Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
'The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss' by Jason Fung
susanaemendez
Posts: 19 Member
I have just started reading a book written by physician Jason Fong called "The Obesity Code". While it is quite fascinating, it completely goes against everything I thought I knew about losing weight. Has anyone read this book? How do you feel about his analysis? I'm not entirely sure that I want to change my approach to weight loss based on this book alone, but it does bring up some interesting points about "calories in vs calories out".
1
Replies
-
I have read the book and adapted Chapter 20 "WHEN TO EAT" to a style I could sustain.1
-
I've read it. I like his theories. They seem to match up to my experiences rather well, but they are just theories at this point and that is where he will get slammed. He has plenty of anecdotal evidence but has not done his own research. Understandable since he is a medical doctor.
I eat ketogenic, which is a bit lower carb than he advocates, although he is no against it. It is a pretty sure fire way to improve blood glucose and insulin levels with or without weight loss. Fasting also does great things for insulin and blood glucose levels. There's no disputing that. Where he does not have "proof" is that high insulin may be one of the factors that lead to obesity. I believe it. My weight went up AFTER I became insulin resistant but most people can't track insulin, blood glucose and weight gain from a normal BMI but it is yet unproven... How could you set up clinical trials for that? LOL
His blog, IDM and video are quite entertaining too. Not the most scientific thing out there but it makes sense to me.1 -
I'm not sure if you are on facebook and I don't know how to load just the video here but Stephanie Dodier did a live interview with Dr Jason Fong, it was very informative. Here is the link to her page:
https://www.facebook.com/StephanieDodiernutrition
I am on a Keto diet. CICO does not work for me. I like the attitude of Dr Fong which is to trust your own body. Our bodies communicate with us all the time. That resonates with me. And it works!
2 -
I just finished the book last week. I've stopped snacking through the day, done a few fasts, started drinking apple cider vinegar once or twice a day & ive lost 5lb!!
The whole book made complete sense to me. I really felt like everything he said answered lots of questions about why we struggle with weight loss & regain. I love his theories. I hope governments spend money researching them. Especially fasting. Everything I've read about fasting has been so positive. I've been fasting on & off since 2014, but this book gave me a new motivation to stick with it.
I think the book is great!4 -
Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
1. CICO always applies. A diet may help you lose weight without actively monitoring your calories, but any successful diet does so by helping you create a calorie deficit. The way of eating may make it easier or harder for you to stick to a deficit, but in the end it's the deficit that creates loss.
2. There's nothing wrong with trying low carb, or low fat, or whatever other way of eating you like. But realize there is no single "right answer". Low carb works very well for some people - there are many testimonials here that can show that. Low carb works very poorly for others - I think it was my single worst diet attempt ever.
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.45 -
rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
1. CICO always applies. A diet may help you lose weight without actively monitoring your calories, but any successful diet does so by helping you create a calorie deficit. The way of eating may make it easier or harder for you to stick to a deficit, but in the end it's the deficit that creates loss.
2. There's nothing wrong with trying low carb, or low fat, or whatever other way of eating you like. But realize there is no single "right answer". Low carb works very well for some people - there are many testimonials here that can show that. Low carb works very poorly for others - I think it was my single worst diet attempt ever.
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Pretty much all of this. Some of us do not respond well to low carb diets, nor do we fill up with fats. Personally, carbs increase satiety in me a lot more than fats. Comparatively, a 12 oz sirloin fills me up about the same as a 20 oz prime rib or ribeye. And a 300 calorie potato has a much larger impact on my hunger than 900 calories worth of nuts. So during weight loss, I go to lean meats, high fiber and less fat (still around 80 to 100g per day on a 2500 calorie diet). Additionally for me, carbs are an important part of my diet; to be specific, I am not talking about junk food but rather whole foods (rice, potatoes, whole grain breads (especially those high in fiber) and fruits). The reason they are a big part of my diet is I am looking to gain or maximize muscle. And considering carbs are muscle sparring and carbs fuel my workouts, it would be hard for me to go low carb. Ultimately, finding a diet that you can adhere to and that will address your fitness goals is the most critical part. Unfortunately, that will require trial and error.
IRT to Dr. Fung, I have read many of his articles and think he is a bit out there and overly bias.11 -
Oh one thing I want to add. I tried Paleo for about 9 months and didn't lose weight. It just was an unsustainable diet for me. But I did take some of the tips from the program and incorporate it into my diet; I increase the consumption of veggies, started to cook more from home and incorporate more exotic meats when possible since they are are high in unsaturated fats, and low in SFA. So even if you don't believe in all of Dr. Fungs research, you can incorporate some of the ideas (e.g., increase dietary fats and reduce carbs a bit).4
-
rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
1. CICO always applies. A diet may help you lose weight without actively monitoring your calories, but any successful diet does so by helping you create a calorie deficit. The way of eating may make it easier or harder for you to stick to a deficit, but in the end it's the deficit that creates loss.
2. There's nothing wrong with trying low carb, or low fat, or whatever other way of eating you like. But realize there is no single "right answer". Low carb works very well for some people - there are many testimonials here that can show that. Low carb works very poorly for others - I think it was my single worst diet attempt ever.
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
I agree with all of this. In particular, 4 is crucial -- I know for myself and many others I've talked with, the struggle is not hunger. It's temptation, enjoying food and eating and sometimes using it inappropriately. If it were hunger, I think people would think to fill up on low cal foods or shift their eating and resolve it, it's more.
As for fat and hunger, I do suspect that being in ketosis might have a physical effect of making you uninterested in eating (I think fasting can, for a while). I don't personally find that all that desirable, and I think there needs to be more to overcome the temptation aspect (that's why the group reinforcement and belief in the diet can help, it's a mental thing). I also think there may be a difference for people with IR vs. not, and among individuals more generally. I DON'T believe that high carb diets (assuming whole foods carbs with plenty of fiber) leave people starving -- that's not borne out with more traditional diets that happen to be high carb -- and I know for me personally fat isn't filling at all and on a high fat diet I'd be hungry and miserable. I've experimented with high fat vs. low fat vs. moderate fat breakfasts (and no breakfast) and I find low fat the most filling by far, for me, if it's also got fiber and protein (and if protein and calories stay roughly the same across these). I find high fat the least filling -- am much more likely to get hungry than if I simply skip breakfast. All this aside, other factors tend to be even more important -- am I too busy to think of eating or am I in a situation where food is all around me and I have time to think about it?4 -
rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.4 -
I am not a strict low carb person. I pay much more attention to having adequate protein, fiber, and fat with every meal and snack. It winds up crowding out the carbs. I believe in CICO. But I also think that it makes a lot of sense that when we change the way we eat, such as reducing carbs (especially the simplest, fastest-burning ones) and/or reducing the frequency of eating, that there are positive effects: Aside from reducing insulin (and increasing autophagy if you are fasting) and having more stable blood glucose levels, there is a lot of research and discussion going on about how the population of microbes in our gut changes, which may influence our cravings and eating behavior (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201400071/full). When I changed what and when I eat, after a few weeks I stopped being hungry all the time. n=1 it worked for me, but it makes sense that maybe I've killed off some sugar crazy microbes, and / or maybe I have taken control of my insulin and blood glucose.
2 -
Haven't read the book, but watched all 6+ hours of videos. Started the intermittent fast on July 11 with a meeting with my Doc. Have follow up on Sept 11. Had crazy hi triglycerides (couldn't even get a measure on my ldl), blood sugar was elevated but screened out t2d risk and I'm overweight (by a lot). Was likely insulin resistant. Moved to a 3d/wk 24h fast (dinner to dinner). The balance of the week is 16h fast and 8h eating window. 1 day a week I have 3 meals. Avoiding processed food, but not religiously. First 3 days of fasts were terrible. The next 3 weeks of 3x24h fasts have been some of the most productive at work with good energy. When I do eat, I take my time and find I'm really enjoying the food I do eat. And since I'm eating less, I try to eat quality food.
I've been sleeping great. Exercise is little more than walking the dog for 30m-1h. Largely sedentary job, though. Next week going to add 30m of HIIT.
I like the approach because there is one rule, and I can follow it pretty easily.
Don't eat when you aren't supposed to.
21# off since July 11. A lot of inflammation left my body within the first week (10#). Likely have fatty liver, gonna test for that on Sept 11. Clothing is already feeling looser. YMMV.8 -
Keto is a form of CICO, so it does work for you.Sassie11_11 wrote: »I'm not sure if you are on facebook and I don't know how to load just the video here but Stephanie Dodier did a live interview with Dr Jason Fong, it was very informative. Here is the link to her page:
https://www.facebook.com/StephanieDodiernutrition
I am on a Keto diet. CICO does not work for me. I like the attitude of Dr Fong which is to trust your own body. Our bodies communicate with us all the time. That resonates with me. And it works!
10 -
I wish I were mendacious and clever enough to make a bunch of money writing bs about how to lose weight.
How to lose weight - eat less.11 -
cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.3 -
Yes. Keto changes the bodies fuel.0
-
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.13 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Yeh but if you eat too many calories you'll gain fat so still won't be burning enough to lose weight. All comes down to calories in the end.8 -
rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.
I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF:
1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety.
2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction. That's the reason why you see LCHF diets show initial greater weight loss, but that doesn't continue as the study gets longer. If you burned one pound of glycogen, the scale would drop by five pounds because you will lose water that is no longer needed to balance osmolarity. Conversely, eating a lot of carbs can make the scale jump quick, but it's not fat that's doing it.2 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
No. Keto is a way of eating that keeps you from being hungry, allowing you to easily keep your calories low.
The whole "keto changes the way the body fuels itself" is misleading. Yes, you're not burning dietary carbs (because there aren't all that many). But you're still using food calories for fuel.
All weight loss is the same: Burn more than you consume.
8 -
stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
From what I know from keto groups and also personally, I'd say that for a substantial part of people who are on keto , weight loss is not their primary consideration. A lot of people are healing their type 2 diabetes and/or insulin resistance with this. For those people its a godsend. Don't scoff.7 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
No. Keto is a way of eating that keeps you from being hungry, allowing you to easily keep your calories low.
The whole "keto changes the way the body fuels itself" is misleading. Yes, you're not burning dietary carbs (because there aren't all that many). But you're still using food calories for fuel.
All weight loss is the same: Burn more than you consume.
Except it's way easier to mobilize body fat while on keto, and it's fantastic if you do endurance sports.2 -
Except it's way easier to mobilize body fat while on keto, and it's fantastic if you do endurance sports.
If that were true, we'd see professional endurance athletes on keto, rather than carb loading. You won't find anyone doing keto and riding the Tour de France, for example.
And comparing a keto and non-keto isocaloric diet, the rate of loss of body fat is not any different. Yes, in keto you burn more total fat each day, but you also consume more fat, so the actual rate of body fat loss comes down to caloric balance, like with any diet.17 -
stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
From what I know from keto groups and also personally, I'd say that for a substantial part of people who are on keto , weight loss is not their primary consideration. A lot of people are healing their type 2 diabetes and/or insulin resistance with this. For those people its a godsend. Don't scoff.
You can't heal diabetes.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
From what I know from keto groups and also personally, I'd say that for a substantial part of people who are on keto , weight loss is not their primary consideration. A lot of people are healing their type 2 diabetes and/or insulin resistance with this. For those people its a godsend. Don't scoff.
You can't heal diabetes.
Some people with type 2 diabetes respond so well to a low carb diet that they are functionally in remission, though. They can ditch their meds and drop down to much less frequent monitoring. Of course it comes back if they start eating a lot of carbs again, but I can understand why many would feel like they were cured...7 -
stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
My previous quote was questioning that "keto is a form of CICO." Can't you gain fat while eating keto if you eat too many calories? And aren't you still burning fat as fuel in a keto calorie surplus? Is Keto = CICO?0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Except it's way easier to mobilize body fat while on keto, and it's fantastic if you do endurance sports.
If that were true, we'd see professional endurance athletes on keto, rather than carb loading. You won't find anyone doing keto and riding the Tour de France, for example.
And comparing a keto and non-keto isocaloric diet, the rate of loss of body fat is not any different. Yes, in keto you burn more total fat each day, but you also consume more fat, so the actual rate of body fat loss comes down to caloric balance, like with any diet.
Better look up Cris Froome's low carb diet propelling to 3 Tour de France titles.3 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »Keto is a form of CICO.
I thought Keto was a method of eating specific macros that forces the body to burn fat as fuel rather than carbs. Regardless of the number of calories.
Fat loss is never regardless of calories.
My previous quote was questioning that "keto is a form of CICO." Can't you gain fat while eating keto if you eat too many calories? And aren't you still burning fat as fuel in a keto calorie surplus? Is Keto = CICO?
You can gain fat regardless of the diet you follow. CICO is an energy balance equation. Keto is a way of eating. Keto still follows CICO.
Unfortunately, some people think CICO is a way of eating based on misinterpretations.
Also, you do oxidize more fat on keto, but its dietary fat not body fat.2 -
rankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.
I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF:
1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety.
2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction. That's the reason why you see LCHF diets show initial greater weight loss, but that doesn't continue as the study gets longer. If you burned one pound of glycogen, the scale would drop by five pounds because you will lose water that is no longer needed to balance osmolarity. Conversely, eating a lot of carbs can make the scale jump quick, but it's not fat that's doing it.
There is also the effect that trying a new plan, one that motivates you, results intitially in higher levels of adherence and consistency. I would say this accounts for 95+% of all short term "successes"
9 -
rankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.
I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF:
1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety.
2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction. That's the reason why you see LCHF diets show initial greater weight loss, but that doesn't continue as the study gets longer. If you burned one pound of glycogen, the scale would drop by five pounds because you will lose water that is no longer needed to balance osmolarity. Conversely, eating a lot of carbs can make the scale jump quick, but it's not fat that's doing it.
There is also the effect that trying a new plan, one that motivates you, results intitially in higher levels of adherence and consistency. I would say this accounts for 95+% of all short term "successes"
Thats a good point. Its also why people always have more energy, clearer skin and etc... Power of the mind is amazing.6 -
rankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.
I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF:
1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety.
2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction. That's the reason why you see LCHF diets show initial greater weight loss, but that doesn't continue as the study gets longer. If you burned one pound of glycogen, the scale would drop by five pounds because you will lose water that is no longer needed to balance osmolarity. Conversely, eating a lot of carbs can make the scale jump quick, but it's not fat that's doing it.
1. No. They don't. Almost all low carbers have moderate protein. Some prefer a bit higher,and thpse very active individuals choose higher protein to help their goals. Most low carbers have proten in the 20-25% range.
But yes. Protein often helps with satiety. So does fat.
2. The lean mass lost due to glycogen reuduction... You mean water? Yes there is some water weight lost initially. It's just water. Most long term carbers aren't limiting carbs just to avoid the few pounds of water retention that carbs cause though.
Plus muscle glycogen stores are not chronically depleted in fat adapted individuals. Glycogen is just not needed much anymore.
Most low carbers around here still seem to say 3 or 4 is the cause for their low carb success. IMOrankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, I will say I haven't read the book, but in general my thoughts on the "insulin hypothesis":
<snip>
3. I don't think it's actually demonstrated that low carb leads to decreased hunger in the population at large. In studies that looked at hunger and satiety, while there was a definite link between protein and satiety, there was no real correlation between either fat or carbohydrate and satiety. In fact the single most sating food in one study was a baked potato. Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.
4. Even if there was a real link between low carb and hunger, hunger is only one of the reasons we want to eat. If we were eating purely to satisfy hunger, you'd expect that we'd all be okay with eating exactly the same thing every day, a prospect that most of us actually find very unappealing. Besides hunger, there are cravings and preferences to consider, and then there are the social and pleasurable aspects of food. A way of eating that you will stick to for your whole life needs to be something you are comfortable doing forever, and not just tolerate but enjoy. That means it needs to do more than just keep your hunger down.
Number 3 and 4 is where the main argument for why some people (usually those with insulin resistance and trunkal obesity) tend to lose weight a bit faster on a LCHF diet. It either reduces your appetite or the reduced insulin and blood glucose levels make weight loss easier. I have never seen another theory put forward to address this... besides "magic". I wouldn't count these our entirely, although you seem to lean towards the reduced hunger aspect as the reason for people's LCHF success.
I think the main reasons some people do better on LCHF:
1. Low-carb dieters naturally tend to increase protein consumption, and higher protein definitely does have an affect on hunger and satiety.
2. Lean mass loss due to glycogen reduction. That's the reason why you see LCHF diets show initial greater weight loss, but that doesn't continue as the study gets longer. If you burned one pound of glycogen, the scale would drop by five pounds because you will lose water that is no longer needed to balance osmolarity. Conversely, eating a lot of carbs can make the scale jump quick, but it's not fat that's doing it.
There is also the effect that trying a new plan, one that motivates you, results intitially in higher levels of adherence and consistency. I would say this accounts for 95+% of all short term "successes"
Thats a good point. Its also why people always have more energy, clearer skin and etc... Power of the mind is amazing.
I think you're reaching with that. Otherwise my placebo effect has lasted 14+ months now.rankinsect wrote: »Except it's way easier to mobilize body fat while on keto, and it's fantastic if you do endurance sports.
If that were true, we'd see professional endurance athletes on keto, rather than carb loading. You won't find anyone doing keto and riding the Tour de France, for example.
And comparing a keto and non-keto isocaloric diet, the rate of loss of body fat is not any different. Yes, in keto you burn more total fat each day, but you also consume more fat, so the actual rate of body fat loss comes down to caloric balance, like with any diet.
Metabolic characteristics of keto-adapted ultra-endurance runners
Results
Peak fat oxidation was 2.3-fold higher in the LC group (1.54 ± 0.18 vs 0.67 ± 0.14 g/min; P = 0.000) and it occurred at a higher percentage of VO2max (70.3 ± 6.3 vs 54.9 ± 7.8%; P = 0.000). Mean fat oxidation during submaximal exercise was 59% higher in the LC group (1.21 ± 0.02 vs 0.76 ± 0.11 g/min; P = 0.000) corresponding to a greater relative contribution of fat (88 ± 2 vs 56 ± 8%; P = 0.000). Despite these marked differences in fuel use between LC and HC athletes, there were no significant differences in resting muscle glycogen and the level of depletion after 180 min of running (−64% from pre-exercise) and 120 min of recovery (−36% from pre-exercise).
Conclusion
Compared to highly trained ultra-endurance athletes consuming an HC diet, long-term keto-adaptation results in extraordinarily high rates of fat oxidation, whereas muscle glycogen utilization and repletion patterns during and after a 3 hour run are similar.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions