https://www.medpagetoday.com/specia...xclusives/94985

Last month, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) published a perspective piece that stirred up tensions in the worlds of epidemiology, physiology, and nutrition. Doctors and researchers argued on Twitter; commenters defended and derided related opinion pieces, and lay audiences read headlines such as, "Overeating isn't the primary cause of obesity" and "Study finds primary cause of current obesity epidemic."

I've been a low carber (off and on) for well over a decade now, and it's so frustrating to me that this debate is still raging with this intensity.

"There are also more effective, non-diet interventions for obesity than ever before, like bariatric surgery, said Klein, and semaglutide (Wegovy), a weight management medication."

And for those of us who prefer to avoid major surgery and medications? If you're arguing for the simplistic CICO model and backing up with "look, forget dieting, here's some pills and/or we'll cut you open," then I don't think you have a lot of confidence in your diet.

Dr Lustig points out maybe it's the bread not the butter that's the cause of obesity .


The world is still catching up on the insulin hypothesis.

Really. This again. Ask the many participants in this site and others (Diet Doctor comes to mind) whether or not there’s ample evidence that low-carb eating actually works.

No, it’s not “scientific” evidence, in the sense of controlled studies. But who cares? As some old saying has it: Person saying it can’t be done should not interrupt person doing it.

Whatever the physiological theory, long-term commitment to LCE (many different versions) does result in long-term weight management success. Probably much more than any other approach, even bariatric surgical intervention. (I don’t have data on that assertion, so don’t hold me accountable please)

Medical providers who fail to offer low-carb solutions to their obese clients are not paying attention.

Is low-carb sustainable? Yes. Does it require relentless adherence to its principles? Yes. Nobody ever said weight management was easy. Low-carb simply makes it humane—and delicious.

Spare me the naysayers.

Here I am, nearly half the size I was 20+ years ago, and I maintain it with not very much effort. I relentlessly adhere to principles but it's not really very hard for me to do. Not only do I not crave the foods I no longer eat, it astounds me that people still eat those foods which are poisoning them.

I have no patience left for this kind of ridiculousness from so-called scientists. Bariatric surgery or dangerous medications vs healthy nourishing foods. There's no contest.

I haven't been on this site in some time. I do follow some low carb researchers and doctors on other media. Seeing people - and very influential people too - having these same discussions they were having years ago makes me want to weep.

That Taubes article I mentioned above-- every bit of it was covered in GCBC. I marvel that he doesn't get tired of repeating himself - poor guy. And yet they're making the same arguments they've always made. "Don't you believe in the first law of thermodynamics?" I don't know if they don't understand his argument or if they don't want to.

What bothers me is that, even though more and more people seem open to keto, there are still too many who see it as a crazy fad diet. And some of those people could be helped by it. And when influential people refuse to endorse keto as an option, they're complicit.

Yes. The AJCN paper that kicked off this thread sounded almost like plagiarism. All the usual suspects in LC world.

Although I've been LC since about 2001, I've explored many variations. A couple of years ago, I realized that my LCHF "reward" substance--heavy cream in my coffee--was not helpful. I went back to black. I also faced the fact that "the drinking man's diet" (circa 1960) was also not helpful. Alcohol is technically low carb, but as an energy source, it definitely interferes with LC weight loss goals.

At present, I'm reading up on high(er) protein. As an older person, I'm learning that less fat/more protein might be helpful. So far so good.

So let those scientists duke it out. My N=1 is working just fine, thank you.

I jumped down the rabbit hole on twitter (linked from the article Dodger cites above) and am finding numerous experts pushing the energy balance model vigorously (while also saying "hey, we've got great drugs now!" - almost makes you think they'd rather push pills than help people resolve their weight problems with an effective diet).

I just ran across a new article by Taubes published today: https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/13...nce-of-obesity/

I'm reading it now, but I see one researcher on twitter threatening to write a piece exposing the serious flaws in Taubes' article. Let's see if he actually writes it or just alludes to the flaws without naming them.

ETA: Correction, the Taubes' article is dated Sept. 13, 2021, not today.

Barbara, Dr Atkins doesn't put alcohol as an option until near the end of his program, like close to goal weight. It runs to first in line causing disruption enroute, lol.

As for more protein, I've tried to communicate this to 86 yr old mother. At the very least, she heard me on adding ACV daily to her diet....aids in increasing acidity in stomaches to to break down the meat into absorbable amino acids. She had decreased the amount of meat she consumed in a day. For whatever reason.

Thanks for posting this article
It boggles my mind that no one will fund a definitive research study that will answer this question

This is a good point; however, when examined in more detail, it makes sense that the high-quality studies to unravel the truth don't exist. There are many people and organizations (corporate, government, other) that would like to control the narrative and have no incentive to fund the enormously expensive studies required. It's like the line from the movie A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth." For the pharmaceutical companies who purport to provide improved health and save lives, funding a study that results in correcting health issues with simple food choices is something they would never fund. Their products would lose market share. For food manufacturers, it's similar in that they'd like to market their foods as healthy, especially heart healthy. These are the two most likely groups that would fund such studies, but they don't really want the truth to be uncovered. When you look at the financial support Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and other soft drink manufacturers have provided to sports, medical programs and groups, and other entities to be able to market lifestyle claims, it's staggering. This is why it's unlikely we'll get the studies we need and why we need to continue with our N=1s to the extent that growing popularity due to improved health results in more widely shared knowledge. It's happening, but many still succumb to the popular beliefs touted by those with vested interests. The majority are reluctant to go against these strongly communicated messages as they have become a pervasive part of the current cultural belief systems.

I've seen too many overweight and obese so-called nutritionists telling me how to eat to stay slim.

I tried a number of different diets to keep myself out of the 300 pound club like the rest of my family and found one - it was called Atkins introduction back then, decades later keto

I don't know if keto will work for everyone, but it works for me and my wife.

My advice is to try different ones until you find one that works for you, and then stick to it as long as it keeps working.

Of course, I'm not an expert so that isn't professional advice, just what I think is a bit of common sense.

Remember a lot of the proposed diets are influenced by people who want to make a profit by selling you what they have to offer.

Bob

Almost as annoying as doctors who have never been fat saying "All you have to do is eat less and exercise more."

Dr. Atkins was/is my hero because he had a bad weight problem, and figured out what worked for himself. He didn't have all the science, but he had a lot of happy customers in his office.

Or hearing the same sort of thing from friends who have been stick-thin their entire lives, have never had anything out-of-the-ordinary about their metabolism, who were never even attracted to addictive types of foods, but their way of exercising is the best for everyone, their way of eating is the best for everyone, because it works for them.







I'm old enough to remember the Mamas and the Papas. Did anyone else ever notice that it was obese Cass Elliot who danced the entire time they were singing? I mean the woman never stopped moving, while she was belting out song after song. She was not even getting out of breath while dancing and singing.



Beside her, Michelle, John, and Denny were barely moving, if at all. Ultra thin Michelle moved bit more than the guys, but Cass was always dancing up a storm. There's lots of You Tube videos of them performing on You Tube, and even one video where Michelle and Cass are seated on studio props, Michelle barely moves a muscle through that entire song - but Cass - whose feet are just hanging there while she sit on this big prop - Cass is bouncing her knee up and down the entire time. Do you realize how difficult it is to lift your leg like that while sitting on something so high that your feet are nowhere near the ground? And to keep lifting that leg in time to the music for even the span of a relatively short 60's era song? Especially a leg that is as heavy as her legs were?



But from what I've read about Cass's diet history, she was always told to "Eat less and exercise more". Cass was definitely exercising. While singing. And not even getting winded or breaking a sweat (at least not visibly) while doing it.


If "eat less and exercise more" had any real validity to it, Michelle would have been the obese one, and Cass would have been the thin one.

This morning, in an event of serendipity, an article surfaced in my desktop (the real one) pile. Everything You Know About Obesity is Wrong, published in The Huffington Post around 9/22/18 (at least that's when I printed it).

The gist of the article: Fat bodies are a normal variation in human beings. Not all fat people are sick or debilitated, let alone ignorant and slothful. "Fat shaming"--not to mention actual discrimination--is a national shame, especially from the medical establishment.

(Entertainment seems to be a field where fatness is not a disqualifying characteristic for success.)

I will try to track down a link online. Edit: Here it is. That didn't take long.
Everything You Know...


All of us here have reasons and motives for devoting ourselves to weight management. Vanity is certainly one of mine (can I still be vain at 75? Yes!) Thrift is another (I want to wear the clothes I already own!). Good health is a bit farther down my list, because I don't have any fat-related issues (eg. diabetes). But I know a lot about nutrition that's helpful for aging gracefully.

So...being fat is "not your fault." Some things you can do about it, some things you can't. No reason why you cannot live, love, and be loved.