Ketogenic diet
Options
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Eating in a way that resolves over eating is the key to not regaining on any WOE. Counting calories is good at kicking the can down the road where it is LCHF, HCLF, etc. Until the "WHY" of one's overeating is addressed no long term obesity control is likely to happen.
I still do not grasp while some with no credibility seem to have an emotional need to slam others that are named above who have credibility in black and white.
I don't think you're qualified to talk about anyone's "emotional needs."15 -
I'm not saying CICO is a failure - just that CICO alone failed *me* in its dry, mathematical way or at least in the admittedly ambiguous way I applied it.
CICO, wether you gain, lose or maintain is always being appleid. You don't actively apply CICO, it just is...
See above...I may still be doing "CICO" in some fashion, right?
Correct...I mean, I must clearly be consuming fewer calories than I am expending, or I'd be regaining my weight, right?5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The debate comes in when people try to blame non-keto lifestyles for *all obesity* or theorize that keto is a superior weight loss method for everyone.
After having read all the responses in this thread, this is the line that makes the most sense to me.
I've had to drown out the "noise" - you know, the "Taubes is a quack, Fung wants everyone to starve" stuff. It's not that I think Taubes, Fung, or whoever is absolutely right in everything they say and report. Clearly there's more than one way to skin the obesity cat. I simply read what they all had to say, and a lot of what they say makes sense (or at least is plausible in SOME way to me).
I'm not a doctor, scientist, or dietician. And I am under no delusion that anyone who writes a book, collects data or has a list of clients they collect money from isn't out to prove that their way is *THE* way. MY point is that when I took in what they had to say and applied some of their principles to my own life, the result was incredibly favorable. All the "chatter" about how the sources of information I've read are somehow "wrong" because of "study x" may all be true. Taubes, Fung and the entire Cabal of Keto - maybe they're all wrong scientifically. But it's hard to argue with the results I've seen personally - both in my physical appearance *AND* my ability to stick with it. Even if it's "just CICO" or whatever.
If I am reading your responses correctly (and for the record, Miss Janejellyroll, your responses seem the most kind and understanding out of all of 'em - which is why I'm quoting you and not really quoting anyone else), you're ok with any tool that gets results. I couldn't agree more. And I hope a lot of people listen to what you have to say.
Not everyone is going to have the same level of success doing what I did. I fully acknowledge that. But if listening to Fung/Taubes/Lustig can help another person drop 100+ pounds and remove their need to shoot insulin a few times a day, then they should do it. That's all. Let everyone else poo-poo on it if they want.
11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The debate comes in when people try to blame non-keto lifestyles for *all obesity* or theorize that keto is a superior weight loss method for everyone.
After having read all the responses in this thread, this is the line that makes the most sense to me.
I've had to drown out the "noise" - you know, the "Taubes is a quack, Fung wants everyone to starve" stuff. It's not that I think Taubes, Fung, or whoever is absolutely right in everything they say and report. Clearly there's more than one way to skin the obesity cat. I simply read what they all had to say, and a lot of what they say makes sense (or at least is plausible in SOME way to me).
I'm not a doctor, scientist, or dietician. And I am under no delusion that anyone who writes a book, collects data or has a list of clients they collect money from isn't out to prove that their way is *THE* way. MY point is that when I took in what they had to say and applied some of their principles to my own life, the result was incredibly favorable. All the "chatter" about how the sources of information I've read are somehow "wrong" because of "study x" may all be true. Taubes, Fung and the entire Cabal of Keto - maybe they're all wrong scientifically. But it's hard to argue with the results I've seen personally - both in my physical appearance *AND* my ability to stick with it. Even if it's "just CICO" or whatever.
If I am reading your responses correctly (and for the record, Miss Janejellyroll, your responses seem the most kind and understanding out of all of 'em - which is why I'm quoting you and not really quoting anyone else), you're ok with any tool that gets results. I couldn't agree more. And I hope a lot of people listen to what you have to say.
Not everyone is going to have the same level of success doing what I did. I fully acknowledge that. But if listening to Fung/Taubes/Lustig can help another person drop 100+ pounds and remove their need to shoot insulin a few times a day, then they should do it. That's all. Let everyone else poo-poo on it if they want.
You're absolutely right -- I agree that the tool that gets results for people is the one they should use. If someone finds keto to be an effective way to control their appetite and they find it sustainable, I completely understand why they would want to use it.
My issue with Fung/Taubes/Lustig isn't what they do to help find some people find a diet that works for them, it's what they critique about *my diet* (moderate carbohydrate, no restrictions on sugar) which works as well for me as yours does for you (not that they're picking on me in particular, it's all diets that don't fit their template that they seem to have issues with). That some people find it easier to control their appetite when they do keto or limit sugar doesn't mean that sugar is a poison or toxic (which is Lustig's position) or that I need to control my insulin problems (which is Fung's position, as I understand it).
You aren't arguing that your way is *the way* (except, of course, for you), but Fung/Taubes/Lustig, they are (unless I'm seriously misreading them). Your personal results are impressive! So are mine, in my opinion. That we found very different ways to get on the same path underscores, to me, how foolish it is to assume there is "one best way" for everyone to eat. Given that I'm a moderate carbohydrate high volume vegan and you're doing keto, our diets probably look very different. The one important thing: we've both found a sustainable way to consume the amount of energy our body actually needs.
I would support anyone who was interested in *trying* keto to see if it did for them what it did for you. I don't think there is any harm in trying different (non-harmful) strategies to see what works. I tried a lot of methods for appetite control before finally finding what works best for me.13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The debate comes in when people try to blame non-keto lifestyles for *all obesity* or theorize that keto is a superior weight loss method for everyone.
But if listening to Fung/Taubes/Lustig can help another person drop 100+ pounds and remove their need to shoot insulin a few times a day, then they should do it. That's all. Let everyone else poo-poo on it if they want.
The problem with this issue is a whole lot of misinformation that may hurt more people than help. If you stick around you will see the amount of anxiety and outright panic people feel towards carbs because of such misinformation, where even a person who would do well on a low carb diet is sucked into a spiral of useless details and complicated reasoning. Why not direct people towards sources that are less malicious where they are encouraged to find their best approach, which can be a low carb diet. More people would be able to lose 100+ pounds when no one approach is heavily advocated as "the one". Some of these people will eventually land on a low carb diet because it's more sustainable to them. They will also be better off if they happen to have a higher carb diet one day and would just choke it off as less optimal to their process instead of "I hate myself because I had a cookie which makes me a bad person who doesn't care about their health".7 -
Not everyone is going to have the same level of success doing what I did. I fully acknowledge that. But if listening to Fung/Taubes/Lustig can help another person drop 100+ pounds and remove their need to shoot insulin a few times a day, then they should do it. That's all. Let everyone else poo-poo on it if they want.
If someone listens and does it and leaves it at that, great.
The flack happens when someone listens, does it, misunderstands WHY it works, and then starts telling others that it's the one right way.
I also think flack happens when people make up claims about what it's like for those not on keto -- for example, the false idea that anyone not doing keto is not paying attention to satiety (which is just common sense, again, I think anyone rational will make changes if their diet is leaving them hungry, and you don't need to do keto -- for most of us -- to be satisfied on fewer calories) or the rather silly idea that the alternative to keto is eating mostly Snackwells (which one can tell comes straight from keto propaganda and not reality since no one else even talks about Snackwells anymore, it's not the 90s).
I think keto is helpful for a subset of people. Mostly people who (1) are especially satiated by fat and NOT even higher fiber carbs or protein (which I think is a minority but probably overlaps quite a bit with those who have IR), and (2) (more common) people who don't like the idea of eating lots of vegetables and do like the idea of eating lots of steak and cheese and bacon and find it easier to cut calories on a diet that seems indulgent and not like dieting. I think a third group may find it difficult to moderate refined carbs + fat, but much easier to follow a diet where carbs are limited, even though in reality they'd probably be fine if they limited refined carbs + fat and ate plenty of healthful meals involving potatoes and sweet potatoes and beans/lentils.
And I'm sure there are people I didn't cover too.
I just get frustrated when people claim that not eating keto means ridiculous things it doesn't mean (like keeping one's diet exactly the same and just reducing everything an identical amount, which no one does ever, or not caring about nutrition or eating lots of "carbs" (by which you really mean treat foods that happen to have as much fat as carbs).)
So again, IMO, keto is one option for cutting calories or sustaining the right number of calories and works for some in achieving that and may be preferable or easier for a particular individual. Nothing wrong with it, and it's possible to do it healthfully and not healthfully.
Keto IS NOT the one best diet or a magical way to make calories not count or the only way to lose or eat healthfully or the solution for an obesity crisis caused by evil carbs (and the latter claims are what I often hear from the Taubes and Fung disciples and again why they get flack).5 -
crisscott11 wrote: »Yes? No? Why?
For what? A medical condition, or fast weight loss?
It works but I hated restricting carbs so much so now I'm trying the normal CICO.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »You aren't arguing that your way is *the way* (except, of course, for you), but Fung/Taubes/Lustig, they are (unless I'm seriously misreading them). Your personal results are impressive! So are mine, in my opinion. That we found very different ways to get on the same path underscores, to me, how foolish it is to assume there is "one best way" for everyone to eat.
Well, for what it's worth - Lustig (of the three you mentioned, plenty more are out there) is probably the one most guilty of this. Particularly when he goes on about how Sugar should be regulated like the opiate he feels it is. I don't really get that vibe from Taubes though. Fung, well, from him I generally get the feeling that he was simply genuinely sick of watching a lot of his patients getting fat and having their diabetic feet lopped off.
Taubes, I get more of a "here's the research, and here's what I think" vibe. From what I've seen, Taubes has done some studies through NUSI that didn't exactly show his own theories in the best light - but it didn't stop NUSI from publishing them. I remember reading about the NUSI/Kevin Hall debacle and thinking, "Holy Crap, I'm surprised Taubes didn't try to mothball that study entirely..."
I don't know, I don't have all the answers. I only answered a few of them for myself in a way that let me get healthier even when the people around me told me I was doing what they thought were the wrong things. So much of this nutrition stuff is paradoxical now, at least by media standards. ("Eat bacon to lose weight? Are you MAD?!?")
I can only hope that people can tune out the "noise" long enough to at least try something that seems absurd enough to work. If you were to ask me 2.5 years ago when I first heard about this "keto" stuff, I would have thought you were crazy to even suggest my trying it. I can follow dogma just as good as anyone else, straight to personal failure
But it was dismissing that dogma that got me reading stuff from Taubes, who proposed the idea that "You're not fat because you're lazy. You're lazy because you're fat!" It was an idea I hadn't considered because I was so convinced of the "personal moral failure" reasoning for why I couldn't keep my weight off. The first book I read on the subject was "Why we get fat", and it was such a departure from everything I knew and accepted about nutrition I couldn't help but be intrigued.
7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The debate comes in when people try to blame non-keto lifestyles for *all obesity* or theorize that keto is a superior weight loss method for everyone.
After having read all the responses in this thread, this is the line that makes the most sense to me.
I've had to drown out the "noise" - you know, the "Taubes is a quack, Fung wants everyone to starve" stuff. It's not that I think Taubes, Fung, or whoever is absolutely right in everything they say and report. Clearly there's more than one way to skin the obesity cat. I simply read what they all had to say, and a lot of what they say makes sense (or at least is plausible in SOME way to me).
