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
-
This content has been removed.
-
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 -
tlflag1620 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 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?
I don't think he did contradict himself. There is the assumption often amongst the low carb group that high fat low carb is always more filling and people will automatically experience less hunger. While that may be true for many, it is not a universal truth.
And by "doing it wrong" it means dieting in a way that experiences consistent and bothersome levels of hunger. If that is ho one is feeling...I would recommend finding a different way of eating that easier to maintain a deficit and succeed.
I agreed with the sentiment that high fat doesn't always work to reduce appetite for everyone. It certainly does seem to work for some, but not universally. However, the statement was made that if you are hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet, then you are "doing it wrong". I disagree. I did a low to moderate fat diet for many years, was hungry most of the time, could only manage to lose weight to a certain point before that gnawing hunger got the better of me (and that weight was a good 10 lbs above the highest recommended for my height) at which point I'd end up regaining or giving up on losing any more and just maintain. Once I upped the fats, the hunger disappeared and I am now smack in the middle of normal weight for my height, easily and without counting calories, going hungry, or exercising enormous amounts of willpower. I don't think I was doing moderate to low fat "wrong". I think moderate to low fat was wrong *for me*. Now perhaps that is what he meant (that if you are hungry all the time you should consider that whatever diet you are doing isn't right for you, and switching things up is a good idea), but the impression that I got (and I could certainly be mistaken, that's why I asked for clarification) was that he thinks everyone will be sated on a low to moderate fat diet, if only they do it "right".
We shall see what he meant if he chooses to clarify. <shrug>
4 -
tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.6 -
tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.4 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
How many calories where you eating on your other diet.. what were your protein levels and exercise? There are lots of variables.
And like mentioned, not everything is universal. And ultimately the single most important factor is dietary compliance. And i am not being condenscending by any means and would suggest you are taking that out of context. From my experience when you look into many peoples diets (not recollections but rather diaries) there are many types of issues that arise. Along with cutting calories in an aggressive manor, the types of calories tend to be the issue.
But i am glad you found what works for you.3 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Yes, this. Condescending and just flat out wrong in many cases - mine included.1 -
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.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.3 -
Another article with the same researcher: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Anyone else feel this seems suspect?
1 -
"Is the Insulin Theory of Obesity Over?
May 2, 2016
|
Katherine (@nutritionwonk)
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."
This it interesting. Sadly it falsifies nothing but writers like strong negatives.
Dr. Hall in the video did not claim the study falsified any thing and stated a longer study would be required to do so. I liked him. I hope he can raise the funds for a 24 month study but I doubt that is possible because that would be mega $$$.
While I was not in a locked lab after I cold turkey cut out sugar and all forms of all grains and worked to keep total carbs in line with my 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fats macro I have no way of knowing its impact on my metabolism rate.
I was losing inches but I did not even gain or lose ONE POUND for the first SIX WEEKS on this Way Of Eating.
After 15 days (first two weeks were hellish) my cravings started to fade fast and perhaps very weak after 30 days and they have not returned.
By the end of 30 days my arthritis joint and muscle pain had dropped from a subjective pain level of 7-8 to 2-3 levels and still are well managed 20 months later.
In 180 days my 40 years of serious life defining IBS like condition fully resolved and has not returned to any degree or in any form.
While I did not start eating this way to lose weight I did lose another 30 pounds after losing 20 pounds by the starving all the time method.
The reason I started eating this way at age 63 was to see if it would manage my pain by diet only so as to avoid especially the cancer risk that can be associated with using Enbrel injections that the doctors wanted me to start. I was in very poor health and any walking was a struggle. At my planned Enbrel start date since my pain had dropped from 7-8 to 2-3 I was able to say no to Enbrel usage.
My health markers have improved and are better at 65 than at age 45.
Because I was warm all winter with my Way Of Eat (2500+ calories maintaining 200 pounds for past 12 months) I expect I did at least burn the 36,500 extra calories due to LCHF the above study supported for a year.
