Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is the Insulin Theory of Obesity Over?
Wetcoaster
Posts: 1,788 Member
http://www.thenutritionwonk.com/#!Is-the-Insulin-Theory-of-Obesity-Over/cmbz/5726e6810cf26b6d6848a8f8
Kevin Hall, PhD, says his most recent metabolic ward study combined with the paper his team released over the summer falsifies the insulin-carbohydrate theory of obesity.
The insulin theory of obesity, in short, posits that higher carbohydrate diets increase insulin secretion, which then drives fat storage and essentially “starves” muscles and organs of energy. This causes increased hunger and overeating. The reason a low-carb diet works, according to the theory, is that the lowered levels of insulin allow for the body to begin metabolizing fat and increase energy expenditure. Some, though perhaps not all, proponents of the theory think that the reason this works is due to a “metabolic advantage” of a low-carbohydrate diet – ie a person on a low carb diet burns greater calories than a person eating a diet higher in carbohydrate.
In Dr. Hall’s study published over the summer, he showed that two-groups, in a crossover trial of two diets – one high carbohydrate and one moderate – did not show a significant different in metabolic rate between the two diets. Interestingly, the low-fat group lost a greater amount of fat compared to the lower carbohydrate group.
This most recent study, which should be published in a few weeks, goes one step farther. In this study, a group of 17 overweight and obese men were put onto a controlled, high carbohydrate, calorie-controlled diet for a month and then switched to a very low carbohydrate high fat diet (80% calories from fat) for a second month. After participants were switched to the low carbohydrate diet, they experienced a small increase in energy expenditure that decreased then disappeared over the four week duration. This, Hall explains, essentially disproves the idea of the metabolic advantage.
Hall said, "I think the combination of these two studies on the metabolic side of things basically falsifies the carbohydrate insulin hypothesis."
It is important to note, Dr. Hall adds, that the studies "only falsify the predictions of the carb-insulin model with respect to body fat and metabolism changes," but, "still could be true regarding hunger/appetite." This model, since the diet arm was calorie controlled, could only test for metabolic effects and could not account for ad libitum intake.
Yesterday, Dr. Yoni Freedhoff had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Kevin Hall during his poster presentation at the International Congress on Obesity (ICO). They livestreamed an explanation of the study and the poster on Periscope.
While both Dr. Freedhoff and Dr. Hall agree that there is no metabolic advantage for low-carb diets, they also discuss the possibility that the primary benefit of a lower carbohydrate diet is an increase in satiety. And if low-carb diets do have positive impacts on satiety, they can cause spontaneously lower caloric intake in an ad libitum diet.
Dr. Freedhoff had this to say about the conversation: "Putting hypotheses aside, if you're considering ketosis as a means to lose weight, don't forget that if you stop your diet, just as with any diet, the weight you've lost is almost certain to return. So with whatever diet you choose, you'd better be damn sure you like it enough to keep with it forever."
https://youtu.be/atfBiEsxG5o
Kevin Hall, PhD, says his most recent metabolic ward study combined with the paper his team released over the summer falsifies the insulin-carbohydrate theory of obesity.
The insulin theory of obesity, in short, posits that higher carbohydrate diets increase insulin secretion, which then drives fat storage and essentially “starves” muscles and organs of energy. This causes increased hunger and overeating. The reason a low-carb diet works, according to the theory, is that the lowered levels of insulin allow for the body to begin metabolizing fat and increase energy expenditure. Some, though perhaps not all, proponents of the theory think that the reason this works is due to a “metabolic advantage” of a low-carbohydrate diet – ie a person on a low carb diet burns greater calories than a person eating a diet higher in carbohydrate.
In Dr. Hall’s study published over the summer, he showed that two-groups, in a crossover trial of two diets – one high carbohydrate and one moderate – did not show a significant different in metabolic rate between the two diets. Interestingly, the low-fat group lost a greater amount of fat compared to the lower carbohydrate group.
