I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[FracturedRabbit]

40 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

As noted earlier on, this thread has turned into a litany of pseudo-science and ignorance fueled by a thick smattering od OCD.

The simple fact that people are so unable to self analyse or diagnose that they clutch at fads and diets, claiming they work, yet end up trying to explain how they put on weight again.......which just shows none of these diets..... not a single one actually works.

If by "diets" you mean changing what you eat for a limited period in order to lose weight; and thereafter returning to a way of eating that got you fat in the first place; then I agree.

But if you change your diet, what you eat and when you eat, as part of a lifestyle change; and you continue to eat in that way; you can lose weight and keep it off forever; and be more healthy.

[Kohsamida]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

I am Dutch grown up with dairy and I can tolerate it well. I usually go for the normal musli without any extra added sugars. Not sure what brand it is (something German). I start the day with breakfast (in this case 5 eggs 3 slices of bacon with the eggs), something easy in the afternoon (musli in this case could be something different).

 

Yes I heard MCT is good for keto but its also a healthy source of fat. I have my fish oil and some olive oil if i take salads. The MCT oil I buy at good karma shop Thailand.  I don't think it will help reduce fat that much its just that i believe in eating (relatively) healthy and that means good fats too. I consider MCT as good. I used to take flax seed oil too. I also have almond butter (make it myself) has a lot of protein and healthy fats too. I sometimes take spoon as a snack or if I eat bread (not often) use it for bread.

 

 

5 eggs!  It sounds like you are one of the few people that understand dietary cholesterol does not equate with serum levels of cholesterol; one of those myths that just won't seem to die.

[Kohsamida]

2 hours ago, wilcopops said:

As noted earlier on, this thread has turned into a litany of pseudo-science and ignorance fueled by a thick smattering od OCD.

The simple fact that people are so unable to self analyse or diagnose that they clutch at fads and diets, claiming they work, yet end up trying to explain how they put on weight again.......which just shows none of these diets..... not a single one actually works.

Most of the discussions I've read on this thread are by people who are not into "fad" style diets at all but are focusing more on sound, long-term changes in nutrition so that short-term weight-loss diets shouldn't even be necessary.  It's just that there are a lot of conflicting opinions on what constitutes healthy nutrition, and since "one size does not fit all", that makes it even more confusing.  I think it's a pretty positive thread myself.

[robblok]

10 hours ago, wilcopops said:

As noted earlier on, this thread has turned into a litany of pseudo-science and ignorance fueled by a thick smattering od OCD.

The simple fact that people are so unable to self analyse or diagnose that they clutch at fads and diets, claiming they work, yet end up trying to explain how they put on weight again.......which just shows none of these diets..... not a single one actually works.

Actually all diets work as long as you burn more then what you eat. It is simple. 

 

Problem is to keep weight off people need lifestyle changes. Not many are able to do that. I kept most of the weight off. Normally no problems to do so. 

[stephenterry]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

Actually all diets work as long as you burn more then what you eat. It is simple. 

 

Problem is to keep weight off people need lifestyle changes. Not many are able to do that. I kept most of the weight off. Normally no problems to do so. 

Specifically, IMO, the only 'diet' that works long term is intermittent water fasting, as the body's metabolic rate doesn't decrease but increases to a level which is thought to be due to the rise in the hormone norepinephrine, which promotes fat burning. For a complete scientific explanation (that goes over my head) refer to:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=metabolic+autophagy+siim+land+pdf&oq=meatabolic+auto&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l5.17627j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Unlike any nutritious diet that spikes insulin whenever food or fruit liquid is consumed and, for example, if calories out exceed calories in (COCI), the human body is programmed to reduce the metabolic rate to stop the body from 'dying', and so the dieter has to consume less calories just to stay at the same weight once calories return to 'normal' post diet  - and the weight lost will be put back on to what it was before. There are countless studies to prove this.

 

I find that a 20-4 hour fasting window is sufficient to maintain lost weight, eating one meal a day (OMAD) following a keto based nutrition plan. but as posters have said, what works for the individual is the best course of continuity. 

 

BTW, I'm 75 come September, 175cm height, and weigh 71 kilos, the same as when I was an active forty year old. Nowadays, I still need to achieve gain lean muscle (mostly to replace visceral belly fat) by Isotonic exercising with minimum weights. 

 

Any advice on that would be welcomed.

  

[FracturedRabbit]

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Specifically, IMO, the only 'diet' that works long term is intermittent water fasting, as the body's metabolic rate doesn't decrease but increases to a level which is thought to be due to the rise in the hormone norepinephrine, which promotes fat burning. For a complete scientific explanation (that goes over my head) refer to:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=metabolic+autophagy+siim+land+pdf&oq=meatabolic+auto&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l5.17627j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Unlike any nutritious diet that spikes insulin whenever food or fruit liquid is consumed and, for example, if calories out exceed calories in (COCI), the human body is programmed to reduce the metabolic rate to stop the body from 'dying', and so the dieter has to consume less calories just to stay at the same weight once calories return to 'normal' post diet  - and the weight lost will be put back on to what it was before. There are countless studies to prove this.

 

I find that a 20-4 hour fasting window is sufficient to maintain lost weight, eating one meal a day (OMAD) following a keto based nutrition plan. but as posters have said, what works for the individual is the best course of continuity. 

 

BTW, I'm 75 come September, 175cm height, and weigh 71 kilos, the same as when I was an active forty year old. Nowadays, I still need to achieve gain lean muscle (mostly to replace visceral belly fat) by Isotonic exercising with minimum weights. 

 

Any advice on that would be welcomed.

  

"if calories out exceed calories in (COCI), the human body is programmed to reduce the metabolic rate to stop the body from 'dying'"

The body has no receptors for calories, it does not know how many calories you have consumed or expended. 

I follow a similar approach to nutrition to yourself with similar results; but think the calorie in/calorie out model is too simplistic, and is used as a blaming mechanism for those who are overweight due to what they eat rather than how much they eat. 1000 calories of cake ain't the same as 1000 calories of avocado!

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

The body has no receptors for calories, it does not know how many calories you have consumed or expended. 

 

Good point! The term 'calorie' is a theoretical, scientific expression, equivalent to expressing a quantity of energy in terms of litres of petrol (or gallons of gasoline for you Americans  ???? ). 

 

Energy in (or calories in), in relation to energy expended, or distance traveled in the case of a motor vehicle, is dependent upon the efficiency of the car engine, or the efficiency of the human metabolism in the case of food consumption.

 

I'm sure there are many examples of two individuals who eat the same quantity of the same type of food, who are also engaged in the same amount of physical exercise, and are essentially leading the same life style, but one of them becomes overweight whilst the other maintains a normal weight.

 

An overweight person will tend to interpret such results along the lines, "My excessive weight it due to my genes. There's nothing I can do about it. This is confirmed because my friend eats the same amount of food as I do, and leads the same lifestyle, but is not overweight."

 

The incorrect assumption here is that the overweight person thinks that he/she is not overeating because his/her friend, who is not overweight, cannot be eating too much, otherwise he/she would also be overweight.

 

The reality is, both people are overeating, but one of them has, in a sense, an inefficient metabolism which flushes the excess energy down the toilet instead of converting it to fat reserves. This metabolic inefficiency would have put such people at a survival disadvantage thousands of years ago when severe famines due to droughts occurred.

 

The overweight person should feel pleased that their body is acting normally, and efficiently, converting excess food into fat reserves to help them survive during the next famine. Of course, the problem is, in our modern, developed societies we don't have famines, therefore, overeating serves no purpose, and has only negative consequences.

 

The process of fasting, in order to lose weight, is a deliberate and willful substitute for the natural famines that our ancient ancestors unavoidably experienced.

 

 

[stephenterry]

3 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

"if calories out exceed calories in (COCI), the human body is programmed to reduce the metabolic rate to stop the body from 'dying'"

The body has no receptors for calories, it does not know how many calories you have consumed or expended. 

I follow a similar approach to nutrition to yourself with similar results; but think the calorie in/calorie out model is too simplistic, and is used as a blaming mechanism for those who are overweight due to what they eat rather than how much they eat. 1000 calories of cake ain't the same as 1000 calories of avocado!

You're quite correct in that the avocado is (good) high fat and the cake is (bad) high carbs. My gist was in answer to Rob, and also to the plethora of such calorie counting diets plans. Cake will spike an insulin response, more readily than avocado, thus increasing blood sugar which the body uses instead of burning fat. 

However, it's a truism that expending more energy than that created would result in a weight loss until the body realigns the energy depletion by lowering the metabolic rate.

 

That's why these 'calorie counting' diets succeed in the short term and fail in the long term, as do the diets that do not provide for a minimum, IMO, 16 hours of fasting per 24 hours. 

 

 

[stephenterry]

54 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Good point! The term 'calorie' is a theoretical, scientific expression, equivalent to expressing a quantity of energy in terms of litres of petrol (or gallons of gasoline for you Americans  ???? ). 

 

Energy in (or calories in), in relation to energy expended, or distance traveled in the case of a motor vehicle, is dependent upon the efficiency of the car engine, or the efficiency of the human metabolism in the case of food consumption.

 

I'm sure there are many examples of two individuals who eat the same quantity of the same type of food, who are also engaged in the same amount of physical exercise, and are essentially leading the same life style, but one of them becomes overweight whilst the other maintains a normal weight.

 

An overweight person will tend to interpret such results along the lines, "My excessive weight it due to my genes. There's nothing I can do about it. This is confirmed because my friend eats the same amount of food as I do, and leads the same lifestyle, but is not overweight."

 

The incorrect assumption here is that the overweight person thinks that he/she is not overeating because his/her friend, who is not overweight, cannot be eating too much, otherwise he/she would also be overweight.

 

The reality is, both people are overeating, but one of them has, in a sense, an inefficient metabolism which flushes the excess energy down the toilet instead of converting it to fat reserves. This metabolic inefficiency would have put such people at a survival disadvantage thousands of years ago when severe famines due to droughts occurred.

 

The overweight person should feel pleased that their body is acting normally, and efficiently, converting excess food into fat reserves to help them survive during the next famine. Of course, the problem is, in our modern, developed societies we don't have famines, therefore, overeating serves no purpose, and has only negative consequences.

 

The process of fasting, in order to lose weight, is a deliberate and willful substitute for the natural famines that our ancient ancestors unavoidably experienced.

 

 

Yes, I am inclined to agree in principle that there is a mismatch. Pity that more research on inefficient metabolism hasn't been fully examined, or more specifically does the body actually waste the energy instead of storing it as fat?

 

That doesn't make sense to me, and I think it is a more likely scenario that the metabolisim rate for the 'normal weight person' is abnormally high, and the body uses it up more quickly than the fat-storage person.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

That doesn't make sense to me, and I think it is a more likely scenario that the metabolisim rate for the 'normal weight person' is abnormally high, and the body uses it up more quickly than the fat-storage person.

Uses it up more quickly for what purpose? That's the question. My example consisted of two people consuming the same amount of the same type of food, and engaging in the same activities. Yet one puts on weight and the other doesn't.

 

If the person who didn't put on weight, eating the same amount and type of food,  was more energetic, then that would be an explanation.

[robblok]

21 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Specifically, IMO, the only 'diet' that works long term is intermittent water fasting, as the body's metabolic rate doesn't decrease but increases to a level which is thought to be due to the rise in the hormone norepinephrine, which promotes fat burning. For a complete scientific explanation (that goes over my head) refer to:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=metabolic+autophagy+siim+land+pdf&oq=meatabolic+auto&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l5.17627j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Unlike any nutritious diet that spikes insulin whenever food or fruit liquid is consumed and, for example, if calories out exceed calories in (COCI), the human body is programmed to reduce the metabolic rate to stop the body from 'dying', and so the dieter has to consume less calories just to stay at the same weight once calories return to 'normal' post diet  - and the weight lost will be put back on to what it was before. There are countless studies to prove this.

 

I find that a 20-4 hour fasting window is sufficient to maintain lost weight, eating one meal a day (OMAD) following a keto based nutrition plan. but as posters have said, what works for the individual is the best course of continuity. 

 

BTW, I'm 75 come September, 175cm height, and weigh 71 kilos, the same as when I was an active forty year old. Nowadays, I still need to achieve gain lean muscle (mostly to replace visceral belly fat) by Isotonic exercising with minimum weights. 

 

Any advice on that would be welcomed.

  

I dont have much advice on body weight exercises as its not my thing. I can still use weights. However i know there are extensive youtube videos on just bodyweight exercises. Alternatively you can get some TRX bands or something like that. It will work too, sorry I cant be of more help.

[robblok]

18 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

"if calories out exceed calories in (COCI), the human body is programmed to reduce the metabolic rate to stop the body from 'dying'"

The body has no receptors for calories, it does not know how many calories you have consumed or expended. 

I follow a similar approach to nutrition to yourself with similar results; but think the calorie in/calorie out model is too simplistic, and is used as a blaming mechanism for those who are overweight due to what they eat rather than how much they eat. 1000 calories of cake ain't the same as 1000 calories of avocado!

True, that is why i eat unprocessed stuff mainly and count those calories. I reduce them when needed. (actually havent counted for a while as I have set meals that i weigh so I know how much i get).

 

The body does not know how much calories it has expended but the body does know how much fat you have. If you go beyond a certain set point (look at the body set point theory) the body will fight hard to get back to that weight. 

 

So a calorie is a calorie.. only your making it quite hard on yourself if you take 1000 calories from cake instead of avocado. However if you only eat 1000 calories from cake the insulin spike isnt a problem at all. (1000 calories cake would be one meal). Plenty of time for the body to be low insulin for along time and burn fat. The insulin problem is NOT that much of a problem when your restricting calories because you won't have enough calories to spike your insulin all the time. That is different from when you don't restrict your calories because then you have even more insulin response and less time of low insulin. (I would also say that 1000 calories avocado would make you feel much fuller)

 

Its all about dosage on a 1500-1800 cals a day you will be hard pressed (even if you make it all carbs) to mess up your insulin. Because that is only 3 meals with plenty of time for the insulin to be lower again. If your calories are a lot higher means more meals and longer high insulin and extra fat. So by lowering calories your also always lowering insulin response. (not advocating eating only carbs just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning of those thinking that it matters a lot what you eat if your already on lower calories).

 

Of course if you eat 1800 calories of only proteins (impossible of course) you wou would see better results then 1800 calories from fat or carbs. Because it cost 30% extra energy to convert proteins. So 1800 calories from protein is the same as 1260 calories from carbs or fat. That is why high protein low carb high fat work so well.  Its not just the insulin response but also the thermic effect. 

 

But your 100% right that calories in calories out is too simplistic but with some tweaks it works rather well. I always seem to lose weight when I eat less. (as would most people). 

 

I have often posted the Mc Donalds diet and some other crap food diets that worked for people. These things just prove my point that in the end its all about caloric reductions. But for health reasons these diets are bad of course. 

[stephenterry]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Uses it up more quickly for what purpose? That's the question. My example consisted of two people consuming the same amount of the same type of food, and engaging in the same activities. Yet one puts on weight and the other doesn't.

 

If the person who didn't put on weight, eating the same amount and type of food,  was more energetic, then that would be an explanation.

Yes, I understood your example, and it questions exactly what is happening. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a doctor, medical expert, health guru, or can do anymore than try and make sense of what could be happening. First of all it's not that simple owing to body variables - and also the respective gender, age and health of the two individuals.

 

Also to take into account, for proper measurement, both need to be in a similar state, e.g. fasting, maintenance - whether losing weight or gaining weight or whatever. That is why I stated that it is 'impossible' for two people to have exactly the same reaction just by paying attention to the above statement.   

 

However, digging a little deeper. For example, for simplification: 

 

One person has a higher metabolic rate than the other, which would burn more calories quicker. Which is the simplest solution. Exercise could facilitate this.

 

And/Or both people have a natural body weight, one of which is higher than the other.  Clearly, in this example, any excess calories could cause the lower weight person's body to store them as fat. This is what happens when a diet is finished. The pounds go back on because the body has a natural body weight. Even by reducing  calorie intake doesn't work because the body has already lowered the metabolic rate - ironically, to prevent you from starvation...

 

Only water-only IF can break that sequence. Why? Because fasting brings about a chemical bodily reaction  - that for reasons I don't fully understand - it actually increases metabolic rates which burns off fat while in that state. 

 

Read up on Ketosis and Autophagy  - and best of luck with it.

 

 

[stephenterry]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

True, that is why i eat unprocessed stuff mainly and count those calories. I reduce them when needed. (actually havent counted for a while as I have set meals that i weigh so I know how much i get).

 

The body does not know how much calories it has expended but the body does know how much fat you have. If you go beyond a certain set point (look at the body set point theory) the body will fight hard to get back to that weight. 

 

So a calorie is a calorie.. only your making it quite hard on yourself if you take 1000 calories from cake instead of avocado. However if you only eat 1000 calories from cake the insulin spike isnt a problem at all. (1000 calories cake would be one meal). Plenty of time for the body to be low insulin for along time and burn fat. The insulin problem is NOT that much of a problem when your restricting calories because you won't have enough calories to spike your insulin all the time. That is different from when you don't restrict your calories because then you have even more insulin response and less time of low insulin. (I would also say that 1000 calories avocado would make you feel much fuller)

 

Its all about dosage on a 1500-1800 cals a day you will be hard pressed (even if you make it all carbs) to mess up your insulin. Because that is only 3 meals with plenty of time for the insulin to be lower again. If your calories are a lot higher means more meals and longer high insulin and extra fat. So by lowering calories your also always lowering insulin response. (not advocating eating only carbs just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning of those thinking that it matters a lot what you eat if your already on lower calories).

 

Of course if you eat 1800 calories of only proteins (impossible of course) you wou would see better results then 1800 calories from fat or carbs. Because it cost 30% extra energy to convert proteins. So 1800 calories from protein is the same as 1260 calories from carbs or fat. That is why high protein low carb high fat work so well.  Its not just the insulin response but also the thermic effect. 

 

But your 100% right that calories in calories out is too simplistic but with some tweaks it works rather well. I always seem to lose weight when I eat less. (as would most people). 

 

I have often posted the Mc Donalds diet and some other crap food diets that worked for people. These things just prove my point that in the end its all about caloric reductions. But for health reasons these diets are bad of course. 

Two points: natural body weight and calorie intake.

 

By reducing calorie intake works in losing weight, however as the body is striving to bring back the weight loss, it reduces the metabolic rate to compensate. That's to ensure you have enough energy to go hunting/food gathering.

 

Therefore even if you lost weight you'll regain it later - unless of course you're into IF and can enable the body to reset its weight at a lower level.

 

 

[robblok]

19 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Two points: natural body weight and calorie intake.

 

By reducing calorie intake works in losing weight, however as the body is striving to bring back the weight loss, it reduces the metabolic rate to compensate. That's to ensure you have enough energy to go hunting/food gathering.

 

Therefore even if you lost weight you'll regain it later - unless of course you're into IF and can enable the body to reset its weight at a lower level.

 

 

Sorry, there is NO proof of IF resetting the body set point. There has been extensive research done and so far no proof that the body can reset it set point downwards. Upwards has been proven.

 

Many scientist would love to see the proof you have as its something that is quite interesting (body setpoint).

 

Guess what i lost 25 kg kept it off and I did not have to fast, go IF or do any other crazy stuff. Just make some lifestyle changes.

[robblok]

19 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Yes, I understood your example, and it questions exactly what is happening. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a doctor, medical expert, health guru, or can do anymore than try and make sense of what could be happening. First of all it's not that simple owing to body variables - and also the respective gender, age and health of the two individuals.

 

Also to take into account, for proper measurement, both need to be in a similar state, e.g. fasting, maintenance - whether losing weight or gaining weight or whatever. That is why I stated that it is 'impossible' for two people to have exactly the same reaction just by paying attention to the above statement.   

 

However, digging a little deeper. For example, for simplification: 

 

One person has a higher metabolic rate than the other, which would burn more calories quicker. Which is the simplest solution. Exercise could facilitate this.

 

And/Or both people have a natural body weight, one of which is higher than the other.  Clearly, in this example, any excess calories could cause the lower weight person's body to store them as fat. This is what happens when a diet is finished. The pounds go back on because the body has a natural body weight. Even by reducing  calorie intake doesn't work because the body has already lowered the metabolic rate - ironically, to prevent you from starvation...

 

Only water-only IF can break that sequence. Why? Because fasting brings about a chemical bodily reaction  - that for reasons I don't fully understand - it actually increases metabolic rates which burns off fat while in that state. 

 

Read up on Ketosis and Autophagy  - and best of luck with it.

 

 

You should read up on body set points, no proof IF or fasting resets a body setpoint. If you can come up with any research id be happy to read it. Id been reading up on body setpoints for quite some time. The last I read research wise was that there was no proof yet about resetting anything.

[Kohsamida]

On 6/15/2019 at 2:01 PM, FracturedRabbit said:

"if calories out exceed calories in (COCI), the human body is programmed to reduce the metabolic rate to stop the body from 'dying'"

The body has no receptors for calories, it does not know how many calories you have consumed or expended. 

I follow a similar approach to nutrition to yourself with similar results; but think the calorie in/calorie out model is too simplistic, and is used as a blaming mechanism for those who are overweight due to what they eat rather than how much they eat. 1000 calories of cake ain't the same as 1000 calories of avocado!

Personally, I agree with this view.  In my opinion, CICO diets fail in the long run because they do not account for the actions of insulin on fat storage / mobilization. 

 

CICO advocates believe that you simply take calories-in and subtract calories-out, and what ever is left is stored as fat. They base this view on the 1st law of thermodynamics where energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, so creating a caloric deficit is all that's important.  More importantly, CICO diets fail to take into account the role that hormonal balance plays in the equation.

 

The 1st law of thermodynamics definitely is true BUT the problem with CICO is that the body's normal reaction to reducing calories-in below the level of calories-out is to reduce metabolic rate, and the key hormone that governs this homeostatic state of energy balance is insulin. 

 

Basically, if insulin is too high, then the body can not efficiently access stored fat for energy.  So, if calories are cut, but insulin remains high, the body's only option is to reduce metabolic rate to maintain homeostasis.  In simply terms, insulin is the key to fat storage / mobilization much more so than merely calories alone.

 

An effective weight loss diet must not only cut calories-in below calories-out but must also keep insulin low so that fat stores can be efficiently accessed and used for energy, and thus avoid a slowed metabolic rate.

 

Generally, carbohydrates have a much higher effect on insulin than fats. Therefore IMO, a reduced calorie lower carb / higher fat diet is the most efficient way BY FAR to burn stored body fat while avoiding metabolic slowdown.

 

CICO advocates strongly disagree but the scientific evidence that supports insulin's role is pretty compelling to me.

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Kohsamida

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Sorry, there is NO proof of IF resetting the body set point. There has been extensive research done and so far no proof that the body can reset it set point downwards. Upwards has been proven.

 

Many scientist would love to see the proof you have as its something that is quite interesting (body setpoint).

 

Guess what i lost 25 kg kept it off and I did not have to fast, go IF or do any other crazy stuff. Just make some lifestyle changes.

I suppose the proof lies in the fact that all diets work and all fail, as the lost weight is regained.  This is categorically a truism, because once off the fast, even if lower calories are eaten the metabolic rate has been decreased and fat egained as a consequence.   

 

However, that could be - unlike you - no lifestyle changes were made by the dieters. I would also suggest that owing to your weight loss and being able to keep it off demonstrates that the body has 'adjusted' to the new weight.  

 

It could well be that IF has a similar outcome because metabolic rate increases during the IF as opposed to decreases when diet calories are consumed. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by stephenterry
correction

[stephenterry]

15 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

Personally, I agree with this view.  In my opinion, CICO diets fail in the long run because they do not account for the actions of insulin on fat storage / mobilization.  CICO advocates believe that you simply take calories-in and subtract calories-out, and what ever is left is stored as fat. They base this view on the 1st law of thermodynamics where energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system.

 

The 1st law of thermodynamics definitely is true BUT the problem with CICO is that the body's normal reaction to reducing calories-in below the level of calories-out is to reduce metabolic rate, and the key hormone that governs this homeostatic state of energy balance is insulin. 

 

Basically, if insulin is too high, then the body can not efficiently access stored fat for energy.  So, if calories are cut, but insulin remains high, the body's only option is to reduce metabolic rate to maintain homeostasis.  In simply terms, insulin is the key to fat storage / mobilization much more so than merely calories alone.

 

An effective weight loss diet must not only cut calories-in below calories-out but must also keep insulin low so that fat stores can be efficiently accessed and used for energy, and thus avoid a slowed metabolic rate.

 

Generally, carbohydrates have a much higher effect on insulin than fats. Therefore IMO, a reduced calorie lower carb / higher fat diet is the most efficient way BY FAR to burn stored body fat while avoiding metabolic slowdown.

 

CICO advocates strongly disagree but the scientific evidence that supports insulin's role is pretty compelling to me.

 

Exactly. CICO has been scientifically discredited, currently, because dieters put the weight back on once off the diet.

[Kohsamida]

16 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Exactly. CICO has been scientifically discredited, currently, because dieters put the weight back on once off the diet.

It's really so simple to understand the role insulin plays in body fat storage / mobilization;  it's not rocket science.  I don't know why there's such resistance to it among the CICO advocates but it should be more than obvious by the overwhelming number of CICO fad diets that come and go, that they simply do not work in the long-run.  For many who try one after another, the yo-yo effect of weight loss and regain is probably more unhealthy than simply carrying the excess fat!

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Kohsamida

[FracturedRabbit]

15 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

It's really so simple to understand the role insulin plays in body fat storage / mobilization;  it's not rocket science.  I don't know why there's such resistance to it among the CICO advocates but it should be more than obvious by the overwhelming number of CICO fad diets that come and go, that they simply do not work in the long-run.  For many who try one after another, the yo-yo effect of weight loss and regain is probably more unhealthy than simply carrying the excess fat!

 

This video explains it very well (for me): 

 

[robblok]

36 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I suppose the proof lies in the fact that all diets work and all fail, as the lost weight is regained.  This is categorically a truism, because once off the fast, even if lower calories are eaten the metabolic rate has been decreased and fat egained as a consequence.   

 

However, that could be - unlike you - no lifestyle changes were made by the dieters. I would also suggest that owing to your weight loss and being able to keep it off demonstrates that the body has 'adjusted' to the new weight.  

 

It could well be that IF has a similar outcome because metabolic rate increases during the IF as opposed to decreases when diet calories are consumed. 

I think all diets fail without lifestyle changes. I mean if your low carb and stop low carb then you gain it back too. The low carb is a lifestyle change. Same as eating a different diet and exercising was one for me.

 

But I was asking for bodysetpoint evidence and there is none. I don't know if i burn as much as before I only know i can keep it off by eating right. But I do know that the latest research on body setpoints has shown that it can be adjusted upwards (unfortunately) but not downwards. So I wonder why you claim something the top researchers have not been able to confirm.

[robblok]

53 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

Personally, I agree with this view.  In my opinion, CICO diets fail in the long run because they do not account for the actions of insulin on fat storage / mobilization. 

 

CICO advocates believe that you simply take calories-in and subtract calories-out, and what ever is left is stored as fat. They base this view on the 1st law of thermodynamics where energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, so creating a caloric deficit is all that's important.  More importantly, CICO diets fail to take into account the role that hormonal balance plays in the equation.

 

The 1st law of thermodynamics definitely is true BUT the problem with CICO is that the body's normal reaction to reducing calories-in below the level of calories-out is to reduce metabolic rate, and the key hormone that governs this homeostatic state of energy balance is insulin. 

 

Basically, if insulin is too high, then the body can not efficiently access stored fat for energy.  So, if calories are cut, but insulin remains high, the body's only option is to reduce metabolic rate to maintain homeostasis.  In simply terms, insulin is the key to fat storage / mobilization much more so than merely calories alone.

 

An effective weight loss diet must not only cut calories-in below calories-out but must also keep insulin low so that fat stores can be efficiently accessed and used for energy, and thus avoid a slowed metabolic rate.

 

Generally, carbohydrates have a much higher effect on insulin than fats. Therefore IMO, a reduced calorie lower carb / higher fat diet is the most efficient way BY FAR to burn stored body fat while avoiding metabolic slowdown.

 

CICO advocates strongly disagree but the scientific evidence that supports insulin's role is pretty compelling to me.

 

I disagree with you again you fail to see the dosage issue here. I wonder how someone who eats say 1800 calories can keep a high insulin levels unless all 1800 calories are from fast carbs otherwise the body has time enough to burn fat in the low insulin states.

 

Unless of course your talking about metabolicly damaged people. I think the role of insulin is overstated in healthy overweight people but the low carb group seems to believe this is not the fact.

 

If now why do people lose weight on normal CICO diets ? CICO diets fail on the long term as they are not adjusted for lower bodyweight.

[BobBKK]

On 6/16/2019 at 8:37 AM, robblok said:

True, that is why i eat unprocessed stuff mainly and count those calories. I reduce them when needed. (actually havent counted for a while as I have set meals that i weigh so I know how much i get).

 

The body does not know how much calories it has expended but the body does know how much fat you have. If you go beyond a certain set point (look at the body set point theory) the body will fight hard to get back to that weight. 

 

So a calorie is a calorie.. only your making it quite hard on yourself if you take 1000 calories from cake instead of avocado. However if you only eat 1000 calories from cake the insulin spike isnt a problem at all. (1000 calories cake would be one meal). Plenty of time for the body to be low insulin for along time and burn fat. The insulin problem is NOT that much of a problem when your restricting calories because you won't have enough calories to spike your insulin all the time. That is different from when you don't restrict your calories because then you have even more insulin response and less time of low insulin. (I would also say that 1000 calories avocado would make you feel much fuller)

 

Its all about dosage on a 1500-1800 cals a day you will be hard pressed (even if you make it all carbs) to mess up your insulin. Because that is only 3 meals with plenty of time for the insulin to be lower again. If your calories are a lot higher means more meals and longer high insulin and extra fat. So by lowering calories your also always lowering insulin response. (not advocating eating only carbs just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning of those thinking that it matters a lot what you eat if your already on lower calories).

 

Of course if you eat 1800 calories of only proteins (impossible of course) you wou would see better results then 1800 calories from fat or carbs. Because it cost 30% extra energy to convert proteins. So 1800 calories from protein is the same as 1260 calories from carbs or fat. That is why high protein low carb high fat work so well.  Its not just the insulin response but also the thermic effect. 

 

But your 100% right that calories in calories out is too simplistic but with some tweaks it works rather well. I always seem to lose weight when I eat less. (as would most people). 

 

I have often posted the Mc Donalds diet and some other crap food diets that worked for people. These things just prove my point that in the end its all about caloric reductions. But for health reasons these diets are bad of course. 

Some very interesting info. I have been on and off diets most of my life and there seems, apart from the food side, two very big issues:

1/ genetics - my father was very heavy set and ate and drank wines/cocktails daily (died at 92)

2/ the mind - it plays all sorts of tricks, "I'll start tomorrow", it's not too "bad", "I can lose it if I really wanted too" and all that jazz.

I do have some friends from slim parents and they eat like a horse with no weight gain. Chomping through 3 meals plus snacks a day, very depressing  lol. 

[Kohsamida]

35 minutes ago, robblok said:

I disagree with you again you fail to see the dosage issue here. I wonder how someone who eats say 1800 calories can keep a high insulin levels unless all 1800 calories are from fast carbs otherwise the body has time enough to burn fat in the low insulin states.

 

Unless of course your talking about metabolicly damaged people. I think the role of insulin is overstated in healthy overweight people but the low carb group seems to believe this is not the fact.

 

If now why do people lose weight on normal CICO diets ? CICO diets fail on the long term as they are not adjusted for lower bodyweight.

You say "you fail to see the dosage issue here."  I said "IF" insulin levels are high which implies calories are above level needed for Basal BMR plus exercise!  And it has nothing to do with this occurring only in  "metabolically damaged people"!  You can NOT have such high insulin levels and also be able to burn stored body fat simultaneously.  It doesn't work that way.  If you are trying to say that insulin does not play a key role in lipid metabolism, that's just plain ignorant.  Do your homework and learn how insulin works in fat & carbohydrate metabolism!  This isn't rocket science. 

 

You don't seem to understand that insulin reacts differently to carbohydrates than fats.  Comparatively speaking carbohydrates (both "good" ones and "bad" ones) elicit a much higher insulin response than dietary protein, and especially dietary fats.  If you are on a high carb diet, even if calories in are less than calories-out, you will not access stored body fat as efficiently, and more importantly, your body will react to the deficit by slowing metabolism to maintain homeostasis (1st law of thermodynamics).  Only low levels of insulin allow for efficient access to stored body fat that will prevent a metabolic slowdown.

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Kohsamida

[robblok]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Some very interesting info. I have been on and off diets most of my life and there seems, apart from the food side, two very big issues:

1/ genetics - my father was very heavy set and ate and drank wines/cocktails daily (died at 92)

2/ the mind - it plays all sorts of tricks, "I'll start tomorrow", it's not too "bad", "I can lose it if I really wanted too" and all that jazz.

I do have some friends from slim parents and they eat like a horse with no weight gain. Chomping through 3 meals plus snacks a day, very depressing  lol. 

Yes genetics play a large role but even with bad genetics (i got them for fat loss combined with a diagnosed slow thyroid) you can lose weight.

 

2 its just about priorities as long as you don't really want it it wont happen.

 

Yes its depressing to see others eat more then you and stay lean, so be it you have to work with the hand that is dealt to you. I eat far less then others put in loads of effort  and it works. But with the effort I put in even more should have been seen. 

 

Still if you have a problem losing weight you often are able to put on more muscle then others. (not always you could be really screwed). In the end its always possible to improve on yourself you might not be able to reach levels of others but you can always better yourself.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Kohsamida said:

I said "IF" insulin levels are high!  And it has nothing to do with this occurring only in  "metabolically damaged people"!  You can NOT have a high insulin levels and also be able to burn stored body fat simultaneously.  It doesn't work that way.  If you are trying to say that insulin does not play a key role in lipid metabolism, that's just plain ignorant.  Do your homework and learn how insulin works!  This isn't rocket science.

Yes you said IF.. but how are you going to have high insulin levels on an 1800 cals diet ?. You seem to understand that insulin response is based on the dosage of carbs and kind of carbs you eat.

 

1800 cals is 3 600 calorie meals no (a normal CICO diet) no way you can have high insulin on that. Unless maybe all your calories come from bad carbs but even then your body eliminates the bloodsugar in 2 hours after a meal 3 at most. So tell me are 18 hours without insulin not enough ? Do you really think your body cannot increase the speed it burns fat to compensate ?

[Kohsamida]

55 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes you said IF.. but how are you going to have high insulin levels on an 1800 cals diet ?. You seem to understand that insulin response is based on the dosage of carbs and kind of carbs you eat.

 

1800 cals is 3 600 calorie meals no (a normal CICO diet) no way you can have high insulin on that. Unless maybe all your calories come from bad carbs but even then your body eliminates the bloodsugar in 2 hours after a meal 3 at most. So tell me are 18 hours without insulin not enough ? Do you really think your body cannot increase the speed it burns fat to compensate ?

Insulin is a key player in the control of intermediary metabolism, and the big picture is that it organizes the use of fuels for either storage or oxidation.  It is well known that insulin regulates how carbohydrates will be oxidized for energy or converted into fats (triglycerides).  Do you agree so far?  

 

This is how insulin effects carbohydrate metabolism:

Glucose is liberated from dietary carbohydrate such as starch or sucrose by hydrolysis within the small intestine, and is then absorbed into the blood. Elevated concentrations of glucose in blood stimulate release of insulin, and insulin acts on cells throughout the body to stimulate uptake, utilization and storage of glucose.  Carbohydrates stimulate an insulin response far more than dietary proteins or dietary fats.

 

The effects of this are:

1. Insulin facilitates entry of glucose into muscle, adipose and several other tissues. When blood levels of insulin decrease and insulin receptors are no longer occupied, the glucose transporters are recycled back into the cytoplasm.

 

2. Insulin stimulates the liver to store glucose in the form of glycogen.  Insulin has several effects in liver which stimulate glycogen synthesis.  The net effect is that when the supply of glucose is abundant, insulin "tells" the liver to bank as much of it as possible for use later.

 

3. A well-known effect of insulin is to decrease the concentration of glucose in blood. Another important consideration is that, as blood glucose concentrations fall, insulin secretion ceases. In the absence of insulin, a bulk of the cells in the body become unable to take up glucose, and begin a switch to using alternative fuels like fatty acids for energy.

 

4. When insulin levels in blood fall, glycogen synthesis in the liver diminishes and enzymes responsible for breakdown of glycogen become active. Glycogen breakdown is stimulated not only by the absence of insulin but by the presence of glucagon, which is secreted when blood glucose levels fall below the normal range.

 

This is how it effects lipid metabolism:

1. Insulin promotes synthesis of fatty acids in the liver. Insulin is stimulatory to synthesis of glycogen in the liver. However, as glycogen accumulates to high levels (roughly 5% of liver mass), further synthesis is strongly suppressed.  When the liver is saturated with glycogen, any additional glucose taken up is shunted into pathways leading to synthesis of fatty acids, which are exported from the liver as lipoproteins. The lipoproteins are ripped apart in the circulation, providing free fatty acids for use in other tissues, including adipocytes, which use them to synthesize triglyceride.

 

2. Insulin inhibits breakdown of fat in adipose tissue by inhibiting the intracellular lipase that hydrolyzes triglycerides to release fatty acids.

Insulin facilitates entry of glucose into adipocytes, and within those cells, glucose can be used to synthesize glycerol. This glycerol, along with the fatty acids delivered from the liver, are used to synthesize triglyceride within the adipocyte. By these mechanisms, insulin is involved in further accumulation of triglyceride in fat cells.

 

From a whole body perspective, insulin has a fat-sparing effect. Not only does it drive most cells to preferentially oxidize carbohydrates instead of fatty acids for energy, insulin indirectly stimulates accumulation of fat in adipose tissue.  CICO diets take none of this into account, and simply imply that it's a matter of calories.  Don't you see how wrong the CICO premise really is?

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Kohsamida

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

Insulin is a key player in the control of intermediary metabolism, and the big picture is that it organizes the use of fuels for either storage or oxidation.  It is well known that insulin regulates how carbohydrates will be oxidized for energy or converted into fats (triglycerides).  Do you agree so far?  

 

This is how insulin effects carbohydrate metabolism:

Glucose is liberated from dietary carbohydrate such as starch or sucrose by hydrolysis within the small intestine, and is then absorbed into the blood. Elevated concentrations of glucose in blood stimulate release of insulin, and insulin acts on cells throughout the body to stimulate uptake, utilization and storage of glucose.  Carbohydrates stimulate an insulin response far more than dietary proteins or dietary fats.

 

The effects of this are:

1. Insulin facilitates entry of glucose into muscle, adipose and several other tissues. When blood levels of insulin decrease and insulin receptors are no longer occupied, the glucose transporters are recycled back into the cytoplasm.

 

2. Insulin stimulates the liver to store glucose in the form of glycogen.  Insulin has several effects in liver which stimulate glycogen synthesis.  The net effect is that when the supply of glucose is abundant, insulin "tells" the liver to bank as much of it as possible for use later.

 

3. A well-known effect of insulin is to decrease the concentration of glucose in blood. Another important consideration is that, as blood glucose concentrations fall, insulin secretion ceases. In the absence of insulin, a bulk of the cells in the body become unable to take up glucose, and begin a switch to using alternative fuels like fatty acids for energy.

 

4. When insulin levels in blood fall, glycogen synthesis in the liver diminishes and enzymes responsible for breakdown of glycogen become active. Glycogen breakdown is stimulated not only by the absence of insulin but by the presence of glucagon, which is secreted when blood glucose levels fall below the normal range.

 

This is how it effects lipid metabolism:

1. Insulin promotes synthesis of fatty acids in the liver. Insulin is stimulatory to synthesis of glycogen in the liver. However, as glycogen accumulates to high levels (roughly 5% of liver mass), further synthesis is strongly suppressed.  When the liver is saturated with glycogen, any additional glucose taken up is shunted into pathways leading to synthesis of fatty acids, which are exported from the liver as lipoproteins. The lipoproteins are ripped apart in the circulation, providing free fatty acids for use in other tissues, including adipocytes, which use them to synthesize triglyceride.

 

2. Insulin inhibits breakdown of fat in adipose tissue by inhibiting the intracellular lipase that hydrolyzes triglycerides to release fatty acids.

Insulin facilitates entry of glucose into adipocytes, and within those cells, glucose can be used to synthesize glycerol. This glycerol, along with the fatty acids delivered from the liver, are used to synthesize triglyceride within the adipocyte. By these mechanisms, insulin is involved in further accumulation of triglyceride in fat cells.

 

From a whole body perspective, insulin has a fat-sparing effect. Not only does it drive most cells to preferentially oxidize carbohydrates instead of fatty acids for energy, insulin indirectly stimulates accumulation of fat in adipose tissue.  CICO diets take none of this into account, and simply imply that it's a matter of calories.  Don't you see how wrong the CICO premise really is?

 

Again this is nothing new, the problem you and others fail to see is that on a normal CICO diet of say 1800 calories you can't have elevated insulin all the time. Because in healthy individuals it takes about 2-3 hours to go back to base level and fat burning is active again. so say 2,5 x 3 = 7,5 hours a day high insulin. That means 16,5 hours of low insulin where one can burn fat. Do you really think your body cant burn fat at a faster rate in those 16,5 hours to compensate. Plus do you think that with low carb you never have an insulin spike.. protein spikes insulin too.

 

What your saying is not wrong at all... but the situation of always heightened insulin is not happening when on caloric restrictions it would happen if your not dieting overeating on unprocessed carbs. But your not doing that on a normal CICO diet as your in a caloric deficit. You simply don't consume enough calories to spike insulin high enough all the time to negate fat burning. Even more so if you just take unprocessed carbs at say 40%. You just never get in the situation you describe.

 

Interesting enough fat levels (of the person eating) also have influence on insulin response not just carbs.

 

https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

Edited June 17, 2019 by robblok

[Kohsamida]

7 hours ago, robblok said:

Again this is nothing new, the problem you and others fail to see is that on a normal CICO diet of say 1800 calories you can't have elevated insulin all the time. Because in healthy individuals it takes about 2-3 hours to go back to base level and fat burning is active again. so say 2,5 x 3 = 7,5 hours a day high insulin. That means 16,5 hours of low insulin where one can burn fat. Do you really think your body cant burn fat at a faster rate in those 16,5 hours to compensate. Plus do you think that with low carb you never have an insulin spike.. protein spikes insulin too.

 

What your saying is not wrong at all... but the situation of always heightened insulin is not happening when on caloric restrictions it would happen if your not dieting overeating on unprocessed carbs. But your not doing that on a normal CICO diet as your in a caloric deficit. You simply don't consume enough calories to spike insulin high enough all the time to negate fat burning. Even more so if you just take unprocessed carbs at say 40%. You just never get in the situation you describe.

 

Interesting enough fat levels (of the person eating) also have influence on insulin response not just carbs.

 

https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

I agree with what you've said for the most part, but you're basically making my point for me ???? Remember, we're talking about the efficacy of CICO diets vs Insulin Model diets.  By definition, CICO diets ignore the role that food has on hormonal balance (i.e.: insulin), and insist that reducing "calories-in" below "calories-out" is all that's necessary for fat loss.  From what you've said, it sounds like you agree with me that this is a fallacy.  There is more to effective fat loss than calories, and the key element is insulin being low enough that it doesn't interfere with lipolysis.

 

You're right and I agree that insulin does not have to be low 24/7.  As you indicate in your example, 16.5 hours of relative low insulin levels will work.  My point is simply that insulin is a key player here and CICO diets, by definition, ignore this fact.

 

I hope you also agree that, unless stored body fat can be efficiently accessed during a diet, an energy deficit will occur, and, based on the 1st law of thermodynamics, the body will have to correct this imbalance by reducing basal metabolic rate.  IMO, This is the main reason that CICO diets fail in the long run.  As the BMR drops, they may be restricting calories but "calories out" will now be dropping further, so even though they have cut "calories-in", it's entirely possible that they will not only lose no fat, but might even start gaining fat as BMR drops!  The only way to avoid this, as far as I know is to assure that high insulin levels do not interfere with lipolysis.

 

What's even worse is that many people on a CICO diet will get frustrated after a few days or weeks as their BMR goes down, they start feeling like crap, and they see no significant weight loss.  In their reduced metabolic state when they finally give up on the diet and resume eating as they did before attempting the diet, they will actually put on more weight than when they started the diet even if the calories consumed are the same as before the diet (because of the reduced BMR).  

 

The vast majority of dieters "yo-yo" up and down in weight from one failed diet to the next, and the net result each time is that they gain a little more body fat then they originally had...IMO, that's what's given rise to the current obesity epidemic.  I think CICO diets play a role in promoting obesity as described above.

 

I hope you appreciate I'm not advocating low carb diets necessarily.  I'm just saying that lowering carbohydrates sufficiently when dieting is the best way to control insulin response simply because insulin response is particularly sensitive to carbohydrates compared with fats and proteins

 

The only thing I disagree with is your comment about dietary fat having a significant effect on insulin response.  There's a very low insulin response to dietary fats.  And, insulin response to dietary proteins is only moderate (unless over-consumed, and thus converted to glucose).

Edited June 17, 2019 by Kohsamida