The Hormone Insulin as the Driving Force Behind Obesity

[Jatt1]

I'm not on keto. I just try to keep my carbs relatively low, not to eliminate them entirely. And when I do eat carbs, I try to get them from veggies and whole grains, not from processed stuff.

I fast because it has tremendous health benefits.

For example?

[spruithean]

When sugars are consumed with fats the combination causes inflammation. Don't consume them together, keep one of them and proteins to minimum and you will do fine. Carbs are not the problem, combination is. You eat too much fats without taking good amount of Omega 3s you again will have problem. Can you tell me why you keep fast while you hardy eat any carbs?

You got a source for this "sugars are consumed with fats the combination causes inflammation" claim? Why would you keep proteins to a minimum?

Please back up such claims with actual citations.

Some other wonderful things I have discovered is that dark meat poultry is great, and you can eat it with the skin!

No more dry-as-dust, skinless chicken and turkey breasts. Give me thighs and drumsticks!

Any type of meat that has some fluid retention is better than dry-as-dust turkey or chicken. Agreed on thighs and drumsticks.

If you walk into a Gym and ask 20 weight lifters which is the better program, lighter weights with high volume or heavy weights and lower volume, just stand back and get your popcorn ready, because the arguments are going to start immediately. This is because we have genetics driving our ability to gain muscle just as we have genetics driving our propensity to be affected by diet. One program might be better for me than the other and vice versa. Dr. Barry Sears formed his diet The Zone many many years ago, and it based on insulin resistance. I have used it and for me it works. I will read Dr. Fung's book at some point also. The Zone is formatted as a diet first to control insulin levels which puts you in "the zone" and promotes the bodies ability to reduce inflammation as gets your body and mind functioning optimally.

Hahahaha, it's true. You bring this conversation up and you will have a few groups, each recommending one combination or the other.

For example?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680567/

There is plenty of evidence out there that supports intermittent fasting and fasting in general.

[Jatt1]

You got a source for this "sugars are consumed with fats the combination causes inflammation" claim? Why would you keep proteins to a minimum?

Please back up such claims with actual citations.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680567/

There is plenty of evidence out there that supports intermittent fasting and fasting in general.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5643203/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4825899/

The question was only for him as I was trying to ascertain what was he fasting for to reduce BS levels(he is on Keto diet), inflammation, infections, autophagy etc. etc.

[Jatt1]

Well... We are not them anymore? There's been millions of years of evolution between us and them. Human digestive tracts in fact look surprisingly more similar to those of dogs and cats than Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans from what I've seen:

 

Comparisons of digestive tract anatomy. It can be seen that the human digestive tract is relatively small. Compared with that in the pig, an omnivore that is often regarded as a model for humans, the human large intestine is much reduced. The dog intestine is capacious but relatively short. The hu- man large intestine is also small compared with anthropoid apes, here illustrated by the orangutan. The kangaroo, a nonruminant foregut fermenter, has a large sacculated stomach, whereas the hindgut fermenter, the horse, has a capacious, multicompartment large bowel. The koala, which consumes only leaves that are rich in tannins and volatile oils, has an extensive large bowel and reduced small intestine. Reproduced with permission from Stevens and Hume (1998). - source

Shorter digestive tracts, very acidic stomachs, barely any cecum to speak of which is quite the conundrum if we are meant to be naturally good fermenters of various plant-foods and so on. There is a reason Humans have to process a lot of non-fruit plant foods as much as we do with all the cooking, grinding, powdering and so forth. We are more omnivorous than dogs and cats for sure but not even as extensively omnivorous as a pig for example. Something skewed Humans the other way in our millions of years of evolution and I think it's a no-brainer that it was the move into things like scavenging then eventually hunting as important food gathering strategies. Contrary to popular belief the literature* and countless anecdotes demonstrate that you can, for example, extract every nutrient you need from eating an animal like a ruminant nose-to-tail (yes, even Vitamin C) yet you would be missing out on nutrients like these and others if you ate nothing but a strictly plant-based diet (i.e. vegan):

