Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO
Options
Replies
-
3
-
Christine_72 wrote: »
That's why beer exists.5 -
Ah, ok. "a small subset of people struggle with excessive insulin production," and meanwhile half the US is either diabetic or prediabetic.
"you can get fat even with lots of foods that dont drive insulin" Of course you can! It's just not as easy, quick, or enjoyable. Most people are not getting fat and IR because they are overeating whole foods.
Well, actually, it's not half. Potentially, about 1 out of 3 have diabetes. Of which, 9.3% are confirmed, and the rest are undiagnosed, which means it's estimated based on some population survey. Also, this takes into consideration that the US reduced the standard for what they consider prediabetic.
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics/2014statisticsreport.html
You are also failing to recognize that you can have a low to moderate fat diet with all whole foods, just like you can have a low carb diet or even keto full of ultra processed foods. Meaning, when dieting or trying to live a healthy life, food quality is important.
No, you are pigeonholing me--just like you did by bringing in Taubes and the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis. Any diet with all whole foods is going to have protective and satiating elements, such as fiber, which will mitigate the insulin response of those foods. Also, I never said insulin was the ONLY hormone, just the most prevailing one.
And excuse me, but even 1 in 3 does not sound like a "small subset."
Well when 27.8% of that 1/3 is undiagnosed (essentially 3x the confirmed number) you would need to know what are their assumptions. Last I recall, it was a survey of 100 people, but I could be a bit off.
And I am not pigeonholing. You are presenting observable data to support the claim that it violates CICO. There is no supporting scientific data outside of, "if you inject insulin into a person who doesn't have an issue, that it will cause weight gain". That doesn't support his hypothesis. And it fails just as much as Taubes's hypothesis.
And as an aside, non natural body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS and stimulate muscle growth.
<-- So not too surprised that overloading a person with insulin is going to cause weight gain. But that doesn't mean it's conclusive to support that insulin causes weight gain.
@psulemon
From one of the biggest manufacturers of insulin, Novo Nordisk. Even they don't deny what every clinician already knows: Insulin causes weight gain. Check out their super helpful tips:
Does Insulin Cause Weight Gain?
People who start insulin often put on weight,2 but the amount of weight gain differs from person to person.3 Some people don't put on any weight at all.
Weight Gain and Insulin
When you don't have enough insulin, extra blood sugar is removed from your body through your urine. Taking insulin helps your body to naturally store the extra sugar as fat, so you might put on weight even if you are eating the same amount of food as you did before. This is why it's important to stay active.
Another reason some people gain weight is that they snack more to avoid low blood sugar levels.
Avoiding Weight Gain with Insulin
Hear are some tips for minimizing weight gain:
Eat healthy
Be active
Monitor your weight and adjust your eating and exercise
Monitor your blood sugar so that you don't have to snack
Never skip an injection. Skipping your insulin won't help you lose weight, and it could cause you to have high blood glucose levels. And, don't try to adjust the dose of insulin on your own. Always talk to your diabetes care team if you have any concerns about your insulin does.
http://www.novonordisk.com/patients/diabetes-care/managing-diabetes/medication/insulins/advance_insulin_understanding.html
Thank you, Novo Nordisk, for these "advanced insulin understandings." [I did not fix their typos].
Believes the insulin company when it supports her viewsI also can't help but share all their detailed nutrition advice. (It's just your basic low fat, calorie-restricted, CICO-based approach, which has been tried-and-proven-false for decades.) Oh! And they also say make sure you space your eating throughout the day (so you can keep stimulating your insulin response) and don't skip meals (i.e., intermittent fasting is a horrible idea).
Healthy tips
Healthy eating isn't that tough. It's all about eating balanced portions and a wide variety. You don't have to change everything at once. Just keep making small changes over time.
Eat a wide variety of healthy foods
Balance the number of calories you eat with your activity level
Choose foods rich in whole grains, vegetables, fruits and fat-free/low-fat milk products
Eat lean meats (such as poultry and fish) and beans for protein
Limit your intake of saturated fats, trans fats and cholesterol
Limit your intake of salt
Cut down on added sugars - that includes regular soft drinks which are high in calories
Keep to sensible amounts of alcohol
Have a proper breakfast every morning to stimulate your metabolism
Space your eating throughout the day
Don't skip meals
Try picking a few small changes that are important to you. Pick ones you feel confident that you can achieve and focus on those.
As you make these changes a part of the normal way you eat, you'll find that you're ready to take on something new.
Don't expect to be perfect - it's nearly impossible to eat right all of the time. It's okay to have a treat every now and then as long you stay motivated and on track most of the time.
http://www.novonordisk.com/patients/diabetes-care/managing-diabetes/diet/healthyTips.html
But I'm sure we can trust nutrition advice from an insulin company--no conflicts of interest there, right? I do commend them for saying avoid added sugars, but the reason behind it is simply because they are "empty calories." Smh. And lumping trans fats with saturated fats? A very smooth move there.
Bur when the company conflicts with her dogma?
Can you say cognitive dissonance?8 -
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.htmlA Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest.
http://www.novonordisk.com/patients/diabetes-care/managing-diabetes/diet.htmlSalt and Cholesterol
Eating foods high in saturated fat, trans fat or cholesterol can lead to high fat and cholesterol levels. This can cause fat and cholesterol to stick to the insides of blood vessels. When that happens, the blood vessels can become narrowed over time. So avoiding fats helps to lower risk of health complications.
http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/fats-and-diabetes.htmlWhy should you eat less saturated fat? Because saturated fat raises blood cholesterol levels. High blood cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease. People with diabetes are at high risk for heart disease and limiting your saturated fat can help lower your risk of having a heart attack or stroke.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/Know-Your-Fats_UCM_305628_Article.jsp#mainContentFor adults who would benefit from lowering their LDL cholesterol, the American Heart Association recommends:
Reducing saturated fat to no more than 5 to 6 percent of total calories. For someone eating 2,000 calories a day that’s about 11 to 13 grams of saturated fat.
Reducing the percent of calories from trans fat.
The American Heart Association’s Nutrition Committee strongly advises these fat guidelines for healthy Americans over age 2:
Eating between 25 and 35 percent of your total daily calories as fats from foods like fish, nuts, and vegetable oils.
Limiting the amount of saturated fats you eat to less than 7 percent of your total daily calories. That means if you need about 2,000 calories a day, less than 140 calories (or 16 grams) should come from saturated fats.
Limiting the amount of trans fats to less than 1 percent of your total daily calories. That means if you need about 2,000 calories a day, less than 20 calories (or 2 grams) should come from trans fats.
For good health, the majority of fats you eat should be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated.1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
That's why beer exists.
That's why we're so intense. Loser has to buy.
2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
And yet those of us without enough money are just left to die. But those of us with untreated health problems aren't supposed to hate Big Pharma for pricing us out of medicine?
There is no "forgetting". Doing some good doesn't erase your sins. And researching medicine to sell to people for $1000 a month or more doesn't make you a force of good that should be above being hated. People die in the U.S because they can't afford the medical treatments they need.
Maybe reflect on that before you post your next "huurrr look at the dumb millennials/liberals hating Big Pharma!" meme.3 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
And yet those of us without enough money are just left to die. But those of us with untreated health problems aren't supposed to hate Big Pharma for pricing us out of medicine?
There is no "forgetting". Doing some good doesn't erase your sins. And researching medicine to sell to people for $1000 a month or more doesn't make you a force of good that should be above being hated. People die in the U.S because they can't afford the medical treatments they need.
Maybe reflect on that before you post your next "huurrr look at the dumb millennials/liberals hating Big Pharma!" meme.
Yeah cuz R&D doesn't cost anything. Without it these medical treatments wouldn't exist.
Maybe reflect on that before your next "Big Pharma is da Debil post"9 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
And yet those of us without enough money are just left to die. But those of us with untreated health problems aren't supposed to hate Big Pharma for pricing us out of medicine?
There is no "forgetting". Doing some good doesn't erase your sins. And researching medicine to sell to people for $1000 a month or more doesn't make you a force of good that should be above being hated. People die in the U.S because they can't afford the medical treatments they need.
Maybe reflect on that before you post your next "huurrr look at the dumb millennials/liberals hating Big Pharma!" meme.
Without big pharma there would be a lot more dead people. I mean, why do you think the average person lives 30 to 40 years longer than they used to?
Also, if you don't have the money or the insurance, have you reached out to big pharma to see if you qualify for assistance?7 -
I also can't help but share all their detailed nutrition advice. (It's just your basic low fat, calorie-restricted, CICO-based approach, which has been tried-and-proven-false for decades.) Oh! And they also say make sure you space your eating throughout the day (so you can keep stimulating your insulin response) and don't skip meals (i.e., intermittent fasting is a horrible idea).
Healthy tips
Healthy eating isn't that tough. It's all about eating balanced portions and a wide variety. You don't have to change everything at once. Just keep making small changes over time.
Eat a wide variety of healthy foods
Balance the number of calories you eat with your activity level
Choose foods rich in whole grains, vegetables, fruits and fat-free/low-fat milk products
Eat lean meats (such as poultry and fish) and beans for protein
Limit your intake of saturated fats, trans fats and cholesterol
Limit your intake of salt
Cut down on added sugars - that includes regular soft drinks which are high in calories
Keep to sensible amounts of alcohol
Have a proper breakfast every morning to stimulate your metabolism
Space your eating throughout the day
Don't skip meals
Try picking a few small changes that are important to you. Pick ones you feel confident that you can achieve and focus on those.
As you make these changes a part of the normal way you eat, you'll find that you're ready to take on something new.
Don't expect to be perfect - it's nearly impossible to eat right all of the time. It's okay to have a treat every now and then as long you stay motivated and on track most of the time.
http://www.novonordisk.com/patients/diabetes-care/managing-diabetes/diet/healthyTips.html
But I'm sure we can trust nutrition advice from an insulin company--no conflicts of interest there, right? I do commend them for saying avoid added sugars, but the reason behind it is simply because they are "empty calories." Smh. And lumping trans fats with saturated fats? A very smooth move there.
At this point, it seems like you are just reaching. low fat isn't a bad option, especially if you are getting plenty of whole sources. Within low fat you have all asian cultures, most vegans and vegetarians and more. Plenty of cultures strive on diets high in fruits and veggies, but yea.. lets pick on one type of diet because it doesn't align to your thoughts. This crusade for everyone to align to your thoughts is getting a bit ridiculous. This is a serious question, do you really think it's bad to have a diet that is high in fruits, veggies, whole grains, oats and things like quinoa?6 -
Research is very, very expensive. I understand the rant about drug costs but it sucks that everyone thinks big pharma is evil and withholding cures to cancer, etc. I am on expensive drugs ($5000 a dose which is every 6 weeks). There are many evil big pharma companies that help underprivileged people. You just have to research it. For my drug Remicade, janssen has remistart that covers some of the cost. In Canada janssen sponsores private infusion clinics and gives a *kitten* ton of money to Crohn's and colitis Canada for research, awareness and patient programs. Abbvie, another evil big pharma company who makes humira also does the same plus offers post secondary scholarships to students with chronic illness. If there is a drug you can't afford research and see what help is out there. Plus the American government is to blame too. Here in Canada low income people like me are eligible for provincial drug insurance that (with special letters from your specialist saying you need the drug) pay the entire cost of the super expensive drugs. For normal drugs I pay $5 a prescription.8
-
Hating on big pharma is the in thing to do.1
-
@Kaitou so big pharma is supposed to spend billions creating a medication but charge nothing for it? Yup that's how businesses work.1
-
Hell big pharma is the reason why insulin shots exist.3
-
Big pharma is the reason I'm alive. So are mice
3 -
Big Pharma is why I can get out of bed!2
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Big pharma is the reason I'm alive. So are mice
Same with my wife. Without pharma she would have died from tachycardia arrest.2 -
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Big pharma is the reason I'm alive. So are mice
Same with my wife. Without pharma shr would have died from tachycardia arrest.
I was on the verge of colon perforation when diagnosed. Prednisone helped the inflammation until my biologic inflixinab stopped tnf-a from eating the rest of my colon and promoted healing. Biologics and biotechnology are the future. Yes expensive but it isn't "chemical drugs" but antibodies grown in a petri dish. Not cheap stuff to make.1 -
You mean "Dr. Dre" isn't a real doctor?stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey 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 f
ound 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.
Lolz. "He doesn't believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics." Nope, he just says that physics and physiology are two different sciences. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is never violated when a person goes on a calorie restricted diet, but can't easily access stored fat due to excess insulin--that's why BMR drops! The 2nd law of thermodynamics is true, but you can't use it to support a gross oversimplification like the CICO model. He's say it far better and funnier than I can, so I'll link his article: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
And no one is throwing out mainstream just "because it's mainstream." That's silly. I'm challenging the parts that are incorrect and actually harm people.
Things you don't believe aren't incorrect. And again, no excess insulin when you're in a deficit, and don't come with IR again, I already said TWICE that IR reduces insulin's effect so the higher amount in your blood does nothing and I don't care about saying it again.
Well, then by all means, please don't say it again. You aren't explaining yourself, and you have no evidence to share. Things you believe aren't correct by default. @stevencloser
You're the one who needs to start showing any evidence. The opinions of one person, even if they're allowed to put "Dr." in front of their name, are just that, opinion.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
It is important to change for the better what we are able to change while we still can. I don't know where that tipping point will be in my life. I think that people realize that losing weight and becoming more active does reduce a lot of health and medical problems which is why most of us are attempting to lose weight utilizing MFP tools.
What I don't understand is why people quibble with other people who are successfully making adaptations in their diets that benefit them and do no harm?4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 957 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions