CatHerder's Journal, 15 May 16

@phil, what would make the study "science" in your terms? I think it's one of the most meticulous ones I've seen on nutrition research. Sure you can probably find some fault with it but I don't think it should be dismissed outright. I think people follow the so called "gurus" too much and don't look at the science behind their claims. Often times there isn't any, ot's cherry picked or it's taken out of context. I don't think this research in any way impugns any diet strategy. It just shows that different diets can be just as effective which was my point. It's all about calorie restriction. The reason the whole insulin thing bothers me is that it's used to try to say the only way to lose weight is low carb. This study basically contradicts that. I never disagree with a person choice on how to loose weight whether it's low carb, low fat, vegan, medication or surgery. It's all about different roads to better health.  

@trackin64, I agree that having diabetes does impact dietary choices. My nutritionist suggestion was to have a maximum of 45 grams at breakfast, 30 grams at lunch and dinner. Which is actually a lot less than the ADA recommends. I never thought about it at the time as I was set on Atkins at the time. I wasn't in ketosis at the time, I think my protein was too high for that. It took about 6 months for my A1C to get in the high normal range. I don't believe cured of type II diabetes, contrary to what Dr. Fung states. I think at best it can go into remission. If I put the weight back on and go back to the way I was eating it will come back. Good luck with managing yours. I know it can be a struggle but you need to do what works for you in getting it under control. 

@jimmiepop - I wasn't trying to say that one was better than another. I was basically saying that they are equal so that the diet doesn't matter for weight loss. If you are dealing with specific diseases then yes different strategies will be more effective. I also agree that insulin is one of the most anabolic hormones in the body which is why I don't think it should be something to avoid. 

Why i am never hunger on keto...why am i eating half the cals as before doing keto...why my type ll diabetes reversed in two months...why i have lost almost 40 lbs in 4 months...why i have so much more energy than before doing keto....why can i ride my bike two hours every morning now at speeds approaching 20 and 25 mile hour before that could hardly walk. Why why why...you tell me? I smell a rat. 

@CH Apologies for hijacking. Was not responding to you directly, just to the relentles, ongoing, and largely unproductive diet battles and snarking on FS.  

Fred, the answer to your questions would be that you found a WOE you enjoy and can stick to.  

Thank you, catherder for your kind words. Lots of type II diabetes in my family tree, and most of these people were not fat. The carb limits suggested by your nutritionist was interesting information and I wonder if it came from a study or perhaps just general guidelines for diabetics that nutritionists endorse.  

I had read also that being on the LCHF diet does not give you a licence to over eat, because the diet is suppose to put the breaks on the appetite. But if you get hungry you can eat as long as it is something low carb. But the same food gets sort of boring after awhile. I miss the fruit and I love oatmeal and grits. So I bat back and forth between LCHF and then low calorie when I start to get bored and come to a halt on losing. But each to his own and yes do the one that you can stick with, because once you have a weigh problem you will always have to watch your diet. I was a skinny child they had to make me eat. At 6 years old I had my tonsils took out and I have been eating and over eating ever since. 

CH- I say it's pseudoscience because the results are misrepresented, I'm not aware of any problem with the design or method, but I've participated in the design and methodology of enough experimental studies to know that if I were inclined to pick it apart I can almost guarantee you there would be flaws, but that's really not my concern; what I don't appreciate is the arrogance displayed in trying to conclusively dismiss ketogenic diets. There's an inherent contradiction in saying, "do whatever suits you, but you don't get any credit for the success you have". It's as if successfully following a different diet plan is somehow taking away from what anyone else has done, or what they called it, despite saying, "follow whatever plan you can stick with", there's some kind of intrinsic rivalry, and that to me makes absolutely zero sense. Follow your diet, YAY for you, you've had great success. Call it whatever you want, N=1 and really doesn't affect anyone else!  

@phil, Don't let anyone else take credit for what you've done in terms of your health. I think you're an inspiration and have helped many people. I never take away someone elses credit for what they do to improve their health. It's hard to make these changes so I congratulate all who are on this journey. I don't agree with your analysis in saying that he is dismissing ketogenic diets. I think of it more in terms of him saying that all diets work but there isn't any metabolic advantage to ketogenic diets over other diets. They all have the same method of action which is calorie restriction. I think Dr. Atkins was the first to loudly proclaim that calories don't matter and was lambasted at the McGovern commission for that comment (not his diet strategy as Taubes claims). He backpedaled during the hearing and said something to the effect that calories do in fact matter. It's no reflection on whether certain diets have any other benefits such as being better at reducing hunger. It has been implied in other studies that low carb/ketogenic diets due reduce hunger better for a lot of people. Unfortunately there were big confounders such as not controlling protein intake. Hopefully the research will move off in a new direction to answer some of the other lingering questions. 

@draglist - I wish you success. How are you measuring your calorie burn? I was in a similar position to you last year and into the early part of this year. I was running a lot and doing 2 hour long runs or races on the weekends. That was on top of various types of 1 hour runs 3x per week. According to my tracking I too was burning over 3000 cals/day on workout days and had many daily deficits of over 1000 cals. My weight was creeping down at a snails pace. I was in great shape up until I got injured in a race. Then I switched back to weight lifting for exercise. During that time I found a device called the Breezing Metabolic Tracker and purchased one. When I first tested myself in early January I thought there was something wrong with the device, it was recording my RMR at ~1300 cals/day. My wife measured in the normal range. I tested amny times during that time and my RMR was slowly creeping up but was only reading ~1450 by the end of January. As I look back through my spreadsheet log and factor in a 500 cal/day reduction in my calorie burn the numbers come pretty close to theoretical for my weight loss. It has taken me about 4 months to get my RMR back into he normal range. That has been by calorie cycling and eating at a higher calorie level. I did see an increase in my fat mass during that time but it has since gone away.  

"All diets work", so why the obsession with falsifying keto/insulin theory? A low-carb/high-fat diet isn't unhealthy, it targets foods that many people find problematic, it doesn't suggest that anyone give up counting calories, it just puts more emphasis on avoiding junk food, processed food, and sugars and a lot of people find that to be an advantage for more than just metabolic reasons. I'm not clear of Dr. Hall's agenda, does he want everyone to stop eating utilizing ketosis to lose weight, and if so, why? Or is he jealous that ketosis is highly effective for people that have had difficulty with other strategies, and if so, why? Maybe he just likes eating processed, refined junk food and sugary treats and feels like he's being shamed into not eating garbage food, maybe, but why? I don't know what his motivation is, but he certainly seems hell-bent on destroying keto diets.  

Hey Phil, I looked at the video and he's not dissing keto, in fact he acknowledges that most recent studies have LCHF working better than other diets...he is just trying to figure out why it works better...the metabolic ward study was used to see if there is a metabolic advantage, they're measurements show there is a slight advantage but not really that significant...he postulates that likely satiety and other factors are giving it the edge in the real world. Also, their test subjects were not super overweight, they tightly controlled the BMI range to be in the what I would call slightly overweight to overweight range....in fact at my present BMI I would have qualified for the test and I'm probably under 15% BF right now. There might, or might not, be different results with a different test group. 

I am wondering who funds the NIH? They give out grants for research, but their website is a .gov extension so doesn't that mean they are funded by the federal government? If so, that might give you your answer, Phil. Special interests must be protected. 

I think it would be really interesting to see what the results would be if the study was flipped around...if the same subjects started on a LCHF diet then switched to a hi carb, lo fat diet, under the same test conditions as the original study. I have no guess as to the outcome but it would be VERY interesting to see what the results would be. 

There would be an immediate weight bump if they switched from LCHF because of glycogen and water issues, if you only did the study for the same amount of time Dr. Hall did the study above, it wouldn't look good for whatever diet or diets the participants switched to from LCHF. I think Dr. Hall just likes eating ice cream and brownies. lol 

Haha, Nothing wrong with brownies or ice cream Phil...just need to be very, very careful as to quantities and timing (for me)...ice cream has my number...... :-)  

From my experience, the results of this study are unsurprising. It took me more than 5 months on a LCHF "diet" before I started having more energy. 4 weeks is hardly conclusive, but I do agree with your statement. People should do what works for them. 

I'm gonna go with food I can stand over food I can't and run with that up to my calorie limit. I know the good fuel and the bad fuel. That is a choice and I can limit or trade off from there. 

Sure, eat foods that you like, if you can control your intake, that's great, a lot of people can't seem to get a handle on their consumption of sugar heavy and carb heavy foods. If I drink a diet soft drink the artificial sweetener in it makes me crave sugar. Refined processed bleached flour, the kind used in just about every kind of bread, cake, cracker, and batter for fried foods produces the same insulin spike as eating straight sucrose. It really doesn't matter what you eat if you want to lose weight you're going to have to impose limits, I'd rather eat delicious and satisfying low carb foods in abundance instead of eating super small portions of junk food.