Here for the best nutrition information

[lolly]

The idea that there's two states is misconceived because all the mechanisms are always working all the time. After you eat insulin spikes up to handle the sugar and protein, but it's supposed to, and it's not 'bad'. If there's less sugar and protein is spikes less, so a low carb diet sees lower insulin spikes. So what? Insulin is supposed to do that.

The problem with insulin isn't caused by it regulating nutrients in the way it is supposed to, so people who remain lean yet eat tons of carbs and have insulin spikes like 5 times a day are not at increased risk of diabetes, but people who consume an excess of calories and get fat are. Near enough anyone who reduces fat sees improvements in this regard, and as far as I know, the evidence to suggest a low-carb approach to weight loss is significantly better isn't conclusive. I think the evidence suggests there might be benefits, so if it's a sustainable approach to fat loss, it's probably the best bet.

It's very hard to find out because to do a controlled trial you need a decent sample size, and you have to provide all their food to ensure calories and protein are equated. Only then can you accurately assess if low fat or low carb are superior for the purpose. Then,multiple studies have to be done, and finally meta-analyses need to crop out lower quality research and determine correlations between well controlled trials.

The essential problem is, diets work, but people who lose weight tend to regain it within 3 years. That's because they do something like IF, low carb, or another restricted, inflexible plan which does not cohere with they regular life orbend with their changing circumstances. Hencewhy I'm all for  low carb or IF approaches if they can be sustained forever, but that's rarely the case. Hardly anyone sustaines them for even 6 months. What then? Using the priorities approach I outlined, it doesn't matter. You can keto or fast or not do that because the order of priorities applies to any way of eating.

Lets imagine someone has achieved Ketosis, for example. It's not easy. It requires the elimination of an entire food group and usually takes weeks to get there. Then there's a christmas party, wedding, birthday celebration or whatever, and you think, 'Oh just bit of cake will be fine' (which it is), and your body is immediately back to burning carbs (no problem) and you have to start all over. Once you fail at it 3 or 4 times, it's just hard so you move on... and that's fine.

If you look at my priorities approach, you can fast and go low carb, which you find effective, but when it's not realistically sustainable for the rest of your life, it doesn't matter. Things are supposed to change, and as you apply the same priorities to any way of eating you can go from keto to vegan, eating after 5pm to having breakfast and morning tea, or anything in between - the same order of priorities apply. 

Maybe after a while you think 'I'm going keto again' - doesn't really matter, just apply the priorities.

Using a priority system doesn't rule out any diet, so low carb is fine, everything is fine, but at very least one has to maintain their appropriate calorie intake (so they lose or don't get fat), and that is the leading determinant when it comes to insulin resistance.

If you can manage to improve on just sticking with appropriate calories with good balance of protein intake, healthy fat as well balanced micro-nutrients, then Bob's your uncle regardless if your a vegan eating 6 times a day or a Keto-Warrior having 2 meals after 5pm.

Once you go into the hormone-priority diet, you're overlooking what's most important and sweating the small stuff.

[lolly]

It just so happens that a large study was completed, and a secondary analysis of the data compared very low fat and very low carb diets with regards to to weight loss, insulin resistance and some other health markers.

It was a free-living study, so not particularly well controlled, but the sample was large, it lasted for a year and reasonably represents people out in the wild.

The second problem with this study is protein wasn't equated between groups, and they didn't measure if weight loss in terms of muscle or fat.

I prioritise protein intake as a safeguard against excessive muscle loss. That wasn't the case in this study. Since calories were not controlled, and they just wanted to see what happens when people are told to do low fat or low carb, it's OK that they didn't equate protein, but neglecting to measure fat loss specifically is a huge oversight in my book.

All can take from the study, as far as I understand it, is the results support my narrative. The difference in health markers between the extremes of low fat vs. low carb were not statistically significant, but favoured the low carb group somewhat. It also showed participants couldn't maintain sustain extremely low macro allocations for long, even while participating in a scientific study.

It means, the diet that works for fat loss is one that you can sustain a calorie deficit for a long time.  The ration of fat:carbs or frequency of meals is insignificant in all regards, including insulin sensitivity, due to the comparatively huge effect of weight loss. This is born out in other studies and well established in the literature, which is why I am of that persuasion. The results of this study were as one would expect.

I love the guy who does these videos not because he's a great nutritionist (he isn't), but because his research reviews are excellent! He knows how to analyse research properly and he doesn't cherry pick his own bias. He knows what a 'diet guru' is (had to chuckle when he used that term), and he is a trustworthy source of information.

[tenka]

I haven't followed this much even though I am wholly interested In nutrition as my mum studied it for most of her life. I would get info all the time without having to do the research

Calories are not important if you are on a specific diet. You won't put on any fat if you consume 5000 calories of protein for example.

It doesn't matter if you weigh 30 stone and are 95% muscle.

It's important not to mix different food groups.

My dinners during the week are eggs, liver and chicken, it's not ideal to mix that with bread or pasta or complicated carbs etc .

It sounds a bit over the top but I heard that there isn't anything more poisonous to the body that a cheese sandwich. lol .

[lolly]

Calories are the most important component of nutrition. There is no pure protein. Protein food from animals contains fat and from plants it contains fat and/or carbs. Plant sources (like legumes) are generally high in carbs. There is no way of having an all protein diet. If you could, the excess calories would ultimately turned to fat, but you'd be dead before you gained much weight (from lack of essential fats).

Protein has a high thermal effect, meaning it takes 25% of it's total calories to metabolise it compared to less than 10% for carbs or fat). Protein is also satiating, so a high protein diet makes you feel fuller and eat fewer calories. The reason why it is the most important nutrient is it's essential for preserving lean tissue (muscles) while you lose weight.

A cheese sandwich is fine.

Having meat/organs with carbs is fine.

It's fine not have that and have something else instead.

The singular foods and food preferences don't matter and there are no 'bad food' (but there are bad diets)

A diet including all the different food groups is the best way of eating (generally speaking).