Tuesday, 17 June 2014

Calories in Versus OUT, a review of the doubters

This article is floating around - I thought I would write my answers to it. Take a read at the link first, then see my rebuttals below.




If I diet and exercise for 6 months, I will disappear

  1. How is this busting anything. Yes, If she were to drop her calories in by 500 a day and increase her calories out by 500, she would lose a shit load of weight after 6 months. She just has to remember that metabolism will vary over that time span, so her calories will also have to. This is due to the body naturally requiring less calories as a smaller vessel, and also the body will lower non exercise energy expenditure (general fidgeting, moving around etc).





As her body got closer to lower levels of bodyfat, her metabolism would start to drop more dramatically; this is a survival mechanism. But she would die before she disappeared.

I don’t see why this is seen as proof against calories in versus out. Maybe it’s an attack on the accuracy of generic calculators (which is a small but fair point). But, anorexics do it this way. And bodybuilders also routinely drop huge amounts of weight over smaller amounts of time using this formula of eating less calories and expending more energy via exercise. Just because different people lose different amounts of weight is not proof of calories in/out being wrong, simply that people have individual metabolic rates (and reactivity to changes in calories) along with different partitioning of fuels (P Ratio).


We are getting hungrier because we are getting fatter

2.       Again, where does this disprove CICO? However you want to package it (eating causes us to be overweight, or overweight causes us to be obese), CICO still functions here. All he has done is put the chicken before the egg.


This is fair enough, and may be true to a certain extent (obesity does increase leptin to the point of leptin resistance for example). But the opposite is also true. You will not find many people hungrier than an on-stage bodybuilder sitting at 5% bodyfat.

Yes, hunger is far more than calories in versus out – eating foods which are more satiating (insert foods which satiate YOU PERSONALLY here), but people lose the same weight regardless of hunger levels – if their calories are controlled. As every clinical controlled scientific study has every shown.


Some mice get fatter than others with the same amount of food

3.       Yup, this is where genetics sucks for some people. But this is simply a case of certain people having different metabolic rates and P ratios, not a disproval of CICO.


Some people, when put on a calorie restricted diet, will lose more muscle than others, and less fat consequentially. Some lucky buggers in the human world can lose almost exclusively fat when dieting, and gain almost exclusively muscle when gaining weight. The opposite is true. And some people’s metabolic rates will remain largely unchanged during a diet, and others will have their metabolism drop like a stone.

However, CICO still applies. How did they get those obese mice to lose weight? They dropped the amount of food they took. Yes, relative to the other rats, they may not have come out as well, but (the important part) relative to THEMSELVES, they lost weight. Which will always be the case.

CICO still worked. Take the same organism, feed it less, watch it lose weight. Take that same organism and feed it more, watch it gain weight. THAT MUCH we can control. Out genetic, unfortunately, we have to deal the hand that Yahweh gave us.

Well, this is not news really. In overfeeding experiments, some people, when given the same caloric surplus, will gain lots of weight, and some will gain very little. This is simply due to how re-active someone’s metabolism is to increases in calories. Some people eat more and their metabolism goes up to match it (almost) so they put on hardly any weight. Others eat the same amount more, their metabolism is very slow to catch up to that excess (if indeed it does at all) and they gain more weight. But again, this is looking at differences between individuals as opposed to individually.




1000 calories of coke is not the same as 1000 calories of broccoli

4.       This guy creates a complete strawman – just because nutritionists say that “calories are equal in terms of weight gain/loss” (not strictly true, but a good enough generalisation) doesn’t automatically lead on to “therefore down all your calories in Coke”. This is ridiculous, as there is more to health than simply weight loss. We have to look at micronutrients, phytonutrients and probably stuff we don’t even know about yet in whole foods.



But, regarding the ‘calorie is a calorie’ – Ask Twinkie diet guy what he thinks. He seemed to lose over 30lb eating sugar and fat in twinkie form. And Suwit et al also showed that a diet consisting of 45% of sugar performed just as well as a diet consisting 4% sugar regarding weightloss.

