'The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss' by Jason Fung

rankinsect wrote: »

lodro 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.

I mean endurance endurance sports, like ultra racing. I'm following the transcontinental bike race now, and man, is it an unending quest for carbohydrate rich sources. I'm training for Borders of Belgium at the moment (1000km within 75 hours, and being on keto gives me a greater freedom, without "needing" to load up on carbs every hour.

TdF is both about endurance and about needing to output crazy watts at sprints, time trials and such, it is an "endurance event" in a few aspects only.

Just some observations (with references) - and in the interest of self-disclosure, my way of eating is very low carb-high fat-moderate protein, is very satisfying, and is completely sustainable long term for me (ie, this is not a "diet"...it is a way of eating that I can enjoy for the rest of my life and simultaneously control my weight, cardiovascular risks, and avoid other chronic health diseases. I also omit wheat products and other gluten-containing foods, as I am gluten sensitive (NOT Celiac Disease).

"Obesity is a physiological imbalance of the body – a disease process, not the failure of an individual’s self-control. It is the fastest growing epidemic disease with >75% of Americans now being overweight or obese." (Dr. Chris Pate, MD - Board Certified American Board of Obesity Medicine, as well as board certified in family practice and a certified menopause specialist; Biosymmetry Medical Weigh Management)

Eating “low carb-high fat” surely does fly in the face of what we’ve been taught the past 40-50 years…and look where the last 40-50 years has gotten us: (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1832542)


• CICO (calories in/calories out) is not the whole picture, and all calories are not created equal. We are incredibly complicated biological machines and simplistic theories, such as the one that the number of calories you consume vs calories you expend is the ultimate determiner of body mass and weight loss, are absurd. The body does not treat a calorie of protein like a calorie of fat like a calorie of carbohydrate.

• Different strategies work for different people because complex systems are variable, i.e., the way my body functions on a given set of variables will be different from the way your body functions on that same set of variables.

• Someone commented that “Satiety is a lot more complex than just a macronutrient, or one macronutrient and one hormone.” TRUE! Reduced hunger is experienced by many on LCHF, but not all. FAT INTAKE DOES DEMONSTRATE A DIRECT CORRELATION WITH SATIETY. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18840358 : Title - The lipid messenger OEA links dietary fat intake to satiety. ***“The results suggest that activation of small-intestinal OEA mobilization, enabled by CD36-mediated uptake of dietary oleic acid, serves as a molecular sensor linking fat ingestion to satiety.”***

• Also, “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.” TRUE! There are 4 categories of “whys” of the disease of obesity and obese people are obese because of any one or combination of them; they are: psychological, behavioral, biochemical/metabolic, and nutritional. The impact of “societal norms” on the psychological and behavioral components to this disease are huge determinants in the success of controlling the disease.

• Someone else commented, “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.

RE #1 - There are numerous versions of “low carb” ways of eating. “Low Carb, High Fat” way of eating does NOT increase protein consumption. Macronutrient percentages for people eating very low carb or low carb + high fat are generally in the range of 5-10% carbs, 70+% fats, and only 15-25% protein. Some people on LCHF restrict calories while others do not. “Low Carb” is a whole spectrum of variability within its numerous forms.

RE# 2 - Whether or not a low carb high fat ketogenic diet results in lean mass loss is dependent on whether you are a glucose (sugar) burner or a fat (ketone) burner. If you eat a low carb HIGH PROTEIN diet, you are still a glucose burner. 50% of the protein you eat will get converted to glucose, and this prevents you from using fat (ketones) for energy as your main fuel source. If you eat a low carb HIGH FAT diet, then you are a fat (ketone) burner and loss of lean mass is not an issue.

Susan, the bottom line is if what you've been doing isn't working, change it...but educate yourself and weigh the studies and statistics for yourself. You'll have to experiment with what works for you personally.

stevencloser wrote: »

A calorie is a measure of energy, it is not a thing you can touch. There are no "calories of protein" or "calories of carbohydrates" any more than there's a difference between "meters of lawn" vs. "meters of road".

I don't even know why we make this argument. It's the equivalent to the argument that muscle weights more than fat. No one is disputing the measurement but rather the composition of those calories. In the end, macronutrient have little impact over fat loss.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest

stevencloser wrote: »

Because unlike the muscle vs. fat discussion, people are actually talking like there's Protein-calories, Fat-Calories Sugar-Calories, hell even a subgroup of Natural-Sugar-Calories and Added-Sugar-Calories. They're talking as if those are different things, actual graspable things somehow floating inside the food instead of the result of a measurement.

Right. The difference is that no one is denying that foods are different or that macros are different or that it matters what you eat, so there's a value to insisting that "calories" not be used merely as a synonym for "food."

No one ever claims that one lb of fat weighs less than one lb of muscle. However, I know people who have told me that cheese calories go to your butt whereas vegetable calories do not (for the record, this was back when I was a teen and "going to the butt" was a bad thing -- at least where I lived).

jkquinn13 wrote: »

susanaemendez wrote: »

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".

I read and white liked the book. I'm having some success doing IF twice a week on non consecutive days.

* quite liked

health.harvard.edu/heart-health/latest-thinking-on-a-cardioprotective-diet

At the end of this Harvard article it talks about the difference between good and not so good carbs that may be of interest to those who find eating carbs to be a health concern that I found as a byproduct of studying Ashwagandha benefits tonight.

Jason Fung has a fantastic blog called Intensive dietary Management. More importantly, he walks the walk with real life patients, making a living reversing their diabetes and obesity (along with being a nephrologist). Real life results with lots of patients is the real litmus test.

geneticexpectations wrote: »

... you can instead visit his clinic where he takes former diabetics, and turns them into strange people who no longer seem to need oral meds or insulin and who have normal fasting levels of glucose and normal HbA1c. aka. non-diabetics. And he follows these patients and their stable conditions for years (and of course, stability is boring, so that may not be very interesting).

FYI these people will never be "non-diabetics".

Like many of Fung's patients, I took myself from an HbA1c of over 12% (ie: EXTREMELY diabetic) to HbA1c's in 5.2-5.4% (normal, non-diabetic) range, and have maintained those for 6+ years.

But I'm still VERY diabetic. I just control it. I eat lower-carbohydrate/high-fat and exercise regularly.

nvmomketo wrote: »

albertabeefy wrote: »

geneticexpectations wrote: »

... you can instead visit his clinic where he takes former diabetics, and turns them into strange people who no longer seem to need oral meds or insulin and who have normal fasting levels of glucose and normal HbA1c. aka. non-diabetics. And he follows these patients and their stable conditions for years (and of course, stability is boring, so that may not be very interesting).

FYI these people will never be "non-diabetics".

Like many of Fung's patients, I took myself from an HbA1c of over 12% (ie: EXTREMELY diabetic) to HbA1c's in 5.2-5.4% (normal, non-diabetic) range, and have maintained those for 6+ years.

But I'm still VERY diabetic. I just control it. I eat lower-carbohydrate/high-fat and exercise regularly.

Exactly. Well said.

Guys you are saying an obese person will still VERY obese after they reduce down to a BMI of 25. I don't agree.

So ... did anyone read the book or listen to the pod cast interview with Dr Jason Jong?

jmp463 wrote: »

People get so hung up this subject - so really its whatever works best for you. This is not hard stuff - yes you need to eat fewer calories than you burn to lose weight. Many different ways to get there. If you work out like crazy - sure you can have more carbs than someone who doesn't. But again - there are many different ways to get to the end result - the one thing that they have in common is that it involves discipline. Without that - the odds of success are much smaller.

I agree with you.

People get hung up because some (like Fung) insist LCHF is intrinsically better and eating in other ways (even quite healthful, nutrition-conscious ways or like in the Blue Zones) is bad for you. Or because (with Fung specifically) he is trying to set himself up as diet guru selling a program to "explain" obesity when what he advocates isn't necessary to lose weight (might it help his patients in the right conditions? sure -- that's different from trying to set himself up as a diet guru, which makes him up there with Dr. Oz).

If your point is simply that low carb is one workable way to lose weight and that it will be beneficial/preferable to some due to a number of reasons, one that is often reported being hunger, then I don't think anyone would disagree or "get hung up." I certainly agree, and have played around with carb amounts at times. I think many people don't have perceived "hunger" as their reason for struggling with weight loss/maintenance -- I don't (and for me carbs with fiber tend to be more filling than fat) -- but I may finally try low carbing next year as I need more motivation and treating it as an experiment where I'm comparing how I feel on different ways of eating may get me the impetus to follow through on something involving a deficit.

Here's something from a low LC proponent (who also agrees that other diets work better for some others) which explains why LC evangelism in general tends to turn me off even though I think low carbing is fine and works well for many: http://caloriesproper.com/keto-myths-facts/

"ALL OF THE LONGEST LIVING PEOPLE EAT CARBS. If carbs were intrinsically harmful, this wouldn’t be true. Nowhere near it, actually. The Blue Zones would be the Black Death Zones. Humans wouldn’t exist.

Non-food contributors to MetS: obesity, sedentary lifestyle, circadian arrhythmia, shift work, crappy sleep, too much artificial light, etc....

Fact: low carb helps manage blood glucose levels with fewer meds in people with IR. It’s actually quite good at that. But the best “cures” are basically weight loss and/or exercise. “Cure” = can eat a potato w/o hyperglycemia."