I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[TravelerEastWest]

15 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Insulin resistance arises due to excessive sugar/carbohydrate intake over a period of time and can be tackled by reducing the intake of sugar/carbohydrates. If you eat a plant based diet high in fruit, root vegetables and other food with a high glycemic index; then you can end up with insulin resistance. If you eat any food (plant based or otherwise) which is low in carbohydrates/sugars and has a low glycemic index, you can manage insulin resistance. 
I was vegetarian for years and my diet unfortunately included a daily large fruit shake with bananas and other fruits. I also enjoyed ice cream, cakes and desserts. I ended up pre-diabetic and with heart disease.
I see daily reports of those who have put their diabetes into remission and no longer need medication using a low carb diet.
I have never seen a study showing all cause mortality going up with a low carb diet, please share.

 

Britain's worst rag, The Daily Mail, which usually publishes nonsense nutrition advice, has an article on how people are tackling diabetes with a low carb approach.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6916909/Delicious-effective-way-reverse-diabetes-NHS-doctor-chef-reveal-low-carb-diet-plan.html

Just to start:

 

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

 

Dr Gregor's book; 

Carbophobia

 

I have read many references to the long term health problems of Keto low carb diets I am not worried about the short term problems because not everyone has them and they don't seem too bad...

[robblok]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Most people find it very difficult to fast at all, for any period in excess of the time they spend sleeping. My experience from discussions with overweight people, especially women, is that they are in a state of denial about the fundamental laws of Physics, that is, that one cannot become overweight without eating too much.
Some of them believe they are overweight simply because of their genes and that there is nothing they can do about it. Others claim that the pleasure of eating is one of the major pleasures in life and that they are not interested in giving that up, or reducing that pleasure.

 

One should not discount genes that easily, while it is true that everyone can stay on a healthy weight some have to invest far more time and effort in it then others do. Not everyone has the same appetite and so on. I am 100% convinced genes play a large part, the metabolic rate between people in the upper and lower scale can be as much as 20% difference. 

 

So while your right they don't have to be overweight some people have to do all they can to stay lean. I got a friend who could drink loads of beer eat what he wanted and keep six pack abs. He could not gain as much muscle as I did even though we trained the same. 

 

You see the difference in genes a lot at bodybuilding / strength training. People can work out harder then others and not get the same benefits. I got reasonable big arms while I don't train them that much. That friend trained them a lot more and never got the same response.

 

So please not everyone is the same, not everyone responds the same to the same diet. We are all individuals but within our own range we can improve a lot and nobody has to be really fat. But do acknowledge that some people put a lot more effort in it. 

[FracturedRabbit]

1 hour ago, TravelerEastWest said:

Just to start:

 

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

 

Dr Gregor's book; 

Carbophobia

 

I have read many references to the long term health problems of Keto low carb diets I am not worried about the short term problems because not everyone has them and they don't seem too bad...

1. Atkins isn't Keto
2. The references are at least ten years old; science has moved on. I could provide you with endless references to the benefits of low carb diets.
3. Still not provided a reference to long term health problems of keto/low carb. Don't bother, I have friends who have been on it for years and are extremely healthy, and I am massively more healthy than I was two years ago.
4. Gregor is all about a plant based diet, that it is fine if that is your thing; but plant based eating has the same potential problem with carbs (see graphic).

Here's a fact. Excessive carbohydrate intake (irrespective of nutrition source) leads to insulin resistance, leads to metabolic syndrome, leads to diabetes (and heart disease and Alzheimer's). Limiting your carbohydrate intake is good for your health.

[TravelerEastWest]

1 hour ago, FracturedRabbit said:

1. Atkins isn't Keto
2. The references are at least ten years old; science has moved on. I could provide you with endless references to the benefits of low carb diets.
3. Still not provided a reference to long term health problems of keto/low carb. Don't bother, I have friends who have been on it for years and are extremely healthy, and I am massively more healthy than I was two years ago.
4. Gregor is all about a plant based diet, that it is fine if that is your thing; but plant based eating has the same potential problem with carbs (see graphic).

Here's a fact. Excessive carbohydrate intake (irrespective of nutrition source) leads to insulin resistance, leads to metabolic syndrome, leads to diabetes (and heart disease and Alzheimer's). Limiting your carbohydrate intake is good for your health.

Atkins, Keto, Paleo yes different in the details all similar...

 

That link was just an interesting one quickly found many to be found.

 

Now what is the value of low carb supporting studies vs high carb? As I posted earlier I am not qualified to say but I can say that so far Gregor is the most logical and fact based writer that I have come across recently. And I trust his review of the current research.

 

I am curious your friends have they been on the low carb diet for 4 or 5 years or 20 plus years? And let's say they have been eating a  low carb diet for 20 plus years how many others have been doing this without health problems? they can look good be trim and strong and happy and drop dead from a heart attack in 20 years...

 

Let's assume that excess carb intake can cause problems - first, junk food carbs will cause problems for sure. Eating a whole plant-based diet? Not so sure as you get full quickly and you don't normally have high glucose spikes from whole plants. Again are there extreme high carb diets that are while plant-based that can cause problems - possible but very rare and I have never heard of one ever.

 

In your chart the rice is not whole grain

 

French fries are garbage

wholemeal sounds procccesed

 

Bananas and grapes certainly do have a high amount of carbs and being careful with them would be a good idea...

 

Overall the chart is of little value for this topic unless you think it is composed of a whole plant diet?

 

How about a chart filled with vegetables and whole grains and fruits? That would be more useful.

 

Lots of studies out there showing meat is terrible for our health - of course if you eat very small amounts mostly for flavor not taht bad...

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

I understand your frustration with your doctor's lack of nutritional and exercise counseling.

 

I'm not really frustrated because I've realized for most of my life that doctors are generally not experts in nutrition and healthy life styles. In fact, most doctors I've had personal conversations with, during social meetings, have expressed the opinion that jogging as a form of exercise is not recommended and is likely to be harmful, which is nonsense.

 

So I see processed carbs as bad and leading to diabetes as well as a high fat diet. With fat being the primary cause.

 

I see processed foods in general as being bad, or at best, less than ideal, and that includes a lot of the food served in restaurants where the main motivation of the cook is to produce food which is as tasty as possible so that you keep coming back and increase the profits of the business.

 

However, I don't see fat as being bad and the primary cause of diabetes. For many decades saturated fats have been demonized and a huge industry has developed to produce butter substitutes such as margarine and low fat milk and low fat yoghurt, and so on. Whilst this was occurring, the rates of obesity and diabetes in Western populations increased, demonstrating there was no connection.

 

The body needs saturated fats and struggles to produce those fats when they are removed from the diet. I spread natural butter on my bread, drink full-cream milk, eat full-cream yoghurt, love Camembert cheese and often use Extra Virgin Coconut Oil in my diet.

 

Of course, too much saturated fat is bad, just as too much of anything is bad, but that's another issue. If someone is already getting sufficient saturated fats and then, in addition, begins eating Coconut Oil because they've heard of the health benefits, then that additional saturated fat, beyond the body's requirement, could have negative consequences.
 

[WaveHunter]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Everyone fasts every day, without exception. I've never heard of anyone who eats continuously for 24 hours each day. ????

 

Try fasting for 23 hours a day. In other words, have just one meal per day. Initially, you might eat as much during that one meal as your previous breakfast, lunch and dinner combined, but gradually your stomach will shrink, and you will probably, eventually, be eating no more during that single meal per day than the largest of your previous three meals, and will lose weight as a consequence.

One meal a day (OMAD) has a lot going for it IMHO.  The most important aspect is in insulin response.  Most people eat through the day.  In addition to three (or more) meals per day, they are snacking in between meals.  Basically, there is a steady stream of carbs being consumed per day.  Insulin is therefore constantly produced.  It’s like a leaky faucet!  The snacking keeps insulin at a high and steady state and the meals spike it right through the roof!

 

With OMAD you might eat the same caloric amount of food as 3 meals per day, but insulin will stay at low (healthy) levels through most of the day.

 

I’ve eaten these way for several years now.  It took some time to adapt but I suffer no ill effects and have plenty of energy throughout the day, and I am a very active person.

 

The notion that 3 meals a day is best is just outdated nonsense, and the notion that it is even better to have more than 3 meals in smaller proportions per day, as was touted by athletic gurus is even more rediculous (and has pretty much been discounted today as bunk, except for some diehard performance gurus on YouTube.

[WaveHunter]

36 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm not really frustrated because I've realized for most of my life that doctors are generally not experts in nutrition and healthy life styles. In fact, most doctors I've had personal conversations with, during social meetings, have expressed the opinion that jogging as a form of exercise is not recommended and is likely to be harmful, which is nonsense.

 

 

 

 

I see processed foods in general as being bad, or at best, less than ideal, and that includes a lot of the food served in restaurants where the main motivation of the cook is to produce food which is as tasty as possible so that you keep coming back and increase the profits of the business.

 

However, I don't see fat as being bad and the primary cause of diabetes. For many decades saturated fats have been demonized and a huge industry has developed to produce butter substitutes such as margarine and low fat milk and low fat yoghurt, and so on. Whilst this was occurring, the rates of obesity and diabetes in Western populations increased, demonstrating there was no connection.

 

The body needs saturated fats and struggles to produce those fats when they are removed from the diet. I spread natural butter on my bread, drink full-cream milk, eat full-cream yoghurt, love Camembert cheese and often use Extra Virgin Coconut Oil in my diet.

 

Of course, too much saturated fat is bad, just as too much of anything is bad, but that's another issue. If someone is already getting sufficient saturated fats and then, in addition, begins eating Coconut Oil because they've heard of the health benefits, then that additional saturated fat, beyond the body's requirement, could have negative consequences.
 

I, for one, totally agree that fats are over-demonized.  The fat vs carb debate has fierce advocates for both views but the chief thing that separates the two camps is that those who blame diabetes on excessive carbs tend to back up their claim with documented science-based studies pertaining to metabolic physiology and biochemistry, while those advocating fat as the culprit rely more on anecdotal and epidemiological evidence which are simply a lot less compelling, and more open to biased interpretation.

 

When you look at science-based facts, it’s pretty clear that carbs, not fats are the real culprit.  I really think this debate is fueled heavily by the food industry.  It’s a lot less expensive to produce foods using carb-loaded high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) rather than fats.  Look at supermarket shelves these days and almost every food product is labeled “fat-free”.

 

It’s not that fat-free is better for you; it’s just cheaper to produce and thus more profitable to the food industry.

 

When they remove fat, those foods become unpalatable.  How do they fix that?  They load up the food with HFCS!  Look at the nutritional label of any “fat free” food product in the supermarket and you will see HFCS as a major ingredient! 

 

Its all all about the money, not your health, and the current epidemic of Diabetes-type 2 is proof of that!  If fat were the culprit why would there be an epidemic in a world of fat-free foods, when it didn’t exist before?

 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

So please not everyone is the same, not everyone responds the same to the same diet. We are all individuals but within our own range we can improve a lot and nobody has to be really fat. But do acknowledge that some people put a lot more effort in it. 

Of course I know that not everyone is the same. That's about the most obvious statement that anyone could make. Even identical twins are not totally identical. The process of Evolution could not have taken place if everyone were the same.

 

This obvious fact is one reason why the many weight-loss diets are often not as effective for everyone. However, there is one piece of advice that is guaranteed to be effective. Eat less and you will lose weight, provided you also maintain a similar amount of activity in your lifestyle. If you eat less and lie on the couch for most of the day because you feel so lethargic, then you will either have to apply a lot of effort to maintain the same amount of physical activity, or eat even less.

 

Eating less should not require effort. Eating more requires effort. More effort in cooking more meals, or more effort in driving miles and miles to more restaurants to gorge oneself on delicious food, and so on. ????

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

When they remove fat, those foods become unpalatable.  How do they fix that?  They load up the food with HFCS!  Look at the nutritional label of any “fat free” food product in the supermarket and you will see HFCS as a major ingredient! 

 

Its all all about the money, not your health, and the current epidemic of Diabetes-type 2 is proof of that!  If fat were the culprit why would there be an epidemic in a world of fat-free foods, when it didn’t exist before?

 

I agree. As I understand, fructose in particular has the effect of reducing the normal sensation of satiety when eating. It encourages one to eat more. When I was overweight, I used to drink lots of pure fruit juice as a thirst quencher because it seemed both nutritious and tremendous value. What would be the cost in the supermarket, of the whole apples that were used to produce the 2 litres of pure apple juice that I used to buy in the supermarket for just a very few dollars, I would ask myself? Usually much more than the cost of the juice which contains most of the nutrients of the apple.

 

When I began losing weight a few years ago, I cut out drinking pure fruit juice completely, eating the whole fruit instead, but in much smaller quantities than those required to produce the juice I had been consuming. As a result, my intake of fructose was reduced significantly, and I imagine that made it easier for me to fast.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course I know that not everyone is the same. That's about the most obvious statement that anyone could make. Even identical twins are not totally identical. The process of Evolution could not have taken place if everyone were the same.

 

This obvious fact is one reason why the many weight-loss diets are often not as effective for everyone. However, there is one piece of advice that is guaranteed to be effective. Eat less and you will lose weight, provided you also maintain a similar amount of activity in your lifestyle. If you eat less and lie on the couch for most of the day because you feel so lethargic, then you will either have to apply a lot of effort to maintain the same amount of physical activity, or eat even less.

 

Eating less should not require effort. Eating more requires effort. More effort in cooking more meals, or more effort in driving miles and miles to more restaurants to gorge oneself on delicious food, and so on. ????

With all due respect, while there's some truth to your comment about "eating less" it's only a half-truth.  I'm not pointing this out just to be a "devil's advocate, or on the assumption you don't know this, but more for the benefit of other people following this thread so please don't take offense ????

 

Merely restricting calories is not a very effective strategy for shedding excess body fat.  It's not about restricting calories, it's more about restricting the type of macro-nutrients you eat.  Calorie restriction diets have always had a terrible record; over time almost everyone who attempts a calorie-restricted diet, will gain the weight back, and then some extra besides.  Calorie-restricted diets are based on the old and outmoded concept of calories in vs calories out; the energy balance equation.  While the energy balance equation is true, it doesn't support the notion that less calories consumed will result in fat loss. 

 

The "achilles heel" of calorie-restriction diets is that with less calories consumed, the metabolism will also slow down.  You may be consuming less calories but as your metabolism slows down, your body will also be needing less calories, so it can become a zero-sum-loss of actual body fat.  Worse, as one becomes frustrated, and restricts calories even further, they are on a slippery slope since metabolism slows even more! 

 

The final irony of calorie restricted diets occurs when the dieter ends the diet, often frustrated and depressed with the results and resumes their normal eating.  Their metabolism does not immediately rebound so even though they may only consume the same number of calories that they did prior to the diet, they will actually start gaining even more weight in the form of body fat due to their slowed metabolism!  And of course, most people do not end a diet rationally; instead they binge, and in their lowered metabolic state, they usually end up far heavier then when they started.  Worst yet, they just repeat the whole sequence over and over, moving from one crazy fad diet to the next.

 

The key to effectively shedding excess body fat is not calorie restriction but rather carbohydrate restriction.  It isn't so much that excess calories lead to excessive body fat as it is that excessive carbohydrates do, and here's why:  When you consumes excessive carbohydrates, massive amounts of insulin are released by the pancreas.  Your levels go right through the roof!  Insulin (not calories) regulates how the body uses and stores glucose and fat.  It acts sort of like a switch.  In the presence of excessive carbohydrate consumption, it will signal the body to store that energy as fat.  If dietary carbohydrates are lowered significantly, insulin will react accordingly in the opposite direction; in other words it will allow stored body fat to be accessed as fuel for the body.  

 

They key point is simply that It is absolutely impossible for the body to access stored fat in the presence of high insulin levels.  Thus, to loose body fat, you must keep carbohydrate (not necessarily calorie) consumption low.  It've very easy to do this without slowing down the metabolism.  So, lowering carbohydrates, not calories is the real key to loosing excess body fat. 

 

Even more effective is to lower carbohydrates so much that glycogen stores become depleted or nearly depleted.  The body reacts by producing ketone bodies for two purposes; one being to provide fuel to the brain in the absence of adequate glycogen, and secondly, to allow stored fat deposits to be accessed and converted to free fatty acids that can fuel the rest of the body.  If done properly, the metabolism is not effected negatively, and the net result is fairly rapid burning of stored body fat.  Such "ketogenic" diets have a very high success rate compared with normal "calorie-restricted" diets, not only in terms of getting rid of the excess fat but also in keeping it off.

[robblok]

10 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

With all due respect, while there's some truth to your comment about "eating less" it's only a half-truth.  I'm not pointing this out just to be a "devil's advocate, or on the assumption you don't know this, but more for the benefit of other people following this thread so please don't take offense ????

 

Merely restricting calories is not a very effective strategy for shedding excess body fat.  It's not about restricting calories, it's more about restricting the type of macro-nutrients you eat.  Calorie restriction diets have always had a terrible record; over time almost everyone who attempts a calorie-restricted diet, will gain the weight back, and then some extra besides.  Calorie-restricted diets are based on the old and outmoded concept of calories in vs calories out; the energy balance equation.  While the energy balance equation is true, it doesn't support the notion that less calories consumed will result in fat loss. 

 

The "achilles heel" of calorie-restriction diets is that with less calories consumed, the metabolism will also slow down.  You may be consuming less calories but as your metabolism slows down, your body will also be needing less calories, so it can become a zero-sum-loss of actual body fat.  Worse, as one becomes frustrated, and restricts calories even further, they are on a slippery slope since metabolism slows even more! 

 

The final irony of calorie restricted diets occurs when the dieter ends the diet, often frustrated and depressed with the results and resumes their normal eating.  Their metabolism does not immediately rebound so even though they may only consume the same number of calories that they did prior to the diet, they will actually start gaining even more weight in the form of body fat due to their slowed metabolism!  And of course, most people do not end a diet rationally; instead they binge, and in their lowered metabolic state, they usually end up far heavier then when they started.  Worst yet, they just repeat the whole sequence over and over, moving from one crazy fad diet to the next.

 

The key to effectively shedding excess body fat is not calorie restriction but rather carbohydrate restriction.  It isn't so much that excess calories lead to excessive body fat as it is that excessive carbohydrates do, and here's why:  When you consumes excessive carbohydrates, massive amounts of insulin are released by the pancreas.  Your levels go right through the roof!  Insulin (not calories) regulates how the body uses and stores glucose and fat.  It acts sort of like a switch.  In the presence of excessive carbohydrate consumption, it will signal the body to store that energy as fat.  If dietary carbohydrates are lowered significantly, insulin will react accordingly in the opposite direction; in other words it will allow stored body fat to be accessed as fuel for the body.  

 

They key point is simply that It is absolutely impossible for the body to access stored fat in the presence of high insulin levels.  Thus, to loose body fat, you must keep carbohydrate (not necessarily calorie) consumption low.  It've very easy to do this without slowing down the metabolism.  So, lowering carbohydrates, not calories is the real key to loosing excess body fat. 

 

Even more effective is to lower carbohydrates so much that glycogen stores become depleted or nearly depleted.  The body reacts by producing ketone bodies for two purposes; one being to provide fuel to the brain in the absence of adequate glycogen, and secondly, to allow stored fat deposits to be accessed and converted to free fatty acids that can fuel the rest of the body.  If done properly, the metabolism is not effected negatively, and the net result is fairly rapid burning of stored body fat.  Such "ketogenic" diets have a very high success rate compared with normal "calorie-restricted" diets, not only in terms of getting rid of the excess fat but also in keeping it off.

Lets agree to disagree, the caloric equation still holds eating less results in less fat. There have been countless examples of people on Mc Donalds diets and twinkie diets and they lost weight. 

 

Its true the body adapts but it always adapts because it likes homo stasis. Its good to go lower carbs. I have yet to see people as lean as bodybuilders and they certainly eat carbs, same goes for other athlethes. You don't need to be keto to lose fat that is a myth. 

 

Eating healthy restricting carbs (but if you just restrict carbs and add proteins or fats to make up the difference you still don't lose any fat). You can eat carbs and lose fat. Otherwise the guys on twinkie diet or Mc donalds diet would not lose any fat. So what your saying is not correct.

 

One can lose weight and get lean when you eat carbs. No need for all glycogen to be gone. I am certainly shredding fat while I make sure I have glycogen stores mainly full (ok they got depleted recently by accident). 

 

Besides carbs don't turn in fat if they are used to fill up your glycogen only when that is full already.

 

https://www.lchf-rd.com/2017/07/07/insulin-leptin-different-effect-lean-versus-overweight/

 

 

[VincentRJ]

16 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

 

Merely restricting calories is not a very effective strategy for shedding excess body fat.  It's not about restricting calories, it's more about restricting the type of macro-nutrients you eat.  Calorie restriction diets have always had a terrible record; over time almost everyone who attempts a calorie-restricted diet, will gain the weight back, and then some extra besides.  Calorie-restricted diets are based on the old and outmoded concept of calories in vs calories out; the energy balance equation.  While the energy balance equation is true, it doesn't support the notion that less calories consumed will result in fat loss. 

 

As I've mentioned before, I don't count calories, and I don't conform to someone else's contrived diet. I simply eat foods that are wholesome and nutritious, whether they be grass-fed beef, fish, vegetables, eggs, whole grain rice, wholemeal bread, and so on.

 

If you are eating such wholesome food and not losing weight, then just eat less of the same wholesome food. Simple. No calorie counting required. ????

[WaveHunter]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Lets agree to disagree, the caloric equation still holds eating less results in less fat. There have been countless examples of people on Mc Donalds diets and twinkie diets and they lost weight. 

 

Its true the body adapts but it always adapts because it likes homo stasis. Its good to go lower carbs. I have yet to see people as lean as bodybuilders and they certainly eat carbs, same goes for other athlethes. You don't need to be keto to lose fat that is a myth. 

 

Eating healthy restricting carbs (but if you just restrict carbs and add proteins or fats to make up the difference you still don't lose any fat). You can eat carbs and lose fat. Otherwise the guys on twinkie diet or Mc donalds diet would not lose any fat. So what your saying is not correct.

 

One can lose weight and get lean when you eat carbs. No need for all glycogen to be gone. I am certainly shredding fat while I make sure I have glycogen stores mainly full (ok they got depleted recently by accident). 

 

Besides carbs don't turn in fat if they are used to fill up your glycogen only when that is full already.

 

https://www.lchf-rd.com/2017/07/07/insulin-leptin-different-effect-lean-versus-overweight/

 

 

I agree with you that you don't need to be in ketosis in order to loose body fat but your body cannot access stored body fat while insulin levels are extremely high.  That is impossible from a metabolic standpoint.  Insulin simply acts as a hormonal signal in regard to whether the body should store or use energy.  If levels are high, energy will be stored, not used.

[TravelerEastWest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm not really frustrated because I've realized for most of my life that doctors are generally not experts in nutrition and healthy life styles. In fact, most doctors I've had personal conversations with, during social meetings, have expressed the opinion that jogging as a form of exercise is not recommended and is likely to be harmful, which is nonsense.

 

I see processed foods in general as being bad, or at best, less than ideal, and that includes a lot of the food served in restaurants where the main motivation of the cook is to produce food which is as tasty as possible so that you keep coming back and increase the profits of the business.

 

However, I don't see fat as being bad and the primary cause of diabetes. For many decades saturated fats have been demonized and a huge industry has developed to produce butter substitutes such as margarine and low fat milk and low fat yoghurt, and so on. Whilst this was occurring, the rates of obesity and diabetes in Western populations increased, demonstrating there was no connection.

 

The body needs saturated fats and struggles to produce those fats when they are removed from the diet. I spread natural butter on my bread, drink full-cream milk, eat full-cream yoghurt, love Camembert cheese and often use Extra Virgin Coconut Oil in my diet.

 

Of course, too much saturated fat is bad, just as too much of anything is bad, but that's another issue. If someone is already getting sufficient saturated fats and then, in addition, begins eating Coconut Oil because they've heard of the health benefits, then that additional saturated fat, beyond the body's requirement, could have negative consequences.
 

I am quite frustrated at the state of medicine today - but I try to be understanding...

 

"...the rates of obesity and diabetes in Western populations increased, demonstrating there was no connection."

 

I don't agree with the above statement about no connection - fat consumption with the SAD is quite high. processed food consumption is high, meat and dairy consumption is high all together not a good thing...

 

There is fat in almost everything including oatmeal - normally no need for extra oils etc none at all.

[TravelerEastWest]

"I, for one, totally agree that fats are over-demonized.  The fat vs carb debate has fierce advocates for both views but the chief thing that separates the two camps is that those who blame diabetes on excessive carbs tend to back up their claim with documented science-based studies pertaining to metabolic physiology and biochemistry, while those advocating fat as the culprit rely more on anecdotal and epidemiological evidence which are simply a lot less compelling, and more open to biased interpretation.

When you look at science-based facts, it’s pretty clear that carbs, not fats are the real culprit..."

 

An interesting observation which I don't agree with based on the latest studies and science - again I rely on people like Gregor - I don't read the research papers myself as I am not qualified.

 

I also like Bernard's research and he came from a cattle family so I think he is not biased in terms of his background.

 

my non scientific observation is that meat eaters don't want to give up their meat and fat and are struggling to find anything to support their position.

 

Myself I love cheese and pizzas but no longer eat them as they are too fattening and not healthy.

 

But I respect your thoughts.

 

 

[WaveHunter]

DIETING ACCORDING TO THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS (CALORIES IN/CALORIES OUT) VS DIETING BY LOWERING INSULIN 

There's a lot of research that refutes CICO (calories in Calories out dieting) and supports dieting by reducing insulin levels.  You can search PubMed for all the science behind it.  Here is a link though to a simplified, easy to understand explanation.  I don't like to reference third party interpretations of science-based research generally but this one is certainly worth a read!

 

Why the first law of thermodynamics is utterly irrelevant

 

 

[VincentRJ]

There's something wrong with the format of your post, TravelerEastWest. Did you miss the last paragraph of my previous post?

 

Of course, too much saturated fat is bad, just as too much of anything is bad, but that's another issue. If someone is already getting sufficient saturated fats and then, in addition, begins eating Coconut Oil because they've heard of the health benefits, then that additional saturated fat, beyond the body's requirement, could have negative consequences.

 

[robblok]

15 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I agree with you that you don't need to be in ketosis in order to loose body fat but your body cannot access stored body fat while insulin levels are extremely high.  That is impossible from a metabolic standpoint.  Insulin simply acts as a hormonal signal in regard to whether the body should store or use energy.  If levels are high, energy will be stored, not used.

True, but somehow people lose weight on a Mc Donalds or twinkie diet, obviously the time they sleep the body taps into the fat reserves and makes them lose weight. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

 

[VincentRJ]

3 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

DIETING ACCORDING TO THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS (CALORIES IN/CALORIES OUT) VS DIETING BY LOWERING INSULIN 

There's a lot of research that refutes CICO (calories in Calories out dieting) and supports dieting by reducing insulin levels.  You can search PubMed for all the science behind it.  Here is a link through to a simplified, easy to understand explanation.  I don;t like to reference third interpretations generally but this one is certainly worth a read!

 

Why the first law of thermodynamics is utterly irrelevant

 

 

In order to support that theory and convince me it's true, you'll have to provide me examples of prisoners of war in concentration camps, who were deprived of food yet still maintained normal weight whilst their colleagues became as thin as rakes. ????

[WaveHunter]

51 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

...As I understand, fructose in particular has the effect of reducing the normal sensation of satiety when eating. ...

Just another trick the processed-food industry and fast food industry use to make us eat (buy) more product.  Ever wonder why sugar and salt are the heavily promoted combos at McDonalds (Big Gulp soda and French Fries); "Would you like Fries with your order sir?  We're having a special today, Big Gulp for the price of a regular Coke"  LOL

 

Salt makes you want to consume more to drink, and sugar, particularly high fructose corn syrup deactivates the satiety centers in the brain so that you'll mindlessly stuff your face.  These substances aren't in the foods for any other reason except to get you crave the food product to get you get you to stuff your face!  The number of truly obese people you see in places like McDonalds is mind-boggling.  I love the ones you see order massive amounts of burgers, fries, and desert but then will also order a Diet coke, like that will make everything alright ????

 

[WaveHunter]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

In order to support that theory and convince me it's true, you'll have to provide me examples of prisoners of war in concentration camps, who were deprived of food yet still maintained normal weight whilst their colleagues became as thin as rakes. ????

Prisoners of war in concentration camps?  What are you referring to in the article that has to do with that?  I certainly hope that is not your only take-away from the article.  It would be a shame if it was.

 

[WaveHunter]

28 minutes ago, robblok said:

True, but somehow people lose weight on a Mc Donalds or twinkie diet, obviously the time they sleep the body taps into the fat reserves and makes them lose weight. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

 

LOL.  Really?  Don't tell me you're advocating McDonalds for weight loss.  I know you're not, but it's a funny idea, and I'm sure some dopey YouTube Guru will eventually start pushing the idea sooner or later. ????

 

It's hard to believe a responsible teacher (the Twinkie guy) would promote the idea to kids, even if it's funny it really sends a bad message to kids!

[VincentRJ]

29 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Prisoners of war in concentration camps?  What are you referring to in the article that has to do with that?

 

Calories in and calories out. When calories out exceed calories in, you have to lose weight. For people who do little physical exercise, the major portion of the calories or energy from food, by far, is used to maintain the body's processes, such as pumping blood and keeping you alive. As Robblok mentioned, you burn calories even when sleeping.

 

I think the source of the confusion here is that people have different metabolisms. Some people will efficiently turn excess food into fat reserves, which would have given them a survival advantage in earlier times when food was not always available.

 

Others seem to be able to eat excessively without putting on weight. Presumably, their metabolism turns the excess calories into turds which are flushed down the toilet.

 

However, whatever the situation, the 'calories in/calories out' situation still applies. In the first example, the 'calories out' consists of energy used to maintain life and produce fat reserves. In the second example, the 'calories out' is used to maintain life and produce additional turds. Okay? 

[robblok]

42 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

LOL.  Really?  Don't tell me you're advocating McDonalds for weight loss.  I know you're not, but it's a funny idea, and I'm sure some dopey YouTube Guru will eventually start pushing the idea sooner or later. ????

 

It's hard to believe a responsible teacher (the Twinkie guy) would promote the idea to kids, even if it's funny it really sends a bad message to kids!

I am not pushing it at all, just using it as proof you can lose weight while high on carbs. Validating that even if your diet is high on carbs you can lose weight. So either it happens at night when they sleep and have low insulin. (as I agree with you that you need low insulin to lose fat). 

 

I just wanted to prove you wrong that you have to go real low in carbs to lose weight and I think I did. I don't say its the most effective or healthy diet. I would certainly not do it. But it shows you can be relatively high on carbs and lose weight.

 

Just for the record, when I lost my 25 kg my diet was fairly high on carbs (lots of musli and oatmeal). Salads too but 2 of the 3 meals were mainly carbs. I did do a lot of rowing on my concept 2 model D. I can remember all the rowing sessions and my sore ass. 

 

 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Calories in and calories out. When calories out exceed calories in, you have to lose weight. For people who do little physical exercise, the major portion of the calories or energy from food, by far, is used to maintain the body's processes, such as pumping blood and keeping you alive. As Robblok mentioned, you burn calories even when sleeping.

 

I think the source of the confusion here is that people have different metabolisms. Some people will efficiently turn excess food into fat reserves, which would have given them a survival advantage in earlier times when food was not always available.

 

Others seem to be able to eat excessively without putting on weight. Presumably, their metabolism turns the excess calories into turds which are flushed down the toilet.

 

However, whatever the situation, the 'calories in/calories out' situation still applies. In the first example, the 'calories out' consists of energy used to maintain life and produce fat reserves. In the second example, the 'calories out' is used to maintain life and produce additional turds. Okay? 

Well if you want to base you thoughts on metabolic science and not anecdotal conjecture, not Okay at all.  And you still did not explain what you meant in reference to prisoners of war.  Please explain what you meant by that, I'm confused.

 

Yes everybody's metabolism may be different but they still function according to basic physiological and biochemical realties.  The 1st law of thermodynamics is valid; calories in must match calories out BUT unless insulin levels are low, stored fat can not be accessed.  Therefore, the body's only option is to reduce metabolism so that calories in = calories out (according to the 1st law of thermodynamics).  In short, you will not loose body fat.  The only way to keep the 1st law of thermodynaics intact and actually loose fat is to lower insulin so that fat stores can be accessed for energy which allows calories in to equal calories out without lowering metabolism.

 

Here is research that makes this point clear:

Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition  (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.21538)

 

Here is another well regarded study published by JAMA

Effects of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance.  (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432)

 

If you adopt the strategy of reducing insulin rather than simply reducing calories, the story is completely different.  With insulin levels kept low, the body can now access fat stores for energy.  Calories in will now equal calories out WITHOUT the need to slow down the metabolism!  You must understand that it is a metabolic FACT that stored body fat can not be accessed while insulin levels are high, so THAT is the key to weight loss; low insulin, not simply low calories, and that applies to everyone's bodies. 

 

Some will say that they loose weight while eating massive amounts of carbs but that can only be accomplished if you are burning off all those carbs and depleting glycogens stores at some point until your insulin levels drop. If you have high glycogen levels, your body has no need to access stored fat and the resultant high levels of insulin will prevent it from doing so.  Very simply put, insulin is like a switch to tell the body whether to use food (or stored fat) for energy or whether to store it away as body fat for future use).  You can't have it work both ways at the same time.  It is an "either/or" type of thing and that's just a basic metabolic reality that's not even open to debate. 

[VincentRJ]

14 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Well if you want to base you thoughts on metabolic science and not anecdotal conjecture, not Okay at all.  And you still did not explain what you meant in reference to prisoners of war.

 

I'm referring to prisoners of war who are starved of food and often forced to work, as on the Burmese railway. They all end up losing massive amounts of weight and look as thin as rakes.

 

Yes everybody's metabolism may be different but they still function according to basic physiological and biochemical realities.  The 1st law of thermodynamics is valid; calories in must match calories out

BUT unless insulin levels are low, stored fat can not be accessed.  Therefore, the body will reduce metabolism so that calories in = calories out (according to the 1st law of thermodynamics).

 

If what you are saying is true, then it logically follows that some obese or overweight people with high insulin levels would soon die if they attempted to fast, because the stored fat, the only food available, cannot be accessed. Is that correct?
 

[WaveHunter]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm referring to prisoners of war who are starved of food and often forced to work, as on the Burmese railway. They all end up losing massive amounts of weight and look as thin as rakes.

 

If what you are saying is true, then it logically follows that some obese or overweight people with high insulin levels would soon die if they attempted to fast, because the stored fat, the only food available, cannot be accessed. Is that correct?
 

Well in regard to prisoners, I don't see what your point is.  Are you saying they are thin as rakes because they were essentially starved and their body's were forced to resort to catabolizing protein (their muscles)?  How does that relate to what we're talking about?  Lowering insulin and allowing the body access to stored fat is how you prevent protein catabolism, not cause it.  I mean, c'mon, nutritional fasting and being on a ketogenic diet is a far cry from clinical starvation as would be the case in a prisoner of war.

 

With regard to obese people with high insulin, if they fasted, their insulin levels would go down, basically in a matter of days so they would then be able to access stored body fat.  In fact, more and more doctors who deal with patients in extreme stages of diabetes-2 are starting to reverse their thoughts on using massive amounts of insulin as a treatment since it's sort of like giving alcohol to an alcoholic.  Sure, it may alleviate symptoms in the short term but in the long term it only acerbates the situation and makes the problem far worse.  Treating the symptoms instead of the root cause is usually not the wisest thing to do.  Same is true with loosing excess body fat; it's not wise to ignore metabolic science and expect good outcomes. 

[VincentRJ]

12 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

With regard to obese people with high insulin, if they fasted, their insulin levels would go down, basically in a matter of days so they would then be able to access stored body fat. 

Well there you are then. What's the problem? Eat less and you lose weight. I'm not claiming that everyone will lose weight at the same rate, eating the same reduced quantity of the same type of food. But lose weight they must, if they eat less.
 

[WaveHunter]

29 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Well there you are then. What's the problem? Eat less and you lose weight. I'm not claiming that everyone will lose weight at the same rate, eating the same reduced quantity of the same type of food. But lose weight they must, if they eat less.
 

Fasting is quite different than calorie reduction.  Fasting by its nature reduces insulin drastically and immediately; calorie restriction does not.  Fasting results in production of ketone bodies which can fuel the brain directly and cause release of fatty acids from stored fat WITHOUT reducing metabolism; calorie reduction by itself can not.  What we're really debating here is calorie reduction vs insulin reduction.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Well there you are then. What's the problem? Eat less and you lose weight. I'm not claiming that everyone will lose weight at the same rate, eating the same reduced quantity of the same type of food. But lose weight they must, if they eat less.
 

Eat less and you will NOT necessarily loose weight; in fact you can easily gain weight by eating less if your metabolism slows down enough from caloric restriction, and it will slow down; there's no question about it if you have not taken insulin into account!

 

I hope you or anyone else reading my past few posts will understand I'm not playing devil's advocate with you or nit-picking.  It might sounds as though what I'm saying is inconsequential but there is a HUGE difference between simple calorie-restriction diets, and diets based on reducing insulin levels; a night and day difference actually.  Statistically, one works well and the other does not work well at all.  I provided the documentation that makes that crystal-clear.

 

I've tried to explain it as simply as I can, and provided documentation to back up what I'm saying.  If one reads the links I posted, I don't see how they could disagree.  I mean, It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to grasp the essentials here if you look at it with an open mind and a genuine desire to understand the science instead of unfounded mis-information and half-truths and here-say. 

 

Simply put, long term success in dieting through caloric restriction without accounting for metabolic slowdown is doomed to fail; dieting through insulin reduction where metabolic slowdown is not significantly encountered offers the best chance of long-term success.  Believe it or not; that's your choice.