The main area where we have seen that a calorie is not a calorie (well, actually, by definition it is) is with protein. By eating protein, around 25% of the energy is lost through thermogenesis. But in reality, an increase in thermogenesis is simply an increase in energy out, so it still abides by the CICO rule. Dummies. Maybe you should understand it before you attack it.



5              This has nothing to do with debunking CICO. I don’t know why it is in the article.




I ate a lot and didn't gain as much weight as I thought I would

6.            Sam Feltham is an interesting case, and probably the only one so far in the article who opens up a question. He did a number of overfeeding studies and found that he didn’t gain as much weight as predicted.



                The fact is, if Sam wanted to gain weight, he just needs to eat more. He did gain weight by eating more, just not as much as he thought he would. But guess what, if he eats even MORE of that same food, he will gain more weight. Probably not as much as he would think, but he would gain. And if he want to lose weight, simply eat less of the food he was eating. Simple.

                This just highlights that looking at each person as an individual and taking into account their metabolic rate and re-activity, and adjusting from there. If he is not gaining sufficient weight on 5,000 calories, increase it to 6,000 a day. Hell, Phelps was on 12,000 a day and he looked pretty lean.


Different metabolic pathways have different metabolic costs

7.            “The second law is a dissipation law [which] says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected.



Umm, yes. Different macronutrients (carbs, fat, protein), will take different metabolic pathways. Protein tends to lose 25% energy, Carbs around 5% and fat around 3% via these pathways. But all of this can (and is, by good nutritionists) taken into account. However, this dissipation simply fits the ‘calories out’ side of the argument. Why do people forget that????

And if there is variation within individuals, ok, we can adjust for that too. If you don’t lose weight on 2,000 calories of certain macronutrient profile, see what happens when you take 1500 calories of the same macronutrients. In every clinical trial I have seen, weight loss occurs.


 Whore moans

8.            I’m not sure what she is trying to say here (if anything at all), but it doesn’t seem to disprove CICO anywhere. At best, it alludes to the broken record idea that hormones are solely to blame. Well, guess what, you won’t gain a lot of weight if you have high insulin and don’t eat much. Obese people with high insulin levels also lose weight when put on a calorie restricted diet. Don’t you watch ‘The Biggest Loser’ (I am in no way in agreemnet with how they conduct that show).




                Insulin doesn’t cause you to gain fat – see here. It may make you hungrier (debatable), but this will only increase fat if you eat more – which still fits in with CICO

The idea of a 'calorie' is untrue IN PRACTICE

9.            This is really easy to dismiss. Go onto pubmed for a few hours, look at every well controlled caloric deficit study and you will see, regardless of macronutrient content, everyone loses weight. Different people lose different amounts (as explained) but they all lose weight.



Counting Calories to lose weight does not work

10.         " Counting calories to lose weight does not work for the majority of dieters. This happens, in part, because the calories in food are not the same as those expended by the body."

Counting calories does not work for the majority of dieters because the majority of dieters are useless at counting calories. It is a well known fact that people consistently underreport their caloric intake and over-report their exercise energy expenditure. To be honest, not a lot works for the majority of people for societal reasons. But this does not mean Calories in VS out does not function.



You don’t have to count calories. You could count points, you could exercise portion control, you could skip a meal (shoot me), you could quit beer, you could cut those snacks, you could eat more satiating foods and/or you could cut out trigger foods. All is fine, as long as it creates a calorie deficit, whether you’re aware of it or not.

But yes, he is right, we expend different amounts of calories from the food we eat. But, if you just ate less of that same food, you would lose weight. It works in every case. Never seen a study where it doesn’t.


You will only lose weight by healthy eating, therefore calories do not exist

11.          There’s not really anything in this last point worth debunking, as it doesn’t seem to disprove CICO, only says that it is not true. Well, where is the evidence exactly? There is plenty of evidence that CICO is true.


Eating healthier foods makes us more naturally lose weight? Yes, in most cases it does. But I know plenty of overweight people who eat really healthy. And I Also know people who eat crap and are underweight. There is also a plethora of people who have lost weight eating crap, and people who have gained weight eating healthy food (I am one who has done both).


I am in agreement for his call to exercise at shorter, but more intense bouts. However, to each their own. Find out the exercises which suit you and you have more fun doing.


How about we take some words of wisdom from a guy who has, and repeatedly does, look at the research and then apply to his clients.


Saturday, 8 March 2014

Eat Chocolate, lose weight

Most people know the flexi-diet philosophy now.



To make sure most of this weight loss comes from fat stores, I add




For the toned look, we want to lose as much fat as possible, not muscle.



I also try to make the diet as healthy as possible without sabotaging long term success by being too restrictive. Lowering calories and encouraging weight loss tends to promote health benefits for the overweight in almost every scenario, but especially if combined with a nutritious diet. Including more anti-inflammatory foods, calorie cycling and periods of fasting have also been scientifically proven to improve symptoms of inflammatory diseases (heart disease, Alzheimer’s, Asthma etc). Fasting and resistance training have also been shown to lower insulin levels; so those worried about type 2 diabetes can also benefit from these tactics.  

I also promote higher fiber, anti-inflammatory, and a diet rich in micronutrients and phytonutrients, in order to maximise health and potentially improve fat loss.



Dogmatic

So, from the outside, the approach is relatively standard, with a few funkier elements thrown in. However, as discussed in THIS ARTICLE, people often go overboard and get very anal about their diet. No longer can they have their favourite foods, or ‘junk food’ is completely banished, as no one ever got a six pack eating sugar or McDonalds, right?


Wrong




One of the key elements of the Flexible diet is that you are free to choose the foods you wish to include in your diet. Whilst higher quality whole foods are encouraged to make up the majority of your diet, there is still room for your favourite foods without hampering your goals.

Yes, you can still eat chocolate, go get a burger, put sugar in your coffee and lose weight. Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the facts.

  

Calories

Like it or not, calories count. In every clinical, randomly controlled trial, when people are put on a calorie restricted diet they lose weight. Whether they eat mainly carbs, fats or protein is irrelevant. Low calorie diets will lose weight, with low carb tending to lose the most weight (although this is largely gut bulk and water losses creating what seems to be a superior weight loss). When looking at body composition, higher protein intakes promote more fat loss and more retention of lean body mass – this is a good thing.


lose more fat, keep more muscle - protein knows how


But your body breaks down what it eats in very basic molecules. These are then either burned directly for energy in the cells, or stored away for later use (as fat or glycogen).  Only glucose can be stored as glycogen, although protein can be broken down into glucose (gluconeogenesis). Both fat and carbohydrates can be stored as fat, and protein can be indirectly stored as fat when it is converted to glucose (and then glucose to fat). 



But the bottom line is, the amount of energy you store versus the amount which is burned will result in a weight gain or weight loss. Period.



Burgers

But surely we can’t go to McDonalds and expect to lose weight? Look what happened to the Supersize me guy.

Firstly Morgan Spurlock ate upwards of 5,000 calories a day without exercise for his ‘supersize me’ documentary. If you eat 5000 calories of anything and sit on your ass all day, bad things will happen. Secondly, there is something called moderation. We can go to McDonalds once, even twice a week and still not sabotage our results. In fact, several people have taken it a step further. Read the below two articles quickly.











That’s right. A guy loses 37 pounds AND drops his cholesterol level whilst tucking away into Big Macs, sundaes and ice cream cones every single day. All he did was make sure he controlled his calorie intake for the day (which, ironically, is really easy to do at fast food restaurants as the calories are printed on the box).

Inspired by his story, Guy 2 goes off and loses 100 POUNDS and gets a six pack doing the same. Is this a fluke? Check out the video below showing 50 year old bodybuilder Chazz Weaver getting a 6 pack in 30 days eating nothing but McDonalds every day.



