Weight Loss Thread

Ossoi said:

And lol : Chris Gardner strikes again!



Weight loss on low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate diets by insulin resistance status among overweight and obese adults: a randomized pilot trial (Gardner et al., 2015)

To make a long story short, insulin sensitive patients randomized to the low fat diet lost about 20% more weight than those randomized to low carb. Read that sentence again (just the part in bold).

Insulin sensitive dieters lost more weight on a high carb diet than a low carb diet (10.4 vs 8.6 kg). Insulin resistant dieters lost more weight on low carb (9.6 vs 7.4 kg). Notably, of all four groups, the most weight was lost on a high carb diet (10.4 kg) despite low carbers consistently getting more protein.


Don’t be a science denier!

Click to expand...

Man, this study sure does put this debate to rest. Let's look into it further:

Methods:

Click to expand...

Sixty-one adults, BMI 28-40 kg/m(2) , were randomized in a 2 × 2 design to LF or LC by insulin resistance status in this pilot study. Primary outcome was 6-month weight change. Participants were characterized as more insulin resistant (IR) or more insulin sensitive (IS) by median split of baseline insulin-area-under-the-curve from an oral glucose tolerance test. Intervention consisted of 14 one-hour class-based educational sessions.

RESULTS:
Baseline % carbohydrate:% fat:% protein was 44:38:18. At 6 months, the LF group reported 57:21:22 and the LC group reported 22:53:25 (IR and IS combined). Six-month weight loss (kg) was 7.4 ± 6.0 (LF-IR), 10.4 ± 7.8 (LF-IS), 9.6 ± 6.6 (LC-IR), and 8.6 ± 5.6 (LC-IS). No significant main effects were detected for weight loss by diet group or IR status; there was no significant diet × IR interaction. Significant differences in several secondary outcomes were observed.

Click to expand...

Just wow. 61 adults, a nearly meaningless sample size, were randomize and grouped and after six months their weight loss measurements had a variance of +/- 65% in the best case. This certainly is damning evidence. Nigh irrefutable.

Also, here is his idea of a low carb diet:

Low carb diet: participants went from 230 grams/d to less than 50 for the first 3 months, then creeped up to ~80 over the next 3 months.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Taubes is definitely the only one who has credibility issues in these discussions.

Ossoi said:

CICO and rant

"The new Taubes video is great; he is undoubtedly aware of Chris Gardner’s epic work but fails to address this critical point.

CICO isn’t really wrong unless “CI” assumes we can actually accurately count calories and “CO” is interpreted as exercise. No one is arguing that Low Carb breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics; when people lose weight on a low carb diet, it’s because fewer calories were consumed than were expended. The point is, for obese IR on LC this happens spontaneously and requires no knowledge of CI or CO. Does it work for everybody? …well, sort of, but some do better on Low Fat <- FACT."

Click to expand...

So you're going to ignore that I already specifically stated that there is no way low carb can break CICO because of the laws of thermodynamics?

Also, do you even read your own links? This whole blog is talking about how there are different types that respond to different diets and that things other than just what you put into your body probably have a much larger effect on health and weight gain than we already knows. I have said both of those things already.

Ossoi said:

Oh Dear



Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. - PubMed - NCBI

Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.

CONCLUSIONS:
KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

Banged.The.Kuck.Out

Click to expand...

This link was a study of 20 people. You keep talking about science facts and then link studies that can't possibly be used to confirm anything due to the small sample size. The only thing a study like this proves is that more research needs to be done.

Link the studies that have hundreds of people, I'm actually interested in them.

Also, for everyone's sake can you stop talking like an annoying millennial cunt?

As an ex-fattie, any diet works.

Ossoi said:

Keto-Krazies like you don't deserve any more effort than what you're getting. This discussion was pointless yesterday, it's even pointlesser if everything that contradicts your opinion is "bad science"

Click to expand...

Have you ever been fat?

LiquidDeath said:

But regardless of Taubes' behavior and views, none of these guys has addressed the giant elephant in the room. Five decades of telling people to count calories, reduce fats, eat more whole wheat and grains, and limit protein has led to a worldwide obesity and diabetes epidemic.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse proper planning with precise execution. Many people know what they ought to do; but many also repeatedly fail to achieve it.

You're correct that our understanding of nutrition is evolving; but how many people do you think genuinely believe that sugar is good for them? In my experience, the vast majority of people know it's bad for them and are capable of articulating that they ought to consume it in moderation -- but once again, we're back to that execution phase. That shit is addictive, yo.

If Taubes' bad science helps people get healthier, then whatever -- I guess that's some sort of benefit... but I suppose my prior here is that anyone with the self-discipline to drastically reduce their sugar consumption will succeed despite Taubes, not because of him. Do we really need to buy his books or fund his studies to know that eating/drinking 1000 calories a day of sugar is sub-par? Apply the 80/20 rule -- if your caloric maintenance is 2000c, that leaves 400c for garbage... which is like, a cup of soda and a snickers bar.

Ossoi said:

To make a long story short, insulin sensitive patients randomized to the low fat diet lost about 20% more weight than those randomized to low carb. Read that sentence again (just the part in bold).
Insulin sensitive dieters lost more weight on a high carb diet than a low carb diet (10.4 vs 8.6 kg). Insulin resistant dieters lost more weight on low carb (9.6 vs 7.4 kg). Notably, of all four groups, the most weight was lost on a high carb diet (10.4 kg) despite low carbers consistently getting more protein.

Click to expand...

So it's easier for insulin sensitive people to lose weight? No shit.
And the fatter you are, the more insulin resistant you are likely to become...

Did you see this graph?


The insulin resistant group did MUCH better on the low carb diet (even though it was still 22% carbs, so not even really a keto diet). So sure, if you cut calories enough, anyone can lose weight on any diet, but this is a pretty clear cut case of low carb diets working better for IR people, and vice versa.

Realize that what worked for you going from 25% bf to 15 might be a little different than what would work for someone starting at 45%. Calories in, calories out, eventually works out, sure, but that doesn't mean that all macro combinations are equally effective for everyone.

Besides all that, the diet that works is the one that someone actually sticks to.

Ossoi said:

try reading the actual article you're attempting to reply to, lol. It's literally the first paragraph:

"Weight loss on low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate diets by insulin resistance status among overweight and obese adults: a randomized pilot trial"

Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is. In the article, the IR group had a higher BMI than the IS group. And I'll guess that the average forum-fatty has a considerably higher BMI than the average in the study.

Ossoi said:

weeeeeeeeeeeeee, another person to cry "but teh karbs weren't low enuff to be the keto magic!!!!"

Click to expand...

Is 22% carbs what most people consider "low carb"? It certainly isn't keto. The study literally shows that low carb works better for some people. Isn't the idea that even lower carb would work better for those people reasonable?

Anecdotally, the only way I've ever been able to reliably lose weight is with very low carb. Even going to 50ish per day makes a huge difference for me.

Ossoi said:

Except that wasn't the conclusion of the study lol, so nice straw man attempt

Besides, the study supports what I've said previously in this thread:

Low carb is great to start a weight loss program, but as you get leaner (and more insulin sensitive) then you can reintroduce carbs

Click to expand...

Wasn't your point that people shouldn't be scared of carbs though? If not, why all the REEEE whenever anyone mentions keto? I mean, this right here:

Ossoi said:

Carbs don't make you fat and that's all that needs to be said

Click to expand...

Even if technically true, how many people that are seriously obese got that way eating low carb? COULD you get obese eating nothing but bacon? Probably, but in practice, fatties are usually washing the bacon down with a 2-liter of Mt. Dew (which probably causes them to be IR, creating the vicious cycle that leads to fattyland).

And judging by the study you posted, a higher carb diet will definitely make an IR person lose weight MUCH slower than lower carb one. So carbs can definitely help keep you fat once you're there.

Carb restriction makes caloric restriction easier. Protein is metabolized inefficiently and both fat and protein are incredibly satiating. It's hard to over-eat if you're capping your carb intake at 50g. That's a lot of chicken breast. I'm not convinced there is some magical hormonal system at play here; at least, not in the vast majority of cases. Some people feel fine with minimal carbs -- they're the ones likely to stumble upon keto and sing its praises from the highest hilltop.

If substantially limiting an entire macronutrient group is someone's answer to "how do I eat less food?", then more power to them -- if they have the discipline to do so then they'll very likely see results. As an analogy, some alcoholics avoid environments with alcohol and spend every night at an AA meeting... others just choose not to drink. Do what works.

Ossoi, you truly are an insufferable cunt.

Itlan said:

Ossoi, you truly are an insufferable cunt.

Click to expand...

Who doesn't understand what science is or how it is supposed to be performed. Things like hypotheses, populations, and sample sizes are just things to hand wave and dismiss.

But then he also says that everyone else is a fanatic that won't be convinced.

Ossoi said:

Sorry, I forgot that every study that contradicts your opinion is "bad science"

What's ironic is that you totally wrote that last post with a straight face, lol

You also seem to have a 24 hour memory span, lol

We were recently funded by NIH to conduct a 5-year low-carb vs. low-fat weight loss study among 400 overweight and obese adults after genotyping them and
The original NIH study was generously augmented by the Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) and a group of donors, allowing us to increase the sample size from 400 to 600 individuals, to add analyses of the microbiome in a subset of participants, and to bring in additional collaborators

Click to expand...

I asked you to link this study and you haven't done so. Again, I'm more than happy to view this research with an open mind, but citing a 20 person 6 week study isn't something that anyone who believes in the scientific method takes as evidence. It is merely an interesting data point that warrants a larger study.