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?
Replies
-
aqsylvester wrote: »
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
In other words, stop eating anything that makes life worth living.....9 -
-
annaskiski wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
In other words, stop eating anything that makes life worth living.....
Oh dear... tonight for dinner I had a bacon wrapped steak with 2 local, pastured eggs fried in grassfed butter (the yolks were a deep, beautiful orange), a side salad with olives and homemade Italian dressing. My life feels so worth living
5 -
Fruit and heavy cream... both delicious, real, low carb foods... I just do it without the sugar
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »jquizzle10 wrote: »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.
True. Our own N of 1 way of eating that works for us is total validation of our WOE. I will have 24 months testing my WOE come Oct.
But YOU are the one always criticizing how others eat. This whole thread is about the invalidation of the theory that keto is a superior way of dieting and that calorie cutting does not work. If we are now saying that simply successfully losing weight and improving health on a diet is enough of a study, then don't we have to take into account the experience of many, many of us who have done that by cutting calories and on moderate to high carb diets (including those 80-10-10 vegans)?
If so, you can't claim your macro mix is a superior way to lose weight than how others do it or that carbs are inherently a problem or that everyone should cut carbs. Nor should you put links in threads saying that you can't lose if eating foods that result in insulin increasing temporarily or (as someone else posted here just today) that it is best to cut carbs to 5-10% to lose fat.
I agree with @lemurcat12 100%1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
We are in the opposite in almost everything on your list. Lowering stress, sleeping and exercise is good for health but everything is actually silly. Oh yeah, simple is better. Cheers9 -
queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
We are in the opposite in almost everything on your list. Lowering stress, sleeping and exercise is good for health but everything is actually silly. Oh yeah, simple is better. Cheers
Avoiding processed food is silly? Good luck with that.2 -
aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
Your self reporting study didnt really talk about satiety... not that i saw.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
Dont forget reducing sat fats as they have been one of the highest links to cvd.... amazing how this one tends to get lefts out.5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
We are in the opposite in almost everything on your list. Lowering stress, sleeping and exercise is good for health but everything is actually silly. Oh yeah, simple is better. Cheers
Avoiding processed food is silly? Good luck with that.
How so? I making homemade chicken casserole with egg noodles and already grated cheese. OMG imma gonna die and family too. Call 9117 -
queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
I also agree with @psulemon and had the same result ( I could eat 900 cals of fats and still be hungry or I could eat a 300 cal potato and be stuffed fats don't do much for my hunger at all )
Throughout this entire process I have eaten a higher carb diet then most . I had no problem losing all of my weight and have been maintaining for close to 3 yrs now while eating between 160 to 200 carbs per day . I have a low bf% and a tight physique while enjoying the carbs I love.5 -
aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
Your self reporting study didnt really talk about satiety... not that i saw.
Did you read the study? or just paragraph abstract?
Yes, the low carb group only counted carbs, while the low fat group struggled with appetite and had to count calories in order to comply. The NY times article gives a good summary.
From the article: “[The study] shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Oh dear... tonight for dinner I had a bacon wrapped steak with 2 local, pastured eggs fried in grassfed butter (the yolks were a deep, beautiful orange), a side salad with olives and homemade Italian dressing. My life feels so worth living
Hate steak, hate eggs...bacon I'll take... (but isn't that processed?)7 -
aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
Dont forget reducing sat fats as they have been one of the highest links to cvd.... amazing how this one tends to get lefts out.
I didn't. I have no concerns whatsoever with saturated fat... in fact, THE greatest risk factor for CVD is not saturated fat consumption. It's insulin resistance.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
Dont forget reducing sat fats as they have been one of the highest links to cvd.... amazing how this one tends to get lefts out.
I didn't. I have no concerns whatsoever with saturated fat... in fact, THE greatest risk factor for CVD is not saturated fat consumption. It's insulin resistance.
