Weight Loss Thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the hotly contested and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and fill out your bracket!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Once again, only you can decide!

LiquidDeath

Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
4,829
11,118
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!



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

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.

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.

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

LiquidDeath

Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
4,829
11,118
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."

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

Tranny Chaser
15,402
7,665
Man, this study sure does put this debate to rest. Let's look into it further:

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.

.

Ahh yes, the "science fallacy" in action - when confronted with science that contradicts your opinion you rush to find ways to discredit the science:

"they didn't use enough people" (lol at the notion that 61 people isn't big enough anyway ROFL)

Besides, from Gardners website:

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

"the carbs weren't low enough!"

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.

.

Why exactly did you not quote the next line: "Will the critics say “the carbz weren’t low enough!”? REALLY?"

Also, do you even read your own links? This whole blog is talking about how there are different types that respond to different diets


Lol, and the lines immediately after the above are:

In brief, the one-size-fits-all diet theory is #fail.


Don’t be tied down to one approach; different #contexts require different approaches, and both can change over time.


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.

ok, so after 24 hours you finally recognise and admit that carbs don't make you fat and so instead are moving the goalposts "but I Just meant health guyzzzz!!!!"


Lol what a fucking cuck you are, actually I should spell that kuck for keto-kuck, go drink more keto-kult-kool-aid
 

Ossoi

Tranny Chaser
15,402
7,665
Also, here is his idea of a low carb diet:
.

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
 

LiquidDeath

Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
4,829
11,118
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

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?
 

Ossoi

Tranny Chaser
15,402
7,665
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.

Ahh yes, the "science fallacy" in action - when confronted with science that contradicts your opinion you rush to find ways to discredit the science:

"they didn't use enough people" (lol at the notion that 61 people isn't big enough anyway ROFL)

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"
 

Pops

Avatar of War Slayer
8,136
21,317
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"
Have you ever been fat?
 

Ossoi

Tranny Chaser
15,402
7,665
Have you ever been fat?

If you go back to posts here from Feb 2013 you can see the start of my weight loss/body composition journey.

Was 83kg and 23% body fat, currently at 74kg and 12% body fat.

I've done it all, keto, carb cycling, weights, HIIT etc

Carbs do not make you fat, it's that simple
 

Eidal

Molten Core Raider
2,001
213
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.

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.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Control

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
2,097
5,215
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.

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?
oby21331-fig-0003.png


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

Tranny Chaser
15,402
7,665
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...

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"

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).

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

So sure, if you cut calories enough, anyone can lose weight on any diet

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


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.

Why are you re phrasing what's in the article?

"In brief, the one-size-fits-all diet theory is #fail.

Don’t be tied down to one approach; different #contexts require different approaches, and both can change over time."

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
 
Last edited:

Control

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
2,097
5,215
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"

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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

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.
 

Ossoi

Tranny Chaser
15,402
7,665
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?

.

I really don't know why I bother replying to people that can't even describe the study we are discussing accurately:

"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.

Will the critics say “the carbz weren’t low enough!”? REALLY?"

Isn't the idea that even lower carb would work better for those people reasonable?


no


how many people that are seriously obese got that way eating low carb? COULD you get obese


yes, if your maintenance is 2500 calories and you ate 3000 calories every day on nuts, avocado etc then yes you will get fat.

The point is fatty foods like avocado aren't moreish - if I eat a 400 calorie avocado I've had my fill of avocado, but it's easy to demolish a 1200 calorie tub of ice cream or an 800 calorie pack of biscuits. But guess what, those foods don't just contain carbs lol


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.

what a tragically bad interpretation of the study

"Theoretical scenario: a sedentary, obese insulin resistant patient starts off on LC and is initially successful. They start exercising and focusing on sleep quality, insulin sensitivity improves (ie, new #context)... but weight loss stalls in many of these people. Maybe at this point they would benefit more by switching the focus from strict LC to monitoring other things, like calorie or fat intake (ie, to match the new #context) –> progress resumes.
Maybe."
 

Eidal

Molten Core Raider
2,001
213
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.
 

Itlan

Blackwing Lair Raider
4,994
744
Ossoi, you truly are an insufferable cunt.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 3 users

LiquidDeath

Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
4,829
11,118
Ossoi, you truly are an insufferable cunt.

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

Tranny Chaser
15,402
7,665
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.

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
 

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,762
Ossoi Ossoi this is your verbal warning. You are in the grown up forum and you have abused the ever loving shit out of this thread. Keep it up and the grown up forum will be off limits for you.

Before you cry foul because I happen to be eating somewhat keto right now you can rest assured that I have 3,875 reasons to dislike you that have nothing to do with my current lifestyle. I say that drinking a large pepsi and eating a few burritos so if you think I am some diehard you are wrong. I choose to live my current life as a person that does keto for a week or two at a time and then eats what he wants when he wants.
 

LiquidDeath

Magnus Deadlift the Fucktiger
4,829
11,118
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

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.