Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO

psulemon wrote: »

Crisseyda wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

Crisseyda wrote: »

@amusedmonkey

I think you might enjoy this article by Dr. Fung entitled, "The Carbohydrate Insulin Hypothesis is Wrong." It made me think of you and how you seemed so stuck on defending carbohydrates. I guess you've been exposed to this theory and found problems with it? Well, I wasn't talking about that theory; hence, my confusion as to why you kept simplifying the discussion... anyway... you might find you agree with him more than you initially thought.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-wrong-hormonal-obesity-vi/

Yes, that was the theory I'm against but I also don't agree with his hypothesis. He is mixing cause and effect. Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around. When people lose weight, regardless of diet, they tend to become less insulin resistant. Case in point: from borderline diabetic to low average blood sugar values, and all it took was weight loss without much of a change in the amount or the type of carbohydrates I consume.

You should read up on the. Obesity doesn't cause insulin resistance; insulin does. Researchers can infuse healthy people with physiologic levels of insulin and induce insulin resistance fairly quickly. Many many diabetics are not obese; they can even be thin! He has a great lecture on that on his intensive dietary management blog. Additionally, he heals his type 2 diabetics by reducing their insulin levels through diet and fasting regimen.

And many many obese people are not insulin resistance as demonstrated by the fact that 66% + of the US population is overweight or obese, but not all of them are diabetic.

There are several hormones to cause the body to store fat... insulin is only one of them.

@psulemon

@amusedmonkey states: "Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around." Not true, many normal weight or even thin people are insulin resistant or type 2 diabetics. Obesity doesn't cause IR, insulin does. Here's Dr. Fung's lecture if you want to check it out:

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-toxicity-cure-type-2-diabetes/

It's important to note that he is a practicing physician who treats type 2 diabetes, effectively reversing their disease (getting them off medication and exogenous insulin requirements) much faster than he reverses their obesity (because the obesity isn't what causes insulin resistance, it's elevated levels of insulin). The obesity takes longer if and when it disappears. He treats them with individualized fasting protocols and dietary management aimed at lowering insulin levels and allowing the cells to regain sensitivity.

As far as the Kevin Hall Study you shared... yeah, I've seen it before.

Let's clarify the blatant misinformation presented here. Important points are as follows:

1. The Restricted carbohydrate (RC) and Restricted fat (RF) diets both led to weight loss, more weight was lost following the RC diet.
2. Fat mass change as measured by DXA revealed significant changes from baseline, but did not detect a significant difference between RF and RC diets.
3. This study lasted 2 weeks. There were 10 men and 9 women in the study.
4. Carbohydrate restriction was only to an average of 140 grams/day--hardly a ketogenic diet.
5. They calculated daily fat balance as the difference between fat intake and net fat oxidation (i.e., fat oxidation minus de novo lipogenesis) measured by indirect calorimetry while residing in a metabolic chamber--an invented (aka made up) parameter. This means numbers compared were (a) the fat intake from from RF group (7% of total calories) minus how much fat they oxidized (on a calorie deficient diet, of course they were oxidizing body fat) vs. (b) the fat intake from the RC group (49% of total calories--a much greater number) minus how much fat they oxidized--a difference that is accounted for more than 3 times in the intake.

So in summary, the only conclusion this study supported was that if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume! We already knew that!!! This study does NOT support the hypothesis that a low fat diet results in greater total fat burning than a high fat/low carbohydrate diet.

If you look at the hard data, the only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet.

They also found decreased insulin, decreased triglycerides, and elevated HDL with the carbohydrate restricted diet - all known benefits! In short, if you make up new parameters to show the numbers you want and ignore hard data, you can make a study say what you want it to say.

stevencloser wrote: »

Also do you know why insulin "inhibits lipolysis"?
Because if it's high it means you've just eaten and have plenty of energy available in your blood stream.
Calories.

{First let me preface this by acknowledging that not all obese individuals are insulin resistant.}

Or it means that the person has high baseline insulin levels because he/she is obese and genetically predisposed to insulin resistance, therefore one's cells are insulin-resistant, causing the pancreas to produce more insulin via a feedback mechanism having to do in part with serum glucose levels. You are aware, of course, that one's cells need glucose and/or ketones for energy, but unfortunately, cells that are resistent to glucose entry combined with higher baseline insulin levels inhibiting lipolysis (which produces ketones), make it significantly more difficult to lose fat weight, and causes a person to feel lethargic because of less available fuel inside the cells (ATP). When it's harder to lose weight, and there is a suboptimal amount of glucose getting into one's cells to provide energy to exercise and do other tasks, people become more obese and more lethargic. Overcoming insulin resistance can be hard work without medications like glucophage and others. An extremely low calorie medically supervised diet or a gastric bypass procedure will quickly reverse it in most people, but these are not first line options except in rare circumstances.

