Now, eat 500 calories of fat (heavy cream, bacon, pork belly, etc). Wait 15-20 minutes, how hungry are you?
I've done this experiment a few times now, and without fail, I crave more food after the sugar and can't eat another bite after the fat.
>On a ketogenic diet I rarely even think about food - I am rarely hungry.
You probably did lower your caloric intake. The trick is that you did it in a way that it did not bother you. In other words, you ate a healthy diet.
Which it is. But I find it bizarre that people will fall back to this defense, or, at least, I find it bizarre how many people still think this is some sort of defense, when it is in fact the exact, total, polar opposite of the position they think they are defending.
At this point we are just arguing semantics. If you eat fewer calories, regardless of how you accomplish it, you will lose weight. Yes, it is easier to lose weight with healthy diet.
You can lose weight focusing solely on calories. It is easier to keep your calories in check while eating wholesome foods for numerous reasons, but at the end of the day, the gain/loss is governed by calories.
calories in, calories out.
Any one-sided diet can work if your awareness rises. More wholesome diets might even work better in the long run.
I've been part of diet communities with keto dieters for awhile and I have met people who have gained weight on keto. These people seem to not be as satiated from things like bacon as more successful keto dieters.
I eat a more diverse diet now. I stay away from foods that cause me to overeat like fries.
For me, keto naturally reduces calories. I'm not the kind of person to overeat bacon or butter. I like them, but I won't overeat them. Whereas when I was vegan I found myself overeating a variety of things.
Carbs in general (ones that metabolize mostly into glucose) have been widely available for a long time. They are also processed in a more "normal" way than fructose.
It might still be a good idea to reduce carbs, but I'm skeptical that the ketogenic diet is healthy.
Unfortunately, dieting will not change anything unless you really change your lifestyle and eating habits forever.
Any diet is a failure if it's just something you do for some time, just to get back to the old habits once you shaved off some pounds. Because of that, keto diets are not a good solution, since people get the wrong assumption about dieting ("I can eat like an animal and then do some keto to get fit again") and they're very likely to induce some sort of weight cycling (the so called yo-yo effect).
Therefore keto should be used with caution, by people who do that with knowledge and with the help of a professional. Sticking to healthier eating habits over time is much more difficult and you need a very, very strong commitment. At some point in time, though, there's a switch that finally clicks and everything becomes more easy. Exercise should be a big part of this journey.
In the end it's much more rewarding and you'll discover a whole range of benefits. Weight loss will be just an insignificant detail, then.
They aren't? Are there strong hints* that this is true? I didn't see any so far, but that may be due to my limited research.
The closer people move to actual food and sanity, the further I feel we'll move away from obesity. Rehashed sensationalism helps few other than diet gurus and their brand.
Try it. Drink it and come back in 15-20 minutes and let me know.
Then try 11 slices of pan fried bacon (43 cal/slice according to google) and then tell me how hungry you are in 15-20 minutes.
Okay, how about half a cup of heavy cream instead of bacon. I guarantee you won't feel hungry 15-20 minutes late.
If Lustig's views stop people from pounding soda all the way to the diabetician's office, then great, but if they start putting you off of fruit and vegetables then I think it becomes highly questionable.
What we don't agree on are the roles of starches, sugars (added and in drinks), and fats. What we do know is that the combination of both leads to bad things in excess. What a lot of folks that have cut out sugar/most carbohydrates will tell you, is that they feel much much better and lose weight easily and effortlessly, even without making a conscious effort to restrict calories or exercise more.
On the other hand, many people on high-carb, low-fat diets struggle to lose weight without careful caloric restriction and additional exercise.
Of course, anecdotal and such, but come on - it is sorta kinda obvious here.
If you have evidence to the contrary, preferably including a forum of people who have had success, but even just the common name of such a diet, I'd be quite interested to read about it.
> Take raw potato with <1g of fat on a kilo, and french fries that have 154g of fat per kilo! Are carbs from potato the problem?
From anything I've read, the answer is yes, the carbs are the technical problem, but another at least as important factor is: french fries are delicious, so you'll eat 3 times as many.
Well, there is no consensus about common name and there are more than one approaches to this kind of eating (high carb, low fat, low protein) I will list you some references so you can see what I'm talking about. In no special order:
http://www.heartattackproof.com/articles.htm http://www.drmcdougall.com/health/shopping/books/starch-solu... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XVf36nwraw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5wfMNNr3ak http://www.nealbarnard.org/ http://www.youtube.com/user/PrimitiveNutrition/videos http://nutritionstudies.org/
Here's another experiment - take 300 million people, tell them to eat primarily carbohydrates and limit their fats. Observe the trend for 30 years.