I'm not a doctor, scientist, or dietician. And I am under no delusion that anyone who writes a book, collects data or has a list of clients they collect money from isn't out to prove that their way is *THE* way. MY point is that when I took in what they had to say and applied some of their principles to my own life, the result was incredibly favorable. All the "chatter" about how the sources of information I've read are somehow "wrong" because of "study x" may all be true. Taubes, Fung and the entire Cabal of Keto - maybe they're all wrong scientifically. But it's hard to argue with the results I've seen personally - both in my physical appearance *AND* my ability to stick with it. Even if it's "just CICO" or whatever.
If I am reading your responses correctly (and for the record, Miss Janejellyroll, your responses seem the most kind and understanding out of all of 'em - which is why I'm quoting you and not really quoting anyone else), you're ok with any tool that gets results. I couldn't agree more. And I hope a lot of people listen to what you have to say.
Not everyone is going to have the same level of success doing what I did. I fully acknowledge that. But if listening to Fung/Taubes/Lustig can help another person drop 100+ pounds and remove their need to shoot insulin a few times a day, then they should do it. That's all. Let everyone else poo-poo on it if they want.
For the record, no one here is dropping a deuce on your diet or your results. We've congratulated you numerous times, and I'll do it again because that's outstanding.
I'm keto most days out of the year, and I still can't stand Fung, Taubes, Lustig, or the "cabal of keto" as you refer to them. I don't have a personal vendetta against them as human beings, but I do take issue with the way they misrepresent data. Do they have some sensible advice? Sure. But that's like saying a broken clock is correct twice a day. When they get more wrong than they get right, that's my personal issue with them.
Lustig went full off the deep end and into the keto kool-aid blaming sugar for anything. Calling Taubes a quack is giving him way too much credit as a figure in science. He's a writer. He co-founded NuSi to perform metabolic ward studies trying to give credibility to low carb against high carb diets, and those studies found no significant difference between either diet several times as long as protein, energy, and adherence was kept constant, though we do have him to partly thank for being part of the creation for that data. And Fung... I'll leave it at that, but in no way, shape, or form has anyone shat on keto as a legitimate diet for fat loss and addressing health issues.
Taking personal stock in a diet as it applies to you, regardless of how you learned it, is justifiable because it worked exactly as you'd hoped and then some. There's no shame in that. I'm suggesting that there are better credible sources out there to be had as a line of future reference. I have no problem admitting that I also initially listened to the same group of keto figureheads, but as evidence emerged and debates sprouted, I grew along with them as a result. Science evolves through differentiating evidence or when results deny the hypothesis (the true aim of experimental research is to try and prove the hypothesis wrong: https://www.colby.edu/biology/BI17x/expt_method.html). Without accepting that, it results in a cult-like following...which is practically where we are now.
So, instead of trying to "drown out noise" because it seems "offensive," perhaps a better stance would be to take the other side's perspective into consideration and delve further into "why" their stance opposes yours. If it's based on substantially compelling evidence, perhaps the other party has valid reasons for sounding their opinion. If it's based on logical fallacy, strawman arguments, ad hominems, or pure emotional reaction, then dismiss it. In the end, it has no net effect on your own personal thoughts and you're entitled to deny it or retort with better evidence.
EDIT: Didn't see your most recent response.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »You aren't arguing that your way is *the way* (except, of course, for you), but Fung/Taubes/Lustig, they are (unless I'm seriously misreading them). Your personal results are impressive! So are mine, in my opinion. That we found very different ways to get on the same path underscores, to me, how foolish it is to assume there is "one best way" for everyone to eat.
Well, for what it's worth - Lustig (of the three you mentioned, plenty more are out there) is probably the one most guilty of this. Particularly when he goes on about how Sugar should be regulated like the opiate he feels it is. I don't really get that vibe from Taubes though. Fung, well, from him I generally get the feeling that he was simply genuinely sick of watching a lot of his patients getting fat and having their diabetic feet lopped off.
Taubes, I get more of a "here's the research, and here's what I think" vibe. From what I've seen, Taubes has done some studies through NUSI that didn't exactly show his own theories in the best light - but it didn't stop NUSI from publishing them. I remember reading about the NUSI/Kevin Hall debacle and thinking, "Holy Crap, I'm surprised Taubes didn't try to mothball that study entirely..."
I don't know, I don't have all the answers. I only answered a few of them for myself in a way that let me get healthier even when the people around me told me I was doing what they thought were the wrong things. So much of this nutrition stuff is paradoxical now, at least by media standards. ("Eat bacon to lose weight? Are you MAD?!?")
I can only hope that people can tune out the "noise" long enough to at least try something that seems absurd enough to work. If you were to ask me 2.5 years ago when I first heard about this "keto" stuff, I would have thought you were crazy to even suggest my trying it. I can follow dogma just as good as anyone else, straight to personal failure
But it was dismissing that dogma that got me reading stuff from Taubes, who proposed the idea that "You're not fat because you're lazy. You're lazy because you're fat!" It was an idea I hadn't considered because I was so convinced of the "personal moral failure" reasoning for why I couldn't keep my weight off. The first book I read on the subject was "Why we get fat", and it was such a departure from everything I knew and accepted about nutrition I couldn't help but be intrigued.
Taubes is the one I've read the least of, so apologies for mischaracterizing his work.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »You aren't arguing that your way is *the way* (except, of course, for you), but Fung/Taubes/Lustig, they are (unless I'm seriously misreading them). Your personal results are impressive! So are mine, in my opinion. That we found very different ways to get on the same path underscores, to me, how foolish it is to assume there is "one best way" for everyone to eat.
Well, for what it's worth - Lustig (of the three you mentioned, plenty more are out there) is probably the one most guilty of this. Particularly when he goes on about how Sugar should be regulated like the opiate he feels it is. I don't really get that vibe from Taubes though. Fung, well, from him I generally get the feeling that he was simply genuinely sick of watching a lot of his patients getting fat and having their diabetic feet lopped off.
Taubes, I get more of a "here's the research, and here's what I think" vibe. From what I've seen, Taubes has done some studies through NUSI that didn't exactly show his own theories in the best light - but it didn't stop NUSI from publishing them. I remember reading about the NUSI/Kevin Hall debacle and thinking, "Holy Crap, I'm surprised Taubes didn't try to mothball that study entirely..."
I don't know, I don't have all the answers. I only answered a few of them for myself in a way that let me get healthier even when the people around me told me I was doing what they thought were the wrong things. So much of this nutrition stuff is paradoxical now, at least by media standards. ("Eat bacon to lose weight? Are you MAD?!?")
I can only hope that people can tune out the "noise" long enough to at least try something that seems absurd enough to work. If you were to ask me 2.5 years ago when I first heard about this "keto" stuff, I would have thought you were crazy to even suggest my trying it. I can follow dogma just as good as anyone else, straight to personal failure
But it was dismissing that dogma that got me reading stuff from Taubes, who proposed the idea that "You're not fat because you're lazy. You're lazy because you're fat!" It was an idea I hadn't considered because I was so convinced of the "personal moral failure" reasoning for why I couldn't keep my weight off. The first book I read on the subject was "Why we get fat", and it was such a departure from everything I knew and accepted about nutrition I couldn't help but be intrigued.
Taubes is the one I've read the least of, so apologies for mischaracterizing his work.
I don't think you did. He was the least willing to accept the NuSI results and suggested it must be false (although at that point he couldn't stop it from being published), and he seems to think that calories are not, in fact, the reason for weight gain.
Oddly enough, and going against the MFP grain, Lustig is actually the one I give the most credit to. (And I think his big focus, kids who have huge amounts of excessive sugar, make his reaction understandable, and unlike the other two I don't think he claims that carbs are the problem or that we all should be low carb or are gaining weight because of carbs, despite the blue zone areas, which are the claims I find most absurd. Taubes also cherry picks studies pretty badly, although it's been a long time since I read either of his books.)
I think Taubes tells people they didn't overeat to gain weight or that overeating was not in their control, and that makes them feel good and vindicated -- someone else to blame. But I don't think that's an honest understanding of what happened -- for me it was helpful to acknowledge yes, I was overeating, and figuring out how and why.2 -
Taubes quote...
"You don't get fat because you eat too much. You eat too much because you're fat..."
I'll just leave it at that...8 -
So, instead of trying to "drown out noise" because it seems "offensive," perhaps a better stance would be to take the other side's perspective into consideration and delve further into "why" their stance opposes yours.
That's kind of why i'm here If I outright dismissed what everyone was saying, I probably wouldn't keep reading. I'd just close my browser forever and write it all off as nonsense. That's not what i'm trying to do at all. I enjoy the debate... It's definitely a topic that hits really close to home. All perceived "noise" aside, the people in this thread all make some really good points. I just hope that the tug-of-war that we all make it doesn't unduly sway people away from something that could potentially work for them. The obesity epidemic is alive and well, and I'm simply trying in whatever way I can to be part of the solution - not part of the problem.
I think we all have a responsibility to take it all in, digest (har!) it, and find out the truth for ourselves.
7 -
Taubes quote...
"You don't get fat because you eat too much. You eat too much because you're fat..."
I'll just leave it at that...
If you simply leave it at that, there's something missing: Context.janejellyroll wrote: »Taubes is the one I've read the least of, so apologies for mischaracterizing his work.
I don't think you mischaracterized anything - I think a lot of this is open to some degree of interpretation. It's not like we're dealing with exact sciencelemurcat12 wrote: »I think Taubes tells people they didn't overeat to gain weight or that overeating was not in their control, and that makes them feel good and vindicated -- someone else to blame. But I don't think that's an honest understanding of what happened -- for me it was helpful to acknowledge yes, I was overeating, and figuring out how and why.
Well, to me, Taubes seems to try to make the point that overeating is partially the result of WHAT people are eating, and that it tends to lead *to* overeating. I base this on the chapter outlining what was going on with the Pima reservation, which I found pretty fascinating. Taubes doesn't seem too far off in opinion from people like Michael Pollan in that regard ("In Defense of Food"), at least in how I interpret it.6 -
So, instead of trying to "drown out noise" because it seems "offensive," perhaps a better stance would be to take the other side's perspective into consideration and delve further into "why" their stance opposes yours.
That's kind of why i'm here If I outright dismissed what everyone was saying, I probably wouldn't keep reading. I'd just close my browser forever and write it all off as nonsense. That's not what i'm trying to do at all. I enjoy the debate... It's definitely a topic that hits really close to home. All perceived "noise" aside, the people in this thread all make some really good points. I just hope that the tug-of-war that we all make it doesn't unduly sway people away from something that could potentially work for them. The obesity epidemic is alive and well, and I'm simply trying in whatever way I can to be part of the solution - not part of the problem.
I think we all have a responsibility to take it all in, digest (har!) it, and find out the truth for ourselves.
Then you're doing well in your position. Science shouldn't involve personal beliefs or bias, which leaves emotion at the front door. I don't pick a side in a dietary strategy because fundamentally, it stems from one unifying concept, which is energy balance. How someone manipulates energy balance to their favor, depending on their individual goal, that is where it branches off into their respective camps. I wouldn't dissuade someone from a plant-based diet in favor of keto, nor would I dissuade someone from a carnivore diet in favor of a mixed diet. All of those diets could potentially work. There's evidence that argue both for and against each one. To your credit, a successful strategy would be individually tailored to each person's preference, so that's the responsibility successful dieters like yourself undertake when disseminating advice.2 -
I always wonder about people's path. We are all different, but the same. Age, genes, and enviroment effect your physical being. Its an easy equation usually, if you eat more that your body burns you'll gain fat and the body seems to be really good at storing fat. If you can out exercise your intake, great but as we age, it does change.1
-
Taubes first couple of books just brought to light why carbs were promoted and the fact that it can lead to over eating and weight gain.
His last book on sugar showed quite the bias and did not do much for drawing strong conclusions about nutrition, IMO. He does have the belief that sugar is not good for us, but I have seen him saying he still allows his children to eat some - just not lots. I think small amounts of sugar may not hurt people, but I have not seen any science that shows that sugar is good for you yet. He's said something along that line in his books too - sugar is at best benign, at worst it is a problem for some.
Lustig has some good science but he generalizes and sensationalizes a when he speaks. He got attention that way, but he also turned off a lot of people too.
As for Fung, I think if you keep in mind that his book and ideas are aimed at people with insulin resistance, and often kidney issues, then it makes sense. If you try to apply it to a healthy, active, but overweight 25 year-old, it has much less relevance.
IMO.
@karl317 Would the term "moderation" or "calorie counting" fit what you are thinking when you say CICO?2 -
So, instead of trying to "drown out noise" because it seems "offensive," perhaps a better stance would be to take the other side's perspective into consideration and delve further into "why" their stance opposes yours.
That's kind of why i'm here If I outright dismissed what everyone was saying, I probably wouldn't keep reading. I'd just close my browser forever and write it all off as nonsense. That's not what i'm trying to do at all. I enjoy the debate... It's definitely a topic that hits really close to home. All perceived "noise" aside, the people in this thread all make some really good points. I just hope that the tug-of-war that we all make it doesn't unduly sway people away from something that could potentially work for them. The obesity epidemic is alive and well, and I'm simply trying in whatever way I can to be part of the solution - not part of the problem.
I think we all have a responsibility to take it all in, digest (har!) it, and find out the truth for ourselves.
First I want to congratulate you on your weight loss success. I appreciate your balanced approach and reasonableness. I completely agree that whatever tools works and is sustainable for someone is a valuable tool. The Ketogenic Diet can be such a tool.
Where I get rubbed against the grain is some keto advocates making unprovable and often inaccurate claims about the benefits. From the reading I have done, Lustig, Taubes and Fung have all done this to a larger degree than not. As a result, you see so much misinformation in forums like this every day that it can make your head spin. Just read back through this thread for multiple examples.
As one who is not biased against keto, although it is not my chosen tool, it puts one in a awkward position of counter the misinformation without seeming to completely dismiss keto as a tool. And many of those posting info on the keto diet don't take well to having their beliefs questioned or being asked for proof. It does really get tiresome.6 -
Taubes first couple of books just brought to light why carbs were promoted and the fact that it can lead to over eating and weight gain.
His last book on sugar showed quite the bias and did not do much for drawing strong conclusions about nutrition, IMO. He does have the belief that sugar is not good for us, but I have seen him saying he still allows his children to eat some - just not lots. I think small amounts of sugar may not hurt people, but I have not seen any science that shows that sugar is good for you yet. He's said something along that line in his books too - sugar is at best benign, at worst it is a problem for some.
Lustig has some good science but he generalizes and sensationalizes a when he speaks. He got attention that way, but he also turned off a lot of people too.
As for Fung, I think if you keep in mind that his book and ideas are aimed at people with insulin resistance, and often kidney issues, then it makes sense. If you try to apply it to a healthy, active, but overweight 25 year-old, it has much less relevance.
IMO.
@karl317 Would the term "moderation" or "calorie counting" fit what you are thinking when you say CICO?
I agree with your assessments above. With Fung, the problem is he doesn't seem to acknowledge this and puts forward his solution as a universal solution for all and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. In all honestly, while I think a lot of his rationales are cockeyed, the actual practice of reducing sugar intake, increasing fiber and reasonable protein are not poor recommendations.2 -
Taubes quote...
"You don't get fat because you eat too much. You eat too much because you're fat..."
I'll just leave it at that...
