The #1 Cause of Obesity: Insulin

Options
1235»

Replies

  • mommaPeach72
    mommaPeach72 Posts: 30
    Options
    It took me years-- YEARS-- to understand why low carb diets work for me. In 2006, I lost 70 lbs. by eating bacon, eggs and steak. I didn't eat very healthily-- I ate tons of fat and lost. That's not a balanced diet by any means. Did it work? Yes. Did it make me cry when I looked at cupcakes? Yes. To be completely honest, all it did was make my relationship with food worse. In the longterm, I gained the weight back. Surprise.

    Now, six years later, I understand why low carbohydrate (low processed carb, anyway) eating is so important-- and so useful-- for me. When my insulin levels hang between a cozy 70 and 100, my appetite stabilizes. I never, ever, EVER feel ravenous. My body tells me when I'm hungry. When it does, I eat whole foods as much as possible. Lots of fat, moderate protein and low carb. I get lots of veggies and berries as well-- even Greek yogurt when I want it. It's the fact that my blood sugar never spikes that leaves me in control of my food and in turn, in control of myself.

    It's not about gorging on lard and cheese. It's about finding extremely slow burning carbs in small amounts that will never raise your blood sugar much above 100 to begin with. I'm never famished. I'm actually able to turn away a half-eaten plate of food because I'm just not hungry anymore.

    Is it about calories too? Absolutely. But seriously, eating a 50carb/25 protein/25 fat ratio in my diet leaves me feeling hungry ALL the time. Those carbs-- and even proteins-- send insulin levels up and down and up and down over and over. When they are relatively stable to begin with, I'm golden. At that point, weight loss becomes effortless.

    That's not to say that my addiction of carbs and sugar doesn't occasionally scream at me and make it hard to say no to a donut. It does. But let me tell you, when my blood sugar is 80 and has been there all day without going up and down much, it's a LOT easier for me to say no. Low carb, high nutrient (and high fat, saturated or not) is a win-win. Does it promote weight loss? Sure. The real beauty of it, though, is that it makes weight loss TOLERABLE. It makes you not want to eat all the time. It is a real gift for the obese, although the first few days of it are absolute hell.

    ^^^This is how I feel...thank you for putting it so succinctly :flowerforyou:
  • CountryMom03
    CountryMom03 Posts: 258 Member
    Options
    Show us a list of studies that meet your standards and show that low carb diets are worse please ? Seems to me they either come out better or the same,
    I looked at each of the studies you provided to disprove that and the only thing that stands out to me is "greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets" and "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate."

    Admittedly, I don't understand a lot of what I'm reading but your studies seem to confirm that low carb diets ARE more effective.
    28. Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter? J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5 Suppl 1):S24-8. [Medline]
    Greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets (<90 g/day) compared with traditional low-fat (<25% of energy), hypocaloric diets, implying a 233 kcal/day greater energy deficit. It has therefore been suggested that a low-carbohydrate diet may provide a metabolic advantage (an increase in energy expenditure), resulting in a positive effect on weight loss and maintenance. However, a review of studies in which 24-hour energy expenditure was measured did not provide evidence to support a metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets and showed little evidence of a metabolic advantage of high-protein (>25% of energy) diets. Nonetheless, diets high in protein, but either low or modest in carbohydrate, have resulted in greater weight losses than traditional low-fat diets.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15867892
    29. Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S. [Medline]
    Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/5/899S.full
    30. Davy KP, et al. Regulation of macronutrient balance in healthy young and older men. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Oct;25(10):1497-502. [Medline]
    To determine the influence of age on the ability to adjust macronutrient oxidation to changes in diet composition. Our hypothesis was that the ability to adjust macronutrient oxidation to changes in diet composition would be impaired with age. I didn't understand what that was saying but here's the link:

    http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/11673772/Regulation_of_macronutrient_balance_in_healthy_young_and_older_men_
    31. Roy HJ, et al. Substrate oxidation and energy expenditure in athletes and nonathletes consuming isoenergetic high- and low- fat diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Mar;67(3):405-11. [Medline]
    The resoults from this study show that in healthy young men, fuel oxidation shifts both actuely and chromically to apporximate the macronutrient composition of the diet. There were no differences in any aspect of substrate balance in AT athletes, WT athletes, or NA men by group Again, I didn't understand it but I'm not sure that a study on three healthly, athletic men can tell us anything about what's happening is the obese.

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/67/3/405.full.pdf
    32. Thomas CD, et al. Nutrient balance and energy expenditure during ad libitum feeding of high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 May;55(5):934-42. [Medline]
    To study the influence of diet composition on regulation of body weight, we fed 21 weight-stable subjects (11 lean, 10 obese) high-carbohydrate (HC) and high-fat (HF) diets for 1 wk each. Although diet composition was fixed, total energy intake was unrestricted. Subjects had a higher energy intake on the HF (11,039 +/- 2700 kJ/d) than on the HC (10,672 +/- 2617 kJ/d) diet (P less than 0.05), but energy expenditure was not different between diets. On day 7 of the HC diet, carbohydrate (CHO) oxidation was significantly related to CHO intake with the slope of the regression line 0.99, suggesting that overall CHO balance was near zero. However, the slope of the regression line was greater for obese than for lean subjects. On day 7 of the HF diet, fat oxidation was significantly related to fat intake but the slope of the line was 0.50, suggesting that overall fat balance was positive. However, this relationship was due entirely to lean subjects, with obese subjects showing no relationship between fat intake and oxidation. I'm not sure what the first part is really saying but is the last line saying that lean and obese subjects responded completely different?

    http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/1570800/Nutrient_balance_and_energy_expenditure_during_ad_libitum_feeding_of_high_fat_and_high_carbohydrate_diets_in_humans_
    33. Hill JO, et al. Nutrient balance in humans: effects of diet composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Jul;54(1):10-7. [Medline]
    The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of alterations in diet composition on energy expenditure and nutrient balance in humans. Eight adults (three men, five women) ate a high-carbohydrate (60% of calories from carbohydrate) and a high-fat (60% of calories from fat) diet for 7 d each according to a randomized, crossover design. Six subjects were studied for an additional week on a mixed diet (45% of calories from fat). For each subject, total caloric intake was identical on all diets and was intended to provide the subject's maintenance energy requirements. All subjects spent days 3 and 7 of each week in a whole-room indirect calorimeter. Diet composition did not affect total daily energy expenditure but did affect daily nutrient oxidation by rapidly shifting substrate oxidation to more closely reflect the composition of the diet. These results show that diet composition can affect substrate oxidation without producing measurable effects on total energy expenditure. What's substrate oxidation?

    http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/2058571/Nutrient_balance_in_humans:_effects_of_diet_composition_
    34. Rumpler WV, et al. Energy-intake restriction and diet- composition effects on energy expenditure in men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Feb;53(2):430-6. [Medline]
    I couldn't find it.
    35. Lean ME, James WP. Metabolic effects of isoenergetic nutrient exchange over 24 hours in relation to obesity in women. Int J Obes. 1988;12(1):15-27. [Medline]
    Twenty-four hour whole body indirect calorimetry has been used to study the effects of feeding, during a sedentary test day, isoenergetic diets which varied in fat (3 or 40 per cent of total energy) and carbohydrate (82 or 45 per cent) content. Three groups of women were studied: lean, obese and 'post-obese' after slimming. Diets weren't compared at all.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3360561
    36. Abbott WG, et al. Energy expenditure in humans: effects of dietary fat and carbohydrate. Am J Physiol. 1990 Feb;258(2 Pt 1):E347-51. [Medline]
    A high-dietary fat intake may be an important environmental factor leading to obesity in some people. The mechanism could be either a decrease in energy expenditure and/or an increase in caloric intake. To determine the relative importance of these mechanisms we measured 24-h energy expenditure in a whole body calorimeter in 14 nondiabetic subjects and in six subjects with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, eating isocaloric, weight-maintenance, high-fat, and high-carbohydrate diets. All subjects were Pima Indians. In nondiabetics, the mean total 24-h energy expenditure was similar (2,436 +/- 103 vs. 2,359 +/- 82 kcal/day) on high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets, respectively. The means for sleeping and resting metabolic rates, thermic effect of food, and spontaneous physical activity were unchanged. Similar results were obtained in the diabetic subjects. In summary, using a whole body calorimeter, we found no evidence of a decrease in 24-h energy expenditure on a high-fat diet compared with a high-carbohydrate diet.
    http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/2305878/Energy_expenditure_in_humans:_effects_of_dietary_fat_and_carbohydrate_
    37. Yerboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Effects of dietary fat and carbohydrate exchange on human energy metabolism. Appetite. 1996 Jun;26(3):287-300. [Medline]
    Short-term effects of low-fat (10% fat energy), mixed (30% fat energy), and high-fat (50% fat energy) diets on 24-h energy expenditure, and on its components sleeping metabolic rate, diet induced thermogenesis and energy expenditure for physical activity were studied for 3 days using a respiration chamber in twelve normal-weight female volunteers classified as restrained or unrestrained eaters. There were no significant differences in any of the four measures between the restrained and unrestrained eating subjects on any of the diets. Within the group of restrained eaters, 24-h energy expenditure was significantly decreased during consumption of the mixed diet (8.21 +/- 0.21 MJ/d; p < 0.01) and tended to be decreased on the high-fat diet (8.22 +/- 0.25 MJ/d; p = 0.055), relative to the low-fat diet (8.58 +/- 0.21 MJ/d). Diet composition had no effect on 24-h energy expenditure in the women with unrestrained eating. The results suggest that a low-fat diet would be beneficial in the treatment of obesity, especially if subjects have a restrained type of eating behaviour. Where are the carbs?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800484
    38. Astrup A, et al. Failure to increase lipid oxidation in response to increasing dietary fat content in formerly obese women. Am J Physiol. 1994 Apr;266(4 Pt 1):E592-9. [Medline]
    Decreasing the dietary fat content increased 24-h EE in the postobese women (P = 0.02), whereas it was unaffected in the control group. Independent of energy balance, an increase in dietary fat content to 50% fat energy results in preferential fat storage, impaired suppression of carbohydrate oxidation, and reduction of 24-h EE in postobese women. Is that why low carb diets work so well--obese people have impaired carb oxidation?