Cool for you! But I think I will watch my saturated fat intake, thank you.4 -
annaskiski wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Oh dear... tonight for dinner I had a bacon wrapped steak with 2 local, pastured eggs fried in grassfed butter (the yolks were a deep, beautiful orange), a side salad with olives and homemade Italian dressing. My life feels so worth living
Hate steak, hate eggs...bacon I'll take... (but isn't that processed?)
I would never eat that described meal either...now or when I was obese.
Which is why I think the most important factor is finding the diet that works best for you and doing that...instead of the most important factor is convincing everyone that the diet that works best for you IS the best diet for all and all must do that diet.
That's what I get too. I like the way I eat and my family too!1 -
I think that whatever way of eating is going to work for you long term will certainly be more effective than forcing yourself to eat in a manner that either doesn't fit what your belief system and values are, or is completely different than what you are accustomed to. If you want to make smaller changes over time to lead toward something different then do it. Large scale sweeping changes are more likely going to lead to failure.
As for the OP, I'm just going to leave this here, because it amused my kitten:
5 -
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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You contradicted yourself. You state that not everyone responds the same way (I agree), but then admonish those of us who felt hungry all the time on low to moderate fat diets for "doing it wrong". Which is it? And, what, pray tell, is "doing it right" in your opinion?
0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
Your self reporting study didnt really talk about satiety... not that i saw.
Did you read the study? or just paragraph abstract?
Yes, the low carb group only counted carbs, while the low fat group struggled with appetite and had to count calories in order to comply. The NY times article gives a good summary.
From the article: “[The study] shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
Did I read the study? Absolutely. But I didn't read the NY times article because articles don't generally tell the whole story and in many times doesn't actually reach the same conclusion.
And that is a very interesting observation, especially considering both groups had 20% drop our rates. So considering both where equal, I would question how they came to that conclusion. Both counting calories and counting carbs are equally as easy.. not different than counting points. In the end, you need to find one that you are comfortable with. For some, counting carbs is the most simple.
One thing I would question is why they used an electrical bioimpedance machine to measure body fat and free fat mass... not really the most accurate device.7 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »aqsylvester 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.
Why is it always assumed that those not following low carb diets are always hungry. Its just a bunch of non sense. If you are hungry on a low to mod fat diet, you are doing it wrong. And not everyone responds to fat the same way. Many of us dont even touch hunger with fat. I know it doesnt even remotely affect me. I am more full from a 300 calorie potato that 900+ calories of fats.
You say it is "always assumed"--well, there might be something to it then? In fact, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand up to evidence. A good example is the National Institute of Health trial from 2014. People on a low carb diet only had to count carbs while eating to satisfaction, while those on the low fat diet had to control calories to prevent over-eating. Appetite suppression is a well-known benefit to low carb diets--among many others, as evidenced by this trail (which btw was over one year with 150 participants--not one month with 17 men--big difference right there, too).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25178568
I agree with psulemon, I like a more moderate approach to my macros. High fat made me sad and lacking energy. High fat is not the answer for everything.
Agreed, "high fat is not the answer to everything." That's certainly a extreme statement--and an easy one with which to disagree. I think for most people on this site, the goal is sustainable weight loss and long-term health. I would also consider the importance of avoiding sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess omega 6, artificial sweeteners, food additives that disrupt gut bacteria--basically highly refined, processed foods--instead eating real, whole food, lowering stress, getting enough sleep, limiting alcohol, encouraging healthy gut bacteria, and exercising... weight loss and health are both a lot more complicated and a lot more simple that most people try to make it out to be.
Dont forget reducing sat fats as they have been one of the highest links to cvd.... amazing how this one tends to get lefts out.
I didn't. I have no concerns whatsoever with saturated fat... in fact, THE greatest risk factor for CVD is not saturated fat consumption. It's insulin resistance.
That is interesting, but considering every low carb study in the recent past I have seen restricts sat fat, it may be something you would want to considering. But as you stated, your anecdotal evidence just doesn't stand with the hundreds of studies out there.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions