ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Health & Wellness
Diets and body composition (Review)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Guided_by_Voices" data-source="post: 74687" data-attributes="member: 15235"><p>I would caution people struggling with fat loss and who are willing to study the topic in detail not to take the points in the posted review at face value. Almost every one of these points parrots the mainstream view and which are deceptive, glossed over and/or which have a lot of evidence to the contrary. </p><p>Diets that work long term (as in permanently) for people who are not naturally lean and who are not life-long athletes (probably about two thirds of the western population) generally share at least four key characteristics:</p><p></p><p>- They shift the metabolism toward fat burning</p><p>- They radically reduce hunger </p><p>- They maintain a healthy metabolic rate</p><p>- They eliminate chronically elevated insulin</p><p></p><p>Lower carb, high (healthy) fat diets have a major advantage for many people in all of these. </p><p></p><p>So, applying this to the points, applying caloric deficit alone (Point 3) has been consistently shown to not work well for most people in the long term. Additionally "caloric deficit" implies eat less, however if eating less (as the only variable) provokes a slower metabolic rate, as it does in most people, then it will often be counter-productive. There have been many studies on this including identical twin studies (the twin that went on the most "diets" ended up fatter than the other.) Layne Norton has talked extensively about this, as have many others. I believe every major study which has tried the eat less and move more approach without addressing the points above has failed over the long term, and the recent follow-up of the "biggest losers" weight rebound is yet another example of this. The mainstream blames this on non-compliance per point 8, (AKA people are lazy gluttons) however I can personally attest that when your body is working with you instead of against you per the points above, you are going to be far happier and more successful. The mainstream recommendations basically decrease fat burning, increase insulin, increase hunger and reduce metabolic rate, so suggesting that these are just as effective rarely works in the real world. "Suppressing adaptive thermogenesis" is actually a valid point (if I am correctly interpreting what is a confusing double negative) but it contradicts the rest of the points since most diets that rely solely on calorie-restriction promote adaptive thermogenesis (AKA a slower metabolic rate).</p><p></p><p>Like point 3, Point 5 is very deceptively worded. There is a huge difference between "can be" and "likely will be". Yes, almost every diet has worked for someone somewhere, including the potato diet, the rice diet, the starch diet the twinkie diet, etc. However my experience and understanding of the best evidence is that diets that support (minimally) the points above are most likely to work for by far the most people.</p><p></p><p>Something to keep in mind about studies is that you have to actually look at the details of the study because the headline findings in the abstract often do not accurately represent the study. For example:</p><p></p><p>- Some prominent studies that claim to evaluate a low carb diet were not low enough in carbs to trigger the major mechanisms by which low carb diets work</p><p>- Some of the studies that claim to evaluate intermittent fasting have used low calorie diets on the fasting days which have a very different and ineffective physiological affect in comparison to true fasting</p><p></p><p>Dr. Daniel Ludwig's talk (available as a podcast) from last year's Metabolic Therapeutics conference is one of the best summaries I have heard of the problems with the eat less and move more concept, so I would encourage those who want a good summary of the studies to track that down. </p><p></p><p>I could go on but my point is that people should really study this topic in detail if they have the need and be very skeptical of anything that suggests it is as simple as eat less and move more, at least for a significant percentage of people.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guided_by_Voices, post: 74687, member: 15235"] I would caution people struggling with fat loss and who are willing to study the topic in detail not to take the points in the posted review at face value. Almost every one of these points parrots the mainstream view and which are deceptive, glossed over and/or which have a lot of evidence to the contrary. Diets that work long term (as in permanently) for people who are not naturally lean and who are not life-long athletes (probably about two thirds of the western population) generally share at least four key characteristics: - They shift the metabolism toward fat burning - They radically reduce hunger - They maintain a healthy metabolic rate - They eliminate chronically elevated insulin Lower carb, high (healthy) fat diets have a major advantage for many people in all of these. So, applying this to the points, applying caloric deficit alone (Point 3) has been consistently shown to not work well for most people in the long term. Additionally "caloric deficit" implies eat less, however if eating less (as the only variable) provokes a slower metabolic rate, as it does in most people, then it will often be counter-productive. There have been many studies on this including identical twin studies (the twin that went on the most "diets" ended up fatter than the other.) Layne Norton has talked extensively about this, as have many others. I believe every major study which has tried the eat less and move more approach without addressing the points above has failed over the long term, and the recent follow-up of the "biggest losers" weight rebound is yet another example of this. The mainstream blames this on non-compliance per point 8, (AKA people are lazy gluttons) however I can personally attest that when your body is working with you instead of against you per the points above, you are going to be far happier and more successful. The mainstream recommendations basically decrease fat burning, increase insulin, increase hunger and reduce metabolic rate, so suggesting that these are just as effective rarely works in the real world. "Suppressing adaptive thermogenesis" is actually a valid point (if I am correctly interpreting what is a confusing double negative) but it contradicts the rest of the points since most diets that rely solely on calorie-restriction promote adaptive thermogenesis (AKA a slower metabolic rate). Like point 3, Point 5 is very deceptively worded. There is a huge difference between "can be" and "likely will be". Yes, almost every diet has worked for someone somewhere, including the potato diet, the rice diet, the starch diet the twinkie diet, etc. However my experience and understanding of the best evidence is that diets that support (minimally) the points above are most likely to work for by far the most people. Something to keep in mind about studies is that you have to actually look at the details of the study because the headline findings in the abstract often do not accurately represent the study. For example: - Some prominent studies that claim to evaluate a low carb diet were not low enough in carbs to trigger the major mechanisms by which low carb diets work - Some of the studies that claim to evaluate intermittent fasting have used low calorie diets on the fasting days which have a very different and ineffective physiological affect in comparison to true fasting Dr. Daniel Ludwig's talk (available as a podcast) from last year's Metabolic Therapeutics conference is one of the best summaries I have heard of the problems with the eat less and move more concept, so I would encourage those who want a good summary of the studies to track that down. I could go on but my point is that people should really study this topic in detail if they have the need and be very skeptical of anything that suggests it is as simple as eat less and move more, at least for a significant percentage of people. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
General Health & Fitness
Health & Wellness
Diets and body composition (Review)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top