4 ms·

"who is saying that?" "The conventional thinking, held by the large proportion of the many researchers and clinicians I’ve interviewed over the years, is that

by roel_v 9y ago

"who is saying that?" "The conventional thinking, held by the large proportion of the many researchers and clinicians I’ve interviewed over the years, is that obesity is caused by caloric excess." "The minority position in this field — one that Dr. Ludwig holds, as do I after years of reporting — is that obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin." 5 or so paragraphs in. Waffling and innuendo about how it's really not about calories, while when you look deeper, it is - but they never acknowledge it as such because if they would, WTF would be so special about it? "second goes further and explores difference between sources of calories and why it's wrong to say that caloric number is all you need to care about." Caloric number is all you need to care about. It's just easier to control when your blood sugar levels don't swing all over the place. Caloric intake is like the first oscillation on a 1D Perlin noise function; cutting back specific foods (not 'sources of calories', but specific compounds that have a certain effect on the body) are a second oscillation, transposed on the first one. So you can cut back all the carbs you want, if you don't get your daily energy intake below your energy expenditure, you'll never lose weight. There are other ways of losing weight too, that would work for everybody, but they're mentally hard(er). You can lose weight by eating a McD hamburger and small portion of fries each day, as long as you don't eat anything else (actually, after those two, you still have a 1000 cal budget left, which you could expend on another two portions of fries, or pure sugar if you'd like, and you'd still loose weight). "you really should read up on ketogenic diet before criticizing it." I'm not critizing the low carbs diet itself; it's well-known that cutting back on carbs is a relatively easy way to loose weight. When I used to fight and had to cut weight, it was standard advise to the point that it was obvious to everybody who'd spend any time in the gym, even those who had been doing it since the '80s at least. What I'm critizing is these shysters who peddle this sort of 'advise' as something or somehow magical or more than a trick to make it easier to get you calorie intake down. Because that's all it is. A good trick, sure, but still just a way to get your calorie intake down.

1123581321 9y ago
What you are missing is that diet can affect metabolic rate. If eating equal amounts of different food causes weight loss, technically energy consumption is now less than expenditure but it is the change in expenditure that matters. It is true that it is harder to overeat on a high fat, low carb diet, though.
keymone 9y ago
> obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"? > Caloric number is all you need to care about no it is not. calorie source is important. some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad. > just a way to get your calorie intake down no, it's a way to lower blood glucose and remove insulin spikes. healthy caloric deficit is important for sustainable weight loss, but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important. and to get into ketosis it's literally the only thing that matters.
- roel_v 9y ago
  "where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"?" Oh please. 'Sure I called him a no-good cotton picker, but where did I say he's a lesser human? How dare you call me racist!' It's blatantly obvious that the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that matter, but rather 'where those calories came from', whatever that means. If you're going to play word games (the lowest form of debate), we have nothing to talk about here. "some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad." Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up. They lead to eating more, which is what makes your weight go up. "but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important." OK then please describe what is important about it that does not lead back to eating less. And don't say 'just google keto diet' because it's all the same - words and words and more words to not have to deal with the elephant in the room which is caloric intake. Again, I'm not saying low carb diets don't work. They obviously do, and they're easier for many people to stick to than other diets. What I'm arguing against is the mysticism around a subset of them, the refusal to just call things for what they are. It's a cult thing, it seems.
  - keymone 9y ago
    > the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that matter, but rather 'where those calories came from' you're implying that the rest of the message is "eating 1k calories is not going to make you lose weight" and "eating 5k calories is not going to make you gain weight" which is frankly completely false. the message begins with "given reasonable amount of calories it matters where they come from and here's how". > Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up. They lead to eating more, which is what makes your weight go up. well you've basically just agreed with OPs thesis here. eating more makes you fat, but the ultimate reason why you eat more is hormonal disorder. > what is important about it that does not lead back to eating less eating less a) reduces your BMR which cancels out a good amount of mental effort you've put in restricting your calories b) the weight you are losing is in more muscle mass than fat mass due to body's conservation mechanics and that's not even mentioning all the nasty consequences of spiking insulin, most of which are putting people on a fast track to diabetes (read - more obesity, more health damage, etc). on keto you can eat the same volume of food and same caloric intake but have increased BMR, effectively burning fats quicker. fat foods are denser in calories so you have more volume for things like fiber. i'm oversimplifying a lot here, but you told me to not just say "google it".

by roel_v 9y ago

1123581321 9y ago

What you are missing is that diet can affect metabolic rate. If eating equal amounts of different food causes weight loss, technically energy consumption is now less than expenditure but it is the change in expenditure that matters. It is true that it is harder to overeat on a high fat, low carb diet, though.

keymone 9y ago

> obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"? > Caloric number is all you need to care about no it is not. calorie source is important. some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad. > just a way to get your calorie intake down no, it's a way to lower blood glucose and remove insulin spikes. healthy caloric deficit is important for sustainable weight loss, but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important. and to get into ketosis it's literally the only thing that matters.

roel_v 9y ago
"where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"?" Oh please. 'Sure I called him a no-good cotton picker, but where did I say he's a lesser human? How dare you call me racist!' It's blatantly obvious that the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that matter, but rather 'where those calories came from', whatever that means. If you're going to play word games (the lowest form of debate), we have nothing to talk about here. "some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad." Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up. They lead to eating more, which is what makes your weight go up. "but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important." OK then please describe what is important about it that does not lead back to eating less. And don't say 'just google keto diet' because it's all the same - words and words and more words to not have to deal with the elephant in the room which is caloric intake. Again, I'm not saying low carb diets don't work. They obviously do, and they're easier for many people to stick to than other diets. What I'm arguing against is the mysticism around a subset of them, the refusal to just call things for what they are. It's a cult thing, it seems.
- keymone 9y ago
  > the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that matter, but rather 'where those calories came from' you're implying that the rest of the message is "eating 1k calories is not going to make you lose weight" and "eating 5k calories is not going to make you gain weight" which is frankly completely false. the message begins with "given reasonable amount of calories it matters where they come from and here's how". > Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up. They lead to eating more, which is what makes your weight go up. well you've basically just agreed with OPs thesis here. eating more makes you fat, but the ultimate reason why you eat more is hormonal disorder. > what is important about it that does not lead back to eating less eating less a) reduces your BMR which cancels out a good amount of mental effort you've put in restricting your calories b) the weight you are losing is in more muscle mass than fat mass due to body's conservation mechanics and that's not even mentioning all the nasty consequences of spiking insulin, most of which are putting people on a fast track to diabetes (read - more obesity, more health damage, etc). on keto you can eat the same volume of food and same caloric intake but have increased BMR, effectively burning fats quicker. fat foods are denser in calories so you have more volume for things like fiber. i'm oversimplifying a lot here, but you told me to not just say "google it".