• Vitamin A (some cannot convert betacarotene)
• Vitamin B6 (pyridoxal, pyridoxamine)
• Vitamin-B12
• Vitamin D3
• Vitamin K2
• Vitamin F
• Creatine
• Carnitine
• Carnosine
• Taurine
• CoQ10
• DHA
• EPA
• Heme-iron (most absorbable form)
• Cholesterol (yes, a real nutrient)

Animal-based foods are crucial for humans whether meat, eggs, fish or a later addition like dairy which is why no historically continuous Vegan society has ever existed in the Human archaeological record and recorded history as far as I know. Plant-based foods have value and were important supplementary and survival foods for our ancestors but they cannot support us all on their own. The initial eating of just them can cause short-term weight-loss and even a sense of cleansing as it can mimic a sort of "fasting" but, eventually, the nutrient deficiencies will catch up with you. This bit is purely anecdotal but I've been around these dietary communities for quite a while and noticed a high dropout rate among vegans for precisely this reason as you can see here. These same "Ex-Vegans" oddly enough become quite into stuff like the Carnivore diet and even "Raw Carnivore"** probably in some innate attempt to refuel on all the nutrients they were missing out on for years.

 

* read any of the books of these "Carnivore" MDs you see on YouTube and follow the sources they share in particular.

** YouTubers like Bobby's Perspective, Steak and Butter Gal, Asra Conlu and KasumiKriss to name just a tiny few former Vegans who fit this mold off the top of my head

Something like the Randle-cycle comes to mind. I've noticed the problem isn't necessarily carbs or fats. It is when you mix the two. Seriously, eat nothing but table sugar and white-rice without counting calories and you will lean down. You will become a sickly stick figure eventually if you keep it up long enough and will be missing out on a crazy number of key nutrients but you will lose weight. Eat nothing but fatty food with at best protein thrown in and a similar result without emaciation ensue but it's when you mix carbs and fat, especially the former's processed and less fibrous forms together that an issue clearly arises. And the saddest part is that a lot of Standard-American-Diet (basically the Standard-Modern-Diet) foods are exactly this. Pizza, Big Macs, Chicken fried with bloody breadcrumbs and the like, cheese mixed with starches... It's all an unholy union of the two.



Let's be real here. There is not a single adequate randomized control trial using a sampling of Humans proving any diet truly is the bomb and there likely will not be for ethical reasons. Most of what we can go on are mechanistic data, historical and archaeological examples, anecdotes and flimsy evidence like epidemiological stuff of the sort you've shared.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3936685/
https://nourishmagazine.com.au/healt...f-vitamin-b12/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutriti...ce/vitamin-b6/
https://oldwayspt.org/blog/vitamin-d...nd-vegetarians
https://nutritionstudies.org/6-facts...nt-based-diet/
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...f#food-sources
https://www.whatsbehindthedots.com/e...ns-and-vegans/
https://www.superfoodly.com/carnosin...-food-sources/
https://www.veganfriendly.org.uk/is-it-vegan/taurine/
https://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan...nt-based-diet/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...ces-of-omega-3
https://www.vegansociety.com/resourc...nutrients/iron
https://www.livekindly.co/how-do-veg...t-cholesterol/
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...refixedContent

[Magnetic]

A calorie is simply a unit used to measure the energy of food as it is digested by the human body.

But different kinds of foods affect the body in different ways.

Who thinks 250 calories of white sugar affect the body the same way 250 calories of broccoli do?

After all, according to you, "[C]alories are the most important thing when it comes to weight is an undeniable physical reality".

Calories are calories are calories, right? And 250 calories are just 250 calories.

Based on what you're saying, there should be no difference.

If you increase your daily caloric intake to 6,000 calories, you will gain weight, because eating anything increases insulin.

