Dr Jason Fung - The Useless Concept of Calories

keto1777 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

keto1777 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

keto1777 wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

Lol, the dude is Asian. How the hell does he explain why rice eaters in Asia don't have the same issue as Americans and carbs?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I believe he said its all based on WHEN they eat...they don’t snack like Americans...that they don’t have an insulin problem because of
this (????)

But if this is the case, why wouldn't he recommend that plan (less snacking) instead of blaming carbohydrates?

in a way i guess he is recommending less snacking (by means of IF & extended fasts) to reduce over production of insulin. (don’t shoot the messenger guys, i’m just relaying what he said lol)

But Fung writes (in the Medium piece): "The least insulinogenic diet is low carb, high fibre, moderate protein, high in natural fats."

Does this describe the traditional Japanese diet? My understanding is that it is not. If he feels like the traditional Japanese diet is a good way to avoid obesity and the associated health problems, why wouldn't he recommend that? Why is he creating a whole new type of plan?

I don't believe the traditional Japanese diet regularly features IF or extended fasts -- less snacking isn't the same thing as more extended periods without food.

i’m not sure, but now i’m mad i spent $$ on 2 of his books!! haha everything he says makes sense to me, but everything i’m reading here also
makes sense to me!! ;-)

psuLemon wrote: »

blambo61 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

blambo61 wrote: »

mph323 wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

blambo61 wrote: »

HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »

blambo61 wrote: »

Everyone is partially right. A deficit is all that matters in losing weight but what and when you eat effect the deficit. Hormones can cause a person to absorb more or excrete more and can have impacts on hunger which all effect deficits.

How would it? despite hormones influencing hunger cues, that person still makes the choice to eat. Also, if someone does have a medical condition that impacts the food they need not consume, such as PCOS then after being diagnosed by a doctor, they would then know this and choose an appropriate lifestyle choice. However, no matter if they choose to ignore that lifestyle choice or if someone is choosing to eat from hunger cues, the food they pick or the time of day in which they eat that food does not matter, if my hormones were screaming at me to eat chocolate at 3am it is not set in stone that i have to, cravings actually can be ignored for one, a lot of people find that hard to do but it is something people can do, they also have a choice on how much of it they want to consume if they can't ignore it, if they choose to sit there and eat 5 chocolate bars and use their entire days worth of calories, thats on them then, hormones may cause the strong desire but again they can be ignored.

deficit is deficit. You choose to keep your deficit or eat it. Paying attention to your own body helps plan ahead and use your calories more wisely so you can make sure of that. @blambo61 -- People who claim that they can't lose weight because their hormones cause them to eat and feel hungry are simply using that as an excuse, otherwise everyone with a hormone imbalance would just forever be fat, but plenty of people have successfully lost weight even with hormone issues, it takes patience to find the math that will get you there and it takes awareness of how you need to plan, and it takes strategy to find the lifestyle that will best help you but if you are just going to throw in the white towel, don't blame the food picked, hormones or the sun or the moon being in the sky for it, you still make conscious choices in the end and if you plan right, the time of day and choice of food makes no difference.

People can choose but it is much easier if you don't feel like your starving all them time. How many of the "only CICO matters" crowd has yo-yo dieted and gained weight back? I bet a significant percentage. Why, because it is difficult. Hunger influences on eating should not be completely ignored.

The failure rate for almost diets is like 80-90%. And there is no CICO diet.

This. I'm a contributor to those statistics. I'm perfectly capable of losing weight with enough incentive, but was never able to sustain the loss. The reason was the same every time - I would reach my goal weight, then continue losing because that's all I knew how to do. At some point I would break, and pile all the weight back on.

I'm at goal weight again, (thanks in great part to these forums). I lost by eating the same foods I ate when I was gaining, but controlling portions (calories). By not having restricted myself to a food plan that didn't incorporate foods I love and didn't take into account what kinds of food keep me from being hungry all the time, one of the challenges I won't face while maintaining is trying to continue eating in a way that I don't find satisfying while losing the incentive of seeing the downward trend on the scale. I think this is possibly the single biggest contributor to regaining after weight loss.

I've only dieted twice. I've tried losing weight by running numerous times (didn't work cause would get sick or injured and eat back calories). First time I dieted, I ate a big breakfast, only ate fruit tell dinner, then ate a small dinner. I did exercise also. That diet was very hard for me because I would get very hungry during the day. Once I eat, my body wants more. I lost about 40-lbs on that but then got injured, couldn't run for a few months and it was just too hard. 6-months later I gained it all back.

The second time, I did 20:4 IF and ate ad libitum in the evenings and allowed deserts after eating good food. I lost 45-lbs in 4-months, then I went to a 16:8 and maintained for the next 1-year (I did gain back 10-lbs twice and went back to 20:4 each time to lose it again). Then I found if I ate just a salad at lunch and then ate ad libitum in the evenings, and exercise, I would maintain. I maintained for 7 or so more months without gaining doing that. Then recently I got back into the 20:4 routine for 3-months and have dropped another 15-lbs. My SW was 252 and I'm at about 195 right now. I think that is good that I'm at my lowest after starting 2yr and 2-months ago. IF works for me. I'm sure it doesn't for a lot of people but eating tell full is crucial for me for sustainability therefore I need to wait to eat or I will eat too much. Fasting is fairly easy for me but eating small meals and never getting full is hell for me.

Great! You found something that works for you personally, based on your preferences and lifestyle. IF is a good fit for you, as it helps you sustain the calorie deficit needed to lose weight. It may not be a good fit for others, nor does it offer an advantage over other options used to create a calorie deficit. I'm not sure why you keep trying to extrapolate something that you've found success with into something that offers an advantage over other methods of creating a calorie deficit to achieve the CI<CO result of the equation.

Did you notice I said, "I'm sure it doesn't for a lot of people..." referring to IF working for people (for various reasons, the biggest probably being hunger for some). I'm not sure why I get attacked with the opposite of what I write. I disagree that there are no advantages both from a hunger perspective and also for just generating a deficit on the same calories eaten (spread out or not). If you don't believe that, fine. I've NEVER said counting calories won't work and I've never said that IF or KETO is necessary. Of course any benefit from IF or KETO can be overcome by eating too much. It is an energy balance equation and the main factors are what you put in your mouth and how much activity you do, but hunger, due to hormones can cause you to eat more and any metabolic advantage with IF and KETO would be a small advantage. That should get people so riled I would think.

So ill ask you what no one has been able to answer, what hormonal changes are negated by doing keto or IF that dont naturally occur while in a deficit (i.e., letpin levels decrease)?

If anything from a muscle development or sustainment side those diets would be counter productive. More frequent protein consumption (~25 to 30g) drives MPS. And its easier to consume adequate protein (1.5g to 2.2g/kg) when its not in one or two meals (it can still be done by many can struggle). Being glycogen depleted on top of that requires higher protein levels (some studies ahow up to 2.8g/kg) in leaner individuals. Anearobic capacity is inhibited in most people; there are definitely exceptions with some fat adapted individuals.

And coming from 16:8, i just didnt see any added benefits outside of my normal 3 or 4 meals a day. I only saw downsides (starving). So if there was a theoritical benefits, i didnt experience it.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

In my case as most others if there were hormonal changes by doing keto we have no way to know what they were or why they changed in a medical sense.

When on a hunch I cut out sugar and all forms of grains over three years ago and got heavy into coconut oil usage I accidently went keto not even knowing what the term meant.

In just 30 days it was managing my long term pain and resolving my eating disorder that I did not even know that I had. Perhaps it was changes in hormones made me become aware when to stop eating when I was full that resolved my eating disorder.

The how and why cutting out using sugar and or any form of any grain resolved my eating disorder of 40 years is not of a real concern to me. Improving health and health markers, eating until I am stuffed several times daily with no hungry, counting or measuring is of concern and I just am thankful keto works in my case. I as all others would not have been able to say if keto worked or did not work on a personal level had I not tried keto.