Sick of being fat

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

There's a slight misrepresentation of the impact of insulin there. Insulin doesn't just store fat and consequently make you fat. Overconsumption of calories makes you fat.

Similarly, consistently high levels of insulin in your body is usually because of overeating.

TL;dr if you're in a caloric deficit, Coke Zero won't make you fat.

I am afraid you are actually wrong. Insulin performs one function - storing excess energy as fat.

If you consume a no calorie drink, which causes an insulin spike - this means you have a consistently high level on insulin in your system, which causes inulin resistance and contributes directly to obesity.

For instance - if you are an alcoholic or drug addict, and are constantly taking alcohol or drugs, your body becomes resistant, and you need more and more of that drug for it to take effect.

The same is true of insulin, if your body is producing it ALL the time, from either eating too much food, from snacking too regularly or from consuming low calorie artificial beverages, then your body will gradually become insulin resistant, the same way it does to ANY chemical which it is constantly awash with, which contributes to obesity and type 2 diabetes.

So how do you combat it? By having periods in your life of NO insulin. AKA periods where you do not eat. You could fast for 24 hours, I do this regularly.

You could eat 3 square meals a day and NEVER snack. During the times you are not eating, you are not producing insulin, which increases insulin sensitivity and decreases insulin resistance, both of which help combat obesity.

Just read the obesity code, your understanding of insulin resistance is inaccurate. Overeating is a part of a large picture, a picture which includes sugar, highly refined carbohydrate, your genetic make up AND artificial sweeteners.

jim o doom wrote: »

I am afraid you are actually wrong. Insulin performs one function - storing excess energy as fat.

Therein lies my point.

silverharp wrote: »

I think the "if you're in a caloric deficit" is the rub of it, most people eat close to what they need, might be a little over some days might be a little under other days. What I would see happening to someone on a “high insulin” diet is that they make it difficult for their body to tap into their fat storage. The human body will tend to work to a budget and the body is likely to just regulate the person’s metabolism down making it harder to create this deficit.
That’s why chronic deifiers tend to fail, if their basal metabolic rate was ~1800 calories in the past their dieting will have pushed it down to say ~1600 calories hence the rebound weight when the diet is concluded. Its an advantage if your body views its fat reserves as easily accessible

The calories in calories out model is apprently wrong too - most major diets work in the short term, 6 months to a year, but the majority of people who follow these diets regain the weight.

That's because if you restrict calories over time, even by a small amount, your calorie output will reduce.

If you exercise, your body will force you to eat enough to replace the lost calories. How does it do this? It produces lots of the hunger hormone, it produces a hormone that reduces your will power (in respect of food) and it produces hormones that done to produce satiety when you've eaten.

So reducing calories = your body will reduce it's calories and increasing caloric usage (ie exercise) forces the body to consume more calories.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Therein lies my point.

You must have only read the one line that "proves your point".

The important thing is, as I've already said, having a consitently high amount of insulin in your body leads to a resistance to that insulin, the same as your body becomes resistant to any drug or chemical.

Insulin resistance constributes directly to obesity and diabetes. But by all means, go ahead and jump to the wrong conclusion.

jim o doom wrote: »

The calories in calories out model is apprently wrong too.

It isn't.

jim o doom wrote: »

most major diets work in the short term, 6 months to a year, but the majority of people who follow these diets regain the weight.

Most diets fail in the longer term because they weren't sustainable to begin with. They're so far removed from what a person enjoys eating or can sustain in the longer term that people lose weight, transition back to old habits that got them there in the first place and regain weight.

jim o doom wrote: »

So reducing calories = your body will reduce it's calories and increasing caloric usage (ie exercise) forces the body to consume more calories.

I presume you mean exercise raises ghrelin levels. Which is true. Exercise doesn't make you consume too many calories. Bad choices do.

Ultimately, I'm not disagreeing that having elevated insulin levels is a bad idea but this idea that insulation spikes make you fat in and of themselves. Insulin can promote fat gain, but only given the right circumstance, i.e. namely,excess calories.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It isn't.