But the effect of 6,000 calories of foods that only modestly raise insulin is drastically different from 6,000 calories of foods that spike insulin and keep one's insulin elevated.

sorry for the late response . and I might not answer any further because I wont be too frequently online here

I agree with you that different calorie sources have different effects on the body . regarding health / micronutrients , satiation , hunger levels , how you feel in general etc

but still .....imagine you would eat nothing but 2 snickers bars daily . you will lose weight be sure of it . it wouldnt be healthy and you would feel bad but you would still lose fat . thats how the body works

there are many foods that dont raise insulin much . if you would eat only those but would eat 6000 calories daily for example you would gain fat ...not because of the insulin but because you take in more energy than you need into your body

you basically just use the term "insulin" instead of calorie at this point to argue that an excess amount of energy is leading to weight gain

if you dont like the word calorie then just say energy .

here a video regarding this issue we are discussing about :

[rms2]

I think you're on the red herring diet.

Obesity is much more complex than a simple case of calories-in-calories-out, and insulin is the chief driver.

Calories are not totally irrelevant, but what kinds of foods one eats and how frequently are much more important factors. You can drastically reduce your calories and lose weight for awhile (usually about six months). Then, as I said before, when your body realizes it's on reduced rations and lowers your basal metabolic rate, you will begin to gain the weight back, even on your new, reduced-calories plan. Lower your calories yet again and work out more and harder, and your body will simply outsmart you yet again and lower your metabolic rate even more.

You'll feel like crap, and you'll be fatter in the long run.

There are numerous studies of thousands of people over years of time that demonstrate this.

If you actually read Fung's book or watched a few of his videos, you'd know this, and I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

[rms2]

Try the following experiment to see if obesity or simple weight gain/weight loss is merely a matter of calories.

1. Increase your calories by about 500 a day, but eat just one or maybe two meals a day, finishing with a period of at least 16 hours or more a day in which you eat nothing and drink only water, coffee, or tea with no sweeteners. Try that for a couple of months and see what happens.

2. Next, maintain your new increased-calorie regimen, but spread your consumption out over pretty much all your waking hours, with very little time between meals.

You should be consuming the same number of calories with both program 1 and program 2.

See what happens.

[FionnSneachta]

I lost some weight over the last year by cutting out the junk food and being more active. I had got into bad habits during college. I just wanted to focus on my studies and put my diet and fitness on the back burner. Once I broke the junk food habit, I didn't have any desire for treats anymore. I have breakfast, dinner and a yoghurt, Actimel and fruit after work. I have a healthy BMI and I'm happy with my current dress size and weight but I am still trying to lose a bit more. I keep setting a new target once I've reached it. I do like the sound of the 16/8 diet but I like to have my breakfast in the morning before work and something again after work so I end up eating over around an 11 hour period most days. At least breakfast and dinner (the biggest meals) are within the 8 hour period and it's just the final snack that extends it.

[pegasus]

But then you have Hong Kong, they have the highest meat consumption per capita and also the highest life expectancy(occasionally).

I use to live in Toronto, which has an enormous Cantonese speaking community from Hong Kong , and the high school friends I had from Hong Kong were not eating steaks, pork chops or fried chicken on a daily basis at all, rather mostly steamed lean pork meat , vegetables and other dishes which were more than often were sea food-based and served daily with congee, which is another healthy staple. Also what I consider a relatively high consumption of foods which are rather alien to most diets like seaweed and the even more exotic sea cucumber. Seaweed is known for having a lot of benefits and its consumption has exploded among health-conscious Americans over the past decade. Chinese folk medicine also attributes longevity to sea cucumbers and if you go to a Chinese apothecary you will find dried up versions of them. Overall the diet was largely seafood + vegetables+ and congee/rice based and augmented by pork or chicken dishes, not the other way around.

[JerryS.]

This will sound oversimplified but it really is that simple. Diet which includes only slight fasting and Proper nutrition along with exercise even modest exercise.