Keto saved me!
Replies
-
Way to go, OP. I've been doing keto for about 4 months now. It's definitely not for everyone. I would say it's mostly a great tool for people with a lot of weight to lose and not so much for people trying to build muscle or improve athletic performance. I also don't see it as a long term plan.
Something I have experienced that I haven't heard many other keto dieters talk about is how much it has affected my mental health. I've struggled with depression and anxiety and since I started keto my mental health has done a complete 180. Normal dieting (calorie deficit) only seems to exacerbate those issues, at least in my experience.
I've felt amazing the entire time, even in the first few days/weeks that people complain about when the body is adjusting (keto flu). I went from 300 lbs to 235 while eating 2000 calories a day, often more. I do about an hour of cardio 3 times a week. Keep it up, OP!8 -
I love keto too! I've been doing keto on and off for 3 years now and I'm down 70 lbs! I love how energetic and focused I feel when I'm in keto. Sometimes I slip out of it just to have a nice bowl of spaghetti or a Panera bread bowl occasionally but I have not regained a single ounce and I continue to steadily drop. Congratulations on finding what works for you!5
-
For example, I'm a 60+ year old post-menopausal female with Hashimoto's thyroiditis. The combination of these factors affects the CO side of the equation for me - but does not negate the principle of CICO. Nor would any physical condition (short of death) render CICO invalid.
The trick is in finding out what your particular Calories In/Calories Out balance is in order to achieve your weight management goals.
This is just plain not true. CI/CO is an oversimplification. Insulin and in particular an individual's level of insulin resistance is a huge factor.
Example: I maintained 1700 cal a day for 6 months, lost maybe 1-2 lbs a month. Switched to Keto (LCHF) and I have dropped 40 lbs in the next 6 months. Amount of calories the same, macros changed dramatically.
I'm not trying to argue here, but once I realized what was going on with my obese body, and corrected it, I began to shed lbs. This guy, Bob Briggs, is no Dr., but he explains things very well. He lost over 100 lbs with keto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sAqy1lnWXo
Look up insulin resistance on youtube, or anywhere else, it's a real eye opener.
Good luck to everyone!
5 -
-
For example, I'm a 60+ year old post-menopausal female with Hashimoto's thyroiditis. The combination of these factors affects the CO side of the equation for me - but does not negate the principle of CICO. Nor would any physical condition (short of death) render CICO invalid.
The trick is in finding out what your particular Calories In/Calories Out balance is in order to achieve your weight management goals.
This is just plain not true. CI/CO is an oversimplification. Insulin and in particular an individual's level of insulin resistance is a huge factor.
Example: I maintained 1700 cal a day for 6 months, lost maybe 1-2 lbs a month. Switched to Keto (LCHF) and I have dropped 40 lbs in the next 6 months. Amount of calories the same, macros changed dramatically.
I'm not trying to argue here, but once I realized what was going on with my obese body, and corrected it, I began to shed lbs. This guy, Bob Briggs, is no Dr., but he explains things very well. He lost over 100 lbs with keto.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sAqy1lnWXo
Look up insulin resistance on youtube, or anywhere else, it's a real eye opener.
Good luck to everyone!
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest
If you want to argue it, you can look at the above thread. Also, if the OP has insulin resistance, it's possible that keto would work because but it's not because it defies CICO. Those with IR/PCOS tend to have lower metabolic rates when associated with high levels of carbohydrates.2 -
New study out shows that insulin sensitivity on high protein diet may not be as good as originally thought for diabetes/heart health and may cause issues after weight loss.
http://time.com/4526448/high-protein-diet-weight-loss-insulin/
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »foxandflora wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Well done on the loss and it's great you've found what works for you. You have lost weight because you have reduced your calories and are eating in a deficit not because of the macronutrient break down or because Keto is magic.
I think what is nice about keto, whole 30, paleo, vegetarianism, veganism, pescatarianism, etc... is you get a built in community to support you, and for many of these diets, you see results so quickly. It becomes inspiring. While part of it very well may be caloric restriction, there is something to be said for people being able to eat the fun stuff (bacon) but still feel like they're "being compliant." I lost a ton of weight with Whole30, but I do realize that much of that was caloric restriction. Perhaps there were some aesthetic bonuses like less bloating, but ultimately, cutting out hidden sugars did cut out additional calories.
Also, anyone who doesn't do it yet, meal prepping is incredible. It makes all of the things I listed above pretty easy, and you never feel confused about what you need or what you are allowed to eat. You can also spend 3 hours on one day and 3 minutes every other day. Portioning in those containers also makes it super simple to eat 4oz or 6 oz of meat instead of... "eh I made it. Might as well finish ALL OF IT!!!!"
Whole 30 resulted in a 33 lb loss for my beau and a 15 lb loss for me. My beau is in the 200's. I'm 5'10 and was 150, so 15 lbs. loss for me is pretty dang impressive since I am already living in the world of a "healthy BMI" and my caloric intake for weight loss is lower.
That's great that you get support from the "community" of whatever diet/fad/cult/lifestyle you follow but at the end of the day you could literally eat any food, stick to your calorie goal and lose the weight. Most of these "diets" involve cutting out 1 or more whole food groups which some would argue is not optimal for health.
Personally a mix of lean meats, complex carbs, vegetables, healthy fats combined with fast food, desserts and "bad food" help me stay committed to my goal.
LOL cult. You're being a tad hyperbolic.
I AGREE with you that CICO works. You're right. However, people that struggle with food struggle with portions, understanding what a calorie is, understanding what to eat, think, buy, many struggle with cooking and haven't properly cooked a meal in ages (microwave life). If a community gives you clear guidelines, recipes, tools and support, people are more bought in. This isn't the food science part. This is the human psychology part.
Honestly, I think tons of people get to where you are and eat a balanced diet with all food groups. For sure. However, I think many people that are overweight find out how to do that with a system because they need to break years of bad habits OR simply form habits around food. Again, you're right- CICO works. Also, some people do argue that taking out a food group is bad. Then again, I know plenty of healthy vegans or healthy folks on keto or people that helped their heart issues and things with pescatarianism... whatever. People can eat in different ways AND be healthy. People have done it for AGES because the same food is only very recently "available everywhere." The food pyramid is literally a lie, and people need to figure out how to find balance in their lives based on their needs. This isn't clear and easy, and even medical professionals aren't truly sure about everything. We learn new things- sometimes contradictory things- each year.
Yes, people should eat a balanced diet with all food groups- for the most part. However, many people get there through having to change their food habits and their relationship with food. This seems to be easier when people are given guidelines. It's a good example of why Weight Watchers (here are your points, your weekly weigh in and a variety of foods to choose from) is the only on-the-market diet system that works for people. It's not Weight Watchers that's working- it's accountability, CICO and a community.
These are just my thoughts. It's funny- I am not even keto or anything. I eat exactly like you do. I'm not "afraid" of bread, sugars or carbs. I eat dessert. Etc. Etc.
PS: I am not trying to put down your ideas. I just want to provide the perspective of why people would find so much success in diets that provide clear guidelines. (I also think it has to do with the emphasis on meal prepping because there is a strong component of "cook your own stuff" and very clear impulse control.)6 -
foxandflora wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »foxandflora wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Well done on the loss and it's great you've found what works for you. You have lost weight because you have reduced your calories and are eating in a deficit not because of the macronutrient break down or because Keto is magic.
I think what is nice about keto, whole 30, paleo, vegetarianism, veganism, pescatarianism, etc... is you get a built in community to support you, and for many of these diets, you see results so quickly. It becomes inspiring. While part of it very well may be caloric restriction, there is something to be said for people being able to eat the fun stuff (bacon) but still feel like they're "being compliant." I lost a ton of weight with Whole30, but I do realize that much of that was caloric restriction. Perhaps there were some aesthetic bonuses like less bloating, but ultimately, cutting out hidden sugars did cut out additional calories.
Also, anyone who doesn't do it yet, meal prepping is incredible. It makes all of the things I listed above pretty easy, and you never feel confused about what you need or what you are allowed to eat. You can also spend 3 hours on one day and 3 minutes every other day. Portioning in those containers also makes it super simple to eat 4oz or 6 oz of meat instead of... "eh I made it. Might as well finish ALL OF IT!!!!"
Whole 30 resulted in a 33 lb loss for my beau and a 15 lb loss for me. My beau is in the 200's. I'm 5'10 and was 150, so 15 lbs. loss for me is pretty dang impressive since I am already living in the world of a "healthy BMI" and my caloric intake for weight loss is lower.
That's great that you get support from the "community" of whatever diet/fad/cult/lifestyle you follow but at the end of the day you could literally eat any food, stick to your calorie goal and lose the weight. Most of these "diets" involve cutting out 1 or more whole food groups which some would argue is not optimal for health.
Personally a mix of lean meats, complex carbs, vegetables, healthy fats combined with fast food, desserts and "bad food" help me stay committed to my goal.
LOL cult. You're being a tad hyperbolic.
I AGREE with you that CICO works. You're right. However, people that struggle with food struggle with portions, understanding what a calorie is, understanding what to eat, think, buy, many struggle with cooking and haven't properly cooked a meal in ages (microwave life). If a community gives you clear guidelines, recipes, tools and support, people are more bought in. This isn't the food science part. This is the human psychology part.
Honestly, I think tons of people get to where you are and eat a balanced diet with all food groups. For sure. However, I think many people that are overweight find out how to do that with a system because they need to break years of bad habits OR simply form habits around food. Again, you're right- CICO works. Also, some people do argue that taking out a food group is bad. Then again, I know plenty of healthy vegans or healthy folks on keto or people that helped their heart issues and things with pescatarianism... whatever. People can eat in different ways AND be healthy. People have done it for AGES because the same food is only very recently "available everywhere." The food pyramid is literally a lie, and people need to figure out how to find balance in their lives based on their needs. This isn't clear and easy, and even medical professionals aren't truly sure about everything. We learn new things- sometimes contradictory things- each year.
Yes, people should eat a balanced diet with all food groups- for the most part. However, many people get there through having to change their food habits and their relationship with food. This seems to be easier when people are given guidelines. It's a good example of why Weight Watchers (here are your points, your weekly weigh in and a variety of foods to choose from) is the only on-the-market diet system that works for people. It's not Weight Watchers that's working- it's accountability, CICO and a community.
These are just my thoughts. It's funny- I am not even keto or anything. I eat exactly like you do. I'm not "afraid" of bread, sugars or carbs. I eat dessert. Etc. Etc.
PS: I am not trying to put down your ideas. I just want to provide the perspective of why people would find so much success in diets that provide clear guidelines. (I also think it has to do with the emphasis on meal prepping because there is a strong component of "cook your own stuff" and very clear impulse control.)
Well said. People tend to make judgements about something they don't understand. And I am also a rather high carber.4 -
Can somebody tell me what "keto" is? Thanks!0
-
Another keto success story here as well. This is the only way I can eat and not have insane cravings. That sugar stuff is a helluva drug.
125lb gone, been eating at maintenance for several months. I have no intention of ever stopping. This is how I always want to eat.4 -
ponyvillalobos wrote: »Can somebody tell me what "keto" is? Thanks!
Ketogenic diets - any diet that allows your body to enter a state of nutritional ketosis. You won't find much love for it in the mfp forums because most of the mfp crowd is essentially rooted in the "eat less, move more" Dogma (which is fine too, there is certainly more than one way to skin a cat).5 -
And Dr. Fueng makes claims without actual research to prove his theories. If insulin played a huge role, then vegans would all be obese.
You should look into his actual work. It would likely prevent you from making such uninformed and unfortunate comments in the future. Just a little suggestion, since you're a moderator and all. I would hate for someone to actually believe you. That would be bad.
Also, The correct spelling is "Fung".
Me being a moderator has no impact on this, so there is no reason to even bring that into the discussion. But you can feel free to post some actual research (not just his blog). I have read a lot of his website but it rarely actually provides links to actual research.4 -
And Dr. Fueng makes claims without actual research to prove his theories. If insulin played a huge role, then vegans would all be obese.
You should look into his actual work. It would likely prevent you from making such uninformed and unfortunate comments in the future. Just a little suggestion, since you're a moderator and all. I would hate for someone to actually believe you. That would be bad.
Also, The correct spelling is "Fung".
Me being a moderator has no impact on this, so there is no reason to even bring that into the discussion. But you can feel free to post some actual research (not just his blog). I have read a lot of his website but it rarely actually provides links to actual research.
Oh come now, don't be coy. You read exactly none of his work, because if you did, you wouldn't have been likely to utter what you did.
But oh well, there it is.
Also, I can't seem to find your original post - the one I initially quoted. Strange, that... But I suppose there's a logical reason for it...
3 -
And Dr. Fueng makes claims without actual research to prove his theories. If insulin played a huge role, then vegans would all be obese.
You should look into his actual work. It would likely prevent you from making such uninformed and unfortunate comments in the future. Just a little suggestion, since you're a moderator and all. I would hate for someone to actually believe you. That would be bad.
Also, The correct spelling is "Fung".
Me being a moderator has no impact on this, so there is no reason to even bring that into the discussion. But you can feel free to post some actual research (not just his blog). I have read a lot of his website but it rarely actually provides links to actual research.
Oh come now, don't be coy. You read exactly none of his work, because if you did, you wouldn't have been likely to utter what you did.
But oh well, there it is.
Also, I can't seem to find your original post - the one I initially quoted. Strange, that... But I suppose there's a logical reason for it...
Where is what?0 -
ponyvillalobos wrote: »Can somebody tell me what "keto" is? Thanks!
Ketogenic diets - any diet that allows your body to enter a state of nutritional ketosis. You won't find much love for it in the mfp forums because most of the mfp crowd is essentially rooted in the "eat less, move more" Dogma (which is fine too, there is certainly more than one way to skin a cat).
As a bonus, skinned cat would be keto.5 -
And Dr. Fueng makes claims without actual research to prove his theories. If insulin played a huge role, then vegans would all be obese.
You should look into his actual work. It would likely prevent you from making such uninformed and unfortunate comments in the future. Just a little suggestion, since you're a moderator and all. I would hate for someone to actually believe you. That would be bad.
Also, The correct spelling is "Fung".
Me being a moderator has no impact on this, so there is no reason to even bring that into the discussion. But you can feel free to post some actual research (not just his blog). I have read a lot of his website but it rarely actually provides links to actual research.
Oh come now, don't be coy. You read exactly none of his work, because if you did, you wouldn't have been likely to utter what you did.
But oh well, there it is.
Also, I can't seem to find your original post - the one I initially quoted. Strange, that... But I suppose there's a logical reason for it...
I am not being coy. I have read a lot of his blog post. Many keto'ers and low carbers use it as a means to defend their beliefs, such as the below. But all his citing's are ny times articles and another blog.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/0 -
I am not being coy. I have read a lot of his blog post. Many keto'ers and low carbers use it as a means to defend their beliefs, such as the below. But all his citing's are ny times articles and another blog.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Again, you clearly have not followed Fung's work. I will award you 1,000 internet points for the attempt.
His criticism of the "First Law of Thermodynamics" isn't the first you'll find - and it certainly won't be the last. The First Law of Thermodynamics, despite being quoted *so rampantly* in fitness circles, is probably the most misquoted and misunderstood law. For this, you can probably thank Gary Taubes and his books "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why we get fat", unless of course someone else covered that argument prior to these works (I'm not aware).