If you simply leave it at that, there's something missing: Context.janejellyroll wrote: »Taubes is the one I've read the least of, so apologies for mischaracterizing his work.
I don't think you mischaracterized anything - I think a lot of this is open to some degree of interpretation. It's not like we're dealing with exact sciencelemurcat12 wrote: »I think Taubes tells people they didn't overeat to gain weight or that overeating was not in their control, and that makes them feel good and vindicated -- someone else to blame. But I don't think that's an honest understanding of what happened -- for me it was helpful to acknowledge yes, I was overeating, and figuring out how and why.
Well, to me, Taubes seems to try to make the point that overeating is partially the result of WHAT people are eating, and that it tends to lead *to* overeating. I base this on the chapter outlining what was going on with the Pima reservation, which I found pretty fascinating. Taubes doesn't seem too far off in opinion from people like Michael Pollan in that regard ("In Defense of Food"), at least in how I interpret it.
I actually don't think most people overeat because of what they choose. I think they overeat because food is tasty, super available, and all cultural restrictions on eating have been removed. For example, I did a service trip to Nicaragua and ate basically carbs, and was EXTREMELY active -- spent days hiking, planting trees, and running around after kids -- and was never hungry or even thought about eating outside of meal times. I think this is because there was no real opportunity to and food wasn't easily available to me during the day so I didn't think about it.
For people not in such a situation but one more like the one we are in now, I think many of us have to either be thoughtful about what we eat (very consciously) or else impose conscious restrictions. For me the easiest restrictions are timing -- I eat only at meal times and do not snack, which, after a bit, means I don't think about eating outside of mealtime much, no matter what I am eating. It makes no difference if I'm eating keto (which I tried when at maintenance) or high carb. However, I also -- and this seemed natural to me as common sense -- focus on eating nutrient dense food and prioritizing nutrition above treats, so if I do eat treats I do it after dinner and after a nutrient dense day and -- back when I was counting calories -- eat it only if it fits in my calories. I find if I do this it makes no difference what the macronutrient breakdown of my food is.
Would I have had the same experience if I didn't focus on nutrient dense foods but ate only junk? I doubt it, but I don't think anyone can seriously do that and then say they don't understand why they are hungry, if they are.
I also don't think many people seriously try restrictions like this and then fail because they can't figure out how to control hunger. What I see more at MFP (from people struggling) is people not really bothering to understand WHY and HOW they are overeating, but either claiming they didn't eat much (I got fat from undereating) or not trying any kind of plan or schedule but just saying "I try and try to eat less but run out of calories by lunch" -- well, sure, if you just grab what seems tasty at the time and expect yourself just not to overeat.
That said, I do think that ONE restriction that you can impose (and that helped me) is eating mostly whole foods, home prepared (the Pollan thing). I don't think this helps because you are less hungry (although perhaps you are), but because you can't just grab and eat all day, since you will be limited to the food you made/make.
Similarly, eating plant-based or low fat or keto or paleo or whatever is a limit, and so you can't just grab, and some people find it easier to think "I don't eat that because I'm on keto but I can eat steak later" vs. "I can't eat that because it's too many calories" -- the latter feels more restrictive or diet-y or something.
Bigger point is that I don't think saying it's about the food chosen is true because if you were really eating because of hunger, NOTHING said that you needed to choose junk food or whatever high cal items were being chosen. You could have grabbed a piece of jerky (if that's filling) or a hard boiled egg or vegetables. Long, long ago I recall my mom saying "hungry, have a carrot or an apple" when I wanted to eat between meals, and even now I might think "do I want to have a carrot"? If so, and if I'm trying to eat less, I'll eat carrots and celery or a pickle if I'm really so hungry I can't wait for the next meal (which is almost never anyway). If that's not what I want, I want a cookie (or the like), then I don't pretend to myself I'm eating because I'm so so hungry.
I do think keto can be helpful for people, but I think the lie "carbs made you overeat" is still a lie.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions