|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2023 18:15:42 GMT -5
Adult Obesity MapsUpdated Sept 21, 2023 link" All states and territories had an obesity prevalence higher than 20% (more than 1 in 5 adults)."  My first book on nutrition was by Dick Gregory, it was (had to look it up) long title. We know how to cook in NC. This was my copy, the link, I'm sure I still have my original copy, somewhere. Gregory got fat eating soul food, researched. He got into fasting, and eating nutritiously. The one thing I remembered, because my father got gout periodically, and my brother-in-law does. Gout comes from too much uric acid in the body. And that basically comes from eating too much meat. I read that right out of the book to my dad, in the 1970's. It didn't help, he kept eating all the meat he wanted, kept getting gout periodically. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 22, 2023 19:58:56 GMT -5
Bariatric surgery = fewer calories Fasting = fewer calories Low carb diet = fewer calories Lots of concentration on carbs (glucose) becoming fat, and that happens,but it's really just excess calories.Excess calories from fat actually causes more fat storage (but higher fat burn) whereas glucose doesn't actually store much fat (but has a lower fat burn) Fung is basically of the false belief that insulin (due to carbs) is the cause of obesity, and therefore diabetes. In fact, if you are on lower carb and higher fat diet with a surplus of calories, you will become obese and be more likely contract diabetes. He gets to the drug Semaglutide, which is an appetite suppressant, and if you eat less (not diet specific) = fewer calories.In this case he says 'nothing works better', yet is has nothing to do with his earlier position on carbs. He then talks about a very restricted diet of 800 calories = fewer calories. Used up fat and overtime presto. He didn't explain that starvation diets make you lose a lot of muscle tissue... and unless someone is in a dire situation, starvation dieting is bad. Even the charts he shows simply say 'hypocaloric diet'. Nothing specific to carbs. Despite most of his talk being true, fewer calories = less fat = remission, he concludes with a 'low carb diet, which will work just fine provided it entails a calorie deficit. You could also have a low fat diet with a calorie deficit. As long as the body sheds fat, there will be a remission. Of course he says intermoittent fasting = fewer calories, so if you go low carb and IF, you're going to reduce calories, lose fat, and there for see a remission, but you could just eat 3 meals and a snack including carbs and the same thing would happen provided you have that calorie deficit. Notice how he talks about reducing glucose, and not about fewer calories, and he's a one size fits all (low carb + IF) - namely he's a keto warrior - is what makes Fung a diet guru quack. The reality is, his method doesn't work if it doesn't entail a calorie deficit, which is the actual cause of weight loss. The other issue I take with Fung is he doesn't talk about lean mass retention or accrual. The focus of his narrative is glucose (carbs) when the nutrient of focus should be protein. He talks about losing weight rather than losing fat. I listened to the whole thing, but I'm already familiar withe Fung, and he's out there with a medical degrees, but bottom line is, he's what I call a diet guru. You don't approach nutrition from a glucose standpoint. You start with calories as your foundation, and the primary nutrient of concern is protein. If a person is already overweight and suffering diabetes, then see a properly qualified dietitian. Cats like Fung will lead you down the garden path. I've been out all day, just got home. First, I think maybe you are asking him to state the obvious on how to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you take in. I mean, isn't it obvious? (I saw your other post about the other JF video you watched). This is patently false. Any excess calories you do not burn, daily, are turned to fat. Where else would the excess calories go? All food not used to repair and build the body, is turned to glucose, all. And this glucose if not used for energy, is turned to body fat. That's like Fat-101. Even if you eat more protein than the body needs to build muscle and repair itself, it's turned to fat (protein is energy also, where [else] would it go if not used?). But I agree, he should use more specificity. He's probably done over a hundred videos, every video he should not assume you have seen any previous videos. He should specify the carbs he means. [IOW, he (obviously) doesn't mean vegetables, which are also carbs. You can basically eat all the vegetables you want to, without weight gain]. I'm going to assume, from my own previous research, he means processed carbs, processed food. Processing food, does part of the digestive work, and so make turning white bread, white rice, for example, too quickly into sugar (eating sugar, sugar is already sugar, glucose). IOW, whole wheat bread makes the body work, so whole wheat bread is not immediately turned to glucose. Processed, white carbs, turn almost immediately to sugar in the body. Processed carbs spike insulin the quickest, the highest. And processed means the manufacturer is going to add sugar and fats to make it taste better to make you want to eat more. I'm not going to debate the other stuff (now anyway), except for over 30 years doctors and nutritionists had the wrong idea about fat, eating fat does not make you fat. Eating more calories than you burn, makes you fat. Basically, additionally, the calories you eat should be nutritious (IOW, empty calories, not good). OK, one more thing. This goes back at least 45 years when I used to run instead of walk, so I think I remember correctly. I never did more than a 10,000 meter race, I never ran regularly more than 3 miles a day. But I read a good bit about the body using energy, and yes, of course inavalan is correct, 3,500 calories = one pound of fat (just as an equation, but you get extra fat-burning benefits from exercise, IOW, you're going to burn more than 1 lb of fat walking 35 miles). That's a lot of running, but especially a lot of walking (time factor), that's basically walking (or running) 35 miles to lose one pound of fat, on average. The body stores glucose in the muscles. That's on average about 20 miles worth, that's what the wall is in a marathon, when the body has used up its store of glucose in the muscles. OK, why am I saying that? Because, basically, to begin burning body fat you first have to use up your store of glucose in the muscles. But first, also, to begin burning body fat you have to burn up the excess fat in the liver, those two places are where the body goes to first for energy when it has burned up the daily intake of food-energy, basically 16 hours worth (because of sleep, you can't eat while sleeping). And it takes a lot of muscle-glucose burning and a lot of liver-fat burning to even to get to body-fat burning. If you consider the wall, the 20 mile mark in a marathon, that's what you have to exceed to begin burning body fat, so you have to take into consideration, not-replenishing that glucose in-the-muscles, in order to begin burning body fat in earnest (because, again, the body is always going to go there first for operating-energy, when it has used your daily food-energy). I know that from personal experience the last 2+ years. And all that is why eating 1,400 calories a day works well to lose weight. (My formula was always about 100 calories an hour on average, burning daily, 2,400 calories a day to operate the body, a male body). And, if you get much under 1,400 calories a day, the body will get by on less, the body will adapt, unless you also simultaneously up your exercise, I also learned that the hard way. IOW, less than 1,400 calories, the body lowers its metabolism. Then, if you go back to *eating normally*, your body then stores those "excess calories" (anything over what-you-had-gotten-used-to) as fat [because the body has gotten used to operating on the fewer calories], that's the YoYo phenomenon. And it's a lot of trouble getting all that straightened out. So, yes, inavalan is again correct, your food intake has to just become a way of life, a lifestyle. You can't go on a diet to lose weight, and then go back to "eating normally". Oh, too, I haven't watched your con Jason Fung video, yet, will. I'm familiar with all the diet gurus including Fung, and he is an insulin guy. Insulin guys say sugar and insulin cause obesity, and it's not the calories per-se. Fung is emphatic about that, and he's wrong.
If you take the carbs with fiber the rate at which it passes the intestine wall is reduced, so fruit generally is pretty low GI even though it's sugary, and whole grains, beans etc are also fiber rich.
Yes metabolic rate adapts to consuming fewer calories.
I don't know if whole food makes the body work per-se, and I've never seen a difference between caslorie input from processed carbs to whole grains as such, but fiber is carbs we exclude from the calorie-in side of the equation.
I don't think depleting glycogen is necessary to burn fat at all. Of course when carbs are depleted the body draws on fat, so if you eat more fat the body burns more fat (but also deposits more fat), If you eat low fat/high carb, the body stores less fat (and burns less fat). If you don't use all that calories you eat, no matter where that come from, it's going to end up accumulated as fat. Marathon runners take sugar drinks to prevent glycogen depletion, so the the whole idea of it being necessary to deplete glycogen in order to lose fat just doesn't hold water.
The main reason exercise doesn't really work is you burn more energy, but you feel hungrier and eat more and/or feel tireder and do less non-exercise activity (NEAT). Hence weight loss is just the food you eat. A bit of exercise just means you can eat a little bit more which makes dieting easier. Exercise is, or at least should be, primarily about retaining muscle mass while you lose fat.
If a male maintenance calorie is 2400 consuming 1400 will certainly drop weight, and it's not particularly extreme, but a large deficit will result in losing more muscle mass, particularly if protein isn't sufficient and the individual isn't doing any weight bearing activity. You get lighter, and have less muscle to burn calories and do work. That seems fine at first,but you get older over the years and sarcopenia becomes problematic in old age. It's the leading cause of geriatric disability, and muscle mass is a leading determinant of longitivity.
This is wht I don't like gurus like fung... they are misleading people. The real people who understand science willbe talking about calories and protein because we need to lose fat; not muscle, or gain muscle without too much fat. People who don't understand talk mostly about glucose (carbs), and rareoly if ever mention protein at all, and place no importance of resistance exercise.
People who know talk about calories, adequate protein and the importance of retaining muscle mass, particularly in older age. They rarely talk about glucose other than as a efficient source of energy. Of course consuming excessive carbs isn't good, but excessive anything isn't good,so that kinda goes without saying. Even H20 is toxic given large enough doses.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 22, 2023 22:51:48 GMT -5
 Maintaining that same rate (same lifestyle) I eventually dropped to 164 at the end of the next three and a half months. Today I weight 161, and average about 2,100 calories/day, with daily 30 minute moderate exercise and 30 minute brisk walking. I also take vitamins and supplements. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2023 23:02:43 GMT -5
I've been out all day, just got home. First, I think maybe you are asking him to state the obvious on how to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you take in. I mean, isn't it obvious? (I saw your other post about the other JF video you watched). This is patently false. Any excess calories you do not burn, daily, are turned to fat. Where else would the excess calories go? All food not used to repair and build the body, is turned to glucose, all. And this glucose if not used for energy, is turned to body fat. That's like Fat-101. Even if you eat more protein than the body needs to build muscle and repair itself, it's turned to fat (protein is energy also, where [else] would it go if not used?). But I agree, he should use more specificity. He's probably done over a hundred videos, every video he should not assume you have seen any previous videos. He should specify the carbs he means. [IOW, he (obviously) doesn't mean vegetables, which are also carbs. You can basically eat all the vegetables you want to, without weight gain]. I'm going to assume, from my own previous research, he means processed carbs, processed food. Processing food, does part of the digestive work, and so make turning white bread, white rice, for example, too quickly into sugar (eating sugar, sugar is already sugar, glucose). IOW, whole wheat bread makes the body work, so whole wheat bread is not immediately turned to glucose. Processed, white carbs, turn almost immediately to sugar in the body. Processed carbs spike insulin the quickest, the highest. And processed means the manufacturer is going to add sugar and fats to make it taste better to make you want to eat more. I'm not going to debate the other stuff (now anyway), except for over 30 years doctors and nutritionists had the wrong idea about fat, eating fat does not make you fat. Eating more calories than you burn, makes you fat. Basically, additionally, the calories you eat should be nutritious (IOW, empty calories, not good). OK, one more thing. This goes back at least 45 years when I used to run instead of walk, so I think I remember correctly. I never did more than a 10,000 meter race, I never ran regularly more than 3 miles a day. But I read a good bit about the body using energy, and yes, of course inavalan is correct, 3,500 calories = one pound of fat (just as an equation, but you get extra fat-burning benefits from exercise, IOW, you're going to burn more than 1 lb of fat walking 35 miles). That's a lot of running, but especially a lot of walking (time factor), that's basically walking (or running) 35 miles to lose one pound of fat, on average. The body stores glucose in the muscles. That's on average about 20 miles worth, that's what the wall is in a marathon, when the body has used up its store of glucose in the muscles. OK, why am I saying that? Because, basically, to begin burning body fat you first have to use up your store of glucose in the muscles. But first, also, to begin burning body fat you have to burn up the excess fat in the liver, those two places are where the body goes to first for energy when it has burned up the daily intake of food-energy, basically 16 hours worth (because of sleep, you can't eat while sleeping). And it takes a lot of muscle-glucose burning and a lot of liver-fat burning to even to get to body-fat burning. If you consider the wall, the 20 mile mark in a marathon, that's what you have to exceed to begin burning body fat, so you have to take into consideration, not-replenishing that glucose in-the-muscles, in order to begin burning body fat in earnest (because, again, the body is always going to go there first for operating-energy, when it has used your daily food-energy). I know that from personal experience the last 2+ years. And all that is why eating 1,400 calories a day works well to lose weight. (My formula was always about 100 calories an hour on average, burning daily, 2,400 calories a day to operate the body, a male body). And, if you get much under 1,400 calories a day, the body will get by on less, the body will adapt, unless you also simultaneously up your exercise, I also learned that the hard way. IOW, less than 1,400 calories, the body lowers its metabolism. Then, if you go back to *eating normally*, your body then stores those "excess calories" (anything over what-you-had-gotten-used-to) as fat [because the body has gotten used to operating on the fewer calories], that's the YoYo phenomenon. And it's a lot of trouble getting all that straightened out. So, yes, inavalan is again correct, your food intake has to just become a way of life, a lifestyle. You can't go on a diet to lose weight, and then go back to "eating normally". Oh, too, I haven't watched your con Jason Fung video, yet, will. I'm familiar with all the diet gurus including Fung, and he is an insulin guy. Insulin guys say sugar and insulin cause obesity, and it's not the calories per-se. Fung is emphatic about that, and he's wrong.
If you take the carbs with fiber the rate at which it passes the intestine wall is reduced, so fruit generally is pretty low GI even though it's sugary, and whole grains, beans etc are also fiber rich.
Yes metabolic rate adapts to consuming fewer calories.
I don't know if whole food makes the body work per-se, and I've never seen a difference between caslorie input from processed carbs to whole grains as such, but fiber is carbs we exclude from the calorie-in side of the equation. I don't think depleting glycogen is necessary to burn fat at all. Of course when carbs are depleted the body draws on fat, so if you eat more fat the body burns more fat (but also deposits more fat), If you eat low fat/high carb, the body stores less fat (and burns less fat). If you don't use all that calories you eat, no matter where that come from, it's going to end up accumulated as fat. Marathon runners take sugar drinks to prevent glycogen depletion, so the the whole idea of it being necessary to deplete glycogen in order to lose fat just doesn't hold water. The main reason exercise doesn't really work is you burn more energy, but you feel hungrier and eat more and/or feel tireder and do less non-exercise activity (NEAT). Hence weight loss is just the food you eat. A bit of exercise just means you can eat a little bit more which makes dieting easier. Exercise is, or at least should be, primarily about retaining muscle mass while you lose fat.
If a male maintenance calorie is 2400 consuming 1400 will certainly drop weight, and it's not particularly extreme, but a large deficit will result in losing more muscle mass, particularly if protein isn't sufficient and the individual isn't doing any weight bearing activity. You get lighter, and have less muscle to burn calories and do work. That seems fine at first,but you get older over the years and sarcopenia becomes problematic in old age. It's the leading cause of geriatric disability, and muscle mass is a leading determinant of longitivity. This is wht I don't like gurus like fung... they are misleading people. The real people who understand science willbe talking about calories and protein because we need to lose fat; not muscle, or gain muscle without too much fat. People who don't understand talk mostly about glucose (carbs), and rareoly if ever mention protein at all, and place no importance of resistance exercise. People who know talk about calories, adequate protein and the importance of retaining muscle mass, particularly in older age. They rarely talk about glucose other than as a efficient source of energy. Of course consuming excessive carbs isn't good, but excessive anything isn't good,so that kinda goes without saying. Even H20 is toxic given large enough doses.