You see, the difference is that all the fitness folks who claim to understand the first law of thermodynamics never seem to take into account that they are quoting a law that is only fully applicable when used in the context of a static, closed system - not a highly variable system like, oh, I don't know... the human body and its associated physiological processes. Or, you know - human metabolism. Is it completely *INAPPLICABLE*? Probably not - but the arguments are compelling.
But you see, unlike many of us, Taubes at least has a basic understanding of the first law of Thermodynamics because he graduated with a degree in physics. Yes, I often get a nice little chuckle every time I hear fitness-minded people claiming to know the first damn thing about this law, and then further attempt to belittle Taubes and *his* knowledge on the subject. But I suppose it's easy to do, after all - Taubes, by his own admission, is a downright lousy physicist - but *a physicist by education nonetheless* which is more than I can say for myself.
So now Fung has this blog, and he makes essentially the same criticisms regarding the "First Law" that Gary Taubes makes in his books. So I understand the basis of Fung's argument - because *it's not even his argument*, and he's not the first person to *make* that argument. Not even Taubes "owns" the argument. But just because a bunch of fitness-minded people seem to think that the first law of thermodynamics applies to a widely variable system like human metabolic process, that does not make it any more true.
But I am not stupid enough to attempt to discredit a physicist and a nephrologist just because I want the first law of physics to apply perfectly to a place where it seemingly does not.
You however may go right on ahead. Godspeed.2 -
What's with the asterisks all over the place?0
-
I am not being coy. I have read a lot of his blog post. Many keto'ers and low carbers use it as a means to defend their beliefs, such as the below. But all his citing's are ny times articles and another blog.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Again, you clearly have not followed Fung's work. I will award you 1,000 internet points for the attempt.
His criticism of the "First Law of Thermodynamics" isn't the first you'll find - and it certainly won't be the last. The First Law of Thermodynamics, despite being quoted *so rampantly* in fitness circles, is probably the most misquoted and misunderstood law. For this, you can probably thank Gary Taubes and his books "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why we get fat", unless of course someone else covered that argument prior to these works (I'm not aware).
You see, the difference is that all the fitness folks who claim to understand the first law of thermodynamics never seem to take into account that they are quoting a law that is only fully applicable when used in the context of a static, closed system - not a highly variable system like, oh, I don't know... the human body and its associated physiological processes. Or, you know - human metabolism. Is it completely *INAPPLICABLE*? Probably not - but the arguments are compelling.
But you see, unlike many of us, Taubes at least has a basic understanding of the first law of Thermodynamics because he graduated with a degree in physics. Yes, I often get a nice little chuckle every time I hear fitness-minded people claiming to know the first damn thing about this law, and then further attempt to belittle Taubes and *his* knowledge on the subject. But I suppose it's easy to do, after all - Taubes, by his own admission, is a downright lousy physicist - but *a physicist by education nonetheless* which is more than I can say for myself.
So now Fung has this blog, and he makes essentially the same criticisms regarding the "First Law" that Gary Taubes makes in his books. So I understand the basis of Fung's argument - because *it's not even his argument*, and he's not the first person to *make* that argument. Not even Taubes "owns" the argument. But just because a bunch of fitness-minded people seem to think that the first law of thermodynamics applies to a widely variable system like human metabolic process, that does not make it any more true.
But I am not stupid enough to attempt to discredit a physicist and a nephrologist just because I want the first law of physics to apply perfectly to a place where it seemingly does not.
You however may go right on ahead. Godspeed.
I follow people like Dr. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, Lyle McDonald and etc... people who are actually educated in the field of nutritional science and physiology. I don't educate myself based on researchers who feel there is only one true way, although, I do like some of Dr. Attia's work.
But hey, if you want to sit back and judge, by all means. It honestly doesn't bother me.5 -
I am not being coy. I have read a lot of his blog post. Many keto'ers and low carbers use it as a means to defend their beliefs, such as the below. But all his citing's are ny times articles and another blog.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Again, you clearly have not followed Fung's work. I will award you 1,000 internet points for the attempt.
His criticism of the "First Law of Thermodynamics" isn't the first you'll find - and it certainly won't be the last. The First Law of Thermodynamics, despite being quoted *so rampantly* in fitness circles, is probably the most misquoted and misunderstood law. For this, you can probably thank Gary Taubes and his books "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why we get fat", unless of course someone else covered that argument prior to these works (I'm not aware).
You see, the difference is that all the fitness folks who claim to understand the first law of thermodynamics never seem to take into account that they are quoting a law that is only fully applicable when used in the context of a static, closed system - not a highly variable system like, oh, I don't know... the human body and its associated physiological processes. Or, you know - human metabolism. Is it completely *INAPPLICABLE*? Probably not - but the arguments are compelling.
But you see, unlike many of us, Taubes at least has a basic understanding of the first law of Thermodynamics because he graduated with a degree in physics. Yes, I often get a nice little chuckle every time I hear fitness-minded people claiming to know the first damn thing about this law, and then further attempt to belittle Taubes and *his* knowledge on the subject. But I suppose it's easy to do, after all - Taubes, by his own admission, is a downright lousy physicist - but *a physicist by education nonetheless* which is more than I can say for myself.
So now Fung has this blog, and he makes essentially the same criticisms regarding the "First Law" that Gary Taubes makes in his books. So I understand the basis of Fung's argument - because *it's not even his argument*, and he's not the first person to *make* that argument. Not even Taubes "owns" the argument. But just because a bunch of fitness-minded people seem to think that the first law of thermodynamics applies to a widely variable system like human metabolic process, that does not make it any more true.
But I am not stupid enough to attempt to discredit a physicist and a nephrologist just because I want the first law of physics to apply perfectly to a place where it seemingly does not.
You however may go right on ahead. Godspeed.
I follow people like Dr. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, Lyle McDonald and etc... people who are actually educated in the field of nutritional science and physiology. I don't educate myself based on researchers who feel there is only one true way, although, I do like some of Dr. Attia's work.
But hey, if you want to sit back and judge, by all means. It honestly doesn't bother me.
You might want to mention that Kevin Hall already falsified Gary Taubes but that would mean he would have to read some real research.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
I am not being coy. I have read a lot of his blog post. Many keto'ers and low carbers use it as a means to defend their beliefs, such as the below. But all his citing's are ny times articles and another blog.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Again, you clearly have not followed Fung's work. I will award you 1,000 internet points for the attempt.
His criticism of the "First Law of Thermodynamics" isn't the first you'll find - and it certainly won't be the last. The First Law of Thermodynamics, despite being quoted *so rampantly* in fitness circles, is probably the most misquoted and misunderstood law. For this, you can probably thank Gary Taubes and his books "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why we get fat", unless of course someone else covered that argument prior to these works (I'm not aware).
You see, the difference is that all the fitness folks who claim to understand the first law of thermodynamics never seem to take into account that they are quoting a law that is only fully applicable when used in the context of a static, closed system - not a highly variable system like, oh, I don't know... the human body and its associated physiological processes. Or, you know - human metabolism. Is it completely *INAPPLICABLE*? Probably not - but the arguments are compelling.
But you see, unlike many of us, Taubes at least has a basic understanding of the first law of Thermodynamics because he graduated with a degree in physics. Yes, I often get a nice little chuckle every time I hear fitness-minded people claiming to know the first damn thing about this law, and then further attempt to belittle Taubes and *his* knowledge on the subject. But I suppose it's easy to do, after all - Taubes, by his own admission, is a downright lousy physicist - but *a physicist by education nonetheless* which is more than I can say for myself.
So now Fung has this blog, and he makes essentially the same criticisms regarding the "First Law" that Gary Taubes makes in his books. So I understand the basis of Fung's argument - because *it's not even his argument*, and he's not the first person to *make* that argument. Not even Taubes "owns" the argument. But just because a bunch of fitness-minded people seem to think that the first law of thermodynamics applies to a widely variable system like human metabolic process, that does not make it any more true.
But I am not stupid enough to attempt to discredit a physicist and a nephrologist just because I want the first law of physics to apply perfectly to a place where it seemingly does not.
You however may go right on ahead. Godspeed.
I follow people like Dr. Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, Lyle McDonald and etc... people who are actually educated in the field of nutritional science and physiology. I don't educate myself based on researchers who feel there is only one true way, although, I do like some of Dr. Attia's work.
But hey, if you want to sit back and judge, by all means. It honestly doesn't bother me.
You might want to mention that Kevin Hall already falsified Gary Taubes but that would mean he would have to read some real research.
Which was proposed and partially funded by Taubes NuSI org that he co-founded, ironically.
2 -
And Dr. Fueng makes claims without actual research to prove his theories. If insulin played a huge role, then vegans would all be obese.
You should look into his actual work. It would likely prevent you from making such uninformed and unfortunate comments in the future. Just a little suggestion, since you're a moderator and all. I would hate for someone to actually believe you. That would be bad.
Also, The correct spelling is "Fung".
Me being a moderator has no impact on this, so there is no reason to even bring that into the discussion. But you can feel free to post some actual research (not just his blog). I have read a lot of his website but it rarely actually provides links to actual research.
Oh come now, don't be coy. You read exactly none of his work, because if you did, you wouldn't have been likely to utter what you did.
But oh well, there it is.
Also, I can't seem to find your original post - the one I initially quoted. Strange, that... But I suppose there's a logical reason for it...
Maybe because you didn't look on page 1?1 -
Which was proposed and partially funded by Taubes NuSI org that he co-founded, ironically.
I'm not sure who the bigger idiot is here - the person who thought Kevin Hall was going to go into this study without any confirmation bias, or Gary Taubes for thinking that he might. Seriously, I don't know if Taubes approaching the subject from this angle was an act of bravery or stupidity. I understand *why* he would do it this way, but seriously? Kevin Hall?
This would be like throwing money at newly resurrected Ancel Keys in an attempt to have him disprove the Lipid Hypothesis.
The study itself in combination with Hall's "spin" on the results have probably killed off whatever credibility NuSi may have had - and who knows, maybe that was Hall's primary goal.
I still believe the Insulin Resistance hypotheses are correct, and I still think Taubes, Fung, Westman, Volek, Phinney, etc are absolutely in the right. I believe Kevin Hall had absolutely NO interest in the actual science when this study was launched, and was absolutely going to "disprove" the hypothesis before any work was even done REGARDLESS of what he uncovered. I think Taubes made a huge mistake approaching this study in this way - and the fallout is clearly significant.
But one thing is clear to me - If you can read this study, digest Kevin Hall's spin on the results and all of his contradictions regarding the associations he finds, and still call this "real research"? I think those are the people who are the bigger idiots here. But I suppose that's exactly how confirmation bias works, so I am likely equally as guilty.
1 -
Which was proposed and partially funded by Taubes NuSI org that he co-founded, ironically.
I'm not sure who the bigger idiot is here - the person who thought Kevin Hall was going to go into this study without any confirmation bias, or Gary Taubes for thinking that he might. Seriously, I don't know if Taubes approaching the subject from this angle was an act of bravery or stupidity. I understand *why* he would do it this way, but seriously? Kevin Hall?
This would be like throwing money at newly resurrected Ancel Keys in an attempt to have him disprove the Lipid Hypothesis.
The study itself in combination with Hall's "spin" on the results have probably killed off whatever credibility NuSi may have had - and who knows, maybe that was Hall's primary goal.
I still believe the Insulin Resistance hypotheses are correct, and I still think Taubes, Fung, Westman, Volek, Phinney, etc are absolutely in the right. I believe Kevin Hall had absolutely NO interest in the actual science when this study was launched, and was absolutely going to "disprove" the hypothesis before any work was even done REGARDLESS of what he uncovered. I think Taubes made a huge mistake approaching this study in this way - and the fallout is clearly significant.
But one thing is clear to me - If you can read this study, digest Kevin Hall's spin on the results and all of his contradictions regarding the associations he finds, and still call this "real research"? I think those are the people who are the bigger idiots here. But I suppose that's exactly how confirmation bias works, so I am likely equally as guilty.
I am thinking more than most of us based on your posting style. He isn't the only one who has done isocaloric comparisons with protein held constant. The point of studies is to test a hypothesis. The KH study did that. In fact, other studies (not funded by Nusi or done by KH have also done that).
As it relates to the KH study, the short term increase in EE (and subsequent lack of fat loss) was explained by KH in one of Dr. Attia's blogs (I can see if I can find it). The increase in EE was from the additional energy required for ketone production and potential transient increases in activity even though they tried to control that.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.long
But if you have any good Fung studies (not just his blogs) that support his hypothesis, I would love to see them.
1 -
I started purely CICO and then moved toward Keto in my weightloss (now at -150lbs and counting). My main hope in moving toward keto was to attempt to keep my body burning more fat then muscle mass as I lost weight.3
-
Which was proposed and partially funded by Taubes NuSI org that he co-founded, ironically.
I'm not sure who the bigger idiot is here - the person who thought Kevin Hall was going to go into this study without any confirmation bias, or Gary Taubes for thinking that he might. Seriously, I don't know if Taubes approaching the subject from this angle was an act of bravery or stupidity. I understand *why* he would do it this way, but seriously? Kevin Hall?
This would be like throwing money at newly resurrected Ancel Keys in an attempt to have him disprove the Lipid Hypothesis.
The study itself in combination with Hall's "spin" on the results have probably killed off whatever credibility NuSi may have had - and who knows, maybe that was Hall's primary goal.
I still believe the Insulin Resistance hypotheses are correct, and I still think Taubes, Fung, Westman, Volek, Phinney, etc are absolutely in the right. I believe Kevin Hall had absolutely NO interest in the actual science when this study was launched, and was absolutely going to "disprove" the hypothesis before any work was even done REGARDLESS of what he uncovered. I think Taubes made a huge mistake approaching this study in this way - and the fallout is clearly significant.
But one thing is clear to me - If you can read this study, digest Kevin Hall's spin on the results and all of his contradictions regarding the associations he finds, and still call this "real research"? I think those are the people who are the bigger idiots here. But I suppose that's exactly how confirmation bias works, so I am likely equally as guilty.
I really don't know if KH was chosen by NuSi *after* that he published his first metabolic study.
In that case, after that he claimed to have "debunked" the Carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis yes, definitely delusional to think you could obtain unbiased results.0 -
Kevin Hall is at least attempting to do proper research which is more than can be said for a lot of the BS nutrition research that gets churned out. Whether his conclusions turn out to be right or wrong his studies are honest-to-goodness science. I have nothing but respect for his work.3
-
I have been Keto for several months and I don't know about any of you guys but the hardest part for me was my family thinks I am crazy for eating this way. My results are proof positive that it works. Granted it is not for everyone but thumbs up for everyone that has had success.4
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Kevin Hall is at least attempting to do proper research which is more than can be said for a lot of the BS nutrition research that gets churned out. Whether his conclusions turn out to be right or wrong his studies are honest-to-goodness science. I have nothing but respect for his work.
Generally speaking, I think there are too much money involved in this field of research.
A little shift on dietary recommendations, and you move billions of dollars... I will keep my skepticism on everyone.1 -
It may not be magic, but it is very satisfying to be able to eat satiating foods and still lose weight. I have a newborn and have not been able to carve out time to exercise, add that to making really poor choices my third trimester when it came to my diet. This way of eating has allowed me to lose 8lbs in one week and not be hangry at all.
But, I ate satisying foods all the time while Iost weight and I eat them while maintaing. A lot of your 8 pounds was water loss from the decrease in carbs, doubtful a whole lot of it was fat that soon.
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNquMyUCCYI
This discussion has been closed.
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
Do you Love MyFitnessPal? Have you crushed a goal or improved your life through better nutrition using MyFitnessPal?
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!