gothchiq wrote: »

If we're going to throw in our personal data, let me contribute. I was prediabetic. I lost all my extra weight. I am still prediabetic. I eat the way the doctor tells me to (and got a second opinion from an endocrinologist just to be safe.) Still prediabetic and gain weight very easily. I have to track calories obsessively and if I don't work out I *still* gain. Yes I weigh my food. I only burn 1400 cal in a day (metabolic testing backs this up.) Always hungry and it sucks. This stuff is not as simple as many people would like to believe. Folks will say "well I had no problem.... why should you?" Well, goodness.... if I knew why I might be less frustrated with the whole thing. The doctors' opinion is just "Look, you're prediabetic and that's how it is. Get used to eating less." BLARGH!

Pretty much I've seen that everyone acknowledges certain health conditions change part of the equation. No one is denying that.

psulemon wrote: »

gothchiq wrote: »

If you *do* have a condition, or you have similar issues in the absence of a diagnosis, I find that paying attention to the glycemic index of foods can be helpful when choosing your carbs. For example, basmati rice has a lower glycemic index than jasmine rice. So that's your starch for the meal, then your veggie should be nonstarchy. Add a lean protein. Weigh all these foods and log them. Complex carbohydrates have a lower glycemic index than simple ones and won't raise then crash your blood sugar if you eat the right portion of them. If you raise your blood sugar with a simple carb, then when it drops again, you feel hungry again, making you likelier to overeat (especially on more simple carbs.) Small protein snacks throughout the day help. A 50 calorie babybel cheese or part skim cheese stick, a boiled egg, a measured portion of peanuts or cashews. Not donuts, bagels, or stuff from the vending machine. I was directed to break down meals into several small ones rather than 3 larger ones and to never eat a carb without a protein paired with it. However you can eat a protein on its own. This strategy paired with calorie counting should be able to help at least some of the others who are struggling. It requires a lot of planning ahead and strategic grocery shopping.

Thanks. Right now my wife isnt ready to calorie counting so we have been making dietary changes to address satiety and other factors. She has to be low carb and gluten free based on the research from the Mayo Clinic. So we have increased veggies, concentrated on low GI fruits, lean proteins, more fish, nuts/legumes, full fat or non fat added dairy and limit staches (only yams) to once a week. Additionally added exercise that is suitable for her. I created my own plan based on compound movements and a basic upper/lower split.

This is the same wife that just had a baby right? How is she doing?

gothchiq wrote: »

If you *do* have a condition, or you have similar issues in the absence of a diagnosis, I find that paying attention to the glycemic index of foods can be helpful when choosing your carbs. For example, basmati rice has a lower glycemic index than jasmine rice. So that's your starch for the meal, then your veggie should be nonstarchy. Add a lean protein. Weigh all these foods and log them. Complex carbohydrates have a lower glycemic index than simple ones and won't raise then crash your blood sugar if you eat the right portion of them. If you raise your blood sugar with a simple carb, then when it drops again, you feel hungry again, making you likelier to overeat (especially on more simple carbs.) Small protein snacks throughout the day help. A 50 calorie babybel cheese or part skim cheese stick, a boiled egg, a measured portion of peanuts or cashews. Not donuts, bagels, or stuff from the vending machine. I was directed to break down meals into several small ones rather than 3 larger ones and to never eat a carb without a protein paired with it. However you can eat a protein on its own. This strategy paired with calorie counting should be able to help at least some of the others who are struggling. It requires a lot of planning ahead and strategic grocery shopping.

I have found eating lower glycemic foods, high fiber veggies, and combining proteins with starches to be helpful also.

Crisseyda wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

Crisseyda wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

Crisseyda wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

Crisseyda wrote: »

@amusedmonkey

I think you might enjoy this article by Dr. Fung entitled, "The Carbohydrate Insulin Hypothesis is Wrong." It made me think of you and how you seemed so stuck on defending carbohydrates. I guess you've been exposed to this theory and found problems with it? Well, I wasn't talking about that theory; hence, my confusion as to why you kept simplifying the discussion... anyway... you might find you agree with him more than you initially thought.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-wrong-hormonal-obesity-vi/

Yes, that was the theory I'm against but I also don't agree with his hypothesis. He is mixing cause and effect. Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around. When people lose weight, regardless of diet, they tend to become less insulin resistant. Case in point: from borderline diabetic to low average blood sugar values, and all it took was weight loss without much of a change in the amount or the type of carbohydrates I consume.

