jquizzle10 Member

Of course energy balance plays some role, but a minor one overall. The hormonal response to the types of foods you consume and your lifestyle is of overriding importance. Calorie restriction in the long term is not sustainable and uncomfortable for many, especially if those foods you consume stimulate those fat storing…

So, I guess you don't believe hormones have any effect on fat mass. Can you rationalize some CICO explanation for Cushing's disease, hypothyroidism, or weight gain with insulin therapy to name a few? You really think the human body is some type of bomb calorimeter? Why is it so difficult to understand that fat cells are…

Get informed. Just because it says zero doesn't mean there's none. It only means there's less than 0.5 g per seving.

Oreos have trans fats.

Read - Pure, White, and Deadly: How Sugar Is Killing Us and What We Can Do to Stop It.

Stevia in the Raw has maltodextrin which will result in insulin response. Get the liquid drops instead. Cutting out sugar is one of the best thing you can do for your health.

Are you suggesting fat consumption contributes to diabetes? I've never seen any compelling evidence to suggest this. In fact is contrary to everything I learned from biochemistry and cellular biology to human physiology. Show me some mechanistic explanation based in accepted physiology and I'll look into it.

Did you see that sugar film? Horrifying what high carb processed foods have done to indigenous people in Australia. It's a similar story in the United States. Rates of obesity related diseases are very high in the indigenous populations.

There was no significant difference in fat mass change in the two groups. So, the study was pretty much null on this point.

I agree, I've got an N of 1 greater than 24 month study, which is sufficient for me.

I was referring to the first study referenced in the article which was published.

By the way Steven, is this your full time job?

We already know eating a calorie deficit of any micronutrient ratio would lead to fat oxidation because that how energy is mostly stored in the body. Again, show me the money!

I could go into an exegesis, but to keep it simple I'll say, ignore the text and just look at the hard data reported. The hard data flies in the face of their conclusion, yet they create some value called net fat oxidation that would seem to support their theory. I say "show me the money," in other words - what's…

Thanks for the suggestion. I agree it's important to read the original scientific literature. As a physician, I'm challenged to interpret the evidence in my clinical decision making and it's less clear cut than the layman would think.

Actually, I read this study pretty throughly (not the press release, the actual study), and didn't reach the same conclusion as the authors. So, I would say no, the debate is not over.

I'm more interested in who funds their research. Coca-cola?

@aqsylvester I'm more interested in how compelling the data is regarding cardiovascular risk related to LDL particle composition. If the risk is questionable, why chase an unconfirmed hypothesis (i.e. blood lipid composition) at the expense of a known hazard (i.e. insulin resistance)?