News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
EventsHow to Lose Weight – the “Magic” vs. the Insulin Way
How is it possible for people to lose weight both on a low-carb diet and on an extreme low-fat, plant-based diet?
Is it because of different kinds of “magic”, as the provocative long blog post from Denise Minger argues? This is the left illustration above. Or is it all possible to explain via the effect on hormones, primarily insulin, pictured above to the right?
Dr. Jason Fung writes more about it in a new blog post:
Thoughts on the Pritikin Diet [extreme low fat]
This inspired me to update Dr. Fung’s graph. Here’s the updated way I think about the fundamental role of insulin in obesity these days:
Can my graph be improved? Feel free to tell me how in the comment section.
Earlier
In Defense of Low Fat – Denise Minger vs. Dr. Fung
Why are Asian Rice Eaters Thin?
Insulin isn't the bad guy, don't blame him ;).
"Once you have changed your thinking around this way, it should come as absolutely no surprise to find the following. If you have a mouse, and you destroy its beta-cells (insulin producing dells in the pancreas) it will become diabetic, and die. However if you get rid of the glucagon producing cells as well, the animal will not have a high sugar level and will not be diabetic – despite having no insulin at all. It will also appear to be completely healthy."
http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2015/08/04/turning-diabetes-upside-down/
At least mice can :)
And don't forget DKA. Without Insulin, you pretty much die of DKA after ~48 Hours. So, I'm still happy my Pancreas pumps out enough Insulin :).
you are confusing real causes with aggravating circumstances.
Constant food availability is not a cause.
Food-reward and addiction are just aggravating characteristics of the real problem: processed food.
You can't integrate the LCHF real food paradigm with the ideas of those who think obesity is a problem of food quantity and lack of willpower.
High food-reward is not the problem.
Low food prices is not the problem.
Constant food availability is not the problem.
Eating every three hours is not the problem.
The only difference with a LCHF diet is that you won't have hunger pangs every few hours with a crazy need to eat carbs. You will lose mainly fat and water and you should be able to preserve your lean mass if you exercise by lifting weight and eat enough proteins.
Look at this nutritionist with her carbs diet who needs to constantly snack through the day.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-nutritionist-eats-in-a-day-2015...
Regarding the article. I'm curious how the white rice + sugar + orange juice diet which Denise Minger also mentioned can be explained with the above flow diagram... That's not (directly) insulin reducing for sure.
Everyone who is LCHF knows that they have to ease up on low carb treats and fat at some point.
Every low carb forum on Facebook stresses to their members not to get too carried away with butter, peanut, almond based treats.
What about fake sweets, like a soft drink or hot chocolate beverage made with artificial sweeteners? My guess is that they trick the tongue, creating an insulinogenic response, creating spike in insulin, and then feeding the vicious cycle.
Please assure me you're not getting your scientific health info from Facebook groups. If so, you have more problems than you think. ;)
Look you can't have it both ways: you can't claim to be able to eat steak without calorie counting using the excuse that its fat is satiating & so self-limiting, then turn around and claim that butter somehow is addictive. I'm just not that stupid.
Look, do the experiment. . . take out 3 sticks of salted butter and eat them all at the same sitting. Of course you can't do it. I've challenged quite a few people to this and no one has even been able to finish 1 stick. But if you believe this nonsense on food reward, you should be eating salted Kerrygold uncontrollably because it contains both high fat & salt.
Yet in real life who can choke down a whole stick of butter? Because after about 4 tablespoons you just literally get disgusted and put your spoon down. In real life we all know natural foods with their natural fats are highly satiating. We have all experienced it.
As for those horrible "paleo cookies," you shouldn't eat them because they're processed food. There's nothing actually paleo about them - all processed coconut & almond flours, processed maple syrup, etc. No one mistakes processed coconut flour for Real Food. Your grandma certainly had no idea what it was. ;)
The most inspiring thing I read lately that expands on the point of why vinegar and fibre are important protective factors in the human diet is a book called GUT by Giulia Enders. It is a really engaging explanation of digestion and how our bodies break down food. There is absolutely nothing about hormones in this book, but many clues as to why food has such a quick and powerful effect on our wellbeing, and why there is so much individuality in what foods work best for us.
In fact, I think an interview with Giulia Enders, who is a young medical student, would be an excellent addition to your site.
Fibre is still there. I did not include vinegar as I find it an unattractive solution to pour vinegar over everything we eat, even if it would probably help us lose some weight.
Of course not, as soon as the diet is stopped, the old habits come back in force and the person get back all the weight lost and more, this is called a yoyo diet.
Compensatory mechanisms follows the first law of thermodynamic.
Energy needs are related to your mass, if you weight 100 kg and go down to 80 kg , you can not eat like person who weights 100 kg and expect to stay at 80 kg, unless you burn all excess calories in physical activities.
What happens if the 100 kg person eat the same amount of calories from natural fat and moderate protein, will he gain weight or loose weight . . . . or perhaps stay the same?
If you take a couch potato person with a crappy (grains ,sugary drink, etc) diet then you can expect these things to happen (same calorie intake).
http://www.usefulthings.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/couch-pot...
1) Inflammation will disappear, the body will release all excess water, so here you have a weight loss.
2) fecal matter stuck in the in the intestine will finally go out, here again you have a weight loss.
3) lean mass should increase because of the better alimentation. here you have a weight gain.
4) BMR will increase, so you can expect a fat loss.
In the end the person should weight less, because the body composition will change according to the new diet.
"Energy needs are related to your mass, if you weight 100 kg and go down to 80 kg , you can not eat like person who weights 100 kg and expect to stay at 80 kg, unless you burn all excess calories in physical activities."
Let's say both the 100 kg person and the 80 kg person are weight stable. Does the 100 kg person need to eat more to stay at a stable 100 kg?
It depends of their BMR and level of activities.
http://www.hussmanfitness.org/bmrcalc.htm
Does the heavier person need to eat more to stay the same weight?
Here's why: Exercise is not like "Fibre" or "Vinegar" or other macronutrient mixing strategies that blunt the insulin response. Rather, exercise has been shown to:
- Improve insulin sensitivity in its own right by enhancing insulin stimulated GLUT4 translocation in cells. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21352505
- Lowers glycogen stores in both the liver and skeletal muscle, and therefore acts as a sort of "buffer" area for both incoming fructose (liver glycogen) and glucose (all glycogen) blunting those effects.
- Increases fatty acid oxidation rates which lowers the risk that fatty acids will hang around in the bloodstream or accumulate in organs (fatty liver). Theoretically this should break a cycle of "gluconeogenesis->fatty accumulation->fatty liver->insulin resistant liver" (if done regularly) that can be brought on by by things like fructose.
I'd note that LCHF people get the last two benefits without exercising :) But that doesn't mean exercise won't improve them further.
However, you are also correct in having placed it where you did. Here's why: Exercise also lowers stress (unless overtraining) and improves sleep quality so it could just as well have been placed on the Cortisol part of the image too.
Bottom line is: exercise, people!
So I challege any one to use me that knows what they are doing my condition. I am sure you just do not have my problem and once the insulin not work, Nothing will save me.
I cut my protein to 2 eggs a day and2 bacon. Nothing for lunch with 10 cups of salad with 3 ounce of fry meats in butter. after which sugar goes up.
if you cannot eamil send me phone and I will ring you
ASAP!
Thank you