You should read up on the. Obesity doesn't cause insulin resistance; insulin does. Researchers can infuse healthy people with physiologic levels of insulin and induce insulin resistance fairly quickly. Many many diabetics are not obese; they can even be thin! He has a great lecture on that on his intensive dietary management blog. Additionally, he heals his type 2 diabetics by reducing their insulin levels through diet and fasting regimen.

And many many obese people are not insulin resistance as demonstrated by the fact that 66% + of the US population is overweight or obese, but not all of them are diabetic.

There are several hormones to cause the body to store fat... insulin is only one of them.

@psulemon

@amusedmonkey states: "Obese people are more likely to be insulin resistant due to obesity, not the other way around." Not true, many normal weight or even thin people are insulin resistant or type 2 diabetics. Obesity doesn't cause IR, insulin does. Here's Dr. Fung's lecture if you want to check it out:

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/insulin-toxicity-cure-type-2-diabetes/

It's important to note that he is a practicing physician who treats type 2 diabetes, effectively reversing their disease (getting them off medication and exogenous insulin requirements) much faster than he reverses their obesity (because the obesity isn't what causes insulin resistance, it's elevated levels of insulin). The obesity takes longer if and when it disappears. He treats them with individualized fasting protocols and dietary management aimed at lowering insulin levels and allowing the cells to regain sensitivity.

As far as the Kevin Hall Study you shared... yeah, I've seen it before.

Let's clarify the blatant misinformation presented here. Important points are as follows:

1. The Restricted carbohydrate (RC) and Restricted fat (RF) diets both led to weight loss, more weight was lost following the RC diet.
2. Fat mass change as measured by DXA revealed significant changes from baseline, but did not detect a significant difference between RF and RC diets.
3. This study lasted 2 weeks. There were 10 men and 9 women in the study.
4. Carbohydrate restriction was only to an average of 140 grams/day--hardly a ketogenic diet.
5. They calculated daily fat balance as the difference between fat intake and net fat oxidation (i.e., fat oxidation minus de novo lipogenesis) measured by indirect calorimetry while residing in a metabolic chamber--an invented (aka made up) parameter. This means numbers compared were (a) the fat intake from from RF group (7% of total calories) minus how much fat they oxidized (on a calorie deficient diet, of course they were oxidizing body fat) vs. (b) the fat intake from the RC group (49% of total calories--a much greater number) minus how much fat they oxidized--a difference that is accounted for more than 3 times in the intake.

So in summary, the only conclusion this study supported was that if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume! We already knew that!!! This study does NOT support the hypothesis that a low fat diet results in greater total fat burning than a high fat/low carbohydrate diet.

If you look at the hard data, the only statistically significant differences they found were - increased fat oxidation and increased weight loss in the high fat/low carb diet.

They also found decreased insulin, decreased triglycerides, and elevated HDL with the carbohydrate restricted diet - all known benefits! In short, if you make up new parameters to show the numbers you want and ignore hard data, you can make a study say what you want it to say.

The study supported that the insulin hypothesis is junk as touted be Gary Taubes and others. The fact that you dont have to restrict carbs to lose fat, is a clear indication of that. Additionally, while the RC group lost more weight, due to glycogen depletion, FFM was greater in the low fat group. The purpose of me linking this wasn't to discuss which was better, but rather dispell your constant insinuation that all things come down to insulin because a subset of people have issues with it, like diabetics.

You are touting Dr. Fungs hypotheses like they are supported by the rest of the community. If insulin caused obesity and cause diabetes, than almost every Asian person would have it. The blue zones are the healthiest and longest living place on earth and yet, they all dont it. If you look at the rest of the community, there still isn't enough conclusive evidences to know what causes insulin. The NIH would allude to the fact that obesity (particularly belly fat) is one cause. Other causes would be physcial inactivity, other medical conditions, steroid use, some medications, older age, sleep problems, especially sleep apnea, and cigarette smoking.

Regarding your first point, you ignored the fact that they had greater fat oxidation, not the ridiculous "net fat oxidation." Of course, FFM was greater in RF since it includes extracellular fluids, which we all know drop on a low carb diet. The study was a miniscule 2 weeks, and the DEXA showed no significant difference between either diet. And let's be honest too about the diets: the RF diet was too low to be considered healthy, normal, or attainable by anyone in real life (7%) and the RC was way too high to be a ketogenic diet (140 g). Again, all the study proves is what I stated: if you eat a low fat calorie restricted diet, you burn more fat than you consume. Ground-breaking.

Regarding your Asian comment. It's already been addressed in this thread. We're are not talking about the carbohysrate-insulin hypothesis--we are not talking about Taubes either. Dr. Fung does a good job explaining why that is an incomplete and inaccurate picture: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/carbohydrate-insulin-hypothesis-wrong-hormonal-obesity-vi/

I disagree with you that I'm touting anything like anyone agrees or disgrees. I'm just sharing evidence. It means little to me what everyone else believes. I'm well aware that following mainstream nutritional advice would be very different from following Dr. Fung's. That's a shame. Actually, it's more than a shame when you understand the players involved and why change is not happening. You said yourself, "there still isn't enough conclusive evidences to know what causes insulin." I assume you mean insulin secretion or resistance? Bottom line is, even you acknowledge that insulin plays an very important role in weight gain and weight loss. And that's what Dr. Fung tries to tease out. What drives insulin secretion? Yes, we all know sugar and refined carbs... also steroids, certian medications (like seroquel or other antidepressants), cortisol (stress hormones), snacking between meals and through the day, artificial sweetners, the list goes on. The point is: controlling insulin is a HUGE component to controlling weight. @psulemon

To clarify the bold, it was insulin resistance. It was a quote from the NIH. I would also like to point out, that you are sharing observation, rather than evidence by a research organization. I dont know that this guys is qualify to treat his patients because they all pretty much share the same subset of metabolic issues. In those cases, specific dietary restrictions have been noted for years. It's not rocket science that people with diabetes need to moderate their carbs... The issue I have is he completely disregards calories as a function of weight loss for anyone. Essentially, he doesn't believe in the law of thermodynamics, which is an issue. Because if calories weren't an issue, then those on low carb or keto diets wouldn't be able to gain weight or muscle? Or lose or spare what they wanted. He also doesn't address any other of the weight gain hormones. i

I recognize the calories are the driver of weight loss and gain. I do also recognize the hormones (not just insulin) can affect ones ability to lose weight, not because it would disprove CICO, but rather it can alter components of the equation. PCOS has some likes to reduction in resting metabolic rate, which would also affect non exercise activity thermogenesis (more efficient metabolic rate, means less calories burned doing daily activities). This in turn would lower your TDEE and make it more difficult to lose weight. And while I cannot confirm why that happens, since I haven't researched too much, but I would suspect that a person would have longer periods of lipogenesis from elevated BG or insulin, which in turn would reduce times in lipolysis. Having said that, i do recognize, that for as much as we do know, things will change over the years. My general problem these conversations is throwing out mainstream data just because its mainstream.

psulemon wrote: »

goldthistime wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

gothchiq wrote: »

If you *do* have a condition, or you have similar issues in the absence of a diagnosis, I find that paying attention to the glycemic index of foods can be helpful when choosing your carbs. For example, basmati rice has a lower glycemic index than jasmine rice. So that's your starch for the meal, then your veggie should be nonstarchy. Add a lean protein. Weigh all these foods and log them. Complex carbohydrates have a lower glycemic index than simple ones and won't raise then crash your blood sugar if you eat the right portion of them. If you raise your blood sugar with a simple carb, then when it drops again, you feel hungry again, making you likelier to overeat (especially on more simple carbs.) Small protein snacks throughout the day help. A 50 calorie babybel cheese or part skim cheese stick, a boiled egg, a measured portion of peanuts or cashews. Not donuts, bagels, or stuff from the vending machine. I was directed to break down meals into several small ones rather than 3 larger ones and to never eat a carb without a protein paired with it. However you can eat a protein on its own. This strategy paired with calorie counting should be able to help at least some of the others who are struggling. It requires a lot of planning ahead and strategic grocery shopping.

Thanks. Right now my wife isnt ready to calorie counting so we have been making dietary changes to address satiety and other factors. She has to be low carb and gluten free based on the research from the Mayo Clinic. So we have increased veggies, concentrated on low GI fruits, lean proteins, more fish, nuts/legumes, full fat or non fat added dairy and limit staches (only yams) to once a week. Additionally added exercise that is suitable for her. I created my own plan based on compound movements and a basic upper/lower split.

This is the same wife that just had a baby right? How is she doing?

Yes, 7 months ago. Since there she has had her appendix out and we are working on getting her medications and condition under control.

Well, she's had a busy year. Hopefully the doctors can get everything straightened out!

And hope the little one is doing well.