. Bump for later.

caraiselite

Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb

Actually, my focus is on the health benefits of a low carb diet since cancer, diabetes and heart disease are in my family. That's what convinced me to try what I considered a fad diet for the last twenty years.

What I didn't expect was how I would feel after a few short weeks of lowering my carbs even though I'd been eating what I thought was a healthy diet of lean meat, nuts, low fat dairy, whole grains and plenty of fruits and vegetables for the last six months and losing weight just fine. So I guess the only thing further to add to that is I hope I'm part of the group who experience greater fat loss and that the research into low carb diets continues so we can find out more--and that someone else found the links I posted in the beginning helpful.

great post!

mdelcott

bump for later

Sublog

I just recently found this website (Swedish doctor promoting a low carb, high fat, real food diet) so some of this has probably been discussed here before but it's new to me and there's a terrific explanation (hypothesis?) of what's driving the obesity epidemic in the US and around the world.

This 3rd episode of “The Skinny on Obesity” may be the best short video on obesity I’ve seen. Not because dr Robert Lustig tells me something I didn’t already know, but because he explains it so crystal clear that a kid will understand. -Andreas Eenfeldt, MD

It's only 8 minutes:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/the-1-cause-of-obesity-insulin

If you like a little more science to go with your easy to understand videos there's also this page:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

You do realize the #1 cause for over insulin production is an energy surplus, right?

Read this for more info

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

LeggyKettleBabe

yep this makes bout the 5th insulin is evil post this week. GOLD STAR FOR YOU

Panda_1999

Bump for later viewing/reading

LATeagno

It took me years-- YEARS-- to understand why low carb diets work for me. In 2006, I lost 70 lbs. by eating bacon, eggs and steak. I didn't eat very healthily-- I ate tons of fat and lost. That's not a balanced diet by any means. Did it work? Yes. Did it make me cry when I looked at cupcakes? Yes. To be completely honest, all it did was make my relationship with food worse. In the longterm, I gained the weight back. Surprise.

Now, six years later, I understand why low carbohydrate (low processed carb, anyway) eating is so important-- and so useful-- for me. When my insulin levels hang between a cozy 70 and 100, my appetite stabilizes. I never, ever, EVER feel ravenous. My body tells me when I'm hungry. When it does, I eat whole foods as much as possible. Lots of fat, moderate protein and low carb. I get lots of veggies and berries as well-- even Greek yogurt when I want it. It's the fact that my blood sugar never spikes that leaves me in control of my food and in turn, in control of myself.

It's not about gorging on lard and cheese. It's about finding extremely slow burning carbs in small amounts that will never raise your blood sugar much above 100 to begin with. I'm never famished. I'm actually able to turn away a half-eaten plate of food because I'm just not hungry anymore.

Is it about calories too? Absolutely. But seriously, eating a 50carb/25 protein/25 fat ratio in my diet leaves me feeling hungry ALL the time. Those carbs-- and even proteins-- send insulin levels up and down and up and down over and over. When they are relatively stable to begin with, I'm golden. At that point, weight loss becomes effortless.

That's not to say that my addiction of carbs and sugar doesn't occasionally scream at me and make it hard to say no to a donut. It does. But let me tell you, when my blood sugar is 80 and has been there all day without going up and down much, it's a LOT easier for me to say no. Low carb, high nutrient (and high fat, saturated or not) is a win-win. Does it promote weight loss? Sure. The real beauty of it, though, is that it makes weight loss TOLERABLE. It makes you not want to eat all the time. It is a real gift for the obese, although the first few days of it are absolute hell.

AlabasterVerve

Thanks for sharing your experience, LATeagno. It is absolutely wonderful not feeling like I need to eat constantly--I haven't felt like this in years.

LATeagno

[\quote]
with your easy to understand videos there's also this page:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
[/quote]

You do realize the #1 cause for over insulin production is an energy surplus, right?

Read this for more info

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
[/quote]


Yes, but the whole point of the video is that excess insulin increases appetite thus causing this extra insulin. It is a circle.

LATeagno

Thanks for sharing your experience, LATeagno. It is absolutely wonderful not feeling like I need to eat constantly--I haven't felt like this in years.

Some people don't get it. I think that's because each of us are different. It's definitely nice to have a controlled appetite!

Spanaval

My problem is always with villification where it is not called for. This thread is an improvement in the sense that there are studies cited, even if they aren't exactly understood.

As for anecdotes, I eat a high carb diet, and weigh 112 lbs. At my heighest, eating the same stuff in higher quantity, I weighed 123. What does this mean for the evils of fats or proteins or whatever the villain of the day is? Not a damn thing. Calories in, calories out. Barring a medical condition that requires reducing a particular macro, there is no need to do it. If it makes you feel better to eat that way, by all means, knock yourself out, but don't make a villain out of macros or hormones that are undeserving of it.

tigersword

with your easy to understand videos there's also this page:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

You do realize the #1 cause for over insulin production is an energy surplus, right?

Read this for more info

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Yes, but the whole point of the video is that excess insulin increases appetite thus causing this extra insulin. It is a circle.

Just so long as you are aware that circular arguments are a logical fallacy, and not actually a valid argument. One problem causes another. One problem can't cause itself. Excess insulin can't cause excess insulin, it is excess insulin.

Also, insulin suppresses appetite, it doesn't increase it.

mmapags

Thanks for sharing your experience, LATeagno. It is absolutely wonderful not feeling like I need to eat constantly--I haven't felt like this in years.

Some people don't get it. I think that's because each of us are different. It's definitely nice to have a controlled appetite!

Someone asked earlier about the fact that protein causes insulin to spike also and I don't recall seeing an answer. So, how could insulin be the culprit if a low carb/ high protein diet is effective?

mmapags

My problem is always with villification where it is not called for. don't make a villain out of macros or hormones that are undeserving of it.

Totally agree! It's never that simple.

tigersword

If high insulin causes obesity, then why is it banned as a performance enhancing drug in athletics? Why aren't the bodybuilders who constantly inject themselves with insulin obese?

BeanQueen3000

Everyone keeps using the word "science". I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Holy gishgallop, batman.

cobracars

You realize that scientists NEVER speak in absolutes, right? Whenever you hear someone speaking in absolutes, you can promptly disregard everything they have to say.

So did you mean to say "Many times when you hear someone speaking in absolutes..."

Or should I disregard your statement as an absolute also? :bigsmile: :bigsmile:

chica23GK

It took me years-- YEARS-- to understand why low carb diets work for me. In 2006, I lost 70 lbs. by eating bacon, eggs and steak. I didn't eat very healthily-- I ate tons of fat and lost. That's not a balanced diet by any means. Did it work? Yes. Did it make me cry when I looked at cupcakes? Yes. To be completely honest, all it did was make my relationship with food worse. In the longterm, I gained the weight back. Surprise.

Now, six years later, I understand why low carbohydrate (low processed carb, anyway) eating is so important-- and so useful-- for me. When my insulin levels hang between a cozy 70 and 100, my appetite stabilizes. I never, ever, EVER feel ravenous. My body tells me when I'm hungry. When it does, I eat whole foods as much as possible. Lots of fat, moderate protein and low carb. I get lots of veggies and berries as well-- even Greek yogurt when I want it. It's the fact that my blood sugar never spikes that leaves me in control of my food and in turn, in control of myself.

It's not about gorging on lard and cheese. It's about finding extremely slow burning carbs in small amounts that will never raise your blood sugar much above 100 to begin with. I'm never famished. I'm actually able to turn away a half-eaten plate of food because I'm just not hungry anymore.

Is it about calories too? Absolutely. But seriously, eating a 50carb/25 protein/25 fat ratio in my diet leaves me feeling hungry ALL the time. Those carbs-- and even proteins-- send insulin levels up and down and up and down over and over. When they are relatively stable to begin with, I'm golden. At that point, weight loss becomes effortless.

That's not to say that my addiction of carbs and sugar doesn't occasionally scream at me and make it hard to say no to a donut. It does. But let me tell you, when my blood sugar is 80 and has been there all day without going up and down much, it's a LOT easier for me to say no. Low carb, high nutrient (and high fat, saturated or not) is a win-win. Does it promote weight loss? Sure. The real beauty of it, though, is that it makes weight loss TOLERABLE. It makes you not want to eat all the time. It is a real gift for the obese, although the first few days of it are absolute hell.

Ditto. I relate to what you said, having once been on a successful hi-protein diet (which included very low fruits & veggies). I too gained it all back & plus, but I know higher protein & no processed carbs are ideal so I'm finding my own balance (and MFP helps me to do this by tracking my macros). This post raised an interesting & valid topic ... insulin & obesity. My mom & sister are diabetic. Thanks for all the civil input.

alasin1derland

I have been dieting my whole life and still fat. I have noticed that when logging foods to keep calories at a deficit I feel so much better when eating whole foods then when I eat sugary foods. Same deficit but better quality. When I use my calories for sugary snacks I am very laggy, when I use my calories for whole foods, I go go go. So thank you OP for this new piece of the puzzle. I always knew what makes me feel better but now I know why and that will help me make better decisions in the future.

fteale

tigersword, thanks for breaking down these studies so I can understand them and get a jist of what the summaries are saying. I can appreciate that you (and a lot of others) don't see anything in the research that shows a LCHF or Paleo type diets have anything to recommend them beyond personal preference because of the studies you listed.

But when the very studies that were linked to to disprove that these diets have any advantage have statements saying the diets are shown to be more effective and further research needs to be done to understand why. Then you add to that the seventeen studies I listed earlier AND my own personal experience these last few weeks on a lower carb diet I just can't reconcile what you're saying the science proves with the growing success people seem to be having with these diets.

I absolutely believe calories in/calories out on any diet works but I really can't understand the unwillingness to entertain the idea that there's something more driving the obesity epidemic other than laziy people eating too much. Hopefully time and more well conducted studies will tell.

Some people still claim that weight loss studies do not show any advantage for low carb diets. Unbelievably enough, that is what many so called experts still believe.

It’s either ignorance or science denial.

There are at least seventeen modern scientific studies of the highest quality (RCT) that show significantly better weight loss with low carb diets:

http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb

Listen to ACG. He's looking better than ever.

mmapags

tigersword, thanks for breaking down these studies so I can understand them and get a jist of what the summaries are saying. I can appreciate that you (and a lot of others) don't see anything in the research that shows a LCHF or Paleo type diets have anything to recommend them beyond personal preference because of the studies you listed.

But when the very studies that were linked to to disprove that these diets have any advantage have statements saying the diets are shown to be more effective and further research needs to be done to understand why. Then you add to that the seventeen studies I listed earlier AND my own personal experience these last few weeks on a lower carb diet I just can't reconcile what you're saying the science proves with the growing success people seem to be having with these diets.

I absolutely believe calories in/calories out on any diet works but I really can't understand the unwillingness to entertain the idea that there's something more driving the obesity epidemic other than laziy people eating too much. Hopefully time and more well conducted studies will tell.

Some people still claim that weight loss studies do not show any advantage for low carb diets. Unbelievably enough, that is what many so called experts still believe.

It’s either ignorance or science denial.

There are at least seventeen modern scientific studies of the highest quality (RCT) that show significantly better weight loss with low carb diets:

http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb

Listen to ACG. He's looking better than ever.

And he knows from whence he speaks!