Obesity Journal study: It's not just CICO
Replies
-
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.9 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Sounds like one of those studies that say that your risk of a certain cancer increases by 20% if you eat saturated fat.
Sadly, the average person thinks that means that the cancer will go from 3% to 23%, when it actually means it goes from 3% to 3.6% (3% x 1.20).
And trying to figure out what else people had done in their lives for 30 years that may have increased their risk of cancer, is impossible, which, renders most of these studies meaningless and useless.
Here is a good study - 20% of Americans smoke, and 85% of lung cancer victims smoked. Now that's a real study.1 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.0 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.0 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
Option 3: 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs, eating 8 small meals a day, most of which from processed low carb foods
Option 4: 80% carbs, 10% protein, 10% fat, eating a raw vegan diet of predominantly vegetables and fruits
Option 5: 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat, eating one meal a day of mostly nutrient dense foods and some processed foods as per their preferences
Option 6: 40% carbs, 35% protein, 25% fat, eating a 100% clean lacto vegetarian diet.
Option 7...8...9...10.... you get what I'm saying.
I do know who is going to be successful with the best appetite control without having to go through all of the options: the person who chose the diet that works the best with their preferences, habits, schedule, personal hunger and satisfaction cues...etc, and it could be any of the options listed or not listed.31 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
What @amusedmonkey said.
As for the bolded, I would like to understand why you are fixated on the idea that a very vocal group of people say that only calories matter. The main advice I see given is that calories matter for weight loss, nutrition matters for health. And the plan that is most effective to reach both goals is the one that an individual can adhere to for life.9 -
I read that study about the Biggest Loser. It makes sense in a way, especially given the radical ways these people lose their weight. The body could never sustain that level of activity and calorie restriction indefinitely.
I'm sure I'll hear a fair amount of *kitten* over this, but I don't believe in strictly CICO. If you are overweight enough that any deficit will cause you to lose weight, I imagine it does work for a while, but I also do believe your body uses macros and food elements in different ways. Hunger and energy levels aside, if I ate ALL of my allowable calories in donuts, I will not lose as much weight as if I eat the same amount of calories in nutricious foods. My body comp would be completely different.1 -
I am Option 1 and I've lost over 50 pounds always being Option 1. I'm not hungry or deficient in anything. I also routinely run half marathons and have done a few fulls, a 50k, and a ~60 mile bike race.
I fail to see how that isn't a good option.6 -
aliencheesecake wrote: »I read that study about the Biggest Loser. It makes sense in a way, especially given the radical ways these people lose their weight. The body could never sustain that level of activity and calorie restriction indefinitely.
I'm sure I'll hear a fair amount of *kitten* over this, but I don't believe in strictly CICO. If you are overweight enough that any deficit will cause you to lose weight, I imagine it does work for a while, but I also do believe your body uses macros and food elements in different ways. Hunger and energy levels aside, if I ate ALL of my allowable calories in donuts, I will not lose as much weight as if I eat the same amount of calories in nutricious foods. My body comp would be completely different.
You are right about the bolded, but CICO is strictly about calories. Macros and micros matter too. I think a lot of the disagreement stems from the misunderstanding that the only thing that matters is to eat less, which frankly sounds like something an anorexic person would say. CICO applies to everyone, but it shouldn't be the only health advice that everyone applies.4 -
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
The most simple answer is generally always the answer. CICO or the energy balance equation can be over simplified for many peoples liking but it holds true. You may want some complicated equation based on self beliefs but that isnt how things work. I can tell you i have done 16:8 , paleo and flexible. In all cases calories where the same and roughly the same macro break out. And in call cases, i lost at the same rate. No one here is saying dont eat whole foods or eat with a sustainable way... we are saying it just doesnt matter and the only impact that these various eating style do is support compliance.12 -
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
Option 3: 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs, eating 8 small meals a day, most of which from processed low carb foods
Option 4: 80% carbs, 10% protein, 10% fat, eating a raw vegan diet of predominantly vegetables and fruits
Option 5: 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat, eating one meal a day of mostly nutrient dense foods and some processed foods as per their preferences
Option 6: 40% carbs, 35% protein, 25% fat, eating a 100% clean lacto vegetarian diet.
Option 7...8...9...10.... you get what I'm saying.
I do know who is going to be successful with the best appetite control without having to go through all of the options: the person who chose the diet that works the best with their preferences, habits, schedule, personal hunger and satisfaction cues...etc, and it could be any of the options listed or not listed.
@JaneSnowe
I hear what you are saying. Of course, individualization is key. At the same time, what does the evidence say? Where is science pointing to the best choices for fat loss and health? Why not make the choices that both work for you and also give you the highest chance of success based on human physiology? Of course, we are all different, but in many ways we are also all the same. All of us store adipose tissue. All of us burn energy for fuel. All of us have varying levels of the hormone insulin at any given time and are subject to its effects as it circulates in our blood stream. Again, what I don't see is scientific evidence that CICO is the only thing that matters. What I do see is a lot of people unsuccessful, struggling, and making harmful choices based on that mindset.
And maybe that's the problem. Many you don't see what I see. I've been practicing as a nurse for many years, and, by far, the vast majority of people are suffering from diseases of "lifestyle." These people are not lazy, careless, gluttonous, or lacking in self-discipline. These people are trying to do all the right things. Making choices based on CICO is not only not enough, it's making their problems worse. And also shifting all the blame on them for the failure.1 -
There isn't a single person on this board that thinks CICO is all that matters for optimal health. If they do, yes, they are wrong.
I had 450 grams of carbs yesterday. I was full and felt great. I average 300 or so. Still feel good. Your option 1 worked perfectly for me so I'll go with option 1 for the win.8 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
Option 3: 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs, eating 8 small meals a day, most of which from processed low carb foods
Option 4: 80% carbs, 10% protein, 10% fat, eating a raw vegan diet of predominantly vegetables and fruits
Option 5: 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat, eating one meal a day of mostly nutrient dense foods and some processed foods as per their preferences
Option 6: 40% carbs, 35% protein, 25% fat, eating a 100% clean lacto vegetarian diet.
Option 7...8...9...10.... you get what I'm saying.
I do know who is going to be successful with the best appetite control without having to go through all of the options: the person who chose the diet that works the best with their preferences, habits, schedule, personal hunger and satisfaction cues...etc, and it could be any of the options listed or not listed.
@JaneSnowe
I hear what you are saying. Of course, individualization is key. At the same time, what does the evidence say? Where is science pointing to the best choices for fat loss and health? Why not make the choices that both work for you and also give you the highest chance of success based on human physiology? Of course, we are all different, but in many ways we are also all the same. All of us store adipose tissue. All of us burn energy for fuel. All of us have varying levels of the hormone insulin at any given time and are subject to its effects as it circulates in our blood stream. Again, what I don't see is scientific evidence that CICO is the only thing that matters. What I do see is a lot of people unsuccessful, struggling, and making harmful choices based on that mindset.
And maybe that's the problem. Many you don't see what I see. I've been practicing as a nurse for many years, and, by far, the vast majority of people are suffering from diseases of "lifestyle." These people are not lazy, careless, gluttonous, or lacking in self-discipline. These people are trying to do all the right things. Making choices based on CICO is not only not enough, it's making their problems worse. And also shifting all the blame on them for the failure.
Are you sure you read my posts? You quoted someone else. Take another look what I said and see if I believe CICO is the ONLY thing that matters.
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
What @amusedmonkey said.
As for the bolded, I would like to understand why you are fixated on the idea that a very vocal group of people say that only calories matter. The main advice I see given is that calories matter for weight loss, nutrition matters for health. And the plan that is most effective to reach both goals is the one that an individual can adhere to for life.aliencheesecake wrote: »I read that study about the Biggest Loser. It makes sense in a way, especially given the radical ways these people lose their weight. The body could never sustain that level of activity and calorie restriction indefinitely.
I'm sure I'll hear a fair amount of *kitten* over this, but I don't believe in strictly CICO. If you are overweight enough that any deficit will cause you to lose weight, I imagine it does work for a while, but I also do believe your body uses macros and food elements in different ways. Hunger and energy levels aside, if I ate ALL of my allowable calories in donuts, I will not lose as much weight as if I eat the same amount of calories in nutricious foods. My body comp would be completely different.
You are right about the bolded, but CICO is strictly about calories. Macros and micros matter too. I think a lot of the disagreement stems from the misunderstanding that the only thing that matters is to eat less, which frankly sounds like something an anorexic person would say. CICO applies to everyone, but it shouldn't be the only health advice that everyone applies.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
Option 3: 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs, eating 8 small meals a day, most of which from processed low carb foods
Option 4: 80% carbs, 10% protein, 10% fat, eating a raw vegan diet of predominantly vegetables and fruits
Option 5: 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat, eating one meal a day of mostly nutrient dense foods and some processed foods as per their preferences
Option 6: 40% carbs, 35% protein, 25% fat, eating a 100% clean lacto vegetarian diet.
Option 7...8...9...10.... you get what I'm saying.
I do know who is going to be successful with the best appetite control without having to go through all of the options: the person who chose the diet that works the best with their preferences, habits, schedule, personal hunger and satisfaction cues...etc, and it could be any of the options listed or not listed.
@JaneSnowe
I hear what you are saying. Of course, individualization is key. At the same time, what does the evidence say? Where is science pointing to the best choices for fat loss and health? Why not make the choices that both work for you and also give you the highest chance of success based on human physiology? Of course, we are all different, but in many ways we are also all the same. All of us store adipose tissue. All of us burn energy for fuel. All of us have varying levels of the hormone insulin at any given time and are subject to its effects as it circulates in our blood stream. Again, what I don't see is scientific evidence that CICO is the only thing that matters. What I do see is a lot of people unsuccessful, struggling, and making harmful choices based on that mindset.
And maybe that's the problem. Many you don't see what I see. I've been practicing as a nurse for many years, and, by far, the vast majority of people are suffering from diseases of "lifestyle." These people are not lazy, careless, gluttonous, or lacking in self-discipline. These people are trying to do all the right things. Making choices based on CICO is not only not enough, it's making their problems worse. And also shifting all the blame on them for the failure.
I don't know.. Statistically vegetarians and vegans have a lower BMI and diabetes incidents, does that mean everyone should switch to a vegan diet? Soy protein results in better insulin sensitivity and LDL than meat protein, and cod had even better results. Should everyone switch to soy and cod? What if you don't like fish?
"Evidence" has no place in individualization for weight loss, which is the single most important parameters to combat lifestyle illnesses. Studies don't care about the individual, they try to establish a general correlation, averaging the results of all the participants, some of which may have had an adverse effect to a study that reported and average favorable effect. They are meant to be looked at and considered, not to be taken as gospel and definitive proof, especially when it comes to weight loss.
Now for weight loss only two things matter: CICO and adherence. The rest is majoring in minors. What if the choice you consider "the best" (there is no such thing) is also one that you can't adhere to? Why are you slapping an "and" on it as if your choice of diet is the healthiest AND is supposed to work for everyone? This simply is not the case. Focusing on an overall nutrient dense diet that caters to your preferences and maintaining a healthy weight and activity level is more than enough for the vast majority of people for general health.13 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
Option 3: 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs, eating 8 small meals a day, most of which from processed low carb foods
Option 4: 80% carbs, 10% protein, 10% fat, eating a raw vegan diet of predominantly vegetables and fruits
Option 5: 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat, eating one meal a day of mostly nutrient dense foods and some processed foods as per their preferences
Option 6: 40% carbs, 35% protein, 25% fat, eating a 100% clean lacto vegetarian diet.
Option 7...8...9...10.... you get what I'm saying.
I do know who is going to be successful with the best appetite control without having to go through all of the options: the person who chose the diet that works the best with their preferences, habits, schedule, personal hunger and satisfaction cues...etc, and it could be any of the options listed or not listed.
@JaneSnowe
I hear what you are saying. Of course, individualization is key. At the same time, what does the evidence say? Where is science pointing to the best choices for fat loss and health? Why not make the choices that both work for you and also give you the highest chance of success based on human physiology? Of course, we are all different, but in many ways we are also all the same. All of us store adipose tissue. All of us burn energy for fuel. All of us have varying levels of the hormone insulin at any given time and are subject to its effects as it circulates in our blood stream. Again, what I don't see is scientific evidence that CICO is the only thing that matters. What I do see is a lot of people unsuccessful, struggling, and making harmful choices based on that mindset.
And maybe that's the problem. Many you don't see what I see. I've been practicing as a nurse for many years, and, by far, the vast majority of people are suffering from diseases of "lifestyle." These people are not lazy, careless, gluttonous, or lacking in self-discipline. These people are trying to do all the right things. Making choices based on CICO is not only not enough, it's making their problems worse. And also shifting all the blame on them for the failure.
So the people you are seeing in your job have all been trying to lose weight by calorie counting?
Considering the fact that almost everyone I have told that I lost my weight by calorie counting have looked at me like a drunk space alien with a possible eating disorder, I find that hard to believe.
"Just CICO" is not the prevailing weight loss theory in the US. I actually don't know anyone in real life who knows how many calories they really should eat. It's not the idea of "just CICO" that is failing people. Most of them don't even know about it! I would guess that most of your patients have been struggling with fad diets, weight loss supplements, lack of exercise and understanding how much to do, assuming that eliminating "white carbs" or junk food would guarantee weight loss and good health, poor understanding of nutrition. So I'm curious why you think your patients are showing you the failure in just worrying about calories.
As others have said, no one here is saying "just CICO" for health. They ARE saying that they disagree there is enough evidence to say that LCHF is required for good health. In fact, human history provides quite a bit of evidence that societies that favor active lifestyles and nutrient rich, mostly wholefood diets have lower risks of all the lifestyle diseases, including cancer and diabetes, regardless of macro percentages. I've read this whole thread and clicked on all the links, and I haven't seen anything that looks like "evidence LCHF is the best for everyone", for weight or for health.13 -
This content has been removed.
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Rapidly digestibles carbohydrates.... That's another way of saying carbs, isn't it? Carbs digest faster than fats and protein... I believe.FunkyTobias wrote: »One interesting thing to note about insulin... it promotes muscle protein synthesis. It's only of the reasons you want some carbs in your system after a workout so when the amino acids are broken down, they can be utilized to rebuild muscle mass. Another interesting thing, some non natty body builders will inject insulin to prolong MPS (which is typically 36-48 hours), as a means to increase muscle mass.
Yup, insulin is a growth factor. Also explains why high levels are linked to cancer.
Wrong again.
You're conflating insulin with IGF-1
NOPE, they both are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562834
I found this interesting
"low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers
Try the whole quote:
A Western lifestyle--characterized by low physical activity, and high dietary intake, animal protein, saturated fats and rapidly digestible carbohydrates--is associated with increased risks of many cancers.
The quote isn't great. Basically food and low activity levels are associated with cancer.
But that's all off topic. My bad.
Rapidly digestable carbs are pretty much most carbs that arent accompanied by fiber which would also include ones high in fats like baked goods.
So essentially having a low nutrient high calorie diet which leads to obesity increases the chances of some types of cancers.. mind blowing.
Essentially, eat a nutrient dense diet, exercise and have good body composition.. not rocket science. Pretty much most medical issues are resolved when this occurs.
And this whole thread is off topic. And since it was bumped, i still hasn't disproved CICO.
Yes, this. I've seen a lot of claims that insulin makes you fat, but no proof of how that works in a way that disproves CICO.
@JaneSnowe
And yet, to many others, it's so completely obvious that CICO is far too simplistic. Let me give you a scenario, and you tell me your opinion.
If I was trying to lose weight, and my goal was 1500 calories per day.
Which option would be most beneficial to me?
Option 1: Someone whose only focus is calories:
Eating 3 meals and 2 snacks with a macro breakdown of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat. Trying to eat healthy foods, but having refined fats or carbs is ok as long as I get my basic nutrition. Also, sipping on artificially sweetened drinks all day is fine.
Option 2: Someone whose focus is to target insulin levels:
Eating foods within an 8 hr window, maybe just 2 meals, lunch and dinner with a macro breakdown of 50% fat, 30% protein, and 20% carbs. Trying to eat unprocessed, whole foods closest to their natural state, especially avoiding refined fats and carbs.
Who do you think is going to be more successful long-term? Who do you think is going to feel the most satisfied and have the better appetite control? Who do you think is going to better protect their basal metabolism? In my opinion, all the evidence is pointing straight to option 2. But feel free to please explain to me and show me evidence that there is no difference between to two, and the only thing that matters is calories. I really really want to understand why a very vocal group of people seem fixated on this concept.
Option 3: 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% carbs, eating 8 small meals a day, most of which from processed low carb foods
Option 4: 80% carbs, 10% protein, 10% fat, eating a raw vegan diet of predominantly vegetables and fruits
Option 5: 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat, eating one meal a day of mostly nutrient dense foods and some processed foods as per their preferences
Option 6: 40% carbs, 35% protein, 25% fat, eating a 100% clean lacto vegetarian diet.
Option 7...8...9...10.... you get what I'm saying.
I do know who is going to be successful with the best appetite control without having to go through all of the options: the person who chose the diet that works the best with their preferences, habits, schedule, personal hunger and satisfaction cues...etc, and it could be any of the options listed or not listed.
@JaneSnowe
I hear what you are saying. Of course, individualization is key. At the same time, what does the evidence say? Where is science pointing to the best choices for fat loss and health? Why not make the choices that both work for you and also give you the highest chance of success based on human physiology? Of course, we are all different, but in many ways we are also all the same. All of us store adipose tissue. All of us burn energy for fuel. All of us have varying levels of the hormone insulin at any given time and are subject to its effects as it circulates in our blood stream. Again, what I don't see is scientific evidence that CICO is the only thing that matters. What I do see is a lot of people unsuccessful, struggling, and making harmful choices based on that mindset.
And maybe that's the problem. Many you don't see what I see. I've been practicing as a nurse for many years, and, by far, the vast majority of people are suffering from diseases of "lifestyle." These people are not lazy, careless, gluttonous, or lacking in self-discipline. These people are trying to do all the right things. Making choices based on CICO is not only not enough, it's making their problems worse. And also shifting all the blame on them for the failure.
So the people you are seeing in your job have all been trying to lose weight by calorie counting?
Considering the fact that almost everyone I have told that I lost my weight by calorie counting have looked at me like a drunk space alien with a possible eating disorder, I find that hard to believe.
"Just CICO" is not the prevailing weight loss theory in the US. I actually don't know anyone in real life who knows how many calories they really should eat. It's not the idea of "just CICO" that is failing people. Most of them don't even know about it! I would guess that most of your patients have been struggling with fad diets, weight loss supplements, lack of exercise and understanding how much to do, assuming that eliminating "white carbs" or junk food would guarantee weight loss and good health, poor understanding of nutrition. So I'm curious why you think your patients are showing you the failure in just worrying about calories.
As others have said, no one here is saying "just CICO" for health. They ARE saying that they disagree there is enough evidence to say that LCHF is required for good health. In fact, human history provides quite a bit of evidence that societies that favor active lifestyles and nutrient rich, mostly wholefood diets have lower risks of all the lifestyle diseases, including cancer and diabetes, regardless of macro percentages. I've read this whole thread and clicked on all the links, and I haven't seen anything that looks like "evidence LCHF is the best for everyone", for weight or for health.
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.1 -
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!
***I get tired of hearing that too. There are certain vocal people on these threads that seem to think that we don't exist-- like unicorns or something.
You're definitely not a unicorn.0 -
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.11 -
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.
Genetics does not explain an obesity and diabetes epidemic that explodes in the course of less than one generation. It doesn't explain how the same epidemics start as soon as the western diet is exported to a new culture. What's happening today to the majority of people is clearly not explained by genetics. Some evidence does point to excess insulin exposure in the womb, but even that is environmental.0 -
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.
Genetics does not explain an obesity and diabetes epidemic that explodes in the course of less than one generation. It doesn't explain how the same epidemics start as soon as the western diet is exported to a new culture. What's happening today to the majority of people is clearly not explained by genetics. Some evidence does point to excess insulin exposure in the womb, but even that is environmental.
Abundance, food getting cheaper per calorie, convenience, fewer physical jobs and more sedentary jobs.. all of that has exploded in the last generation...etc. Unless "big insulin" invented computers and mass produced cars I'm not sure you can pin obesity on it.
You know what else has exploded in the last generation? Meat consumption, fat consumption, and, believe it or not, fruit and vegetable consumption. Should we blame vegetables for our weight problems?9 -
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.
Genetics does not explain an obesity and diabetes epidemic that explodes in the course of less than one generation. It doesn't explain how the same epidemics start as soon as the western diet is exported to a new culture. What's happening today to the majority of people is clearly not explained by genetics. Some evidence does point to excess insulin exposure in the womb, but even that is environmental.
Which evidence is that?0 -
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.
Genetics does not explain an obesity and diabetes epidemic that explodes in the course of less than one generation. It doesn't explain how the same epidemics start as soon as the western diet is exported to a new culture. What's happening today to the majority of people is clearly not explained by genetics. Some evidence does point to excess insulin exposure in the womb, but even that is environmental.
Genetics has a greater impact on many types of cancer and many health problems. Poor diets, sedentary lifestyles and inactivity has the biggest impact. That is clear. What happens when you take evolving countries and introduce and abudance of western styles diets which average 3000 calories, weight gain occurs. Its very simple why weight gain has been so prevalent and we dont need some convoluted reason for why obesity is crazy.
And if you look at what all the healthiest nations in the world have in common... moderate calories levels and highly active.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.
Genetics does not explain an obesity and diabetes epidemic that explodes in the course of less than one generation. It doesn't explain how the same epidemics start as soon as the western diet is exported to a new culture. What's happening today to the majority of people is clearly not explained by genetics. Some evidence does point to excess insulin exposure in the womb, but even that is environmental.
Which evidence is that?
Obesity being in the womb
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/99-obesity.html
Summarizing the results from the study, published in the July issue of Obesity, Gillman notes that, "our results show that efforts to prevent obesity must start at the earliest stages of development, even before birth. These efforts should include avoiding smoking and excessive weight gain during pregnancy, preventing gestational diabetes, and promoting breast feeding."
Women who gain more weight during pregnancy are more likely to have overweight infants.
The association between pregnancy weight gain and birthweight: a within-family comparison
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20691469
In view of the apparent association between birthweight and adult weight, obesity prevention efforts targeted at women during pregnancy might be beneficial for offspring.0 -
I pick option 1 - meeting all nutrient levels and, for me, much more sustainable way of eating.2
-
There are studies that the types of gut microbes you have play a big role in why some people exercise and cut calories but don't lose weight at a reasonable rate.1
-
Thanks for the post!0
-
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.
Genetics does not explain an obesity and diabetes epidemic that explodes in the course of less than one generation. It doesn't explain how the same epidemics start as soon as the western diet is exported to a new culture. What's happening today to the majority of people is clearly not explained by genetics. Some evidence does point to excess insulin exposure in the womb, but even that is environmental.
Genetics has a greater impact on many types of cancer and many health problems. Poor diets, sedentary lifestyles and inactivity has the biggest impact. That is clear. What happens when you take evolving countries and introduce and abudance of western styles diets which average 3000 calories, weight gain occurs. Its very simple why weight gain has been so prevalent and we dont need some convoluted reason for why obesity is crazy.
And if you look at what all the healthiest nations in the world have in common... moderate calories levels and highly active.
Bottom line: the hormonal effects of food matter. When you eat whole foods, you eat less calories without trying. The western diet is characterized first and primarily by processed food, not just "average 3000 calories." Western diets can easily grow to 3000 calories because the types of food promote over-consumption. Additionally, the types of food in and of themselves, irrespective of calories, also promote disease.1 -
I agree. Whole foods is the #1 most important determinant of health. Most people have no idea what that really means, and they put all efforts to counting calories. That's a huge part of the problem. MFP is more helpful for scanning barcode to count calories, and IMO, if there is a barcode to scan, it' probably not something that great for you. That being said, the reasons that whole foods matter goes right back to the hormonal effects of foods, not simply their calorie count. That's where the real focus should be, and in that case, LCHF is a very powerful option.
Additionally, fasting is about way more than not consuming calories.
LCHF, vegan, flexible/iifym, 16:8, etc are literally just a method to address the means. No one is better or more proficient at addressing those goals. All diets have high failure rates... why because its hard and people dont research enough before they start. They over complicate things even more with being aggressive on their weight loss and getting frustrated when they dont see 5 lbs a week.
Mfp, food scales, fitness watches, containers, etc are just some of many tools available. Nothing more nothing less. And just like my tool box at home, i like a variety.
If having a barcode makes it bad then everyone is hosed. Nuts, greek yogurt, butter, oats, coconut oil and so many other highly nutritious foods come with bar codes. Its just ludicrous to equate bar codes with unhealthy.
And whole foods are even remotely near thr top of things that determines health. What is? Genetics, body composition, and activity level. All of those will trump eating paticular foods. Hell, i know marathon runners who eat super clean who have diets in their 50s. Then my entire family lives to their upper 80s and 90s. Even while being overweight or obese.
Dont get me wrong, i still think you should have a good diet but eating lchf with all natural foods and fasting will not beat genetics.
Genetics does not explain an obesity and diabetes epidemic that explodes in the course of less than one generation. It doesn't explain how the same epidemics start as soon as the western diet is exported to a new culture. What's happening today to the majority of people is clearly not explained by genetics. Some evidence does point to excess insulin exposure in the womb, but even that is environmental.
Genetics has a greater impact on many types of cancer and many health problems. Poor diets, sedentary lifestyles and inactivity has the biggest impact. That is clear. What happens when you take evolving countries and introduce and abudance of western styles diets which average 3000 calories, weight gain occurs. Its very simple why weight gain has been so prevalent and we dont need some convoluted reason for why obesity is crazy.
And if you look at what all the healthiest nations in the world have in common... moderate calories levels and highly active.
Bottom line: the hormonal effects of food matter. When you eat whole foods, you eat less calories without trying. The western diet is characterized first and primarily by processed food, not just "average 3000 calories." Western diets can easily grow to 3000 calories because the types of food promote over-consumption. Additionally, the types of food in and of themselves, irrespective of calories, also promote disease.
Do you have actual proof of that? Or is that just your opinion? Because I have never seen one food linked to specific disease. And there are many examples of people eating bad foods and improving their health and all the associated markers (like the twinkie diet).
Also, eating whole foods alone doesn't force you to eat less calories. Because I don't know about you, but there are countless threads about people eating clean and not losing weight.13
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