Diabetes and how you get it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I never trust anyone who misuses the word 'literally'. But the point is that on a high protein/low carb diet you can consume MORE calories and not put on weight than you can on a high carb diet. People always have to go over the top and think this means something that it doesn't. It's probably only a couple of hundred calories difference, and you still have to exercise to build muscle, which boosts the metabolism which is in turn helped by the extra protein.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Red wine is also good for weight management. Does this mean you can drink ten bottles a day of it and get thin? Idiots would think so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is the number one advocate for the KETO diet telling us that you cannot "eat as much fat as you like and never put on weight".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAv8koJR0BI

He says everything that is important in the first 3 minutes.

I have seen a lot of Thomas DeLauer's videos and he is merely an amateur in terms of biochemistry.

He is ignorant of the many complexities of Human Metabolism.

You mentioned Taubes' books which is more informative.
I have read Chapter 10 which has nothing to support your intuitive inference which is wrong.

Instead what is in Chapter 9 may be more relevant;

What’s both fascinating and dismaying about this history is that virtually everyone involved in the diet, weight-control, and health business since the 1960s got at least something important wrong.
This was one of the many factors that worked to make a simple message appear to be complicated.
Invariably these people made some assumptions based either on their preconceptions about gluttony and sloth or on the role of dietary fat in heart disease.
Some were simply enamored by the physics of thermodynamics and couldn’t get away from the idea that what entered the body in excess, whatever that meant, had to be stored as fat.
These biases led them to make significant errors in how they interpreted all this evidence.

The fat we eat won’t stimulate Insulin secretion.

In Chapter 10,
Taubes provided a graph that plot FAT turnover to insulin levels.
It indicate that the Threshold for insulin activation of fats deposition is very low, i.e. 25.

Now I have specifically stipulated, under very low carb conditions, it will NOT exceed the insulin threshold, therefore fats will be burnt, not be deposited.

When Insulin gets sufficiently low, when the negative stimulus of Insulin is sufficiently draconian, everything changes.
It’s like a switch is thrown.
Above the threshold, fat cells hold on to fat.
Below it, they release their stored fat into the circulation, and the other cells in the body take it up and use it for fuel.
Above the threshold our bodies burn Carbohydrates and store fat.
Below it [threshold], our bodies burn fat.

There are lots of nuances and complex views about human metabolism.

Note I argued, when one strictly control one carbohydrate intake, and eat as much fats [good ones] as one CAN, one will not be fat [i.e. obese]. Note Obesity with very high BMIs!

Note the term 'CAN' where the intake of fats is self-limiting in most humans, more so if one is not insulin resistance and on a very low carb diet where too much fats would be nauseating [note the typical indigestion feelings that comes with eating too much fats].

[Sculptor]

This is the number one advocate for the KETO diet telling us that you cannot "eat as much fat as you like and never put on weight".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAv8koJR0BI

He says everything that is important in the first 3 minutes.

I have seen a lot of Thomas DeLauer's videos and he is merely an amateur in terms of biochemistry.

Ad hominem.

He is ignorant of the many complexities of Human Metabolism.

You mentioned Taubes' books which is more informative.
I have read Chapter 10 which has nothing to support your intuitive inference which is wrong.

Instead what is in Chapter 9 may be more relevant;

What’s both fascinating and dismaying about this history is that virtually everyone involved in the diet, weight-control, and health business since the 1960s got at least something important wrong.
This was one of the many factors that worked to make a simple message appear to be complicated.
Invariably these people made some assumptions based either on their preconceptions about gluttony and sloth or on the role of dietary fat in heart disease.
Some were simply enamored by the physics of thermodynamics and couldn’t get away from the idea that what entered the body in excess, whatever that meant, had to be stored as fat.
These biases led them to make significant errors in how they interpreted all this evidence.

The fat we eat won’t stimulate Insulin secretion.

In Chapter 10,
Taubes provided a graph that plot FAT turnover to insulin levels.
It indicate that the Threshold for insulin activation of fats deposition is very low, i.e. 25.

Now I have specifically stipulated, under very low carb conditions, it will NOT exceed the insulin threshold, therefore fats will be burnt, not be deposited.

When Insulin gets sufficiently low, when the negative stimulus of Insulin is sufficiently draconian, everything changes.
It’s like a switch is thrown.
Above the threshold, fat cells hold on to fat.
Below it, they release their stored fat into the circulation, and the other cells in the body take it up and use it for fuel.
Above the threshold our bodies burn Carbohydrates and store fat.
Below it [threshold], our bodies burn fat.

There are lots of nuances and complex views about human metabolism.

Note I argued, when one strictly control one carbohydrate intake, and eat as much fats [good ones] as one CAN, one will not be fat [i.e. obese]. Note Obesity with very high BMIs!

Note the term 'CAN' where the intake of fats is self-limiting in most humans, more so if one is not insulin resistance and on a very low carb diet where too much fats would be nauseating [note the typical indigestion feelings that comes with eating too much fats].

irrelevant.
you are a waste of space.

[Veritas Aequitas]

irrelevant.
you are a waste of space.

That is your usual deflection when faced with truths and greater rigor.

[Sculptor]

irrelevant.
you are a waste of space.

That is your usual deflection when faced with truths and greater rigor.

There is nothing to deflect except your misunderstanding. You fall in to the category of bad science that Taubes has written about; once you say something you are incapable of seeing that it is false and will defend it without regard to reason and evidence.

How would you interpret this phrase?:

"The idea that we can eat as much fat as we want without storing some as excess might be true for some of us but not for all of us"

Do you think it has the same meaning as :
"you can eat as much fat as you want and not gain weight"

Answers on a postcard to:

PO Box get a life.
Try Reading Something House
Nevernever land.

[Veritas Aequitas]

irrelevant.
you are a waste of space.

That is your usual deflection when faced with truths and greater rigor.

There is nothing to deflect except your misunderstanding. You fall in to the category of bad science that Taubes has written about; once you say something you are incapable of seeing that it is false and will defend it without regard to reason and evidence.

How would you interpret this phrase?:

"The idea that we can eat as much fat as we want without storing some as excess might be true for some of us but not for all of us"

Do you think it has the same meaning as :
"you can eat as much fat as you want and not gain weight"

Answers on a postcard to:

PO Box get a life.
Try Reading Something House
Nevernever land.

To start with, there is already a possibility of truth to my claim, i.e. eat as much fats as one can without excessive storing to an obese state.

I suggest you read the whole book thoroughly.
The principle [note the graph in chapter 10] is when one is able to keep the insulin level low and below the threshold one will not be depositing fat but rather burn fats.

What he implied above is many are not able to keep their insulin low [the necessary condition], thus triggering fat storage.
That is why KETO [proper] is not for everybody but only some who are able to have the control to keep their insulin level low with minimal carbs.

This why I qualified my statement very clearly and strongly, i.e. when one meet those conditions, then will not be Obese [note OBESE] when one eat as much fat as one can.
In addition the 'can' is limited in various ways by the body and brain so under those specific conditions one will not be addicted to fats like those who is addicted to carbs.

When one get fat and highly obese, it is not because of dietary 'fats' [significantly] but rather fats converted from excess carbs due to high insulin levels [insulin resistance] that trigger fats storage inducing excess carbs intake [continuous hunger] and conversion of these excess carbs to fats.
It is not a CICO issue but rather a psychological, hormonal and enzyme-related issue which is heavily emphasized in Taubes' book.

When you read Taubes' book fully you will note how he "mocked" those who are dogmatic with the 'CICO' theory.

[Sculptor]

That is your usual deflection when faced with truths and greater rigor.

There is nothing to deflect except your misunderstanding. You fall in to the category of bad science that Taubes has written about; once you say something you are incapable of seeing that it is false and will defend it without regard to reason and evidence.

How would you interpret this phrase?:

"The idea that we can eat as much fat as we want without storing some as excess might be true for some of us but not for all of us"

Do you think it has the same meaning as :
"you can eat as much fat as you want and not gain weight"

Answers on a postcard to:

PO Box get a life.
Try Reading Something House
Nevernever land.

To start with, there is already a possibility of truth to my claim, i.e. eat as much fats as one can without excessive storing to an obese state.

DO not change the goal posts, by watering down your statement, please.
If you want to continue with the discussion then please answer my question before continuiing.

I suggest you read the whole book thoroughly.

Don't be a patronising twat, it makes you look stupid.

start here....

"The idea that we can eat as much fat as we want without storing some as excess might be true for some of us but not for all of us"

Do you think it has the same meaning as :
"you can eat as much fat as you want and not gain weight"

[Walker]

"you can eat as much fat as you want and not gain weight"

Eating and wanting, two great topics. So connected.

Personally, I’ve noticed that when it comes to eating, wanting is needing. When I am really hungry and need food, nothing tastes better than a can of Mediterranean style sardines in oil, with cheese, olives and a glass of red wine. A bit of hard bread to soak up the sardine oil, and collect the scraps in the tin when the sardines are gone.

However, when I’m not really hungry, I don’t go near that stuff because I’ve done it before, and it doesn’t taste as good. Not nearly as good. Put it this way, I don’t soak up the oil and the scraps with a bit of bread like when I'm starving. I don’t want much oil then, because I don’t need much.

The thing is, even though I’m really hungry, I only eat about one small tin of sardines, one small bite of cheese and one small olive for each bite of sardine. Too much, and taken away is not only the sharp hunger but also the goodness of taste. The real goodness that savors that fat for what it is, goes away.

I’ve subsequently considered the chemistry of these urges, and I’m confident my existence proves that science can be right.

Someone mentioned that feeling full is a delayed reaction. That's the reaction you want to preserve by staying hungry.