    http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/8178980/Failure_to_increase_lipid_oxidation_in_response_to_increasing_dietary_fat_content_in_formerly_obese_women_
    39. Whitehead JM, McNeill G, Smith JS. The effect of protein intake on 24-h energy expenditure during energy restriction. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Aug;20(8):727-32. [Medline]
    CONCLUSIONS:
    Maintaining protein intake reduces the decrease in energy expenditure during energy restriction.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8856395

    Notice where it said weight loss was higher, but no metabolic advantage was found, even though they expected one? That's because the extra weight lost on a low carb diet is water, not fat. When you extend studies out to a year, rather than 12 weeks, weight loss is equal, because the loss in water weight catches up in the higher carb group.

    Also, your comment on study 38. That study wasn't done on obese women, it was done on healthy weight women, who were obese. Women who gained weight and then lost it. It showed they were more likely to store fat while eating a high fat diet.

    Your comment on 35. Did you miss the part of the abstract that said they used 2 different diets, one that was 3% fat, 82% carb, and the other that was 40% fat, 45% carb, (both diets being 15% protein?) And you only posted part of the abstract, so you left out this line: There were no large differences in energy expenditure between the two diets or between the groups but the thermogenic effect of the high carbohydrate diet was significantly greater than that of the high fat diet (5.8 vs 3.5 per cent of energy expenditure: P less than 0.01).
    No significant differences in energy expenditure with either diet. I'd say diets were compared.

    For your comment on 37, do the math. Protein and calories are constants, when fat is increased or decreased, carbs are changed to compensate.

    For study 32, that study essentially says that people on high fat diets eat more, and gain more fat, because humans are much more efficient at oxidizing carbohydrates for energy than fat, so higher fat intake, along with higher calorie intake, leads to more fat storage. From the actual study (you can download it from pubmed:) Our results suggest that HF diets are more obesity producing than are HC diets. This is because there was a greater total energy intake on HF than on HC diets and because humans have a lesser ability to increase fat oxidation in response to increased fat intake than to increase carbohydrate oxidation in response to increased carbohydrate intake.

    Also, substrate oxidation is a catchall term for protein, fat, and carbohydrate oxidation. "Burning calories" is oxidation. You burn fat by oxidizing it, same with burning carbs or protein. So saying that "varying substrate oxidation had no effect on total energy expenditure" means that it doesn't matter what combinations of carb, protein, and fat you eat, you will expend the same amount of energy either way.

    You are correct in that in the first 1 or 2 weeks you loose alot of water, but after that its all fat. If for whatever reason you quit and go back to eating the same amount of carbs you used to ALONG with staying within your nutritional goals and exercise, you will only gain back the water you lost in the beginning, NOT all the fat. I guess by what your saying is that all the weight that person lost in 12 wks was all water weight and not real fat?? Most people on low carb, depending on how low they go, can lose around 2 lbs a week so you mean to tell me that a person will gain back 24 pounds of water weight?? I think not :flowerforyou:
  • dnhames
    dnhames Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    thanks for the post.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    If by great and excellent, you mean, fills your head with nonsense, then I'd agree with you.
    So now people are too stupid to think for ourselves as well as lazy with no self control? Gothcha', thanks for sharing.
  • LesterBlackstone
    LesterBlackstone Posts: 291 Member
    Options
    If by great and excellent, you mean, fills your head with nonsense, then I'd agree with you.
    So now people are too stupid to think for ourselves as well as lazy with no self control? Gothcha', thanks for sharing.

    Reading comprehension FTL.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    If by great and excellent, you mean, fills your head with nonsense, then I'd agree with you.
    So now people are too stupid to think for ourselves as well as lazy with no self control? Gothcha', thanks for sharing.

    What would you say to someone that recommend they read this great book on nutrition called the the China Study? or watch this great movie called Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead? or watch this awesome guy on youtube Durianrider?

    Fathead is not much different then any of the above
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    I'd trust that they weren't idiots.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    I'd trust that they weren't idiots.

    Are you saying the person recommending it and calling it excellent and great, would therefore be an idiot?
  • joy31021
    joy31021 Posts: 216
    Options
    bump
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    No, I'm saying that everyone on this site is capable of following a link and making up their own mind.

    I absolutely welcome opposing points of view along with any information you feel is important so people can make educated decisions but all of the LOLs and insults aren't needed or appreciated.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    No, I'm saying that everyone on this site is capable of following a link and making up their own mind.

    Here's the problem, if someone links to a nonsensical blogger, article, movie, book etc and the person actually believes what they just watched or read, they've just become more ignorant on the subject. So how does that help the person?
  • lifeskittles
    lifeskittles Posts: 438 Member
    Options
    Im totally 100% agreeing with mommapeach on this one...And Im not a "low carber" by any means...but a "lower than before carber"..lol. When I eat whole foods that are filled with more protein and fat I feel way more satisfied all day than if I eat loads of fruit and bread... I've even noticed a huge change just switching away from bananas to lower sugar fruits like berries. And instead of snacking on fruit all day like I did before (it actually dramatically increased my appetite!) I will eat more meats, cheeses, and nuts. I'm a recovering binge eater so I find this way of eating WAY easier to control my cravings and appetite in general.. That's just my 2 cents on why I think lower carb/ higher fat and protein diets work. I haven't really craved anything sweet or carby since I've started.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    No, I'm saying that everyone on this site is capable of following a link and making up their own mind.

    Here's the problem, if someone links to a nonsensical blogger, article, movie, book etc and the person actually believes what they just watched or read, they've just become more ignorant on the subject. So how does that help the person?
    You're not the MFP Daddy, Acg. It's not your job to "help" anyone. Offer up your opinion, let everyone know you think it's complete BS and back it up with all the information you want--that's a good thing--but there's no need to be a **** head about it. Just my opinion, of course. I realize a lot of people are just here for the laughs.
  • lifeskittles
    lifeskittles Posts: 438 Member
    Options
    Im totally 100% agreeing with mommapeach on this one...And Im not a "low carber" by any means...but a "lower than before carber"..lol. When I eat whole foods that are filled with more protein and fat I feel way more satisfied all day than if I eat loads of fruit and bread... I've even noticed a huge change just switching away from bananas to lower sugar fruits like berries. And instead of snacking on fruit all day like I did before (it actually dramatically increased my appetite!) I will eat more meats, cheeses, and nuts. I'm a recovering binge eater so I find this way of eating WAY easier to control my cravings and appetite in general.. That's just my 2 cents on why I think lower carb/ higher fat and protein diets work. I haven't really craved anything sweet or carby since I've started.

    **Oh and I've also NOT CHANGED my protein intake with the increase of fat and decrease of carbohydrates. So I know its not just adding protein
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    No, I'm saying that everyone on this site is capable of following a link and making up their own mind.

    Here's the problem, if someone links to a nonsensical blogger, article, movie, book etc and the person actually believes what they just watched or read, they've just become more ignorant on the subject. So how does that help the person?
    You're not the MFP Daddy, Acg. It's not your job to "help" anyone. Offer up your opinion, let everyone know you think it's complete BS and back it up with all the information you want--that's a good thing--but there's no need to be a **** head about it. Just my opinion, of course. I realize a lot of people are just here for the laughs.

    My naturopath says it's good for my mind body and soul to help others

Categories