Fast Metabolism Diet

2456

Replies

  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    Form the web it sounds like a calorie restriction diet. It moves a person away from sugar and more towards a low carb, higher fat diet. It basically really cuts carbs and a few other random things like coffee.

    Cutting sugar has been amazing helpful to me. For me added sugar drives hunger and makes me miserable. In May I cut way back on added sugars, trying to keep it less than 10g / day. My stalled weight loss took off and I've lost about 1.5kg per month since then. My waistline has gone from 103 cm to 86 cm. So cutting sugar can be pretty powerful. I don't think it change my metabolism, I thing it is just letting my body work like it should.

    While I generally try to keep my other refined carbs moderate I don't push it. I live in Japan and avoiding rice and noodles is an exercise in painful living. I'm also not a fan of dietary ketosis. If you want to be in ketosis just stop eating, that seems more natural and actually more comfortable process. However most people are fearful of fasting.

    Frankly though I don't see why that diet would boost your metabolism but it will probably help you lose weight for a least a few months.

    Cutting sugar out put you into a caloric deficit so you lost weight. Nothing about the evil properties of sugar!

    Agree with this 100%. Calorie restriction is basic to weight loss, and we have to cut calories somewhere, whether it be just eating less of all or a certain food.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.

    Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.

    Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.

    Setting medical conditions aside, CICO is the only way to lose weight.

    Really....sugar is not evil, it does not have magic properties to keep fat on your body. You lost weight because your intake became less than your output, whether you want to admit that or not. Unfortunately, none of us get to be special snowflakes (and, believe me, if we could, I'd be first in line proclaiming I was a special snowflake. :D)
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Too gimmicky for me:
    Phase One (Monday-Tuesday): Lots of carbs and fruits
    Phase Two (Wednesday-Thursday): Lots of proteins and veggies
    Phase Three (Friday-Saturday-Sunday): All of the above, plus healthy fats and oils
    Repeat for four weeks!


    I like to eat protein 7 days a week.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    I'd like to see the no doubt meticulous logs you kept of your feat of losing more weight eating more calories, but that would mean derailing yet another thread with how you avoided sugar, ate more, and lost weight. Surely this is how you know that calorie restriction "doesn't work".

    What does this have to do with metabolism?

    I used the food diary for a few months but frankly after a couple weeks it was pretty useless. All it did was tell me in six weeks I would weigh x more kg. The main use of it was trying to see how the food broke down, but many of the foods I eat weren't even in the database or weren't even close to correct. For example karaage (A type of fried Chicken) was listed as almost no protein in it. (Although I have found a listing since than that had 16g in 100g, which is closer to correct.) The problem is the database is filled with nonsense and that throws macros off. Most of the foods I buy locally aren't even in the database and when they are they often aren't correct. I get it, most people can't correctly read a Japanese food label.

    Calorie restriction possibly forces the body to make changes to meet a energy balance. At some point the likely outcome is a reduction in metabolism. That is something I simply choose to avoid.

    When I cut the sugar I started with cutting deserts completely. I was trying at the time to build a larger calorie deficit but the impact on my hunger was so profound that it shocked me into trying to understand why I lost hunger by cutting food. I then cut a lot more refined sugar, in some cases making food substitutions and I started adding back calories I had cut, mostly with foods like walnuts, salmon and complex carbs. It actually took a little planning because I had naturally stopped snacking when my hunger went down. The result was actually losing 7kg and about 13cm off my waist in 3 months. After that is slowed down and I settled at 8kg loss although my waist line is continuing to shrink, now down 17 cm (6.7"). Most of my older pants literally fall off me now.

    So I had ate a very comfortable level ... 2300 to 2700 kc / day and lost weight like crazy. MFP determined I had to eat less than 1800 kc / day to lose the weight. That would be an extremely uncomfortable level for me. Although since I torn a muscle near my knee my workouts have dropped by about 90% so I might get by some days at that level.

    In the two years I gained 1kg / year I rarely eat more than 3000 kc / day but I nearly always burned over 3000 kc / day. That isn't hard to do when you are doing things like 90 minute workouts. I would often run over 5k and do a lot of bodyweight calisthenics. (I was up to 40+ pullups and often hitting 100+ pushups, and those were just two of the many things I was doing.) I was did a lot of walking and biking, generally over 20km a day in total. The only times I had a really hard time hitting those high levels of calories burned was when I did a lot of stair climbing or only did calisthenics, then my workouts were in the 400 to 700 kc range. Every day I strove to keep myself in a calorie deficit, it just didn't work and I suffered a lot from hunger. I tortured myself for 2 years without weight lose. When I cut back on the sugar, wham the weight dropped even though I ended up without a calorie deficit because of other adjustments. The good thing is I did build some muscle while I was slowly losing fat those two years.

    Metabolism turns out to be very complex and that is why people struggle so much with controlling their weight and even body composition. My metabolism was being driven by the refined sugar in my diet. That is what it has to do with metabolism.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited October 2016
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.

    Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.

    Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.

    Setting medical conditions aside, CICO is the only way to lose weight.

    Really....sugar is not evil, it does not have magic properties to keep fat on your body. You lost weight because your intake became less than your output, whether you want to admit that or not. Unfortunately, none of us get to be special snowflakes (and, believe me, if we could, I'd be first in line proclaiming I was a special snowflake. :D)

    There is a wealth of research showing you are wrong. I used to believe the same, I was wrong and ended torturing myself for years because of it. Fructose is a serious problem in the quantities it is consumed in our modern diets. It isn't the only issue but for me it was a driving issue.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/sugar-101-how-harmful-is-sugar-part-i

    Dr. Attia doesn't completely agree with Dr. Lustig, he thinks even too much glucose is harmful. Both agree too much sugar is a major problem. Very few people consume sugar at less than 20g / day in the modern industrialized world. Most diets are way over 50g / day. That is the problem, the amount. 50g a day is over 18kg / year (40 lbs).

    It is clear that different people have different tolerance levels. Mine is probably on the lower side as is Dr. Attia's. That doesn't make us special snowflakes, it is just part of being human. There are metabolically healthy people that consume a great deal of refined sugar, they might be the special snowflakes. :wink:

    PS. I know that many here that probably couldn't even begin to pass an organic chemistry test will claim these doctors and researchers are fruitcakes.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited October 2016
    Please post the wealth of peer reviewed, controlled metabolic ward research showing that CICO is not the only way to lose weight.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.

    Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.

    Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.

    Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!

    I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.

    Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.

    Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.

    Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.

    Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!

    I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.

    Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Your sources need some refinement there.

    Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.

    Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.

    Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.

    Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!

    I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.

    Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Your sources need some refinement there.

    Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?

    If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    psulemon wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.

    Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.

    Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.

    Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!

    I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.

    Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Your sources need some refinement there.

    Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?

    If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf

    Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.

    Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.

    To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.

    I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.

    A few random articles
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
    http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx

    A few random studies
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
    http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039

    There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.

    The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full

    Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects

    and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385

    Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.

    I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited October 2016
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.

    Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.

    Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.

    Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!

    I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.

    Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Your sources need some refinement there.

    Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?

    If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf

    That study in no way supports the whole of what you're saying.

    How does it refute CICO, for example?
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.

    Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.

    Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.

    Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!

    I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.

    Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Your sources need some refinement there.

    Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?

    If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf

    Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.

    Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.

    To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.

    I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.

    A few random articles
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
    http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx

    A few random studies
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
    http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039

    There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.

    The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full

    Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects

    and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385

    Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.

    I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.

    DUDE... I don't think goalposts have moved this fast since some got knocked over in a hurricane or something.

    Where have you been, the insulin theory of weight gain is DOA.

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html

    Hopefully someone will come along and post to the actual study. My Googlefu is failing me this morning.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,917 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.

    Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.

    Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.

    Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!

    I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.

    Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/

    Your sources need some refinement there.

    Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?

    If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf

    Do you read these studies? Because even your own studies suggest that there may be a link to increased type II diabetes to do the quick available energy and low satiation. How does this prove anything other than drink calories may not be beneficial due to high calories and low satiety. It would not apply in a setting like MFP as its controlled intake.

    Anyone who has a clue would recommend that limiting items like this in a free living condition is an easy way to decrease caloric consumption. The same can be applied to many other things.

    To be clear though, this study does not prove what you think it does. It does not in any way suggest that CICO does not exist.

    I just picked that one for her. There have been many studies showing that fructose consumption leads to metabolic issues. I'm shocked at how lazy people are here. You have to be hand held for everything it seems. Lean to do a little legwork yourself.

    A few random articles
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
    http://www.wellnessresources.com/weight/articles/high_fructose_death_syrup_causes_a_fatty_liver_energy_loss/
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/29/obesity-fructose.aspx

    A few random studies
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827808001645
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
    http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/220.full.pdf+html
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039

    There are studies that show fructose is safe, but they generally look at only small amounts of fructose and very short time periods. The problem is the amount that people consume has skyrocketed and it often takes years for the damage to really take hold. Since it is hard to know what a safe level is, it is just best to avoid refined sugars. Maybe find for a rare treat, but not for every meal or snack. There is no risk in avoiding refined sugar, it is totally unnecessary for life.

    The obesity growth in the US is generally considered to started in 1977, which is in alignment with the push to lower fat consumption in the US. Look at this graph: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537/F1.expansion.html from this study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/4/537.full

    Well correlation isn't causation but more damming studies are being done all the time now. The genie is out of the food industry's bottle now.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16211797_Impaired_cellular_insulin_binding_and_insulin_sensitivity_induced_by_high-fructose_feeding_in_normal_subjects

    and this one: http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385

    Many studies focus on weight gain, which isn't the real issue. The real issue is metabolic health, it isn't the calories as carbs are not that high in calories, it is the insulin resistance that develops and leads to high insulin levels. That is what prevents diets from working well long term. The effects vary widely because the amount of insulin resistance varies widely in different dieters. The evidence is mounting and more trained professionals are signing up on avoiding fructose from refined sugar because we are just over exposed to it.

    I'm just lucky because it is easy for me to avoid sugar and the effects of it on me are profoundly noticeable once I started avoiding it. Probably some people are too addicted to refined sugar to avoid it and others don't suffer directly from it like I do. There is little doubt though that refined sugar is a big part of the metabolic health problems.

    DUDE... I don't think goalposts have moved this fast since some got knocked over in a hurricane or something.

    Where have you been, the insulin theory of weight gain is DOA.

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html

    Hopefully someone will come along and post to the actual study. My Googlefu is failing me this morning.

    It's linked in your link, but just small as a (1) reference.

    http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(15)00350-2.pdf
  • BlackTimber
    BlackTimber Posts: 230 Member
    I'm not new here but have been gone a long time.

    CICO works with few exceptions.

    Carbohydrates are metabolized more or less effectively by different people. A persons insulin response and effectiveness will change the outcome. Yes, you can be a special snowflake!

    Thermodynamics probably does apply, but the system is far too complicated to do the math. Too many unknowns. As far as the closed system goes, you could break the system down into a series of steps. But it still seems a little fuzzy to me.

    For me cico works. I ignore the calculators and have found a caloric intake that works for me. That being said, carbohydrates are not my friend. I feel better physically and mentally with a lower carbohydrate intake.

    At least some of the "research" above was specifically designed to prove a theory and then sell books. I've been down many paths and have been totally sold on one theory or another. In the end, it seems that all of the takes on the perfect diet intentionally leave out real data and information that does not agree with their theory. In the end, my grandmothers theory of "everything in moderation" still seems the best:)