That’s the source of the pleasure of not eating, or rather, eating just enough for need. The body is undergoing tremendous physical changes when eating a bit of fat after practically starving. The physical sensations are tremendous and eating past need only dulls the sensitivity to hunger that regulates appetite.

Food is a powerful drug, no doubt about it. It combats the most powerful of needs other than breathing. I think that a little bit of fat takes one further into knowledge than book learnin'.

[Walker]

From inside a cow, it's hard to get a good handle on what's happening.

Inside the belly of the beast one finds two bellies. Dualism. Uh huh.

[Sculptor]

"you can eat as much fat as you want and not gain weight"

Eating and wanting, two great topics. So connected.

Personally, I’ve noticed that when it comes to eating, wanting is needing. When I am really hungry and need food, nothing tastes better than a can of Mediterranean style sardines in oil, with cheese, olives and a glass of red wine. A bit of hard bread to soak up the sardine oil, and collect the scraps in the tin when the sardines are gone.

However, when I’m not really hungry, I don’t go near that stuff because I’ve done it before, and it doesn’t taste as good. Not nearly as good. Put it this way, I don’t soak up the oil and the scraps with a bit of bread like when I'm starving. I don’t want much oil then, because I don’t need much.

The thing is, even though I’m really hungry, I only eat about one small tin of sardines, one small bite of cheese and one small olive for each bite of sardine. Too much, and taken away is not only the sharp hunger but also the goodness of taste. The real goodness that savors that fat for what it is, goes away.

I’ve subsequently considered the chemistry of these urges, and I’m confident my existence proves that science can be right.

Someone mentioned that feeling full is a delayed reaction. That's the reaction you want to preserve by staying hungry.

That’s the source of the pleasure of not eating, or rather, eating just enough for need. The body is undergoing tremendous physical changes when eating a bit of fat after practically starving. The physical sensations are tremendous and eating past need only dulls the sensitivity to hunger that regulates appetite.

Food is a powerful drug, no doubt about it. It combats the most powerful of needs other than breathing. I think that a little bit of fat takes one further into knowledge than book learnin'.

Are you a fatty?

[Sculptor]

I suppose I should not be surprised because you are the guy who think you can eat an unlimited amount of fat and put on no weight.

I did not claim the above specifically.

No not specifically. You claimed something far more absurd and even started an entire thread on it.
Clowns like you do more damage to the KETO hypothesis than some of the best CICO supporters ever could. You make it stupid. Luckily there are smarter people out there.

Here is what you are claiming.
No Obesity Even Eating as Much Fat as You Can

Eating as much as you can is even more absurd that eating as much as you want.
Take a fucking grip on yourself and try to think about what you are actually writing.

[Walker]

Are you a fatty?

Mesomorphic with a healthy respect for twinkies.
Has fattiness sharpened your keen interest in the topic?

[Sculptor]

Are you a fatty?

Mesomorphic with a healthy respect for twinkies.
Has fattiness sharpened your keen interest in the topic?

Yes all I have to do is look at a Twinkie and I put on weight.

I've been erroneously following government advice about fat and cholesterol for 40 years. For most of those year I have dieted losing between 10 and 20 lbs, only to put it back on again, with each year my meantime weight creeping up with each year. Every diet without fail has been terminated for two reasons. 1) being constantly hungry, and 2) by my body slowing down so that the calorie restriction failed due to the simple fact that metabolisms tend to adjust borg-like to new situations, so that in order to continue to lose weight a further calorie restriction was required. Such diets are no sustainable.

I've tried keto/atkins before but was worried by warnings of immanent heart attacks, which never happened. But the propaganda that bacon and eggs is a killer was too strong for me to stick to it. And despite avoiding fat and cholesterol I still got a heart condition.
Now I know the science and the paucity of the so-called "evidence" that led to such hypotheses which proscribed fat, is so poor and the counter evidence so good that I am happy to eat fat, even saturated fat.
And so at the start of the year I began fasting with low carb.
I have dropped from 254 - 219 lbs, a greater loss even than when I was in cancer treatment 14 years ago, and far better than any formal diet I have ever been on.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I suppose I should not be surprised because you are the guy who think you can eat an unlimited amount of fat and put on no weight.

I did not claim the above specifically.

No not specifically. You claimed something far more absurd and even started an entire thread on it.
Clowns like you do more damage to the KETO hypothesis than some of the best CICO supporters ever could. You make it stupid. Luckily there are smarter people out there.

Here is what you are claiming.
No Obesity Even Eating as Much Fat as You Can

Eating as much as you can is even more absurd that eating as much as you want.
Take a fucking grip on yourself and try to think about what you are actually writing.

You are ignorant as ever.

You simply pick a merely a statement of my post
VA: "I did not claim the above specifically."
and ignored the detailed explanations that followed.

I have explained many times my term 'can' is heavily qualified with various limitations.

You can even experiment it with yourself,
why not try to eat a 200gm or 500 gm of pure butter at one go everyday?
or drink a liter [even half] of olive oil or any other edible liquid oil [fat] at one go everyday.