I do agree that calories matter, but I think that the quality of the carbohydrates matters as well, especially if you're dealing with possible problems with your insulin response.
Of course, but context matters too. Example - the first post in this thread. A highly active person can eat more simple sugars than the average person with a desk job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rana
Maybe as nutritional science and more studies on diabetes, metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance are done (and I know they are being conducted even as we speak) this will be clearer. And maybe insulin alone is not the only one responsible for what happens -- in fact, I'm sure it's not the only hormone that is involved in all of this. But it does have an effect and I think it also affects the other signals we get for satiety and fullness.
It's pretty clear actually, right now. People want to make this much more complicated than it is. Are there unique cases? Of course. But ward studies show that when you lock people up, and put them in a caloric deficit, they lose weight. Even heavily insulin resistant people on a high carb diet.
Where it gets complicated is when you combine the physiological and psychological elements that comprise our habits, hunger, etc. We all have slightly different environments and situations that have embedded paterns etc.
Yes, some people are naturally insulin resistant. Yes, some people are gluten intollerant. All these things play a part but the fundamentals boil down to some prettty well understood facts. An individualized approach is needed but the fundamentals don't change from person to person.
I only brought it up because you appeared to be pointing the finger at insulin, which I understand based on your own situation of being naturally insulin resistant. Make not mistake though, I'm not insulin resistant and I can drop 4,000 calories and still be hungry too. We're human beings, and most of us are capable of getting very very fat whether we're naturally insulin resistant, or not. The only reason I personally only got to 300 lbs is because I am frugal and didn't want to spend more money on food.
Show me a single case where someone added fat in a caloric deficit. We're not plants - harvesting energy from the sun ...
I think we're misunderstanding each other... Insulin associated weight gain is well documented and what we see is in order to help our patients create that calorie deficit they need better blood sugar control... and with better blood sugar control comes the need for less insulin... which in turn makes it easier to lose weight... So what we see is by reducing the need for insulin it makes it somewhat easier to control calories...
Last edited by TripSwitch; 03-02-2013 at 04:50 PM.
I think we're misunderstanding each other... Insulin associated weight gain is well documented and what we see is in order to help our patients create that calorie deficit they need better blood sugar control... and with better blood sugar control comes the need for less insulin... which in turn makes it easier to lose weight... So what we see is by reducing the need for insulin it makes it somewhat easier to control calories...
I'ts not the association I have a problem with it's the causality.
Show me a single case where someone added fat in a caloric deficit. We're not plants - harvesting energy from the sun ...
What is consistently missed is WHY people are consuming excess calories without satiety cues and WHY their bodies store energy inappropriately, which are two big drivers of medical defined obesity as a condition (one can accumulate body fat without obesity).
Calories and consumption doesn't exist within a vacuum. It isn't all hedonism, moral failing, and overly tasty food. It is THAT argument that many of us are railing against. Not that energy doesn't matter, but that in an increasing number of people there is an inappropriate demand for, utilization of, and recovery or storage regarding - energy. The composition of food matters - our bodies have distinct processes for breaking down and utilizing different matter in our diets and all energy is NOT equal in terms of the cost it takes to metabolize. Insulin, inasmuch as we're talking about energy utilization and demand, does very much matter to many bodies (mine included). But the entire body's metabolism - that feedback loop of chemical signals that drives much of our behavior - that is really crucial in this and of special interest to low carbers like me who find they're suddenly 'cured' of inappropriate and excessive demand for energy (food) when they circumvent one kind of metabolism for another (yay ketosis! Krebs rulez ). Not every body is equally sensitive to these things, or as dysfunctional in its hormonal responses as one with metabolic resistance, dopamine deficiencies, or other related conditions of hormone signaling.
Simplifying the equation to insulin response works well for basic layperson explanations on the interweb. That does not mean, however, that we're all short sighted idiots who don't understand any endocrinology and just need to get our fat, lazy butts off the couch and eat less From my own (fairly extensive) research and self testing I'm now convinced obesity is generally a symptom, not the root cause, of an inappropriate metabolic signaling in the body. And once those adipokines are established and signalling, it's a vicious and somewhat permanent feedback loop that requires more than just eternal, sheer willpower to manage. Not everyone struggles with this, but after four YEARS of energy deficits I can confidently say that my body will not comfortably or easily maintain its fat-emancipated status without very specific efforts on my part of drive utilization of cellular stored energy and NOT tripping the dietary command to take it in nutritionally. That means insulin is controlled, and tightly. It's only a small component of the equation, and yet crucial to success in a body like mine that isn't functioning normatively with regards to hormone secretion.
/end tome.
Last edited by Arctic Mama; 03-02-2013 at 06:19 PM.
From my own (fairly extensive) research and self testing I'm now convinced obesity is generally a symptom, not the root cause, of an inappropriate metabolic signaling in the body.
I'm going to ignore all the arguments you seem to think people are making about hedonism, laziness, moral failing, will power, etc ... because no one is making those arguments and I have no idea why you brought them up.
Instead I'm going to focus on the above quote because it is what I think a lot of low carb people believe and it makes no sense, at all. Obesity rates are not skyrocketing across the world because metabolic signaling is screwed up.
Obesity is a multifactoral problem and the result of a large number of factors.
Taryl, I think it is important to not that I am not suggesting that you're wrong about yourself. I have no doubt that you've got metabolic syndrome, so high carb intake is bad for you.
I'm merely arguing that most people are not naturally heavily insulin resistant, and certainly insulin resistance is not the reason for our obesity crisis.
A couple links - lots of good stuff in the comments
For me, I'm not going to live in a world without ice cream, pizza, wine, or chocolate lol ... I just can't eat those things in excess without expecting weight gain
You took the words right out of my mouth. I'm not going to get in on the science debate on this thread because I'm not informed enough to do that. But whether carbs are "bad" or "good" or whether they make you gain or crave or lose or whatever----for me, I wouldn't want to live without them. If I were diabetic, I would be forced to, but since I have no health issues, I'm going to enjoy my carbs. In all honesty, I would rather be fat than to permanently be on a low-carb diet (caveat: I don't have any health problems that I know of, so watching my weight is merely a matter of vanity)
And is there too much harm in reducing the amount of cookies or cakes or pies that you eat?
I thnk it's a bit insulting to insinuate that those of us who don't restrict carbs purposefully are eating "cookies and cakes and pies" daily. However, I will say that I 100% believe that one could eat their entire 1400 calorie allowance (or whatever) of pie and cookies per day (provided they weren't diabetic or otherwise) and still lose weight. I'm not speaking to energy levels, or general health, or cravins etc. I'm speaking purely of weight gain/weight loss. Most of the time we see that those who embark on such 'diets' either: a. binge on those things and go far over their allowance, b. kid themselves about how much they are eating, c. have pre-existing medical problems they may have been unaware of or d. decide that they get far more mileage and usually feel better with a wide variety of foods and decide the oreo cookie diet isn't for them. Weight gain does not happen because one's body says "Oh, this is 1300 calories of pasta, not 1300 calories of vegetables -- better pack on the weight to show this person vegetables are better!".
Under that logic, our bodies would reject anything and everything that wasn't in it's purest form. Under the same logic, all the impoverished people of the world who live on grains (especially rice) as a main staple of their diet would all be dead right now. Or super obese. I'm sure you don't see a lot of obese people in Calcutta...and I'm sure they aren't all eating low carb or paleo or whatever other diet... but I digress. They live on cheap grains but the calorie count is low so they remain at a healthy weight or underweight.
People didn't begin to become obese in America or anywhere else until portion sizes and non-stop eating became out of control. I find it hard to believe that suddenly our bodies just started giving out and are rejecting any food that is a grain or higher carb. No, we started piling all those grains and carbs to an insane degree then wonder why we all got so fat. That, coupled with lower activity levels in general (less walking, less household work, fewer family farms, more efficient equipment to take the place of manual labor etc). Then, because we didn't feel like giving up huge portions and continuous eating -- we had to look for a whole lot of things to blame lol
I mean, it seems like I'm all passionate about this when in reality, I don't care what other people do with their way of eating or how they choose to create their calorie deficit. Where I feel the need to comment is when people suggest that there is a magical truth to losing weight beyond simply creating and maintaining a calorie deficit. How one chooses to go about that is their business -- they may even feel better, have more energy, find their cravings are reduced and so on and I don't dispute that can and does occur. However, the weight loss (which is what we're talking about) is about calories in/calories out... plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ija
Yes, thank you John! It's the food, not the insulin. Someone eating a no-carb diet will gain fat just as rapidly as any pasta fiend if calories are in excess of daily requirements. One will also lose weight eating a high-carb diet if calories are below daily requirements.
Carbs, I still love you
Agreed.
Last edited by 35X35; 03-02-2013 at 08:09 PM.
Reason: punctuation
I'm going to ignore all the arguments you seem to think people are making about hedonism, laziness, moral failing, will power, etc ... because no one is making those arguments and I have no idea why you brought them up.
Instead I'm going to focus on the above quote because it is what I think a lot of low carb people believe and it makes no sense, at all. Obesity rates are not skyrocketing across the world because metabolic signaling is screwed up.
Obesity is a multifactoral problem and the result of a large number of factors.
What is consistently missed is WHY people are consuming excess calories without satiety cues and WHY their bodies store energy inappropriately, which are two big drivers of medical defined obesity as a condition (one can accumulate body fat without obesity).
Arctic Mama, this part of my research area. Nobody is disputing that certain foods have some addictive properties, but that's not the same as saying that carbs per se make people fat and sick, or that carbs are responsible for the American obesity epidemic. It's the quantity of food that we eat that makes us fat. The reasons why we eat so much is another issue.
If carbs are to blame, then why are diets in thin countries actually pretty high in carbs (noodles, rice, breads) yet they haven't hit an obesity epidemic? What works for one, doesn't work for all. It doesn't make sense to blame a whole macro or food group for obesity.
If carbs are to blame, then why are diets in thin countries actually pretty high in carbs (noodles, rice, breads) yet they haven't hit an obesity epidemic? What works for one, doesn't work for all. It doesn't make sense to blame a whole macro or food group for obesity.
My European cousins would be HUGE if that were the case... bread at every meal. But they're supermodel-sized and I grew up the fat one. And my drug of choice was usually Kraft "cheese" slices
My European cousins would be HUGE if that were the case... bread at every meal. But they're supermodel-sized and I grew up the fat one. And my drug of choice was usually Kraft "cheese" slices
Well it is the same in Asian countries where rice is king. I even read a study that the average person in rural China eats more calories than the average American. (Rural China where obesity is unheard of vs cities like Beijing which do have some western food and there is a small percentage of obesity). I think it has to do with activity level but they still eat a large amount of carbs.
). Not every body is equally sensitive to these things, or as dysfunctional in its hormonal responses as one with metabolic resistance, dopamine deficiencies, or other related conditions of hormone signaling.
From my own (fairly extensive) research and self testing I'm now convinced obesity is generally a symptom, not the root cause, of an inappropriate metabolic signaling in the body. And once those adipokines are established and signalling, it's a vicious and somewhat permanent feedback loop that requires more than just eternal, sheer willpower to manage. Not everyone struggles with this, but after four YEARS of energy deficits I can confidently say that my body will not comfortably or easily maintain its fat-emancipated status without very specific efforts on my part of drive utilization of cellular stored energy and NOT tripping the dietary command to take it in nutritionally. That means insulin is controlled, and tightly. It's only a small component of the equation, and yet crucial to success in a body like mine that isn't functioning normatively with regards to hormone secretion.
jk lol