Rather than go to the effort of arguing, I'd recommend the obesity code.

Calories in, calories out doesn't work, and the book I've been referencing quotes numerous, multi year studies involving thousands of people, conducted since the 50's which prove it to be the case.

The author is a kidney specialist, and his main patients? type 2 diabetes sufferers, all of whom are continually given more and more insulin, and who in general become more obese, which continues a vicious cycle of the diease.

It's worth a read, I guarantee you will change your views on how calories in / calories out is a broken model, and how the main problems are insulin sensitivity (or lack thereof), insulin resistance (from consistently high levels on insulin) sugar / fructose, and people simply not having fasted periods in their day to day life.

It's only about 300 pages of reading, and there are audio book / pod case versions of the entire thing for free available online. I'm a serious convert.

Now if I could only cure my addiction to tasty food.

jim o doom wrote: »

You must have only read the one line that "proves your point".

The important thing is, as I've already said, having a consitently high amount of insulin in your body leads to a resistance to that insulin, the same as your body becomes resistant to any drug or chemical.

Insulin resistance constributes directly to obesity and diabetes. But by all means, go ahead and jump to the wrong conclusion.

You seem to be taking this rather personally.

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. I'm saying that insulin spikes won't cause fat storage and fat gain in and of themselves. Constantly elevated is typically a symptom of excess calories.

What you're saying and what I'm saying aren't mutually exclusive.

As for The Obesity Code, it is a single book. Science is based on consensus but again I don't think we're necessarily fundamentally disagreeing here.

You've also completely ignored any point regarding insulin resistance. It's a term I'm sure you've heard of, and it's a term linked to both obesity and diabetes.

Having consitently high levels of insulin, and this includes though low cal / no cal artificially sweetened beverages, causes insulin resistance.

This means that artificial sweeteners, and insulin production are DIRECTLY linked to obesity.

One of hundreds from the book "Dr. Sharon Fowler, from the University of Texas Health Sciences Center at
San Antonio, in the 2008 San Antonio Heart Study8 prospectively studied 5158
adults over eight years. She found that instead of reducing the obesity, diet
beverages substantially increased the risk of it by a mind-bending 47 percent.
She writes, “These findings raise the question whether [artificial sweetener] use
might be fueling—rather than fighting—our escalating obesity epidemic.”"

Also - I may be taking it personally. I'm stupid and argumentative. Sorry

Mellor

Some bad news about coke zero and any sort of food stuff which has been sweetened with artificial sweetener:

Sweetners don't raise insulin levels anything like sugar does.
In fact it's not even proven whether or not it significantly affects insulin levels.

That's because if you restrict calories over time, even by a small amount, your calorie output will reduce.

That's not true. It's one of the most commonly repeated myths.

jim o doom wrote: »

You've also completely ignored any point regarding insulin resistance. It's a term I'm sure you've heard of, and it's a term linked to both obesity and diabetes.

Having consitently high levels of insulin, and this includes though low cal / no cal artificially sweetened beverages, causes insulin resistance.

This means that artificial sweeteners, and insulin production are DIRECTLY linked to obesity.

I'm not disagreeing with what you have said there.

What I'm saying is that consistently high levels of insulin are typically down to overeating. Part of the problem may be artificially sweetened beverages but they're not likely to be a primary driver of it.

I'm not arguing about the role of insulin. I'm just making the point that elevated levels of insulin will typically be a result of overeating. If you're in a reasonable caloric deficit, you're not altogether likely to have consistently elevated levels of insulin.

That's not saying artificial sweeteners don't spike insulin, it's not dismissing insulin resistance or any of the other widely accepted things you have stated. No issue with that.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

What I'm saying is that consistently high levels of insulin are typically down to overeating. Part of the problem may be artificially sweetened beverages but they're not likely to be a primary driver of it.

I agree with all you said there except for it being primarily due to overeating- other reasons for consitently high insulin can include: constant snacking - even where you are in caloric deficit, but are eating regularly, there's a consistently high level of insulin in the body as a result of that as you are never in a fasted state.

Other causes - insulin given to type 2 diabetics, who are almost universally overweight. A type of tumor called an insulinoma causes it as well, and people who have that tumor, are again almost universally obese.

This shows a very strong link between high levels of insulin, insulin resistance, obesity and diabetes.

If sufferers of a tumor which causes high levels of insulin production are all obese.. insulin must be an enormous factor.

Apparently about 65% of it is genetic. A study took slim children from slim families and put them in an obese family, and obese children from obese families and put them with a slim family, and the slim children did not gain weight, nor did the obese children lose it.

It's a muli faceted issue with genetics as a huge factor over which we have no control, followed by insulin resistance, sugar / highly refined carbohydrate consumption and lack of being fasted for any significant length of time.

it's not a simple caloric restriction / they don't have the willpower to do it right answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxl8hhyN6AQ

Mellor wrote: »

Sweetners don't raise insulin levels anything like sugar does.
In fact it's not even proven whether or not it significantly affects insulin levels.

This is directly from the book, quoting studies specifically not paid for by the food industry

"The important question is this: Do artificial sweeteners increase insulin levels?
Sucralose(13) raises insulin by 20 percent, despite the fact that it contains no
calories and no sugar. This insulin-raising effect has also been shown for other
artificial sweeteners, including the “natural” sweetener stevia. Despite having a
minimal effect on blood sugars, both aspartame and stevia raised insulin levels
higher even than table sugar.(14) Artificial sweeteners that raise insulin should be expected to be harmful, not beneficial. Artificial sweeteners may decrease
calories and sugar, but not insulin. Yet it is insulin that drives weight gain and
diabetes."

So this would disagree with your assertion that it is not proven. The numbers above are links in the book to the studies in question, I'm too lazy to link them sorry.

If you really want those studies quoted let me know and I'll find them in the book.

Mellor wrote: »

That's not true. It's one of the most commonly repeated myths.

This part is covered in depth, and quotes a large number of hormonal studies which show matabolic damage from prolonged caloric reduction is a real thing, and can take up to a year to recover from.

However this metabolic damage is not linked to fasting - a fasted person with a low metabolism would not have the energy to go and get the food needed to survive. I know this myself from the weird hyper energy I get during fasting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=571H-RPxNNs

A couple of good videos about it. He explains it very well.

One thing I personally notice when I stop IF and occasionally eat anything sugary or just snack instead of doing IF, is how quickly my skin on my face starts to loosen around the neck and chin area and I’m doing IF and Keto quite awhile now and it’s part of my lifestyle now, I quite enjoy it actually. I find Dr Berg’s videos quite good for explaining things. I don’t subscribe or pay for a thing of any of them online, just enjoy reading up on things that I wasn’t very knowledgeable on.

jim o doom wrote: »

I agree with all you said there except for it being primarily due to overeating- other reasons for consitently high insulin can include: constant snacking - even where you are in caloric deficit, but are eating regularly, there's a consistently high level of insulin in the body as a result of that as you are never in a fasted state.

I'd venture that people that are constantly snacking are rarely in a caloric deficit. They're certainly outliers. Again, not necessarily contradicting the theory.

jim o doom wrote: »

it's not a simple caloric restriction / they don't have the willpower to do it right answer.

Not disagreeing with you there, per se. Just that a can of Coke Zero won't be the primary reason someone is putting on fat.

As an aside, it's not just about caloric restriction. Food quality and food quantity are not completely independent of each other.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'd venture that people that are constantly snacking are rarely in a caloric deficit. They're certainly outliers. Again, not necessarily contradicting the theory.

Not disagreeing with you there, per se. Just that a can of Coke Zero won't be the primary reason someone is putting on fat.

As an aside, it's not just about caloric restriction. Food quality and food quantity are not completely independent of each other.

Yes indeed! The quality of the food is constantly referenced - increase veg. basically avoid processed food, high fibre content is protective of obesity, so too is vinegar of all things, and I love that. If I eat rice I vinegar it a bit now, reduces the carbohydrate impact between 20 and 40% apparrently.

Even recommends to have only 20% of your diet as protein, as the body breaks down protein into amino acids, and if there's too much.. stores it as fat.

I think the issue with coke zero is that it's never "just a can". A lot of people who consume it, and low calorie beverages, consume them regularly, and those same beverages are linked to obesity.

You don't see large numbers of healthy fit people drinking it, in the main you see obese people drinking it in an effort to reduce caloric intake. But since caloric intake is only a part of the picture, it is not only ineffective, it is problematic due to the insulin effect caused by said drink.

There is also the problem that since you gain no satiety from consuming the beverage (no calories), that it leaves you hungry and wanting sugar. So it's doubly problematic.

For me, I've always hated the chemical taste of any artificial sugar alternative. I just love equally bad good old terrible sugar.

Have managed a big reduction of sugar, but still struggle with binges from time to time or the odd can of dirty coca cola. God I love and hate it.

Fun discussion by the way, I've managed to disengage my idiot argumentative brain that gets emotionally involved!

jim o doom wrote: »

Fun discussion by the way, I've managed to disengage my idiot argumentative brain that gets emotionally involved!

It’s not just about losing weight either though. Some of the ingredients in these things should be completely avoided, especially Aspartame which is used as a Sugar substitute and is far far worse!

tony1980 wrote: »

It’s not just about losing weight either though. Some of the ingredients in these things should be completely avoided, especially Aspartame which is used as a Sugar substitute and is far far worse!

Fully agree dude! Luckily I've always hated the taste of that stuff.. but that being said, my love of sugar is viciously unhealthy. Thankfully I don't indulge it too much at the moment.

I'll check out the videos you posted later, don't have the time rn!

Mellor

This is directly from the book, quoting studies specifically not paid for by the food industry

I'm not sure why you think studies cherrypicked for a book. Is arguable source.
To be clear, I never said there were no studies. They are numerous contradictory studies.

"The important question is this: Do artificial sweeteners increase insulin levels?
Sucralose(13) raises insulin by 20 percent, despite the fact that it contains no
calories and no sugar.

By 20%? That is meaningless without a baseline reference.
I actually know the study it refers to. It means 20% higher than those given just water. If you have next to zero insulin in your bloodstream, +20% is nothing.
If Coke raises it by 1000%, then 20% for Diet Coke is not significant.
Numbers need reference points or else they mean little.

Here's a study that shows no effect
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19221011/

This insulin-raising effect has also been shown for other artificial sweeteners, including the “natural” sweetener stevia. Despite having anminimal effect on blood sugars, both aspartame and stevia raised insulin levels higher even than table sugar.(14)

That's better info. But I've no idea if it's accurate without the studies.

Here's a study that shows stevia reduces insulin reaction compared to sugar. And Aspartane has no affect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20303371/

Another study concludes that aspartame has no impact on insulin
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2923074/

So this would disagree with your assertion that it is not proven. The numbers above are links in the book to the studies in question, I'm too lazy to link them sorry.

And the studies I post disagree with the studies you refer to.
Genes my assertion that there's no consensus.

This part is covered in depth, and quotes a large number of hormonal studies which show matabolic damage from prolonged caloric reduction is a real thing, and can take up to a year to recover from.

Prolonged and severe energy deficits are not same as "any deficit what so ever". Taking an extreme case and applying it everywhere is bad science.

The study that showed this was the Minnesota Experiment. People, who were already slightly underweight on average, cut their intake to 50% for 6 months. That's a massive deficit.

However this metabolic damage is not linked to fasting

Not linked because study's show there no link. Or because it hasn't been studied. I'd guess the later.

Fast for 6 months, with a 50% deficit and you'd body would be in bits.

fasted person with a low metabolism would not have the energy to go and get the food needed to survive. I know this myself from the weird hyper energy I get during fasting.

How long do you fast for?
What would happen if you pushed it out to 10 days, how'd your energy be?

I've no issue with fasting btw. You're just taking a very bias and fanatical view.

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think studies cherrypicked for a book. Is arguable source.
To be clear, I never said there were no studies. They are numerous contradictory studies.

I've no issue with fasting btw. You're just taking a very bias and fanatical view.

Dude, there's so much there and rather than address it all I will say this, you are indeed right, there are a significant number of contradictory studies about these things. We could spend hours trading studies.

In terms of the effects food stuffs have on the body, there is also a huge issue with who pays for the studies in question.

The book claims that if funded by the food industry, it's in the 80% range unlikely to find a bad link to the studied item versus and if a similar study is performed with funding that has no link to the food industry, that it very likely to find the opposite. So I won't get into a study war with you, you would probably win!

You seem well up on your dietary information, so you would probably get a degree of enjoyment reading it and comparing it to your current thoughts about diet. There's a bunch of assumptions I had made that it very thorougly challenged.

In terms of metabolic damage - this is something that's pretty easy to see in real terms, all around you. Surely you know people who've dieted, I've done it, and so has my wife and many friends.

A person goes on on a set diet and yes, loses weight successfully for 6 months. You stick to the diet, but your weightloss plateus. Why does that happen? it's a bodily adaptation to weight loss. Reduction of basal metabolic rate to reduce weight loss.

I agree, I probably am taking a bias and fanatical view, but it's primarily because of years of struggle with losing, and then regaining weight. My current approach seems to be working than anything I've ever had in my life before, which includes quite a bit of fasting. I still eat loads from time to time, but attempt to follow typical "healthy" food guidelines until I can't and need something bad.

The word Diet needs to be eradicated! People need to make sustainable lifestyle changes and from time to time, they will fall down but if they can adjust their thinking and say to themselves, I’ve had a treat today which wasn’t the best and tomorrow I’m going to eat much better, and not beat themselves up about it. IF works great for me on days I’ve done this. I usually have a black coffee in the morning and then eat something healthy at lunch time and a good dinner when I’m home. I don’t eat after 7 so essentially I am fasting every day from 7 until around 1pm the next day so around 18 hours. I feel great everyday and have loads of energy. If I have a treat with my lunch or dinner, well, I am fasting for 18 hours later anyway so it sorts that out

I never thought I could go without breakfast, took a couple of weeks to get used to but after that, I’ve never felt hungry anymore in the mornings but on Sat or Sun, I’ll sit down at home for some breakfast with the family as a treat.

It’s very hard in today’s world to sustain healthy eating with so much convenience food around, people lead very busy lives and the quick and easy option is very appealing. This and eating comfort food for emotional reasons are the main cause for people been overweight imo.

The great thing is, it’s in our own hands to do something about it. I think a great way for people to start is to do some cooking courses and learn as much as they can and to enjoy it which will make it much more likely that they will use part of their evening to enjoy a bit of cooking while having a chat or whatever instead of seeing it as a chore!

rhubarbcustard

Started at 24st 1lb
Week 1 24st 0lb
Week 2 23st 11 1/2 lb
Week 3 23st 8lb
Week 4 23st 2 1/2 lb
Week 5 23st 1 1/2 lb
Week 6 23st 2lb
Week 7 22st 8lb
Week 8 22st 6 1/2 lb

Pretzill

Is it okay if I join in?

Great results on here and they as well as my own spreading waistline are spurring me on to make big changes. I stopped smoking just over a year and a half ago (which I can't believe I did and I'm never going back there!) one of the downsides for me was I gained 2 stones - I was already overweight so these two extra have made me the biggest I have ever been and it's all having a detrimental affect on my body - joints are so sore. So time for a change.

In 2018 - I have tried Slimming World and Keto in both cases I lost a half a stone and gained it back and more. So I'm simply going down the calorie counting route now - so that I can enjoy what I like but always keep an eye on what I'm eating. i want to get the best out of food, and not be pushed towards junk.

I am also using an exercise bike (currently 4k 3 times a week want to up to 8k a day) and walking.

Starting weight 94kg :eek:!

Pretzill wrote: »

Is it okay if I join in?

Great results on here and they as well as my own spreading waistline are spurring me on to make big changes. I stopped smoking just over a year and a half ago (which I can't believe I did and I'm never going back there!) one of the downsides for me was I gained 2 stones - I was already overweight so these two extra have made me the biggest I have ever been and it's all having a detrimental affect on my body - joints are so sore. So time for a change.

In 2018 - I have tried Slimming World and Keto in both cases I lost a half a stone and gained it back and more. So I'm simply going down the calorie counting route now - so that I can enjoy what I like but always keep an eye on what I'm eating. i want to get the best out of food, and not be pushed towards junk.

I am also using an exercise bike (currently 4k 3 times a week want to up to 8k a day) and walking.

Starting weight 94kg :eek:!

People are going to probably get annoyed at me for continuing to go on about this - but check out the book "the obesity code".

From what I can see, every diet, keto included involves a degree of caloric restriction over a prolonged period, and your body adapts to that eventually, so your lowered caloric intake eventually has no effect, say 6 months to a year.

For long term weight loss, the book I'm banging on about continually is great. My weight yoyo'd for years. Then I read eat stop eat by Brad Pilon (basically a fasting book) and now the Obesity code by Dr Jason Fung.

Since this, I've not regained much weight (except at Christmas and it's always gone by February) and I retain good muscle mass from cycling / martial arts / weights / callisthenics. The never ending cycle of weight on weight off has ceased and it's life changing.

rhubarbcustard

Pretzill wrote: »

Is it okay if I join in?

Great results on here and they as well as my own spreading waistline are spurring me on to make big changes. I stopped smoking just over a year and a half ago (which I can't believe I did and I'm never going back there!) one of the downsides for me was I gained 2 stones - I was already overweight so these two extra have made me the biggest I have ever been and it's all having a detrimental affect on my body - joints are so sore. So time for a change.

In 2018 - I have tried Slimming World and Keto in both cases I lost a half a stone and gained it back and more. So I'm simply going down the calorie counting route now - so that I can enjoy what I like but always keep an eye on what I'm eating. i want to get the best out of food, and not be pushed towards junk.

I am also using an exercise bike (currently 4k 3 times a week want to up to 8k a day) and walking.

Starting weight 94kg :eek:!

You're very Welcome here, I'm not around these parts that long but am finding it all very helpful and informative

Pretzill

jim o doom wrote: »

People are going to probably get annoyed at me for continuing to go on about this - but check out the book "the obesity code".

From what I can see, every diet, keto included involves a degree of caloric restriction over a prolonged period, and your body adapts to that eventually, so your lowered caloric intake eventually has no effect, say 6 months to a year.

For long term weight loss, the book I'm banging on about continually is great. My weight yoyo'd for years. Then I read eat stop eat by Brad Pilon (basically a fasting book) and now the Obesity code by Dr Jason Fung.

Since this, I've not regained much weight (except at Christmas and it's always gone by February) and I retain good muscle mass from cycling / martial arts / weights / callisthenics. The never ending cycle of weight on weight off has ceased and it's life changing.

Thanks I've heard of Jason Fung's book - what I'm trying to do now (I'm not a dieter at all) is just simple reduce what I'm consuming on a daily basis - if I ever reach a goal I'm comfortable with I will then just try and maintain that. I don't want to diet, I just want to eat less, I'm getting older and I don't need as many calories, so it's a two fold process - cut down calories, lose weight, keep calories to a maintain level. I'm not at all good at following diets or ways of eating - I love good nutritious food - I just eat too much of it

Thanks for the reccommendations.