Yes. I can have all the knowledge in the world but sometimes, I couldn't care less and my innate desires for feeding take over whatever health/weight goals I have. Lack of knowledge/awareness certainly isn't the issue for most of us lol - Google reveals all. Its just points on life when ya just don't care - even if they are occasional and most of the time I do care, those moments can be frequent enough to derail any progress.
That's where I was for almost a year. I simply didn't care enough. I knew what would happen. I knew what was happening... but I didn't have the desire to stop it. THAT is what I need to get a hold of in my head. How not to give into desire.
Interesting conversation, and it just goes to show that everyone hears what they want to hear. It's so easy to construe what a doctor says into feeding our own views isn't it? This doctor points out that a whole team of researchers with opposing views are tackling this problem. There is not ONE ANSWER yet and will probably never be just one answer for all of humanity. America faces a different problem than say a third world country. There are different dietary considerations, someone who is kosher will probably not subscribe to using butter and bacon in their cooking lol. You cannot pigeon hole an entire world into one way of eating.
What I get from this talk is that there are more factors than just simple dietary choice that cause obesity and that finally the medical community is acknowledging that.
I can only do intuitive eating, if I have eliminated most carbs to keep my insulin levels low. It's what I do ... I am not counting calories. I am eating she I am hungry.... But I can only sense that true hunger when I am not pumped up on insulin.
I can only do intuitive eating, if I have eliminated most carbs to keep my insulin levels low. It's what I do ... I am not counting calories. I am eating she I am hungry.... But I can only sense that true hunger when I am not pumped up on insulin.
i cant do it at all. i followed paleo from 2010 to 2012 and initially lost weight, but then stayed around 255 until i started counting calories. i wish i could eat intuitively!
what i found to be interesting were the factors in health and how they affected M&M. eating fruits and veggies, exercise, no smoking, no alcohol and how obese and normal weight M&M evened out.
i did some further research because it really piqued my interest and found this...
like it was stated above, lots of science and lots of people disputing the science and lots of science getting is wrong, and lots more information we don't have.
taking a hard line at this point seems like a bad idea.
Last edited by katerina11; 04-30-2014 at 05:59 PM.
I practice intuitive eating and I found this ted talk to be extremely unpursuasive towards IE. I also hate the "set point" and how it can't be changed. It's very depressing, this talk dissuaded me from IE before I tried it for myself.
We all have to strike a balance in what makes our bodies work at their optimal best. There are things we want to eat and can't and shouldn't. I initially resisted IE because I thought it meant "fat acceptance" and I did not trust that my intuition to lead me to healthy foods. And at first it didn't, because my intuition had been supressed with a lot of nutritional knowledge that I could not adhere to. IE is all about trusting yourself and nurturing yourself. After a bit of a scary start I now crave well balanced meals. I have discovered that I am actually not at all addicted to potatoes like I thought I was lol. I thought I had a potato problem for real and that I could not be trusted around potatoes.
I can only do intuitive eating, if I have eliminated most carbs to keep my insulin levels low. It's what I do ... I am not counting calories. I am eating she I am hungry.... But I can only sense that true hunger when I am not pumped up on insulin.
I'm very similar, though probably not as sensitive to carbs as you are. If I avoid my trigger foods I can basically eat everything else intuitively. I don't count calories (or carbs/protein/fat either) and I eat when I'm hungry (which is generally 3 times a day, though sometimes only twice) and eat as much as I feel like.
The less I eat my trigger foods, the more "quiet" my brain is as well. So much less struggle, which of course is very, very nice.
It is only when I add those trigger foods back in that I end up with a struggle.
I practice intuitive eating and I found this ted talk to be extremely unpursuasive towards IE. I also hate the "set point" and how it can't be changed. It's very depressing, this talk dissuaded me from IE before I tried it for myself.
We all have to strike a balance in what makes our bodies work at their optimal best. There are things we want to eat and can't and shouldn't. I initially resisted IE because I thought it meant "fat acceptance" and I did not trust that my intuition to lead me to healthy foods. And at first it didn't, because my intuition had been supressed with a lot of nutritional knowledge that I could not adhere to. IE is all about trusting yourself and nurturing yourself. After a bit of a scary start I now crave well balanced meals. I have discovered that I am actually not at all addicted to potatoes like I thought I was lol. I thought I had a potato problem for real and that I could not be trusted around potatoes.
Intuitive eating attempts have been disastrous for me. Also, setpoint theory does not argue that weight loss is impossible or that setpoint "can't be changed," only that it can be more complex and challenging than simply reducing calories.
For example, one way to lower your setpoint is through exercise and quality sleep. Poor or insufficient sleep lowers your metabolism (and perhaps setpoint).
None of the setpoint theorists argue that setpoint is set in stone, only that your body has systems that work to maintain a weight that is or has become normal. The longer you maintain a weight (whether it be a high or low or average weight) the more difficulty you MAY have changing it, and to change it, you often have to change more than just calories in.
Interesting conversation, and it just goes to show that everyone hears what they want to hear. It's so easy to construe what a doctor says into feeding our own views isn't it? This doctor points out that a whole team of researchers with opposing views are tackling this problem. There is not ONE ANSWER yet and will probably never be just one answer for all of humanity. America faces a different problem than say a third world country. There are different dietary considerations, someone who is kosher will probably not subscribe to using butter and bacon in their cooking lol. You cannot pigeon hole an entire world into one way of eating.
What I get from this talk is that there are more factors than just simple dietary choice that cause obesity and that finally the medical community is acknowledging that.
That was an aspect of the talk. As part of that team, Attia brings the perspective that insulin resistance is a part of the problem for many people. Looking into his background, he co-founded the nonprofit NuSI with Taubes ("Good Calories, Bad Calories"). He is personally carb sensitive but his wife is not. He runs a website about his lifestyle ("The Eating Academy") in which he describes his ketogenic lifestyle (part of his message is that if you exercise enough you can eat more carbs and remain ketogenic).
Intuitive eating attempts have been disastrous for me.
IE didn't work well for me but neither did Atkins. But in both cases, I probably never really was sufficiently devoted to the spirit of the program. Luckily, I now seem to be on board with a WOE that accommodates my strengths and weaknesses.
He is personally carb sensitive but his wife is not...
Wouldn't this mean that he is aware that some people need to follow a specific dietary philosophy while others do not? Wouldn't it mean that not everybody needs to subscribe to a low carb lifestyle? Because like I said, people run away with the bits and pieces that apply to them and what I got out of this very moving ted talk is that doctors need to question their prejudice and the one-size fits all theory. And if he is willing to work with researchers that having opposing theories then why aren't we?
Intuitive eating attempts have been disastrous for me. Also, setpoint theory does not argue that weight loss is impossible or that setpoint "can't be changed," only that it can be more complex and challenging than simply reducing calories.
For example, one way to lower your setpoint is through exercise and quality sleep. Poor or insufficient sleep lowers your metabolism (and perhaps setpoint).
None of the setpoint theorists argue that setpoint is set in stone, only that your body has systems that work to maintain a weight that is or has become normal. The longer you maintain a weight (whether it be a high or low or average weight) the more difficulty you MAY have changing it, and to change it, you often have to change more than just calories in.
Well, when I heard this ted talk that's what I got out of it. She says so pretty plainly, that your set point can't really be changed and that "this is what your mother meant when she said life isn't fair." Whether it's true or not it was not a motivator for me to even consider IE. I figured, if I can't change anything then what's the point.
Luckily I did try IE and have not had a disasterous time of it. I'm glad I looked past her particularly bad ted talk and tried it for myself.
I wondered if I watched the same video after reading the comments. What I found the most interesting is the structured longer term scientific studies finally being undertaken, I was reading on the website and they have one on comparing the types of diet eating choices carefully monitored over 3 years. They are one year in and the study won't complete until 2016. Here are the ones listed on the NuSI website. There is more info if you go to the site on study specifics. http://nusi.org/the-science/current-.../#.U2I5Stq9KSN
Current science in progress
Boston Children’s Hospital Study
Preventing obesity and maintaining a healthy weight requires an understanding of the dietary factors that drive excess fat accumulation. Is it too many calories consumed and too few expended, or does the macronutrient composition of the diet (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fat and protein) have an effect on fat storage, independent of caloric content? Individuals who have lost significant weight and so are predisposed to gain it back represent ideal subjects to study this question of whether a calorie is a calorie. By varying the macronutrient content of the diet consumed by these “weight-reduced” subjects, researchers can study how the carbohydrates, protein, and fat in the diet might either drive weight gain or prevent it.
In this trial, 150 overweight and obese college students, faculty and staff will be housed in a dormitory where they’ll be fed all their meals and monitored while they eat. They’ll first lose 10 to 12 percent of their weight on a diet that restricts all calories equally. They’ll then be randomly assigned to follow one of three diets – either a carbohydrate-restricted diet, high in fat; a fat-restricted diet, high in carbohydrate; or a low-glycemic index diet, in which the carbohydrates consumed are slowly digested and rich in fiber. The researchers will weigh the participants daily and adjust the caloric content of their assigned diets as necessary to try to maintain the participants at a stable weight. For the last two weeks of the study, participants will be allowed to eat as much as they want of their assigned diets to generate data on the hunger and satiety responses to these diets. By assessing the participants’ energy expenditure on the assigned diets and how many calories they have to eat to maintain their reduced weights, the researchers will determine whether the macronutrients in the diet play a significant role in regulating weight and body fat mass. The results should point the way toward the most effective nutritional strategy for maintaining a healthy weight and preventing excess fat accumulation, particularly in people who were previously overweight. Read more
Energy Balance Consortium
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, “a-calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the most well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
Overweight and obese subjects will live in a clinical residence under tightly controlled conditions for 8 weeks. For the first four weeks they’ll be fed a typical American diet at precisely the amount of calories necessary for them to maintain a stable body composition. For the next four weeks, they’ll be fed an equivalent amount of calories of a diet that replaces virtually all of the carbohydrate in the diet with fat. The “calorie-is-a-calorie” hypothesis predicts that the subjects will maintain a constant amount of body fat despite this radical change in the macronutrient composition of their diets, and so will expend an equivalent amount of energy on both diets. The alternative hypothesis predicts that the subjects will mobilize fat from their fat cells on the very-low-carbohydrate diet and burn that fat for fuel over and above the calories they’re consuming. As a result, they’ll expend more energy during the second four week period than the first. The researchers will carefully monitor the subjects’ energy expenditure to determine which prediction is more accurate. The results will have fundamental implications for how obesity is understood, treated and, ultimately, prevented. Read more
Stanford University
Understanding the role of diet composition on human health and disease over periods of time longer than a few months requires that participants be “free-living” — eating their own food, housed in their own homes, going about their lives as usual. The longer the study lasts and the greater the number of participants, the more researchers can learn about the health risks and benefits of a diet, but the less control they retain over what and how much the subjects actually eat. This study attempts to maximize what we can learn about diets of different macronutrient compositions in a free-living environment, while piloting technologies and methodologies that will be necessary for future studies that will increase significantly the number of participants and the duration of the study itself.
This study compares the role of dietary fat and carbohydrates on body weight and on the risk factors for obesity-related chronic diseases in 600 free-living overweight and obese subjects. Unlike previous studies of its kind, the trial is designed to assure that participants randomized to the different diets actually eat those diets for the duration of the study. It starts by maximizing the difference between the fat and carbohydrate content of the two diets and then applies an intense program of counseling and monitoring to achieve far better adherence to the assigned diets than previous studies. Smart phone applications will be piloted to further improve adherence. Metabolic measures and gene analyses will help determine whether differences in blood sugar control and genetic factors predict the participants’ response to the diets. This study should be able to document, for the first time ever, what happens when free-living participants maintain compliance with a very-low-fat diet and a very-low-carbohydrate diet for an entire year. Read more
Last edited by CindySunshine; 05-01-2014 at 08:09 AM.
So glad to see more research... My "gut" tells me that in a way, "a calorie is a calorie" in that, yes, if you eat less calories and expend more calories, you will lose the same proportional amount of weight.
BUT... I think maintaining that weight loss, or sticking to a weight loss program might have differing results - but then again... dependent on the individual. Someone who is carb sensitive might have a harder time sticking to a low fat, high carb diet. Whereas someone who is not carb sensitive wouldn't.
So, these studies need to go EVEN FURTHER. Not just picking "any" fat person, but dividing them by their sensitivities. Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't know what they are sensitive to because they've never done elimination diets before.
I've lost weight doing low fat, high carb and was successful. I've lost low carb high fat and was successful, but in both cases regained due to depression and in BOTH cases I went back to eating TONS of carbs for quick gain backs.
What plan am I going back to? Low carb as I found it easier to do than just calorie restricting (via WW points). AND... over that time, I paid REALLLY close attention to what made me feel good and easy to eat and definitely, when I lowered the carbs I didn't feel deprived and I felt I could keep eating like that forever. It was ONLY during times like vacation, holidays where other high carb foods snuck in that I found it realllly hard to eat less.
When my husband took off weight, he didn't really change his eating as his eating was pretty spot on. He just started exercising and over the course of a year he lost the little bit of weight he wanted to lose. He still drank wine with dinner. Still ate a sweet when he wanted it. He just has always had a good handle of portion size, knowing what he was hungry for etc. I TOTALLLLLY don't have that same voice with all foods equally.
Last edited by berryblondeboys; 05-01-2014 at 08:59 AM.