While the short study was not able to establish the long term impact LCHF may or may not have on Insulin as it relates to Obesity it was good to know LCHF increased metabolism rates where the HCLF diet can cause a long term decrease in metabolism rate (a cause of weight regains) as research from The Biggest Losers TV show proved.
I think since this study shows fat loss yet with the protein sparing feature of LCHF WOE's will drive the LCHF trend even higher. A 24 month study of this or any diet should tell the validity of any diet.
Thanks for the link shared in the OP.
3 -
Another article with the same researcher: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Anyone else feel this seems suspect?
@rsenor I do not think Dr. Hall's work seems suspect. It clearly shows with public data while most people eating at a CICO deficient to lose weight may regain some, all or more than the weight lost. I did the yo yo thing for 40 years and paid a high price health wise.
The study about the Insulin factor showed the advantage of the LCHF macro over the HCLF macro may be due to stopping cravings.0 -
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.
Now that is funny. When I do not give eating advice why would I criticize the WOE of another. Adults at least at this time in the USA are free to eat any macro they wish where it works for them or against them.
While LCHF happens to be working for me going on two years it could be a very wrong WOE for others or even me down the road.
Links that say one can not successfully lose weight in a state of elevated Insulin levels is just stating facts but if you offer links that states people can successfully lose body fat in a state of elevated Insulin levels please post so we can read them. What others post as how to lose fat is beyond my control.
As you know it is my position to give or accept eating advice from social media sources can be risky both in a legal and health sense.
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
I went through a progression of eating patterns over the past 25 years. I started with what is probably your "typical" American diet - too much soda/sweetened beverages, too many processed carbs, not enough fruit or veg, lots of fast food, take out, and heavily processed foods. I made improvements over the years and ended up with a low fat, high fiber diet (strictly whole grains, lots of fruit and veggies, modest amounts of very lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, no added sugars, very little saturated fat; no soda/sweetened beverages, predominantly home cooked, minimally processed foods). It was definitely an improvement over the way I ate in my teens and early twenties, but I was consistently hungry and could never quite make it to where I wanted to be weight-wise (was always in the "overweight" category).
After struggling (and failing) for years to get to get to a "normal" weight I decided to try a different approach - now I eat a standard LCHF diet based on fatty meat, fibrous veg, minimal fruit (and only low sugar fruit), whole dairy (as low sugar as possible), nuts and seeds, and very small amounts (and only occasionally) of grains, starchy veg, or higher sugar fruit. Obviously I still don't drink sweetened beverages, and I still eat mostly home cooked foods. Off plan foods are consumed no less often than off plan foods on my lower fat diet. Maybe more often, as without the hunger I find I have a lot more willpower and trust myself with "treats" a whole lot more.
I was finally full and satisfied and spontaneously, effortlessly managed to create a deficit significant enough to get down to the middle of the normal weight range for my height. Without calorie counting. Without going hungry. Without increasing activity. So, yeah, I feel like I was "doing it right" wrt low fat, it just didn't work for me.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Maybe we can all call a truce? If you want to slam lemon for this, maybe equally slam aqslyvester and Gale for claiming that people eating moderate to low fat are starving (I'm not, hunger is not my issue) or that we are unhealthy and on the verge of cancer and dementia? Fair is fair, after all.
I personally see what lemon does -- virtually everyone who claims to have been hungry pre low carb was eating a terrible diet not required by moderate to high carb - low veg, low fiber, often low protein. But even if that's not true (as I think is possible) it's clear it's only a subset for whom appetite is a problem or for whom carbs (even high fiber carbs) increase appetite. That, like the "I'm a carnivore" thing are things I've only run into on MFP.10 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Yes, this. Condescending and just flat out wrong in many cases - mine included.
Yet you haven't called aqsylvester out for claiming all must be satiated by fat -- basically the same thing.
That's telling.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
Now that is funny. When I do not give eating advice
Um, you do, Constantly. I'm always wondering why you are trying to tell people what to do, as I think it's offensive. Some of us think evangelism is cool and some do not, I guess.why would I criticize the WOE of another.
Beats me, but virtually all of your posts do, or claim that how others eat will make them sick, which is risible.Links that say one can not successfully lose weight in a state of elevated Insulin levels is just stating facts
Um, but you suggested that meant that people who were not low carb could not lose weight and lots of us have lost lots of weight not low carb so, well, no.
IOW, not a fact. A lie. Why do you lie to people? It offends me.
{quote]but if you offer links that states people can successfully lose body fat in a state of elevated Insulin levels please post so we can read them. What others post as how to lose fat is beyond my control.[/quote]
Conveniently, this is precisely what this thread is about.As you know it is my position to give or accept eating advice from social media sources can be risky both in a legal and health sense.
No, I don't know that's your position, as you -- more than anyone else on MFP -- post bogus and bad information from social media re diet. Why not own that?1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Well, actually weight is the single greatest CVD risk. Insulin resistance may be an important factor but it has also been shown that losing weight and improving activity level generally increases insulin sensitivity in those obese individuals that are IR.
IR in lean individual tends to be a significant risk fact for CVD.
There is also research that shows that the issue might be glucose dysmetabolism and that IR may be an adaptive mechanisms and not the issue.1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Another article with the same researcher: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Anyone else feel this seems suspect?
@rsenor I do not think Dr. Hall's work seems suspect. It clearly shows with public data while most people eating at a CICO deficient to lose weight may regain some, all or more than the weight lost. I did the yo yo thing for 40 years and paid a high price health wise.
The study about the Insulin factor showed the advantage of the LCHF macro over the HCLF macro may be due to stopping cravings.
Not at all suspect, Hall team has been working in this area for many years. They've publish dozen of articles in metabolic modelling.0 -
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.
The Bacon you wrapped your steak in isn't processed? (Not to mention classified under probable carcinogens, which none of the things you listed for avoidance are)7 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Yes, this. Condescending and just flat out wrong in many cases - mine included.
Yet you haven't called aqsylvester out for claiming all must be satiated by fat -- basically the same thing.
That's telling.
Yes, it is. What it should be telling you is I found their original statement ignorant and the follow up questions for tlflag1620 trying to help them understand all of the possible ways they could have been "doing it wrong" condescending.
Because they're a moderator (and the number of "awesomes" the post received) I chose to comment when I usually wouldn't -- "calling people out" really isn't my thing.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.
Thanks. I probably would say that would apply to a normal person, because I don't know anyone who eats a diet of white bread and sugar water.1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.
Really? That's not what the researchers thought.
The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus.
I guess you can lead only a horse to water...0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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 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?
For the most part, when I have worked with people on their dietary requirements, when people switched to low carb diets, they came from very poor diets in general. Rarely, were they eating larges amounts of fiber, lean proteins, concentrating on unsaturated fats, etc... Essentially, the huge dietary shift, focused their attention on a much less broad amounts of foods due to limitations.
For those who wanted to stay higher carb, I worked with them to refocus their dietary preferences. Often I replaced calories from drinks, increased fiber (fruits, veggies, and higher fiber whole grains), increased lean proteins (animal and plant based) and increase unsaturated fats (especially fish). This action, then resulted in the feeling of fullness.
Overall though, satiety has scored the highest in lean proteins and fibrous veggies. This is fairly universal and I haven't seen any studies to refute these claims. Where things get mucky is fat vs non fibrous carbs. Personally, I and many others respond better to starches more so than fats. So I do recognize there is some individuality in finding a program that works for you. But if you want to come carbs vs fat, then at least make it plant-based vs keto as they are two extremes.
Another thing that one must consider is the size of ones deficit. Many, who are new to fitness want to be aggressive. But the only people who really can do that, are those who are highly disciplined and highly trained (typically seen in body builders during contest prep) or those under close supervision.
Your insistence that anyone who feels hungry all the time on a low to moderate fat diet must be "doing it wrong" is just as condescending as when people who don't respond well to keto get told they must be "doing it wrong". Sometimes it's not that the person is doing the diet wrong; it's that the diet is wrong for the person.
Yes, this. Condescending and just flat out wrong in many cases - mine included.
Yet you haven't called aqsylvester out for claiming all must be satiated by fat -- basically the same thing.