This most recent study, which should be published in a few weeks, goes one step farther. In this study, a group of 17 overweight and obese men were put onto a controlled, high carbohydrate, calorie-controlled diet for a month and then switched to a very low carbohydrate high fat diet (80% calories from fat) for a second month. After participants were switched to the low carbohydrate diet, they experienced a small increase in energy expenditure that decreased then disappeared over the four week duration. This, Hall explains, essentially disproves the idea of the metabolic advantage.
Hall said, "I think the combination of these two studies on the metabolic side of things basically falsifies the carbohydrate insulin hypothesis."
It is important to note, Dr. Hall adds, that the studies "only falsify the predictions of the carb-insulin model with respect to body fat and metabolism changes," but, "still could be true regarding hunger/appetite." This model, since the diet arm was calorie controlled, could only test for metabolic effects and could not account for ad libitum intake.
Yesterday, Dr. Yoni Freedhoff had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Kevin Hall during his poster presentation at the International Congress on Obesity (ICO). They livestreamed an explanation of the study and the poster on Periscope.
While both Dr. Freedhoff and Dr. Hall agree that there is no metabolic advantage for low-carb diets, they also discuss the possibility that the primary benefit of a lower carbohydrate diet is an increase in satiety. And if low-carb diets do have positive impacts on satiety, they can cause spontaneously lower caloric intake in an ad libitum diet.
Dr. Freedhoff had this to say about the conversation: "Putting hypotheses aside, if you're considering ketosis as a means to lose weight, don't forget that if you stop your diet, just as with any diet, the weight you've lost is almost certain to return. So with whatever diet you choose, you'd better be damn sure you like it enough to keep with it forever."
https://youtu.be/atfBiEsxG5o 3
Replies
-
I'd bet it's not even close to being over.
2 -
I'm more interested in who funds their research. Coca-cola?6
-
jquizzle10 wrote: »I'm more interested in who funds their research. Coca-cola?
Amazingly, if you follow the link you can see the answer to that question. You can also read about the study.
I'd advise that.17 -
Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »I'm more interested in who funds their research. Coca-cola?
Amazingly, if you follow the link you can see the answer to that question. You can also read about the study.
I'd advise that.
Thanks for the suggestion. I agree it's important to read the original scientific literature. As a physician, I'm challenged to interpret the evidence in my clinical decision making and it's less clear cut than the layman would think.2 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
Really? Please elaborate.1 -
The WHO seems to think this discussion has been over for a while now.
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/FFA_summary_rec_conclusion.pdf
"There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy body weight and ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient distribution expressed in energy percentage (%E)."5 -
Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.9 -
I could go into an exegesis, but to keep it simple I'll say, ignore the text and just look at the hard data reported. The hard data flies in the face of their conclusion, yet they create some value called net fat oxidation that would seem to support their theory. I say "show me the money," in other words - what's statistically significant? The only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet. (I'm referring to his first study).stevencloser wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
Really? Please elaborate.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Lol, Taubes response is not even talking about the matter. That's like after a study showing electrical cars are better for the environment than gas cars, the oil companies saying "yeah but what about the mileage?". It's distracting from the thing that was shown, that the idea that Taubes represents, that you HAVE to reduce carbs to lose fat, that carbs are the REASON for obesity, is blatantly wrong.
Also, if the group that lost more weight lost less fat actually, what exactly do you think the weight loss difference composed of? At best water weight which is irrelevant, at worst lean mass which is BAD.11 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study.
This is a new follow-up study. (Also, I doubt anyone in this thread is a low fat advocate -- why would you accuse OP of that?)
They also aren't saying anything about hunger. They are simply addressing the claim (which has been all over MFP lately) that lowering insulin is physically necessary for weight loss, even in a deficit, or makes a difference as to how much weight is lost, when calories are held equal.
They (and I) agree that picking a diet that is more satiating is a factor, but the claim that people in general need to reduce carbs to be sated or are likely to be more hunger on a standard macro diet is contrary to my own experience and that of many other people's.
I suspect there's a subset of people who struggle with hunger or cravings and keto/low carb may be helpful to them. I don't think we should pretend that this is everyone or that fat is inherently more satiating than carbs. It's not. Fat is not satiating at all for me. And while keto might make me never hungry, since I don't struggle with hunger on my normal diet, why would I want that?8 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »
I could go into an exegesis, but to keep it simple I'll say, ignore the text and just look at the hard data reported. The hard data flies in the face of their conclusion, yet they create some value called net fat oxidation that would seem to support their theory. I say "show me the money," in other words - what's statistically significant? The only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet. (I'm referring to his first study).stevencloser wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
Really? Please elaborate.
Create a value? Net fat oxidation would be Total fat oxidized for energy - fat intake and creation.
That's nothing you have to create, that's what you need to do to find out how much fat was actually lost. If you eat 2000 cals of fat and your body uses 2000 cals of fat you haven't lost any fat. If you're eating 500 cals of fat and your body uses 1000 cals of fat, you lost 500 cals of fat.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL4 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL
Didn't know you're eating 8000 calories for 140g to be 7%.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL
Didn't know you're eating 8000 calories for 140g to be 7%.
Fat was severely restricted to 7% of calories in the fat restricted group. In the carb restricted group, it was not 7% of calories.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »
I could go into an exegesis, but to keep it simple I'll say, ignore the text and just look at the hard data reported. The hard data flies in the face of their conclusion, yet they create some value called net fat oxidation that would seem to support their theory. I say "show me the money," in other words - what's statistically significant? The only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet. (I'm referring to his first study).stevencloser wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
Really? Please elaborate.
Create a value? Net fat oxidation would be Total fat oxidized for energy - fat intake and creation.
That's nothing you have to create, that's what you need to do to find out how much fat was actually lost. If you eat 2000 cals of fat and your body uses 2000 cals of fat you haven't lost any fat. If you're eating 500 cals of fat and your body uses 1000 cals of fat, you lost 500 cals of fat.
We already know eating a calorie deficit of any micronutrient ratio would lead to fat oxidation because that how energy is mostly stored in the body. Again, show me the money!0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL
Didn't know you're eating 8000 calories for 140g to be 7%.
Fat was severely restricted to 7% of calories in the fat restricted group. In the carb restricted group, it was not 7% of calories.
I know what it was in the study. I'm just saying reducing fat to 7% would be no more weird than reducing carbs to 7%, yet a ton of people are doing exactly that.2 -
By the way Steven, is this your full time job?5
-
jquizzle10 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »
I could go into an exegesis, but to keep it simple I'll say, ignore the text and just look at the hard data reported. The hard data flies in the face of their conclusion, yet they create some value called net fat oxidation that would seem to support their theory. I say "show me the money," in other words - what's statistically significant? The only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet. (I'm referring to his first study).stevencloser wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
Really? Please elaborate.
Create a value? Net fat oxidation would be Total fat oxidized for energy - fat intake and creation.
That's nothing you have to create, that's what you need to do to find out how much fat was actually lost. If you eat 2000 cals of fat and your body uses 2000 cals of fat you haven't lost any fat. If you're eating 500 cals of fat and your body uses 1000 cals of fat, you lost 500 cals of fat.
We already know eating a calorie deficit of any micronutrient ratio would lead to fat oxidation because that how energy is mostly stored in the body. Again, show me the money!
You... were already told where to find the money? In the study. That you say you read.8 -
This content has been removed.
-
jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
This study isn't published yet. How did you read it?1 -
A 24-month study would help show the facts of any diet.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
This study isn't published yet. How did you read it?
I was referring to the first study referenced in the article which was published.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »A 24-month study would help show the facts of any diet.
I agree, I've got an N of 1 greater than 24 month study, which is sufficient for me.2 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »
I could go into an exegesis, but to keep it simple I'll say, ignore the text and just look at the hard data reported. The hard data flies in the face of their conclusion, yet they create some value called net fat oxidation that would seem to support their theory. I say "show me the money," in other words - what's statistically significant? The only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet. (I'm referring to his first study).stevencloser wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.
Really? Please elaborate.
And as previous studies have shown, increased fat intake leads to increased fat oxidation but not necessarily increased body fat oxidation. Increased weight loss was likely caused by either water or muscle loss as there were insignificant differences in fat loss between the diets.
There was no significant difference in fat mass change in the two groups. So, the study was pretty much null on this point.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL
Didn't know you're eating 8000 calories for 140g to be 7%.
Fat was severely restricted to 7% of calories in the fat restricted group. In the carb restricted group, it was not 7% of calories.
I know what it was in the study. I'm just saying reducing fat to 7% would be no more weird than reducing carbs to 7%, yet a ton of people are doing exactly that.
Reducing fat to 7% and eating at a deficit is incredibly hard--you try it sometime, and tell me what you ate in a day and how you felt--in fact, try it for a month or two. That's why these guys had to be in a controlled environment. Reducing carbohydrates to 7% and eating at a deficit is so much easier that the deficit usually occurs without even trying, especially for someone with extra body fat who is eating unprocessed foods.
That being said, the original study didn't even limit carbs that significantly. It wasn't even a ketogenic diet. I guess the original study was so flawed, he had to do a follow up.0 -
He's testing different but related things, and does not believe the first study was flawed. They weren't testing keto diets, and needed to be able to decrease calories the same amount from reducing carbs and reducing fat in the first one. That's why it was not a true low carb diet -- one problem with most low carb vs. moderate fat studies (which is what most are) is that the low carb ends up also having increased protein by comparison.
On VLF diets, not for me (nor is keto), but I found this interesting: https://rawfoodsos.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL
Didn't know you're eating 8000 calories for 140g to be 7%.
Fat was severely restricted to 7% of calories in the fat restricted group. In the carb restricted group, it was not 7% of calories.
I know what it was in the study. I'm just saying reducing fat to 7% would be no more weird than reducing carbs to 7%, yet a ton of people are doing exactly that.
Reducing fat to 7% and eating at a deficit is incredibly hard--you try it sometime, and tell me what you ate in a day and how you felt--in fact, try it for a month or two. That's why these guys had to be in a controlled environment. Reducing carbohydrates to 7% and eating at a deficit is so much easier that the deficit usually occurs without even trying, especially for someone with extra body fat who is eating unprocessed foods.
That being said, the original study didn't even limit carbs that significantly. It wasn't even a ketogenic diet. I guess the original study was so flawed, he had to do a follow up.
Eat nothing but fruit and veggies. Don't add oil to your salad. Done. Not exactly hard. Hell, you could add lean meats to the equation too, those are about 5% fat.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Low fat advocates love to hearken back to that study. In fact, Hall designed it on purpose to "disprove" Gary Taubes. Taubes response, "what about hunger?"
It was an extremely controlled environment. Even if the findings were true, how could people apply it in real life? Cut your fat to 7% and eat at a deficit... nothing about that sounds normal... and the "findings" actually prove nothing except if you eat low fat at a deficit, you burn more fat than you consume--duh.
The thing that really troubles me is the data points on which they chose to fixate. They clearly could have focused on anything else, such as the restricted carb group losing more weight and with greater improvements in markers of metabolic and cardiovascular health. To me, it speaks to a blatant misrepresentation based on an agenda.
Also, in my eyes, reducing carbs to that low and eating at a deficit is no more or less normal than reducing fat to that low, but whatever.
Restricting to an average of 140 g carbs per day is abnormal? LOL
Didn't know you're eating 8000 calories for 140g to be 7%.
Fat was severely restricted to 7% of calories in the fat restricted group. In the carb restricted group, it was not 7% of calories.
I know what it was in the study. I'm just saying reducing fat to 7% would be no more weird than reducing carbs to 7%, yet a ton of people are doing exactly that.
Reducing fat to 7% and eating at a deficit is incredibly hard--you try it sometime, and tell me what you ate in a day and how you felt--in fact, try it for a month or two. That's why these guys had to be in a controlled environment. Reducing carbohydrates to 7% and eating at a deficit is so much easier that the deficit usually occurs without even trying, especially for someone with extra body fat who is eating unprocessed foods.
That being said, the original study didn't even limit carbs that significantly. It wasn't even a ketogenic diet. I guess the original study was so flawed, he had to do a follow up.
Eat nothing but fruit and veggies. Don't add oil to your salad. Done. Not exactly hard. Hell, you could add lean meats to the equation too, those are about 5% fat.
ok... not hard to plan, but extremely hard to implement... did you really miss my meaning there? lawlz1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions