The obesity model is flawed
-
@copper said in The obesity model is flawed:
Eat less
Weigh less
It works
Very true.
And if you can understand that the difference between a good habit and a bad habit is that a bad habit makes you feel good in the moment but is bad for you downstream and a good habit is the opposite you are on your way.
-
@copper said in The obesity model is flawed:
Eat less
Weigh less
It works
Very true.
And if you can understand that the difference between a good habit and a bad habit is that a bad habit makes you feel good in the moment but is bad for you downstream and a good habit is the opposite you are on your way.
@loki said in The obesity model is flawed:
And if you can understand that the difference between a good habit and a bad habit is that a bad habit makes you feel good in the moment but is bad for you downstream and a good habit is the opposite you are on your way.
Say on, bro. Immediate gratification is a stone bitch.
-
@loki said in The obesity model is flawed:
And if you can understand that the difference between a good habit and a bad habit is that a bad habit makes you feel good in the moment but is bad for you downstream and a good habit is the opposite you are on your way.
Say on, bro. Immediate gratification is a stone bitch.
@catseye3 said in The obesity model is flawed:
@loki said in The obesity model is flawed:
And if you can understand that the difference between a good habit and a bad habit is that a bad habit makes you feel good in the moment but is bad for you downstream and a good habit is the opposite you are on your way.
Say on, bro. Immediate gratification is a stone bitch.
Marketing on steroids. Get the seratonin drip going in your brain, make you salivate and open your wallet. You are essentially powered by your robotic overlords.
Not you Cats but people in general.
-
Calories in/Calories out model is a bit flawed in that as a couple of folks have noted, calories are not all processed the same. And different sugars are processed in different ways.
And yes there are a lot of studies to back that up - Jason Fung documents those in his books.
Very simplistically, even a person who is lactose intolerant will not process calories in the same way as someone who does not suffer lactose intolerance. Our nation's obesity rate has increased as the use of fructose has increased - as it is processed differently than glucose. Glucose is can be used by every cell in the body whereas fructose cannot be used by cells.Fructose puts stress on the liver - resulting in it being stored as fat.
And there are those studies of diet sodas (zero calories!) which result in an increase in weight. How is that? Once again, non-sugar sweeteners stimulate insulin production. so zero calories in - and a weight increase. The calories in/calories out model is shaking a bit there - nicht wahr?
When I was younger and running 50-70 miles a week and lifting weights 5x a week, by restricting food intake, I lost 35 lbs. So that can work - but over a couple of decades I regained the weight ever so slightly every year.
This past year, I followed Jason Fung's suggestions of knocking out the snack meals - confined my eating to a 6 hour period per day - along with limiting carbs/sugars - and lost 35 lbs again w/o the 2 hour a day workout routine.
I think insulin as a driver of obesity model has some compelling evidence. The issue with limiting calories is that people rebound in weight over time. There are millions of people who lose weight doing calorie restriction - only to regain it.
Do some reading of Jason Fung's books for a great deal more research on the subject.
-
Paraphrasing Gary Taubes: calories in / calories out indicates that a person 100 pounds overweight at 40, who was lean at 20, would have averaged 50 calories more than their metabolic rate per day over those 20 years. Anybody believe that that person's obesity is attributable to 50 excess calories per day, on average?
-
I fasted for 16 hours a day all last week, and cycled 40 miles over the weekend.. Weighed myself this morning and I'd put on 3 pounds.
There are words for how I feel, but I won't sully the purity of the board with them.
I was only joking
-
I fasted for 16 hours a day all last week, and cycled 40 miles over the weekend.. Weighed myself this morning and I'd put on 3 pounds.
There are words for how I feel, but I won't sully the purity of the board with them.
@doctor-phibes said in The obesity model is flawed:
I fasted for 16 hours a day all last week, and cycled 40 miles over the weekend.. Weighed myself this morning and I'd put on 3 pounds.
There are words for how I feel, but I won't sully the purity of the board with them.
You have to poop more.
-
I fasted for 16 hours a day all last week, and cycled 40 miles over the weekend.. Weighed myself this morning and I'd put on 3 pounds.
There are words for how I feel, but I won't sully the purity of the board with them.
@doctor-phibes said in The obesity model is flawed:
I fasted for 16 hours a day all last week, and cycled 40 miles over the weekend.. Weighed myself this morning and I'd put on 3 pounds.
There are words for how I feel, but I won't sully the purity of the board with them.
Water weight plus any fat converting to heavier muscle.
Weigh yourself daily at the same time. You will see patterns based on behaviors. But there is always a 3 pound fluctuation based on how much excess or lack of water you are carrying.
-
@doctor-phibes said in The obesity model is flawed:
I fasted for 16 hours a day all last week, and cycled 40 miles over the weekend.. Weighed myself this morning and I'd put on 3 pounds.
There are words for how I feel, but I won't sully the purity of the board with them.
Water weight plus any fat converting to heavier muscle.
Weigh yourself daily at the same time. You will see patterns based on behaviors. But there is always a 3 pound fluctuation based on how much excess or lack of water you are carrying.
@loki said in The obesity model is flawed:
@doctor-phibes said in The obesity model is flawed:
I fasted for 16 hours a day all last week, and cycled 40 miles over the weekend.. Weighed myself this morning and I'd put on 3 pounds.
There are words for how I feel, but I won't sully the purity of the board with them.
Water weight plus any fat converting to heavier muscle.
Weigh yourself daily at the same time. You will see patterns based on behaviors. But there is always a 3 pound fluctuation based on how much excess or lack of water you are carrying.
That's what I normally do - every morning first thing. I'm fairly sure in this case it's water, however it's still aggravating, particularly after the fasting.
-
I thought this was a Fat Shirley thread…
-
BS.
Show me the studies which prove that low-carb high-fat diets work better than other diets with the same total calorie consumption.
I have looked into the studies quite a bit while I lost 70lbs. The only reliable conclusion one can draw from them is what ultimately matters is in fact "energy-in-energy-out". It doesn't matter much whether the calories come in the form of carbs, fat, or protein (although the latter has the advantage of being more satiating).
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
Show me the studies which prove that low-carb high-fat diets work better than other diets with the same total calorie consumption.
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583
Participants 164 adults aged 18-65 years with a body mass index of 25 or more.
Interventions After 12% (within 2%) weight loss on a run-in diet, participants were randomly assigned to one of three test diets according to carbohydrate content (high, 60%, n=54; moderate, 40%, n=53; or low, 20%, n=57) for 20 weeks. Test diets were controlled for protein and were energy adjusted to maintain weight loss within 2 kg. To test for effect modification predicted by the carbohydrate-insulin model, the sample was divided into thirds of pre-weight loss insulin secretion (insulin concentration 30 minutes after oral glucose).
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was total energy expenditure, measured with doubly labeled water, by intention-to-treat analysis. Per protocol analysis included participants who maintained target weight loss, potentially providing a more precise effect estimate. Secondary outcomes were resting energy expenditure, measures of physical activity, and levels of the metabolic hormones leptin and ghrelin.
Results Total energy expenditure differed by diet in the intention-to-treat analysis (n=162, P=0.002), with a linear trend of 52 kcal/d (95% confidence interval 23 to 82) for every 10% decrease in the contribution of carbohydrate to total energy intake (1 kcal=4.18 kJ=0.00418 MJ). Change in total energy expenditure was 91 kcal/d (95% confidence interval −29 to 210) greater in participants assigned to the moderate carbohydrate diet and 209 kcal/d (91 to 326) greater in those assigned to the low carbohydrate diet compared with the high carbohydrate diet. In the per protocol analysis (n=120, P<0.001), the respective differences were 131 kcal/d (−6 to 267) and 278 kcal/d (144 to 411). Among participants in the highest third of pre-weight loss insulin secretion, the difference between the low and high carbohydrate diet was 308 kcal/d in the intention-to-treat analysis and 478 kcal/d in the per protocol analysis (P<0.004). Ghrelin was significantly lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet compared with those assigned to the high carbohydrate diet (both analyses). Leptin was also significantly lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet (per protocol).
Conclusions Consistent with the carbohydrate-insulin model, lowering dietary carbohydrate increased energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance. This metabolic effect may improve the success of obesity treatment, especially among those with high insulin secretion.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
Show me the studies which prove that low-carb high-fat diets work better than other diets with the same total calorie consumption.
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583
Participants 164 adults aged 18-65 years with a body mass index of 25 or more.
Interventions After 12% (within 2%) weight loss on a run-in diet, participants were randomly assigned to one of three test diets according to carbohydrate content (high, 60%, n=54; moderate, 40%, n=53; or low, 20%, n=57) for 20 weeks. Test diets were controlled for protein and were energy adjusted to maintain weight loss within 2 kg. To test for effect modification predicted by the carbohydrate-insulin model, the sample was divided into thirds of pre-weight loss insulin secretion (insulin concentration 30 minutes after oral glucose).
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was total energy expenditure, measured with doubly labeled water, by intention-to-treat analysis. Per protocol analysis included participants who maintained target weight loss, potentially providing a more precise effect estimate. Secondary outcomes were resting energy expenditure, measures of physical activity, and levels of the metabolic hormones leptin and ghrelin.
Results Total energy expenditure differed by diet in the intention-to-treat analysis (n=162, P=0.002), with a linear trend of 52 kcal/d (95% confidence interval 23 to 82) for every 10% decrease in the contribution of carbohydrate to total energy intake (1 kcal=4.18 kJ=0.00418 MJ). Change in total energy expenditure was 91 kcal/d (95% confidence interval −29 to 210) greater in participants assigned to the moderate carbohydrate diet and 209 kcal/d (91 to 326) greater in those assigned to the low carbohydrate diet compared with the high carbohydrate diet. In the per protocol analysis (n=120, P<0.001), the respective differences were 131 kcal/d (−6 to 267) and 278 kcal/d (144 to 411). Among participants in the highest third of pre-weight loss insulin secretion, the difference between the low and high carbohydrate diet was 308 kcal/d in the intention-to-treat analysis and 478 kcal/d in the per protocol analysis (P<0.004). Ghrelin was significantly lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet compared with those assigned to the high carbohydrate diet (both analyses). Leptin was also significantly lower in participants assigned to the low carbohydrate diet (per protocol).
Conclusions Consistent with the carbohydrate-insulin model, lowering dietary carbohydrate increased energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance. This metabolic effect may improve the success of obesity treatment, especially among those with high insulin secretion.
@george-k said in The obesity model is flawed:
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
Show me the studies which prove that low-carb high-fat diets work better than other diets with the same total calorie consumption.
That's a start.
However, from what I understand, the majority of studies on the subject so far have shown no significant effect, see e.g. this analysis, which claims that the hypothesis underlying these diets has been experimentally falsified:
-
@george-k said in The obesity model is flawed:
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
Show me the studies which prove that low-carb high-fat diets work better than other diets with the same total calorie consumption.
That's a start.
However, from what I understand, the majority of studies on the subject so far have shown no significant effect, see e.g. this analysis, which claims that the hypothesis underlying these diets has been experimentally falsified:
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
That's a start.
However, from what I understand, the majority of studies on the subject so far have shown no significant effect, see e.g. this analysis, which claims that the hypothesis underlying these diets has been experimentally falsified:
Couple of points:
-
That
studyreview (and I can only access the abstract) is now 4 years old, and the data are presumably even older. -
They report on two (TWO) inpatient studies that negate the hypothesis. How many people were studied? Were they double blind?
-
The argument that the carb-insulin model is too simplistic is laughable, simply because the "calories-in/calories-out" model is even more simplistic.
-
The references cited are even older. Though, I get the impression the are not references cited in the review.
-
The BMJ article I cited studied 164 adults for almost 6 months. That's a pretty good, long study. I doubt that the studies cited in this review were as far-ranging. You know a lot more about statistics than I ever will...I'd love to see their data.
-
Because their review of two studies that support their hypothesis, the authors claim that everyone else is lying? That's what falsified means, right?
-
-
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
That's a start.
However, from what I understand, the majority of studies on the subject so far have shown no significant effect, see e.g. this analysis, which claims that the hypothesis underlying these diets has been experimentally falsified:
Couple of points:
-
That
studyreview (and I can only access the abstract) is now 4 years old, and the data are presumably even older. -
They report on two (TWO) inpatient studies that negate the hypothesis. How many people were studied? Were they double blind?
-
The argument that the carb-insulin model is too simplistic is laughable, simply because the "calories-in/calories-out" model is even more simplistic.
-
The references cited are even older. Though, I get the impression the are not references cited in the review.
-
The BMJ article I cited studied 164 adults for almost 6 months. That's a pretty good, long study. I doubt that the studies cited in this review were as far-ranging. You know a lot more about statistics than I ever will...I'd love to see their data.
-
Because their review of two studies that support their hypothesis, the authors claim that everyone else is lying? That's what falsified means, right?
@george-k said in The obesity model is flawed:
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
That's a start.
However, from what I understand, the majority of studies on the subject so far have shown no significant effect, see e.g. this analysis, which claims that the hypothesis underlying these diets has been experimentally falsified:
Couple of points:
-
That
studyreview (and I can only access the abstract) is now 4 years old, and the data are presumably even older. -
They report on two (TWO) inpatient studies that negate the hypothesis. How many people were studied? Were they double blind?
-
The argument that the carb-insulin model is too simplistic is laughable, simply because the "calories-in/calories-out" model is even more simplistic.
-
The references cited are even older. Though, I get the impression the are not references cited in the review.
-
The BMJ article I cited studied 164 adults for almost 6 months. That's a pretty good, long study. I doubt that the studies cited in this review were as far-ranging. You know a lot more about statistics than I ever will...I'd love to see their data.
-
Because their review of two studies that support their hypothesis, the authors claim that everyone else is lying? That's what falsified means, right?
The guy who wrote that review was part of the team of a $40 million project to prove that low-carb diets work, which ultimately failed.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-dollar40-million-nutrition-science-crusade-fell-apart/
I don't think a single new study changes much. It's a start or maybe a reason to do follow-up studies. But thousands of studies on these things are published every year. IMO, one would need a somewhat consistent body of studies by various researchers, with various funding sources and various potential hidden agendas, to really make a point here.
-
-
@george-k said in The obesity model is flawed:
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
That's a start.
However, from what I understand, the majority of studies on the subject so far have shown no significant effect, see e.g. this analysis, which claims that the hypothesis underlying these diets has been experimentally falsified:
Couple of points:
-
That
studyreview (and I can only access the abstract) is now 4 years old, and the data are presumably even older. -
They report on two (TWO) inpatient studies that negate the hypothesis. How many people were studied? Were they double blind?
-
The argument that the carb-insulin model is too simplistic is laughable, simply because the "calories-in/calories-out" model is even more simplistic.
-
The references cited are even older. Though, I get the impression the are not references cited in the review.
-
The BMJ article I cited studied 164 adults for almost 6 months. That's a pretty good, long study. I doubt that the studies cited in this review were as far-ranging. You know a lot more about statistics than I ever will...I'd love to see their data.
-
Because their review of two studies that support their hypothesis, the authors claim that everyone else is lying? That's what falsified means, right?
The guy who wrote that review was part of the team of a $40 million project to prove that low-carb diets work, which ultimately failed.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-dollar40-million-nutrition-science-crusade-fell-apart/
I don't think a single new study changes much. It's a start or maybe a reason to do follow-up studies. But thousands of studies on these things are published every year. IMO, one would need a somewhat consistent body of studies by various researchers, with various funding sources and various potential hidden agendas, to really make a point here.
@klaus said in The obesity model is flawed:
I don't think a single new study changes much. It's a start or maybe a reason to do follow-up studies. But thousands of studies on these things are published every year. IMO, one would need a somewhat consistent body of studies by various researchers, with various funding sources and various potential hidden agendas, to really make a point here.
Agreed. It's a start.
And thanks for linking the "Wired" article. Interesting stuff.
-