That's telling.
Yes, it is. What it should be telling you is I found their original statement ignorant and the follow up questions for tlflag1620 trying to help them understand all of the possible ways they could have been "doing it wrong" condescending.
Because they're a moderator (and the number of "awesomes" the post received) I chose to comment when I usually wouldn't -- "calling people out" really isn't my thing.
What does me being a moderator have to do with any of this? My experience is directly correlated to such an answer. It would be not different when people talk about carb flu with low carb (which generally the issue is inadequate electrolytes). There are general areas where they are doing it wrong. If hunger is one of those areas, they generally are doing it wrong. If you look at the satiety index, fat isn't up there.. neither is starch. The highest ranking foods are fibrous carbs (veggies) and lean proteins.
And then I provided even further context into my other statement, as @tlflag1620 asked for. And like I said, I am all for any diet that makes you compliant, but making blanket statements, like @aqsylvester did, it will get a response. Her statement is wrong. It wasn't' supported by the study, but rather a NY times article. The Article itself has similar failure rates, which baffled me on how such a conclusion could be made.4 -
jquizzle10 wrote: »I'm more interested in who funds their research. Coca-cola?
It seems to have been funded by the Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSi) not Coca Cola.
NuSi was launched by a certain person which still sits on the board of directors.
That person is Gary Taubes.
I laughed. A lot.7 -
aqsylvester wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.
Really? That's not what the researchers thought.
The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus.
I guess you can lead only a horse to water...
In rat models. By being fed a diet that no human would eat. Context and application. It is what matters.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
The Bacon you wrapped your steak in isn't processed? (Not to mention classified under probable carcinogens, which none of the things you listed for avoidance are)
You pick and choose your battles, don't you, Steven?0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Older studies that found connections between saturated fats and heart disease lumped animal fat with man-made trans fats--an obviously extremely confounding variable! Thanks to Dutch researchers in 1990, we finally started to look at the toxic nature of trans fats. They were banned in Europe and finally more recently banned in the US to some extent. When removing the effect of trans fat, there has been "no significant evidence concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD" -- from a 2010 analysis of 21 studies covering 347,747 patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
20 yr follow up data from the Framingham study revealed margarine was associated with more heart attacks and butter consumption with fewer heart attacks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9229205
It also showed those eating the most saturated fat had the least strokes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417007
From all the evidence I've read, I'm convinced that natural fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are protective against diabetes and heart disease. And considering insulin resistance is your greatest CVD risk factor, you ought to be thinking about what causes insulin resistance and the subsequent type 2 diabetes!
Scientists can instigate type 2 diabetes in rats by feeding them a low fat, high glycemic index diet for 8 weeks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463/?tool=pubmed
Whereas feeding them a high fat diet inhibits the progression of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20797481
Food for thought.
Obesity, inactivity and genetics have all been linked to type 2 and IR. Eating carbs has not been correlated to developing those conditions.
Its unfortunate that all of your studies are behind paid walls as it does not allow one to understand the parameters. The one regarding stroke has men who ate a lot of monounsaturated fats, which are known and widely accepted as beneficial to heart health.
I can see this article, it isn't behind a paid wall:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312463
However, inducing diabetes with sugar water and white bread diets in rats doesn't really support the idea that normal dietary carbs are any more dangerous than killing rats by drowning them shows that drinking 8 glasses of water is dangerous.
Really? That's not what the researchers thought.
The pathophysiological and histopathological effects observed affirmed the postulation that diet is a major contributing factor to the cause and pathology of diabetes mellitus.
I guess you can lead only a horse to water...
In rat models. By being fed a diet that no human would eat. Context and application. It is what matters.
Like I said, you can only lead a horse to water... you can't force it to drink. Well, maybe adding sugar to the water would help
0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
The Bacon you wrapped your steak in isn't processed? (Not to mention classified under probable carcinogens, which none of the things you listed for avoidance are)
You pick and choose your battles, don't you, Steven?
It ain't hard pointing out inconsistencies in your statements.3
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
- 426 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