Again, he showed only signs of improved health, with all blood markers improving. What are the long term results to this type of eating? Well, check out the below video.



So even after 25,000 big macs over the course of 39 years, his weight is below average and his health and cholesterol levels are just fine.


What about sugar?

In 1997, Surwitt et al studied the effects of a high sugar versus low sugar diet. The link is here


The main points to take away from this study are;
  • Both groups lost the same amounts of weight
  • Both groups showed decrease in blood pressure
  • Both groups lost bodyfat
  • Both groups showed lower depression, hunger and negative mood
  • Both groups showed increases in positive mood and vigilance
  • There were no differences in metabolism between the groups.


So a diet with almost half of the consumed energy as table sugar showed no effect on the above variables than a diet almost devoid (4%) of sugar.

And in real life – the famous ‘twinkie diet’ shows that this can work, as professor Haub (who teaches nutrition nonetheless) lost 30lb by eating nothing but sugary and fatty twinkies, just to prove the point that calories count.


Mmmmm.... Twinkies


He also managed to improve his bio markers of health in the process (cholesterol, blood pressure etc).

I wrote more about sugar here

Take home notes

I am in NO WAY recommending you ditch healthy real food and eat nothing but junk. What I am highlighting is that junk food, in the right context, can have a viable place in your diet. Why would I promote this? Food is great for one. Why deprive yourself of the things you love if you can achieve just as good success with it? Also, mental health is just as important as what you put in your mouth. Just changing your frame of mind can have an effect on the hormones your body releases in response to food. Lastly, we are in this for the long haul. A good diet is one which you can stick to for the rest of your life. Deprivation and/or restricting food groups/macronutrients has been shown to be a big determinant in whether someone stays on their diet or not.

If your diet looks like this, you probably need to change something


If your diet, on the whole, is rich is whole foods, vitamins, minerals, fiber. If you exercise regularly and control your calorie intake. If your overall diet is anti-inflammatory and you are losing weight, there is no reason why you can’t throw the odd ‘bad food’ in there.

We can see that it does not adversely affect the goals of both the obese, the fit, the young or the old. And in order to keep your sanity whilst dieting, and stay in this for the long haul, it is probably beneficial that you keep some of the foods you love in your diet.

Bottom line – be sensible. Extremism is never usually a good thing. Allowing around 10-20% of your daily calories as treats, or saving them up and having a bigger treat a couple of times a week is a good philosophy. Alan Argon, a highly respected nutritionist wrote about this very topic here


Thursday, 20 February 2014

Insulin theory - myth busted

On the internet, I see a lot of arguments that go like this;

Carbohydrates are bad for you because they cause your body to release insulin. Insulin is a hormone which stores fat and stops you burning fat. Therefore, if you are storing fat and not burning it, you get fat. Therefore, carbohydrates make you fat. 

 

sounds plausible.... here’s why it’s bullshit.


In order to gain weight, we have to store more energy than we burn; this is a fact we cannot deny. But insulin theorists seem to think that this hormone can bypass the laws of physics and create energy out of nowhere. Let’s look at the logic behind this.



Person A

Person A eats a meal of pure carbohydrate at 800 calories, their insulin raises. Imagine a worst case scenario where ALL OF IT gets quickly stored as fat (this would not happen anyway, as a large majority would be stored as glycogen, or burned off on the spot). Even in a worst case scenario, they can only store 800 calories of energy as fat. THEY CANNOT STORE MORE ENERGY THAN THIS.

Person A



Now, once that meal has digested, the blood sugars have dropped (because it has all been turned into fat), insulin levels drop and fat burning increases again. If the person needs a total of 2000 calories in a day for their metabolic rate, they have to get that energy from somewhere – which will now be fat stores (or glycogen stores too, if any of that carbohydrate was stored away in this form). So, Person A may have stored 800 calories, but then he has to get 2000 calories back out of the fat stores.

Net result – minus 1200 calories

Person B

Person B is our low carb Zealot. They hate insulin, so do everything they can to stay in an insulin free state (not possible, as we all have baseline insulin levels). This person eats 800 calories, but in the form of pure fat. But they think they are not storing any fat because they haven’t got any insulin running around in their body, right?
PersonB

Even if they were right (which they are not, there are other hormones in the body which store fat too), let’s look at what will happen. If the body is not storing the ingested 800 calories of fat, it will have to burn it from the blood. Their metabolism is 2000 calories per day also, so their body gets 800 of this from the ingested fat, and the other 1200 from fat stores. 


But even in this example where NO fat was stored and ONLY fat was used as fuel, the person still ends up only in 1200 calories deficit.


And this was the extreme example

This was giving full benefit of the doubt to the ‘insulin theorists’ also. In real life, most ingested carbohydrate gets burned off on the spot (one of the main actions of insulin is to tell the body to switch to higher blood glucose oxidation) so less can be stored as fat. Most of the excess which is above and beyond oxidation rates get stored as Glycogen, not fat, in the liver and muscle. This means that, with our 800 calories carb meal, almost none of it would get stored as fat.

Even when we increase the calories, the math stays the same.

On top of this, studies have shown that it takes an incredible amount of carbohydrate ingestion to see any amount of de novo lipogenesis (fat creation from glucose). It is much more likely that the glucose will be used for metabolic purposes or stored as glycogen before any fat is created. After all, energy is lost when our body makes fat out of glucose. This is not evolutionary advantageous (it would be better to be as energy efficient as possible).

This is also not evolutionary advantageous 


Insulin Action

To look at insulin and say that it is a fat storing hormone, and fat burning suppressor, is only half the story, and doesn’t make us fat anyway, as the last examples illustrated. Insulin has several roles, many of which are designed to let the body know there is carbohydrate in the blood stream, and to switch to burning this off in whatever way possible (increased oxidation, glycogen creation and fat storage) to lower blood sugars to normal levels. This is why insulin correlates so highly with blood sugar levels/carbohydrate intake.#

Insulin action


Insulin also serves as a break for endogenous glucose production. When our body is in a fasted state, we produce our own blood glucose (barring hypoglycemics) through gluconeogenesis (conversion of proteins to blood sugar) and conversion of glycogen to glucose. This keeps our blod sugars relatively stable postprandially. But this internal sugar production is not necessary when we have ingested carbohydrates. So insulin is a messenger to tell our body to stop creating its own sugar.

Anyway, insulin doesn’t just put a halt on fat burning. People see things so black and white these days. Our bodies are constantly burning and storing fat, building and breaking down muscle etc. It is the balance at the end of all of this which counts. Add to this, fat burning is not an on/off switch. Increases in insulin simply lower the percentage of fat which is utilised for metabolic purposes, but does not switch it off. The whole point is to just shift around what source you are using predominantly for fuel. How much you use/store will determine your balance at the end of the day, which will determine whether your body is building up (building fat/muscle) or catabolising (losing fat/muscle).

What most low carbers also don't realise is that even low carb diets can produce blood sugar through an act called gluconeogenesis. Protein gets broken down into sugars and can be used as fuel. Some extremists, like LCHF dieters, even lower protein intake to get around this. but there is no getting around the laws of thermodynamics - as my examples showed (one was high carb, the other was Low carb high fat).

Ans some non-carb foods can raise as much insulin as standard carbohdyrate rich foods.

But my low carb diet works

Great,  that’s good for you. It can work, I am not denying that. But low carb diets work as a result of controlling calories indirectly. Eating less carbs results in eating more protein and fat – which are very satiating (and is why I recommend keeping fat in your diet, and eating high levels of protein).



But most of the differences in scientific studies comparing diets of different macronutrients (in equicaloric statuses) can be put down to


·         Difference in protein intake (protein is thermogenic and loses more calories in the body)
·         Bigger water losses through lost glycogen (we store an incredible amount of water in our bodies)
·         Lower gut bulk (low carb diets tend to be less fibrous and more energy dense).

And as Dr John Berardi recently pointed out HERE, the cascade of hormonal events happening on a low carb diet can serve to lower performance in athletes, and see a drop in muscle mass as a result of lower glycogen stores, lower insulin (insulin is muscle sparing) and lowered training volume. Also, testosterone to cortisol ratios go out of whack in the long term – not great for muscle building/maintaining. 





I will say, however, this can be offset by low carb diets having larger amounts of protein. But it would be better to have a high protein diet and include enough carbs to reduce the negative effects, without adding too many calories.


And while low carb diets do work well for most (especially in the first couple of weeks, due to the massive drops in water weight), they can be difficult to sustain for the majority of folk. Real success in dieting is having the ability to maintain that diet for life. Ask yourself this – is low carb something you can really do for life?

Summary

Insulin does not cause you to get fat. Insulin has many actions, but it can only make you as fat as the energy you bring in to the system.

Insulin has many actions – making us fat is not one of them.

Low carb diets may not suit all, especially athletes.


As an important note, I am not anti-low carb. There can be several benefits to low carb. Increased satiation, increased fat intake, increased protein intake and better blood glucose control are just some. This post is more an attack on the insulin theory of obesity.

Monday, 3 February 2014

Rebuttal against a 'Calories don't count' argument

This is a rebuttal to the article floating around on the net about how calories don't count. Take a read, you may be convinced.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE FIRST

The Rebuttal

Below are a list of the pictures from the article, along with my reasons for why they do not disprove the calorie in versus out argument for weight gain.


 1. Injecting insulin will change where fat is stored not HOW MUCH. This is also not how insulin works in a human body in a non-injected state, where it would be more generalised. Regardless, insulin doesn't create extra energy storage, just changes its location.








2. Going have to semi-bow out of this one as I know nothing about Cushins. Although so what - if you don't have Cushins disease, then this doesn't apply.









3. The guy is obviously one of those people who has a very reactive metabolism - they do exist. I know a lot of people with these genetics who are the same. If they eat a hell of a lot more calories, their metabolism raises to almost match it.

This doesn't disprove calories in vs out or make it irrelevant. If this guy wanted to gain weight, he would have to eat more - far more, as his metabolism ramps up more than normal. If he wanted to lose weight, he would just have to eat less.

The same principles apply to everyone. You have to find out your own personal numbers. Personally, if I am looking to gain 1lb a week, I eat around 3000 calories, and if it is not working, I eat MORE until I am gaining 1lb a week. IF I want to lose weight, I eat around 1,800 a day to lose around 1lb a week. If that doesn't work, I exercise a little more. But I am patient with it as I know water weight fluctuates.

If you are not fortunate enough to have his genetics, you would have to find out how much YOU need to eat to gain a certain amount of weight/lose it. It's not always going to be a static number, but if you are not losing weight you should find a way of getting less energy in, or getting more energy out.

Also - with this guy, it was only n=1 and also only 3 weeks. In 3 weeks it would be possible to lose 5-6 pounds of water weight from glycogen stores, another couple of pounds of gut bulk and still gain fat. You can, for short periods of time like this, be gaining fat whilst the scale is going down. Let him try that for a full year and see how it works out.



4. Again, a case of genetic/disease related change in WHERE the fat is stored, not HOW MUCH. The amount of energy stored in the system hasn't been influenced, only the site of that storage. So again, doesn't mean calories are valueless (confused look as to why anyone would think it does).










5. see above


6. So what!!! Sure, low carb diets may have some role for SOME PEOPLE in regulating energy intake, as
in anorexics may start eating more energy and obese may start eating less energy. Doesn't mean they are the best diets for everyone and doesn't discredit counting calories, or portion control (or whatever method you wish to choose to use in order to regulate energy intake).

Low carb is not always the best way for everyone, even if I would conclude that it is a relatively good way for most people to go. For me, personally, it would be torturous hell - and science has shown that it doesn't provide a significant amount more of weight loss above and beyond what simple water loss (through glycogen depletion) would provide - along with potential muscle losses from the lower amount of insulin and lower muscle glycogen storage (that's right, insulin preserves muscle).


7. Read http://weightology.net/?p=265





8. The whole body is a calorie receptor. It responds to calories by increasing and decreasing certain hormones which can increase metabolism, change substrate oxidation and decrease amounts of food desired (satiation qualities). Leptin, Ghrelin, Insulin, HGH, IGF1, Cortisol, glucagon, adiponectin, thyroid etc etc etc - all respond to caloric intake.


Does changing what you eat have an effect on energy out and (indirectly) energy in? Sure, it can do. But it is usually not as large an effect as you think, and by NO MEANS discredits the use of calorie control exercises through direct means (calorie counting) or indirect (portion control, eating more satiating foods etc).

Fact is, if you eat the same foods but a higher quantity of them, you will gain more weight, and if you eat the same foods in lower quantities you will lose weight/gain less.


9. Umm, yes, not all macronutrients behave the same way in the body. Some have higher thermic effects and so calories are lost in the process of breaking it down. However, this doesn't violate the idea that calories count. It still applies that calories in vs out will determine how much energy is in the system. Thermic effect simply increases the 'energy out' side of the equation.

Anyway, to conclude that getting rid of carbohydrates is wrong. It is clearly biased towards a low carb diet for no reason at all. The whole reason the diet produces a lower caloric yield if we replace 55% carbs with equal amounts fat and protein is not due to the lower carb, it is due to the increase in PROTEIN, which has the highest thermic effect.

In fact, one could say that replacing fat with equal parts protein and carbs (I do not recommend) would produce a lower caloric yield still, as Fat has the lowest thermic effect of all.


Bottom line

The bottom line is, calories count, whether you count them or not. You could cut your calories in by cutting out an entire food group/macronutrient. But this usually leaves people craving what they have cut, leading to an eventual falling off the wagon. You could also use portion control, or count calories consciously, which could offer you more freedom in what you eat. But the idea that calories don't count is ludicrous, and wrong, as every scientific study EVER has shown.

Everyone responds to foods differently. Some can gain weight easily with a small excess, some can have a massive excess and still burn it off with their very reactive metabolisms. But the overall principle remains the same. If you want to get smaller, eat less of what you do. If you want to get bigger, eat more of what you do now. Use exercise as a way of improving health and energy expenditure.

The one which annoys me most is the insulin theory. The idea that insulin makes you gain weight. Well, guess what. If I pump my blood full of insulin and don't eat a thing, you can be sure I wont be gaining weight. Even if I ate 500 calories with my 'insulin blood', it is only possible to store 500 calories of fat (and that is if there was a 100% efficient conversion, which there is not).

For those who say, "Yeah, but if you had insulin in your blood and no glucose, you would go into a hypoglycaemic coma" - you are right. So the type 2 diabetics with high insulin levels must be using something for fuel. If they are using lower amounts of fat, that must mean they are using higher amounts of blood glucose (which makes sense as the blood glucose for type 2 diabetics is high). If more blood glucose is burned as fuel, less can be stored as fat, and thus the law of calories in vs out returns as the king.


Take home advice

The best pieces of advice I can give are;

1. Increase your PROTEIN intake (but there is a law of diminishing returns).
2. Find out how many calories YOU need to manipulate your weight in the direction you want.
3. keep a healthy balance of fats and carbs in your diet.
4. Eat an overall higher amount of MICRONUTRITION through better food choices, but don't feel you have to cut out what you love.
6. Don't do too much cardio when you are on a restricted calorie diet. In fact, cardio is completely unnecessary when trying to lose fat. But if you like to do it, go ahead.
7. Eat foods that curb your hunger. Usually low calorie density foods like veggies will do this as well as fulfilling number 4. But find out what works for you.
8. Don't CRASH DIET. 1/2 a pound a week is still 26 pounds of weight loss a year. We all know that person who loses 20lb every time they diet, yet ironically weigh more and more each year.