The Obesity Era?

[ER Eddie]

Jason Fung is actually a very smart physician, and he's on top of these issues in a way most people (not to mention most physicians or government advice-dispensing agencies) aren't. And he's hardly alone in his opinion. It's shared throughout most of the LCHF community and among a large swath of physicians and other professionals.

Imo, calories in/calories out is a very misguided and unhelpful way of looking at the issue of obesity. People have been banging on about it for decades, and it hasn't worked to slow obesity a bit. It's not helpful because the model is overly simplistic and crude. It does not take into account the type of food that is being consumed and its effect on the body's metabolism. Different foods have very different effects, and simple calorie counts (which are pretty vague and arbitrary in the first place, when you dig into what a "calorie" is) don't account for that. It also gives people the message that they're fat because they're lazy and it's their fault, rather than the fault of the government agencies and food industrial complex that has been pushing terrible advice and an unhealthy diet for decades.

 

[harley]

Jason Fung is actually a very smart physician, and he's on top of these issues in a way most people (not to mention most physicians or government advice-dispensing agencies) aren't. And he's hardly alone in his opinion. It's shared throughout most of the LCHF community and among a large swath of physicians and other professionals.

Imo, calories in/calories out is a very misguided and unhelpful way of looking at the issue of obesity. People have been banging on about it for decades, and it hasn't worked to slow obesity a bit. It's not helpful because the model is overly simplistic and crude. It does not take into account the type of food that is being consumed and its effect on the body's metabolism. Different foods have very different effects, and simple calorie counts (which are pretty vague and arbitrary in the first place, when you dig into what a "calorie" is) don't account for that. It also gives people the message that they're fat because they're lazy and it's their fault, rather than the fault of the government agencies and food industrial complex that has been pushing terrible advice and an unhealthy diet for decades.

I agree about Jason Fung. His books are extremely well thought out, and the one problem I had with them is that he isn't selling a diet. He doesn't tell you what to do, he just explains how things work and leaves the rest to you.

As far as fault, I agree heartily that the obesity and diabetes epidemics are a result of the misguided (and heavily influenced by money) advice that the government and medical organizations have been pushing for the last 40 years or more. However, Jason Fung's (and many others) books are really about better ways to eat based on our biology and evolution. It's not a diet, it has to be a change in how you eat. If you are doing fine as you are, no problem. But if you're suffering from obesity/diabetes/CVD/kidney disease, etc. the advice he offers can slow, stop, or often even reverse the damage done by a lifetime of improper (for them) eating.

If someone reads the book and decides it doesn't make sense for them, drive on. But dismissing and ridiculing someone just because they've written a book is lazy thinking.

 

[6miths]

"Insulin signals our body to store food energy in the form of body fat. When we fast, and insulin goes down, we burn some of that stored energy and this is why we don’t die in our sleep every night. Yes, we are able to survive without stuffing muffins in our mouths every 2 hours."
i/QUOTE]


Not exactly. Insulin has a counterpart called Glucagon also produced in the Pancreas .

When the level of insulin drops it is the result of the lower level of glucose in the bloodstream. The role of Glucagon is to convert the stored glycogen in the cells (a process called glycogenolysis) to glucose and release it in the blood stream. Once the level of glucose increases to it's threshold then insulin kicks in again. It is a balancing act between the two hormones.

The interplay is complex and also includes other hormones. When we fast, which is supposed to be most of the time, insulin levels fall and we are able to mobilize free fatty acids (FFAs) from triglycerides (stored in fat cells and elsewhere) as well as glucose stored as glycogen in the liver. Glucagon plays a role in this as do cortisol and epinephrine. When we are fasting, FFAs are meant to be our main fuel supply (and in fact for some organs they are the main fuel supply at all times e.g. the heart). When liver glycogen stores are depleted then glucagon and cortisol lead to glucose formation from some amino acids and glycerol mainly. Ketone bodies can also be made from FFAs and be used as fuel.

Glucagon and cortisol are not going to elevate glucose levels high enough under normal circumstances to cause insulin secretion. Insulin will be secreted again when carbohydrates and protein are ingested. As noted above, a growing number of people (including Dr. Fung) believe that one of our problems is that we are ingesting substances containing glucose too frequently and never letting our insulin go low enough to allow fats to be released to be burned as fuel as they are meant to be. One of the most thought provoking graphs I have ever seen is a comparison of insulin levels in populations from 50 years ago to today - total insulin secretion is way up. Which means that today's population is being exposed to more carbohydrates and likely becoming more insulin resistant.

 

[omni550]

I just found Dr. Jason Fung's YouTube videos.

He has a 6-part series on The Aetiology (Cause) of Obesity.

In Part 1 he covers CICO and shares data on large studies of men and women with calorie restricted diets, increased exercise, etc.; history of 1977 USDA and 1995 AHA guidelines on food consumption and data on how the US population did in following them; issue of exercise and compensation; metabolic rates; hormonal obesity theory; effect of insulin therapy on weight gain (a 15% decrease in calories and an influx of insulin led to avg. 19 lb. weight gain!); Type 1 diabetes and weight loss; Cushing's [weight gain] and Addison's [weight loss] Diseases; obesity as result of hormonal (insulin & cortisol) dis-regulation of fat; 1951 dietary guidelines, etc.

Fascinating stuff.

omni

Part 1 here:

 

[Chuckanut]

Imo, calories in/calories out is a very misguided and unhelpful way of looking at the issue of obesity. People have been banging on about it for decades, and it hasn't worked to slow obesity a bit. It's not helpful because the model is overly simplistic and crude. It does not take into account the type of food that is being consumed and its effect on the body's metabolism. Different foods have very different effects, and simple calorie counts (which are pretty vague and arbitrary in the first place, when you dig into what a "calorie" is) don't account for that. It also gives people the message that they're fat because they're lazy and it's their fault, rather than the fault of the government agencies and food industrial complex that has been pushing terrible advice and an unhealthy diet for decades.

+1

People forget three things..

1.) We don't eat calories in isolation. They are included in the food we eat. The foods we eat affect our body differently.

2.) Our bodies are not steam engines. CICO assumes our bodies operate like simple steam engines.

3.) Exercise, while very good for us, is a poor way for most of us to lose significant amounts of weight. On the margin it may work. That 3 mile walk every day may help us lose that last 5 pounds. But, it's impossible for most of us to work out enough to lose 50 pounds unless we engage in very heavy manual labor all day or are elite athletes.

 

[ER Eddie]

I agree about Jason Fung. His books are extremely well thought out, and the one problem I had with them is that he isn't selling a diet. He doesn't tell you what to do, he just explains how things work and leaves the rest to you.

Agreed, although I don't have a problem with that personally. I'm not a big fan of diets. I'd rather understand the fundamentals of the system. I understand that some people want a dietary prescription, though.

My only problem with Jason Fung is that sometimes his voice has this whiney sarcastic sound that can be a little annoying. I feel comfortable judging him, because I'm never sarcastic myself. /s

 

[audreyh1]

Glucagon and cortisol are not going to elevate glucose levels high enough under normal circumstances to cause insulin secretion. Insulin will be secreted again when carbohydrates and protein are ingested. As noted above, a growing number of people (including Dr. Fung) believe that one of our problems is that we are ingesting substances containing glucose too frequently and never letting our insulin go low enough to allow fats to be released to be burned as fuel as they are meant to be. One of the most thought provoking graphs I have ever seen is a comparison of insulin levels in populations from 50 years ago to today - total insulin secretion is way up. Which means that today's population is being exposed to more carbohydrates and likely becoming more insulin resistant.

Exactly!

Many folk have elevated fasting insulin. They are stuck storing fat and not releasing it.

 

[audreyh1]

+1

People forget three things..

1.) We don't eat calories in isolation. They are included in the food we eat. The foods we eat affect our body differently.

2.) Our bodies are not steam engines. CICO assumes our bodies operate like simple steam engines.

3.) Exercise, while very good for us, is a poor way for most of us to lose significant amounts of weight. On the margin it may work. That 3 mile walk every day may help us lose that last 5 pounds. But, it's impossible for most of us to work out enough to lose 50 pounds unless we engage in very heavy manual labor all day or are elite athletes.

And
4) Our metabolism changes based on what and how much we eat plus other factors. The metabolic rate is not some fixed constant for each individual. Some severe calorie restricted diets have caused massive metabolic harm as seen from follow ups on the Big Loser contestants.

 

[ER Eddie]

+1

People forget three things..

1.) We don't eat calories in isolation. They are included in the food we eat. The foods we eat affect our body differently.

2.) Our bodies are not steam engines. CICO assumes our bodies operate like simple steam engines.

3.) Exercise, while very good for us, is a poor way for most of us to lose significant amounts of weight. On the margin it may work. That 3 mile walk every day may help us lose that last 5 pounds. But, it's impossible for most of us to work out enough to lose 50 pounds unless we engage in very heavy manual labor all day or are elite athletes.

Yup, agreed with all that.

I'd also add, expanding on your #2, that "calories" are measured (very imprecisely) by seeing how much energy a food substance throws off when it is burned. However, your body does not "burn" protein or fat -- it uses a large proportion of those nutrients to build and repair. It isn't burned or metabolized; it's put to use for building, repairing, and renewal. Carbs, different story.

Here's Dr. Ken Berry explaining it:

https://youtu.be/KY7f9VAtJD0?t=293


p.s. Here he is talking about a 10-year study of thousands of women that showed calorie counting doesn't work:

https://youtu.be/pMzLXGKNaVg?t=391

 

[Rianne]

Should take into consideration, one burns most of their calories at rest. As a 62 yr old woman, 133 lbs. 5'4", at rest I burn 1923 calories. I posted this in another thread regarding exercise. Yes, diet/exercise are important. But this piece of the big picture is useful for determining the amount of calorie consumption.

https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/basal-metabolic-rate/

 

[ponyboy]

Ive always said it, if you want to lose weight, it starts in the kitchen. It actually starts in the brain, but people do not want to hear about the mental side of it.

Ill use an elliptical a couple times a week. I use it at work just to get away from my desk. Around 20 minutes...and ive only burned 300ish calories.
Basically, next to nothing. Ill consume more calories in a couple pieces of cheese.

If you want to lose weight, you have to have a strong mind. Its will power. It takes will power to not give in to certain mouth pleasures. I was listening to jocko willink earlier today...he made a good point. Why are convenience stores almost exclusively sugar factories? Why arent you seeing sections of broccoli and healthy foods being sold? People cannot resist sugar. Its unbelievable addictive. We all know its terrible for us, but very few can resist the urge.

 

[ponyboy]

Should take into consideration, one burns most of their calories at rest. As a 62 yr old woman, 133 lbs. 5'4", at rest I burn 1923 calories. I posted this in another thread regarding exercise. Yes, diet/exercise are important. But this piece of the big picture is useful for determining the amount of calorie consumption.

https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/basal-metabolic-rate/

I think the most important thing about exercise is mental discipline. It keeps you focused and on the right track. It doesnt do a whole lot to burn calories, but keeping your muscle mass up especially as you get older is important.

If you're not discipline, you're going to reach for the donuts instead of the chicken salad. Again, I know people hate to hear this and it sounds preachy. There's no secret behind weight loss. There isnt a magic pill. YOu need to be mentally strong. Or for those genetically blessed, have a good metabolism.

 

[RetiredGypsy]

p.s. Here he is talking about a 10-year study of thousands of women that showed calorie counting doesn't work:

https://youtu.be/pMzLXGKNaVg?t=391

From the study he mentions:

CONTEXT:
Obesity in the United States has increased dramatically during the past several decades. There is debate about optimum calorie balance for prevention of weight gain, and proponents of some low-carbohydrate diet regimens have suggested that the increasing obesity may be attributed, in part, to low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets.

CONCLUSION:
A low-fat eating pattern does not result in weight gain in postmenopausal women

Here's more about that study in detail.

Ken M Barry, MD. Selling a diet. From his own site:

Whether it's recommending a low-fat diet, or warning you to avoid the sun, these medical lies can cause real harm to your health.

A quote that directly contradicts the results from the same study he's talking about in the video.

Dr Jason Fung, who is absolutely selling a diet*, contradicts the study as well on his iDMProgram article.

*Diet, a little history, from Merriam-Webster:

Did You Know?
The word diet first appeared in English in the 13th century. Its original meaning was the same as in modern English, “habitually taken food and drink.” But diet was used in another sense too in the Middle and early modern English periods to mean “way of living.” This is, in fact, the original meaning of diet’s Greek ancestor diaita, which is derived from the verb diaitasthan, meaning “to lead one’s life.” In Greek, diaita, had already come to be used more specifically for a way of living prescribed by a physician, a diet, or other regimen.

All bolding is my own emphasis.

CICO is a very easy method that is somewhat annoying to fall into. Because portion sizes have to be measured, and the more accurate the measurement, the more accurate the results. And results will vary over time in regards to activity level and ageing in how many CO you need to equal or exceed CI.

But it sounds a lot more impressive when something difficult is presented as something easier to follow. Keto, Intermittent Fasting, LCHF, Paleo, Bodybuilding diet, cutting diet, ad nauseam.

But no study that actually measured the intake and exhaustion of calories proves that the body is some kind of miracle machine capable of turning food into a kind of fusion power source where you get more than what you put in.

 

[harley]

If you want to lose weight, you have to have a strong mind. Its will power. It takes will power to not give in to certain mouth pleasures. I was listening to jocko willink earlier today...he made a good point. Why are convenience stores almost exclusively sugar factories? Why arent you seeing sections of broccoli and healthy foods being sold? People cannot resist sugar. Its unbelievable addictive. We all know its terrible for us, but very few can resist the urge.

DW and I were talking about that this morning. The best thing (in our opinions) about the LCHF/Keto way of eating is that once you get past the immediate withdrawal from carb addiction, you stop craving them. You may still want them, somewhat, but you no longer crave them. It takes major willpower in the beginning, but far less later. That's a big difference from the other things we've tried over the years (CICO, low fat, etc.). The cravings never went away with them, and over time we caved/failed.

We went to an Oktoberfest this weekend, and it really wasn't all that hard to pass up the goodies that everyone else was eating. I only had one craft beer, so I was a good boy. I might have had two, but the line was too long. So combining laziness with a modicum of willpower worked for me.

 

[aja8888]

Should take into consideration, one burns most of their calories at rest. As a 62 yr old woman, 133 lbs. 5'4", at rest I burn 1923 calories. I posted this in another thread regarding exercise. Yes, diet/exercise are important. But this piece of the big picture is useful for determining the amount of calorie consumption.

https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/basal-metabolic-rate/

I ran this calculator. I'm 76 and fairly active (way more than most 76 year old guys, actually).

Looks like I can stay in the recliner and eat all day without gaining weight!

BMR Results:

According to your measurements, you need 2,657.82 calories to keep your typical activity level going without any weight change. If you exercise or do activities beyond normal levels you will need to add calories to your diet to maintain your weight.

I don't see that happening, however.

 

[SpinDoctorTX]

Like kids, animals don't run around outside the way they used to.

Cats used to stay slim and trim by hunting outdoors. Dogs just ran around. Nowadays, most people keep their pets indoors.

Also, people entertain themselves by feeding "treats" to their pets.

+1

 

[bloom2708]

https://nutritionstudies.org/whole-food-plant-based-diet-guide/

It is both very easy and very difficult.

I opted out. I simply had enough crap. I started buying my own food, prepping my own meals and eating only whole food, plant based. Resistance is very high. Work, social, family. All are "pushers". Eat this meat, this cheese, this dairy, this refined sugar junk. No thanks, don't need it.

I make amazing, tasty meals. I only buy quality foods. Meal prep is easy. Tons of variety. The best thing is I can eat as much and as often as I want. All meals are guilt free.

It is both easy and difficult.

 

[ER Eddie]

From the study he mentions:

Here's more about that study in detail.

Ken M Barry, MD. Selling a diet. From his own site:

A quote that directly contradicts the results from the same study he's talking about in the video.

Dr Jason Fung, who is absolutely selling a diet*, contradicts the study as well on his iDMProgram article.

*Diet, a little history, from Merriam-Webster:

All bolding is my own emphasis.

CICO is a very easy method that is somewhat annoying to fall into. Because portion sizes have to be measured, and the more accurate the measurement, the more accurate the results. And results will vary over time in regards to activity level and ageing in how many CO you need to equal or exceed CI.

But it sounds a lot more impressive when something difficult is presented as something easier to follow. Keto, Intermittent Fasting, LCHF, Paleo, Bodybuilding diet, cutting diet, ad nauseam.

But no study that actually measured the intake and exhaustion of calories proves that the body is some kind of miracle machine capable of turning food into a kind of fusion power source where you get more than what you put in.

No one can measure the "exhaustion of calories" in the body, because that's not how the body works.

Re. the supposed contradiction, Dr. Berry (like many LCHF people) is critical of the gov't advice to eat low-fat, because it results in high-carb and all the negative health problems associated with high carb.

As for "selling a diet," thanks for the dictionary reference, but you're using the term in a pejorative sense. "Selling a diet" conjures up the image of someone trying to sell a specifically defined dietary regimen, accompanied by recipes, a diet book, or supplements. Dr. Berry isn't doing that; neither is Dr. Fung. I think it's unfair to slap that sort of pejorative label on them. It's not an argument; it's a derogatory label designed to discredit them.

I would describe them both as educators/advocates who are discussing a particular way of eating, meant not for weight loss but for overall health, and meant not as a short-term fix but as a part of an ongoing lifestyle.

I notice you didn't address any of the actual points made about the unrealistic nature of CICO. If you find CICO works for you, keep at it. I wish you luck. I think it's bunk, for reasons already outlined, but you're welcome to stick with it, if it's working for you.

As for LCHF being complicated, I haven't found it that way. It does take a little study -- a few books, a few videos -- but at its heart, it's pretty simple: eat the food nature designed you to eat, not the stuff the food industrial complex shovels at you. And beware of governmental and medical advice. It's mostly unlearning, rather than learning...

 

[HFWR]

You will not gain weight in a calorie deficit... Hormones, satiety, keto, etc. may make it easier to not overeat, but they do not cancel CICO. Although invoking thermodynamics, it’s worth noting that the human body is not a closed system.

https://www.precisionnutrition.com/can-you-gain-weight-from-eating-too-little

It’s also why some experts, who aren’t knowledgeable about the limitations of metabolic measurement, will try to find all sorts of complicated hormonal or environmental causes for what they think is a violation of thermodynamics.

 

[someguy]

That seems really high. Based on your stats, I'm showing 1,238 for your BMR (ie, activity and exercise would increase that). Getting to 1900+ would require an active job (eg construction) plus intense regular exercise and at that point isn't BMR but TDEE.

Should take into consideration, one burns most of their calories at rest. As a 62 yr old woman, 133 lbs. 5'4", at rest I burn 1923 calories. I posted this in another thread regarding exercise. Yes, diet/exercise are important. But this piece of the big picture is useful for determining the amount of calorie consumption.

https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/basal-metabolic-rate/

 

[Amethyst]

I was thinking the same. At 5 feet 7.5" and 133 and quite active (gym, housework, yardwork), I was eating around 1,700-2,000 calories a day (when I bothered to track calories). It is amazing how little food we actually need; probably the reason populations can survive through famine, although individuals may perish.

That seems really high. Based on your stats, I'm showing 1,238 for your BMR (ie, activity and exercise would increase that). Getting to 1900+ would require an active job (eg construction) plus intense regular exercise and at that point isn't BMR but TDEE.

 

[someguy]

That sounds about right.

I believe those equations/calculators assume a typical body fat percentage. Those whose BF is lower will have a somewhat higher caloric need while those whose BF is higher (most people trying to lose weight) will have a somewhat lower need.

I found paying attention to calories in and out quickly brought awareness to eating well. A restaurant from-mix large margarita or daiquiri? Easily 400-600 calories per. Four cups of spring mix salad? Maybe 40 calories. But gotta pay attention to the dressing -- both which and how much. Large zucchini in a bit of olive oil? Maybe 100 calories.

I was thinking the same. At 5 feet 7.5" and 133 and quite active (gym, housework, yardwork), I was eating around 1,700-2,000 calories a day (when I bothered to track calories). It is amazing how little food we actually need; probably the reason populations can survive through famine, although individuals may perish.

 

[Rianne]

That seems really high. Based on your stats, I'm showing 1,238 for your BMR (ie, activity and exercise would increase that). Getting to 1900+ would require an active job (eg construction) plus intense regular exercise and at that point isn't BMR but TDEE.

I'm intensely/moderate (?) active according to the definition in this article. I walk a lot, pull 190 lb. labrador with me, 7 days/week. Work out in the forest preserves as my hobby, constantly moving out there, 3-4 days/week. Plus treading water at high level for an hour.

TDEE calculator shows "heavy exercise level" at 6-7 days/week. Bottom line, one burns most calories at rest. If you work out strenuously, your hunger level goes up and you eat more.
I see lots of construction workers standing around, operating machines that they sit at. Sure if you're jack hammering 6 hours/day, that's intense. It depends what you do on a regular basis.

 

[Amethyst]

You are right, that's very active indeed, especially the water treading. In fact I would think 2,000 calories would be barely enough to maintain weight, if you do these things all the time.

I'm intensely/moderate (?) active according to the definition in this article. I walk a lot, pull 190 lb. labrador with me, 7 days/week. Work out in the forest preserves as my hobby, constantly moving out there, 3-4 days/week. Plus treading water at high level for an hour.

TDEE calculator shows "heavy exercise level" at 6-7 days/week. Bottom line, one burns most calories at rest. If you work out strenuously, your hunger level goes up and you eat more.
I see lots of construction workers standing around, operating machines that they sit at. Sure if you're jack hammering 6 hours/day, that's intense. It depends what you do on a regular basis.

 

[pj.mask]

Just out of curiosity, what are you putting in that coffee? A quarter a stick of butter? A couple of scoops of ice cream? Ah, I know, a couple shots of whiskey.

I like whole milk latte (150 cal = 1cup), with some Costco brand Irish cream (1oz = 95 cal). As an adult you have to get your dairy!


As for CICO some of you talk like I’m going to switch from 2000 cal of vegetable to 1500 cal of candy and wonder why things aren’t working for me? To me, that simply means eat less of what I would normally eat when I want to slim down.

If you keep the same diet and exercise but eat less - you will loose weight. You can further improve this by adjusting what type of food you eat.

I don’t get the hate on carbs. I eat a lot of them, especially on run days.