, is either true or not true (you will either research it, or not). Jason Fung's main thing is fasting. (I think that counts as reducing calories. But his main point is WHEN you eat). And this is directly connected to the reason for fasting. I have no problem with sticking with whatever works for you. I got my blood sugar in control, period. My A1C was 5 last year, that's good, OK. I got my blood pressure to normal, period. (My doctor has threatened blood pressure meds in the past. I know the first thing they give you for high BP is a fluid pill, totally not fun). If whatever works now, at some point in the future doesn't-work, then you have to start researching. I think I'll probably just leave it there. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2023 23:46:58 GMT -5
View AttachmentMaintaining that same rate (same lifestyle) I eventually dropped to 164 at the end of the next three and a half months. Today I weight 161, and average about 2,100 calories/day, with daily 30 minute moderate exercise and 30 minute brisk walking. I also take vitamins and supplements. I was always a little chubby. In 10th grade I was 5'10", weighed 176 lbs. I remember because we wrestled in PE, we wrestled mostly with those near our weight. I gradually kept adding some lbs, mostly my legs, but everywhere, not particularly the belly. In 1974, at 22, I was up to 210 lbs. I moved to Colorado, eating my own cooking, I lost 50 lbs in eight months. I stayed in 34" jeans for about 28 years. In 1995 I lost back down to 160, but gradually moved up again (160 was too thin, I looked too thin in the face). About 2002 I had to buy size 36". (I still have some 34" I plan to get back in  ). About 2010 my boss asked me how much I weighed. I said 220. He said you haven't seen 220 in a LONG time. I had stopped weighing when I hit 220. So, then I got serious. I still didn't weigh until I was pretty sure I was below 220. I weighed 217. (I retired from electrical in 2014 at 62, actually, 2 months short of 62). In 2014 I lost back down to 200, but started back up again. About 2015-2016 I got up to 236, the most I ever weighed. (January 2015 is when I started helping take care of my dad, mostly 5 days a week, so I was eating mother's cooking). In 2017 I lost down to 187, but started back up again. In June of 2021 I lost back down to 207, back up again. I got back down to 220 in June this year, back up, a little. I plan to get to 176, my 10th grade weight, that will put me in my 34" jeans again. And then I plan to stay in my 34" jeans. I'll give myself 14 months to get to 176, and stay there, this time. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 23, 2023 0:09:21 GMT -5
... I'll give myself 14 months to get to 176, and stay there, this time. Good luck! Even better: believe that you're doing it! |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 23, 2023 2:33:56 GMT -5
I'm familiar with all the diet gurus including Fung, and he is an insulin guy. Insulin guys say sugar and insulin cause obesity, and it's not the calories per-se. Fung is emphatic about that, and he's wrong.
If you take the carbs with fiber the rate at which it passes the intestine wall is reduced, so fruit generally is pretty low GI even though it's sugary, and whole grains, beans etc are also fiber rich.
Yes metabolic rate adapts to consuming fewer calories.
I don't know if whole food makes the body work per-se, and I've never seen a difference between caslorie input from processed carbs to whole grains as such, but fiber is carbs we exclude from the calorie-in side of the equation. I don't think depleting glycogen is necessary to burn fat at all. Of course when carbs are depleted the body draws on fat, so if you eat more fat the body burns more fat (but also deposits more fat), If you eat low fat/high carb, the body stores less fat (and burns less fat). If you don't use all that calories you eat, no matter where that come from, it's going to end up accumulated as fat. Marathon runners take sugar drinks to prevent glycogen depletion, so the the whole idea of it being necessary to deplete glycogen in order to lose fat just doesn't hold water. The main reason exercise doesn't really work is you burn more energy, but you feel hungrier and eat more and/or feel tireder and do less non-exercise activity (NEAT). Hence weight loss is just the food you eat. A bit of exercise just means you can eat a little bit more which makes dieting easier. Exercise is, or at least should be, primarily about retaining muscle mass while you lose fat.
If a male maintenance calorie is 2400 consuming 1400 will certainly drop weight, and it's not particularly extreme, but a large deficit will result in losing more muscle mass, particularly if protein isn't sufficient and the individual isn't doing any weight bearing activity. You get lighter, and have less muscle to burn calories and do work. That seems fine at first,but you get older over the years and sarcopenia becomes problematic in old age. It's the leading cause of geriatric disability, and muscle mass is a leading determinant of longitivity. This is wht I don't like gurus like fung... they are misleading people. The real people who understand science willbe talking about calories and protein because we need to lose fat; not muscle, or gain muscle without too much fat. People who don't understand talk mostly about glucose (carbs), and rareoly if ever mention protein at all, and place no importance of resistance exercise. People who know talk about calories, adequate protein and the importance of retaining muscle mass, particularly in older age. They rarely talk about glucose other than as a efficient source of energy. Of course consuming excessive carbs isn't good, but excessive anything isn't good,so that kinda goes without saying. Even H20 is toxic given large enough doses.
, is either true or not true (you will either research it, or not). Jason Fung's main thing is fasting. (I think that counts as reducing calories. But his main point is WHEN you eat). And this is directly connected to the reason for fasting. I have no problem with sticking with whatever works for you. I got my blood sugar in control, period. My A1C was 5 last year, that's good, OK. I got my blood pressure to normal, period. (My doctor has threatened blood pressure meds in the past. I know the first thing they give you for high BP is a fluid pill, totally not fun). If whatever works now, at some point in the future doesn't-work, then you have to start researching. I think I'll probably just leave it there. Fasting reduced the timein which you intake calories, and for many it's a good strategy. For others it isn't. The research is in comparing intermittent fasters to people with meals spread throughout the day, and there's no difference in weight lost.
This isn't saying Fungs low carb + fasting strategy doesn't work. It's just that it doesn't work for the reasons he says it works, and there's different ways to skin the cat. Indeed the expert and in the video Iposted criticizing Fung for making nonsense claims said he used low carb with IF to cut fat, but he also said the previous time he consumed high carbs low fat to the same effect. RThe reason Fung is a quack isn't because low carb/IF doesn't work, it's because the reason it works isn't what he claims. The reason it works is calories were decreased (and protein probably increased).
When I go into weight loss stage I just reduce carbs, but because I train hard early in the day, I need my food in the morning, and meeting my calorie quote at 30-40g doses means I have to get 4 doses per day. Hence fasting isn't appropriate for me, but Ifind it easiest to cut calories by reducing carbs rather than fat. Of course I don't consume excessive sugar since I'm into health, and it'shard for me to get the nurtients I need within my calorie allowance, especially while losing weight. I run cycles to build muscles, weight gain, and then I have to shed the extra fat that comes with it, so I will be in caloric excess for 12 weeks or whatever,then a calorie deficit for a while when I look a bit fluffy. I just manage it just by how full or hungry I feel respectively. If I feel kinda hungry most of the time, I'll lose weight, and that weight will be fat. If I feel satiated most of the time, I'll gain muscle.
I don't change my protein intake (it's not a good idea to go low protein because that will result in unnecessary loss of lean mass), so the only variables I have with regards to changing in body weight are carbs and/or fat, and for me making carbs the variable is easiest.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 23, 2023 2:48:45 GMT -5
You can have a sugar drink every two hours all day everyday (except when asleep), maintain glycogen stores, and you will lose fat provided you have a calorie deficit. The amount of fat you lose will be equal to a person doing low carb IF with the same caloric deficit (provided protein is equated and activity levels are comparable). If we don't worry about protein the subjects will lose the same amount of weight, but the subject consuming highest protein will lose more fat and the one consuming lowest protein will lose more muscle. Fung is a terrible source of nutritional information. He's preposterous. There's very good nutrition info online, such as the video I already posted. Here is another critique by Layne Norton PhD. Take special not of what he explains at about 9:25 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2023 7:07:46 GMT -5
This, is either true or not true (you will either research it, or not). Jason Fung's main thing is fasting. (I think that counts as reducing calories. But his main point is WHEN you eat). And this is directly connected to the reason for fasting. I have no problem with sticking with whatever works for you. I got my blood sugar in control, period. My A1C was 5 last year, that's good, OK. I got my blood pressure to normal, period. (My doctor has threatened blood pressure meds in the past. I know the first thing they give you for high BP is a fluid pill, totally not fun). If whatever works now, at some point in the future doesn't-work, then you have to start researching. I think I'll probably just leave it there. Fasting reduced the timein which you intake calories, and for many it's a good strategy. For others it isn't. The research is in comparing intermittent fasters to people with meals spread throughout the day, and there's no difference in weight lost.
This isn't saying Fungs low carb + fasting strategy doesn't work. It's just that it doesn't work for the reasons he says it works, and there's different ways to skin the cat. Indeed the expert and in the video Iposted criticizing Fung for making nonsense claims said he used low carb with IF to cut fat, but he also said the previous time he consumed high carbs low fat to the same effect. RThe reason Fung is a quack isn't because low carb/IF doesn't work, it's because the reason it works isn't what he claims. The reason it works is calories were decreased (and protein probably increased).
When I go into weight loss stage I just reduce carbs, but because I train hard early in the day, I need my food in the morning, and meeting my calorie quote at 30-40g doses means I have to get 4 doses per day. Hence fasting isn't appropriate for me, but Ifind it easiest to cut calories by reducing carbs rather than fat. Of course I don't consume excessive sugar since I'm into health, and it'shard for me to get the nurtients I need within my calorie allowance, especially while losing weight. I run cycles to build muscles, weight gain, and then I have to shed the extra fat that comes with it, so I will be in caloric excess for 12 weeks or whatever,then a calorie deficit for a while when I look a bit fluffy. I just manage it just by how full or hungry I feel respectively. If I feel kinda hungry most of the time, I'll lose weight, and that weight will be fat. If I feel satiated most of the time, I'll gain muscle.
I don't change my protein intake (it's not a good idea to go low protein because that will result in unnecessary loss of lean mass), so the only variables I have with regards to changing in body weight are carbs and/or fat, and for me making carbs the variable is easiest.
I watched another Jason Fung video last night, 44 minutes. This, is the reason he says fasting works, it's obviously implicit in everything he says (about fasting). Fasting IS not eating (zero calories). I woke up this morning and was going to post just that. But, additionally, the reason he says you don't have to count calories is you can't eat less calories, than fasting, eating zero calories. He didn't say that in the video, but it's obvious. Also, in the video I watched he said you can add fasting to any diet you want to, or any diet you are already on. I don't know how you can disagree with that. So he's not talking against anything else you want to do, anything anyone else one wants to do. So he's not trying to take away your protein. In the video I watched last night (I haven't actually watched his videos previously, just had his book on fasting, and just read in it what I needed) he asked his six year old son how to lose weight. He thought for a few seconds, and said, stop eating. And so Jason said it's just that easy, his six year old son figured it out. Years ago before I had studied about fasting, I came up with this weight loss plan, (it's basically fasting). I decided to eat only when I was hungry, and only eat enough not-to-be-hungry, and that's very little. This is easy when you live alone, not as easy, married. It worked quite well. I still haven't watched your first con JF video, I will and will watch the second. Just another comment in general. Restaurants serve way too much food, about double you should eat for any one meal, what's necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2023 8:47:05 GMT -5
OK, I just finished watching your first con JF video. I think I've figured out our problem here, the disagreement. The guy, don't remember his name, is talking about a normal healthy person, probably a young(er) person. That was me until about age 63, 64, when I went up to 236 (eating mama's cooking again). Previously, I could lose weight whenever I wanted to, no piece of cake, easy peasy. It's true a picture does add at least ten pounds. So probably at Thanksgiving or Christmas, I saw a picture of myself, and said, s**t, I'm fat. So I tried my normal weight loss thingy, and I couldn't lose weight. This was about the time I also discovered I had high blood sugar. I had only checked my sugar once a year, so I could have had high blood sugar for almost a year.
So then I started researching wtf was going on. I'm 100% sure I was in insulin resistance. So, your health guy is talking about healthy people, Fung is a doctor, who doctors unhealthy people (I presume). So, basically, what I had always done previously, was your guy's advice. Now, that no longer worked. I didn't learn about how insulin works in the body, from Fung. I learned from another guy, and then it all made sense. But once you are IN insulin resistance, it's crazy hard to solve the problem. Most people just slide into type 2 diabetes and get shoveled into the normal medical thread mill, and go on some kind of insulin meds (most type 2 diabetes people don't need insulin, they just take an insulin-type med. Type 1 diabetes is a whole different story, in type 1 the body actually doesn't make any insulin whatsoever, so they have to take insulin to survive at all).
I was determined not to have to go on diabetes meds, to not-have diabetes, mostly as I saw my dad just die basically from diabetes. Diabetes just destroys the body, it's a long slow death. Taking diabetes meds doesn't fix diabetes. So, basically, from the other guy (the book is buried in a pile of boxes, I might can retrieve it from online search, to list, but he's the only guy who put it all together, made the insulin resistance problem clear, to make clear how insulin works), I knew I had to fast and cut carbs to fix the insulin resistance problem (basically that just means insulin doesn't do what it's supposed to do [as in a healthy body]). Eating any food whatsoever triggers the release of insulin, but sugar and processed carbs release the most, and the quickest. To fix the problem you have to clear the blood of insulin, repeatedly. To do that you basically have to fast.
So, sorry, Fung knows exactly the science. But he's talking to people like I was, the unhealthy, people who have screwed up their insulin metabolism. And most of these people get stuck with bad doctors who just say, take this, and they do, when type 2 diabetes is totally reversible, or in my case, avoidable. And so most of these people think they have to live with type 2 diabetes. You don't need Fung now, hope you never do, but some day you might have to do the insulin-science. So just keep this info in your back pocket.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2023 9:09:57 GMT -5
Incidentally, the idea of the set point is a real thing, a certain weight your body wants to weigh. Your set point is like a plateau, and whether you eat less, to lose some weight, your body wants to go back to your set point. So lowering your set point is difficult. I had read about the set point before, but I experienced it moving down from 236 lbs. When I hit 227, I just couldn't go lower. So I started upping my miles walking. So I walked twice a day, either 2 miles morning or 3 afternoon, or vice versa. And the riding lawnmower broke, so I started cutting all the grass, dad's, with the push mower. That took at least 3 hours, 3 hours was pushing it, usually 3 & 1/4 hours. Comparing that to my walking routes and measured time, that's six miles walking. I cut the grass every two weeks. So during that breaking the 227 lb barrier, I mapped out a six mile walk, so for six weeks I walked 35 miles a week (a pound of fat). It took that to break my 227 set point barrier. Once I got past 227 I continued losing regularly again, walking 1.7 miles to 3 miles a day (had those routes mapped out). And it's hard to fast when your mom just out of the blue, says, I made some biscuits and gravy...if you want some...  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 23, 2023 10:25:23 GMT -5
Yes, I only talk about healthy people, and people requiring special diets need to see a dietitian specialising in their condition.
Fasting is an effective means because calories are reduced due to the limited feeding window. When calories (and protein) are equated, fasting provides no additional weight loss benefits. I don't discourage IF or low carb. It's a good strategy for reducing calories and if it's sustainable for an individual, I encouraging it. It's not accurate to say fasting is 0 calories. It's 0 calories for say 16 hours a day. It's just that if you skip breakfast and lunch and only eat in a 6 hour window, you don't have the snacks and random food that add up calories. If you cut 'empty calories' as well, you'd be pretty dang sure to be in a caloric deficit. The older body accumulates more fat (I mean a higher body fat percentage) due to hormones and a few other factors, but that's a testosterone thing which has nothing to do with insulin. The easiest way to imagine it is older men can start to carry a fat to muscle ratio more similar to females. The fact that sarcopenia (age related muscle loss) sets in doesn't help, and if an older male is sedentary he'll likely lose around 3% of muscle per year. Since this includes extracellular fat in muscle tissue and visceral fat, older people tend toward diabetes - which will look like high blood sugar due to insulin resistance caused mostly by having a higher than optimal body fat percentage. I'm not a doctor or a dietitian, so I'm not qualified to talk about specialist diets (doctors aren;t either BTW which is why MDs on social media are just diet gurus and not PhDs in fitness and/or nutrition). I don't talk about special diets because I don't know about them, and people with physical maladies need the advice of a properly qualified dietitian. Indeed some of these will be generalists, but others specialise in diabetes, heart conditions, osteoporosis and what have you. I doubt very much that carbs cause diabetes, or that low carb dieting is the solution (unless it involves a calorie deficit), but that's not a qualified opinion. It's just my observations are, people who start training and better nuitrition see improved blood sugars immediately, and that acute effect continues toward sustained remission. I never tell clients to go low carb or fast, but for some, that suits their lifestyle and I'm all for it. The same effect is seen in people who don't fast or become particular about carbs. I just establish an individuals maintenance calories, subtract maybe 20% or so, allocate a daily protein quota (usually increased) which leaves a certain calorie quota to be filled with fat and carbs. Most people like animal protein, and that typically comes with some fat + oil they cook with... then the carb quota is left.
Priority is total calories, protein, fat, lastly carbs.
I don't do overly severe calorie reductions or skimp on protein because we don't want to lose muscle; only fat. Severe calorie reduction = significant muscle loss. That's the last thing a person, particularly a person with sarcopenia (anyone over 45), needs. It's very hard to build back muscle once sarcopenia sets in, but it's even easier to accumulate fat. Worst combination ever. I can tell you Fung's narrative about hormones is complete bollocks, but IF is perfectly good strategy that is best for some people - though not for the reasons he says.
I don't discourage anyone from taking prescribed medication, but doctors typically reduce meds when their patient's health markers improve. I say follow the medical advise, but understand, MD's are not specialists in nutrition, physiology, or anything that is actually healthy.
People who understand nutrition don't recommend any particular protocol. For example, a vegetarian has to get most of their protein from legumes, which are high in carbs, so they need a low fat diet. Hence Greggor and other Vegan Doctors promote very high carb diets (though they don't seem to recognise that it's because plant protein sources are high in carbs). Anyway. I can't talk about diets specific to diabetes or any other illness, but I can say a calorie deficit, adequate protein and strenuous physical activity is the ducks nuts. My (unqualified) belief is, if you structure priorities in the right way, the approach will be no different for a diabetic than it is for any person. I just don't 'provide information' specific to diabetes etc, and defer to a specialist.
The specialist will say top priority is lose fat. I'm pretty sure they'll suggest high protein to preserve muscle mass, and if they don't, they should. In addition to that they will probably advise a carb reduction, especially refined carbs (which everyone knows), but that tends to be a given when you prioritise protein and make carbs your lowest priority macronutrient. If you get the priorities right, things just fall into place.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2023 14:29:13 GMT -5
Yes, I only talk about healthy people, and people requiring special diets need to see a dietitian specialising in their condition.
Fasting is an effective means because calories are reduced due to the limited feeding window. When calories (and protein) are equated, fasting provides no additional weight loss benefits. I don't discourage IF or low carb. It's a good strategy for reducing calories and if it's sustainable for an individual, I encouraging it. It's not accurate to say fasting is 0 calories. It's 0 calories for say 16 hours a day. It's just that if you skip breakfast and lunch and only eat in a 6 hour window, you don't have the snacks and random food that add up calories. If you cut 'empty calories' as well, you'd be pretty dang sure to be in a caloric deficit. The older body accumulates more fat (I mean a higher body fat percentage) due to hormones and a few other factors, but that's a testosterone thing which has nothing to do with insulin. The easiest way to imagine it is older men can start to carry a fat to muscle ratio more similar to females. The fact that sarcopenia (age related muscle loss) sets in doesn't help, and if an older male is sedentary he'll likely lose around 3% of muscle per year. Since this includes extracellular fat in muscle tissue and visceral fat, older people tend toward diabetes - which will look like high blood sugar due to insulin resistance caused mostly by having a higher than optimal body fat percentage. I'm not a doctor or a dietitian, so I'm not qualified to talk about specialist diets (doctors aren;t either BTW which is why MDs on social media are just diet gurus and not PhDs in fitness and/or nutrition). I don't talk about special diets because I don't know about them, and people with physical maladies need the advice of a properly qualified dietitian. Indeed some of these will be generalists, but others specialise in diabetes, heart conditions, osteoporosis and what have you. I doubt very much that carbs cause diabetes, or that low carb dieting is the solution (unless it involves a calorie deficit), but that's not a qualified opinion. It's just my observations are, people who start training and better nuitrition see improved blood sugars immediately, and that acute effect continues toward sustained remission. I never tell clients to go low carb or fast, but for some, that suits their lifestyle and I'm all for it. The same effect is seen in people who don't fast or become particular about carbs. I just establish an individuals maintenance calories, subtract maybe 20% or so, allocate a daily protein quota (usually increased) which leaves a certain calorie quota to be filled with fat and carbs. Most people like animal protein, and that typically comes with some fat + oil they cook with... then the carb quota is left. Priority is total calories, protein, fat, lastly carbs.
I don't do overly severe calorie reductions or skimp on protein because we don't want to lose muscle; only fat. Severe calorie reduction = significant muscle loss. That's the last thing a person, particularly a person with sarcopenia (anyone over 45), needs. It's very hard to build back muscle once sarcopenia sets in, but it's even easier to accumulate fat. Worst combination ever. I can tell you Fung's narrative about hormones is complete bollocks, but IF is perfectly good strategy that is best for some people - though not for the reasons he says. I don't discourage anyone from taking prescribed medication, but doctors typically reduce meds when their patient's health markers improve. I say follow the medical advise, but understand, MD's are not specialists in nutrition, physiology, or anything that is actually healthy.
People who understand nutrition don't recommend any particular protocol. For example, a vegetarian has to get most of their protein from legumes, which are high in carbs, so they need a low fat diet. Hence Greggor and other Vegan Doctors promote very high carb diets (though they don't seem to recognise that it's because plant protein sources are high in carbs). Anyway. I can't talk about diets specific to diabetes or any other illness, but I can say a calorie deficit, adequate protein and strenuous physical activity is the ducks nuts. My (unqualified) belief is, if you structure priorities in the right way, the approach will be no different for a diabetic than it is for any person. I just don't 'provide information' specific to diabetes etc, and defer to a specialist. The specialist will say top priority is lose fat. I'm pretty sure they'll suggest high protein to preserve muscle mass, and if they don't, they should. In addition to that they will probably advise a carb reduction, especially refined carbs (which everyone knows), but that tends to be a given when you prioritise protein and make carbs your lowest priority macronutrient. If you get the priorities right, things just fall into place.
Fasting is defined as not-eating. That's zero calories. Breakfast is called breakfast because you are breaking your fast, you don't eat while asleep. The point of fasting is basically to cut calories. I don't normally eat breakfast, maybe once a week I eat Taco Bell breakfast, that's usually at 10:45 AM. So basically that's cutting my calories by 1/3. I'm going to try a 3 & 1/2 day fast, stop eating Sunday about 6-7 and not eat again until Thursday noonish. I'll start my actual weight loss from Thursday noonish. From experience, we carry about six pounds of poop, I'll be mostly cleaned out by Thursday, so I'll be looking at actual fat loss thereafter. Then I'm going to try fast 1 day, eat one day, alternating, on the eat day, do my normal no-breakfast. Bingo. Yes on this. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2023 19:05:21 GMT -5
I was short on time this morning, so I couldn't finish my post, made some notes on the con JF video.
Yes, we all have certain mandatory energy needs daily. You can explain the following if you want to take a shot at it, but I actually laughed out loud. Speaking of energy needs the guy said we cannot pull the energy we need out of thin air. A little later he threw up his arms and asked, where are we going to get this energy we need, from photosynthesis? If I can read my notes, these comments started at minute 5. But the answer is, I thought obviously, after you use your ate-today calories (and the fat in the liver, and the glucose in the muscles), we get the needed energy from burning excess fat. That's the whole point of fat storage in the first place, if the deer outruns the cave man on a certain day, he's fine, he uses his stored fat for fuel.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2023 20:18:40 GMT -5
I simply "googled" this:
Glycogen is easier for the body to use as energy than fat, so it is used before fat. If your glycogen stores are full, your body doesn’t burn fat. To start burning fat, you need to diminish your glycogen stores so your body has no other choice than to use stored fat for energy1. Once the reserve of glycogen in the liver is depleted, the body taps into energy stores in adipose tissues. This is when fats are broken down into free fatty acids which are then converted into additional metabolic fuel in the liver2.
Learn more:
1. noahstrength.com
2. noahstrength.com
|
|
). About 2010 my boss asked me how much I weighed. I said 220. He said you haven't seen 220 in a LONG time. I had stopped weighing when I hit 220. So, then I got serious. I still didn't weigh until I was pretty sure I was below 220. I weighed 217. (I retired from electrical in 2014 at 62, actually, 2 months short of 62). In 2014 I lost back down to 200, but started back up again. About 2015-2016 I got up to 236, the most I ever weighed. (January 2015 is when I started helping take care of my dad, mostly 5 days a week, so I was eating mother's cooking). In 2017 I lost down to 187, but started back up again. In June of 2021 I lost back down to 207, back up again. I got back down to 220 in June this year, back up, a little. I plan to get to 176, my 10th grade weight, that will put me in my 34" jeans again. And then I plan to stay in my 34" jeans. I'll give myself 14 months to get to 176, and stay there, this time. 