Ah ok, i think i've overlooked that bit before.


Bodies natural orientation means given the choice, this is what it will do. It is the most energy efficient way for the body to function. Its not meaningless at all. There are three main macronutrients - take these away and you'll soon be dead. What else can we survive on?

i'm sorry but i do not think we are quite as unique as you make out. The individuality between us are minor. Most people conform to the same rules of nature. Sometimes people's understanding of stuff through self-observation which is usually a pretty faulty method of arriving at facts, is incorrect. That's why i try to rely on scientific consensus for the most part for what i follow.

Of course like everyone, there are plenty of times when i will ignore it because for whatever reason, i think my observation understanding is more accurate for me, but i'm always open to science showing me a better way.

I'm not so open to random individuals pushing a diet book, or system at me.

On this thread, my first concern was to encourage the poster to check it out thoroughly before going down this route because of the potential risks.

My position is that the balanced diet approach can work for almost everyone but it seems to me that most people following the balanced approach don't do it very well. Not so much because there's some problem with the idea but there are details that get overlooked. And in my view it should be the first preference because it is the most healthy approach and in the long run, a balanced diet is where we should all be aiming to end up so why not start there and learn how to lose weight and live on a balanced diet.

What we don't hear about much on this board is those who start this diet and fail so it nearly only ever looks like the people failing are those trying to follow a balanced diet. But i'd think there are plenty of people failing at any and every type of diet all the time. And most likely for a great variety of reasons.

With all due respect, it seems that you are passing off your strongly held opinions as "scientific consensus." I also think you are oversimplifying food behaviors among individuals. If only we could all just eat one way--your way. As you yourself mentioned, even the experts acknowledge that they don't know the whole story. That's just my opinion : )

I retract the word consensus. I mean mainstream. The broad general position of nutritional scientists around the world seems to be for a balanced diet. The food pyramids of medical boards and health education and probably even the world health organisation, always refer to a balanced diet. That is the position i take. A balanced diet means balance between all the major macronutrients in the general range they recommend which i'm not going to detail again. I didn't make it up myself. It just seems to be the most convincing.

What general food behaviours do you mean that i'm referring to?

I think there's really a lot of different mistakes people make. I get that sense from reading what people write on these forums as well as from my own experience and mistakes i've made in the past.

The most common one i see is people restricting their calories severely, causing unnecessary hunger and risk to the diet. Nearly everyone does this at some point in their diet history. It seems to take a lot of people a long time to learn not to do this.

Or is that a generalisation that you think doesn't apply to enough people to give it significance? If so, i have to disagree. I think we can make a significant generalisation from less than 90% of the population. Although my rough estimation from observation is that about 90% of people, at least, do this.

Pattience " I mean mainstream. The broad general position of nutritional scientists around the world seems to be for a balanced diet. The food pyramids of medical boards and health education and probably even the world health organisation, always refer to a balanced diet. That is the position i take. A balanced diet means balance between all the major macronutrients in the general range they recommend which i'm not going to detail again. I didn't make it up myself. It just seems to be the most convincing. "

There is no broad consensus that is meaningful. The food pyramid has been blamed by many leading scientists as part of the reason we now have an obesity epidemic. "Broad general position" simply does not exist in the scientific community. "Seems to be convincing' without testing it according to a controlled study leads to false assumptions.

Mistaking opinion and tradition for science is a big mistake. Web literature that is not in a peer-reviewed journal and that does not cite evidence for claims is entertaining but should not be taken as fact. By evidence, I mean controlled scientific studies. The rest may have value too, like you or I reporting how we eat and how that works, but it's distinct from fact. When someone writes in an authoritative voice about what others should do based on their opinion & experience, it's dogma. Like whether chocolate-flavored yogurt is correct


"What general food behaviours do you mean that i'm referring to?"

Some people are insulin resistant, some aren't. Some can thrive on fish-heavy diets, other detest fish. Some people are binge eaters, other aren't. We are so varied in the number of cellular receptors for the hormones you so frequently invoke as playing a key role in weight loss, like leptin, insulin. Some people have more baseline muscle mass than others, some have higher or lower BMRs, different number & types of taste buds. And so on.
Again, even the experts agree that there are a lot of variables and much that is yet to discovered about weight loss and eating behavior overall.


"I think we can make a significant generalisation from less than 90% of the population. Although my rough estimation from observation is that about 90% of people, at least, do this."

I think your choice of language rather than you intent is the crux of my issue with your post. It's fine to describe your experience & your observations. But that's all it is. You have absolutely no scientific basis to make "significant generalizations" to anyone else, let alone "90%" of any population. Hopefully other prospective travelers on the weight loss journey will see it for what it is.

I also mean controlled scientific studies but the sites that i take most notice make their decisions based on those studies. I don't have to read the studies themselves. Mostly it would be too difficult to understand because they are not written for the lay person. Having some background in science myself i am respect the methodology of science a lot and i also know that a lot of people, doctors usually, take advantage of the lack of knowledge in the public and push the boundaries. Even scientists and doctors and other experts are human - can be greedy, biased, selfish, self deceiving, mistaken. But i bear that in mind and take my opinion from a range of scientific sources. When i read an article, i think i have a fair ability when someone is making it up, or leaving key points out for the sake of their own cause.

One example is an article by a certain Dr Kim. I think the article i read was about fasting. most of the information was very useful and clarifying and i would say it fitted with everything else i had read til then. But then his conclusions were really messed up. Clearly he has an agenda and there was little connection between the body of the article and his conclusions. He took a logical leap.

If and when i see such things, i take them into consideration. I see them all the time even in some articles that i think are generally good and useful but i try to keep those little perturbations in mind when they are asking me to accept an assertion.

I take your point about tradition and science but i think the tradition is based on science. As we all know, science is a self-correcting methodology. Unlike the knowledge systems of ancient india for instance.

You know what i meant by the chocolate flavoured yoghurt.

When i comment, i consider the variables you mention and unless the person says they are insulin resistant or diabetic, i think its reasonable to talk to respond to a post as not being so. Nevertheless, it seems that organisations like diabetes Australia still go with the balanced diet rather than ketogenic diets. If they are still advocating this method. And also government health sites like better health victoria, or a university sponsored site. But good information does come from other sources. Clearly the woman who wrote the articles on nutrition world has endeavoured to draw her information from reputable sources. She writes like someone with a background in science.

I am a binger, not a non binger. The non bingers have it much easier. What i say still applies to them for the most part but such people know they do not need to to so far as to quit sugar. For us bingers, i would say it helps.

But none of those things are affected by the information on the hormones i've directed people to. in fact, some of the articles refer to insulin resistance and diabetes though of course it not being a diet article, they don't say what one should do with their diet.

If i take my opinion from scientific basis, then i think we can safely say that its fair enough ti share the knowledge.

I can see that a ketogenic diet works to lose weight but your observation that my opinion about it is just a personal opinion is incorrect.

Mars i ask you, have you read all the articles on the site i refer to. Are you honestly telling me they are worthless?

I guess we are going to have to leave it here because i don't think we can go any further with it.