You know, if I only look at his mouth, he seems to be saying the opposite -- "I'm not big-boned -- I'm fat."
One thing and one thing only makes you fat and that is too many calories. I've been nearly 300 pounds (I'm 5'7) and got my weight down to 140 lbs. This was 10 years ago. During this time, I've done the low carb dieting (paleo and keto) and I've eaten whatever I wanted (plenty of junk food was included) as long as my calories were the right number. Doing low carb and eating whatever I wanted at the same caloric intake the results, in terms of weight maintenance, were the exact same.
If you eat 1500 calories a day of carbs or 1500 calories a day of fat and protein I think after a period of time you will see a significant difference in your body composition and weight loss/maintenance over time. While quantity of calories can be more significant when coming down from 300 pounds (i.e. a deficit will cause weight loss no matter what you are eating), what type of weight loss you seek, overall health and long term maintenance are all based on QUALITY of calories. To say one thing and only one thing makes you fat is too many calories is an oversimplified view of a subject science and research has already proven otherwise. For example, go eat 3500 calories of mostly carb laden food da in and day out or try and eat 3500 calories of fat/protein based foods. The former is what most American diets consist of and an easy target to hit with junk foods, desserts and processed foods. The latter is impossible to keep up as the satiety and fullness will stop you from hitting that target on a regular basis. Eating calorie restricted diet of Paleo/Keto changes your metabolic systems. Eating calorie restricted of junk food will still cause issues with insulin/blood sugars and also cause your body to break down muscle at a higher rate. It is way too easy to say "exact same" until you do the research. The goal is never to simply reduce the number on the scale, we do that daily with a good dump. You need to bring down the fat mass, improve blood sugar, reduce cholesterols/tris etc..
My concern with dieting strictly based upon daily caloric intake as the sole target would be the loss of lean muscle mass. Which of course gets us back to a protein-oriented diet and resistance training.
I understand for those who are morbidly obese (rough words but sadly true) they have to cut down weight fast and it is all about calorie restriction but quality of calories will be more telling of success and reversing some metabolic syndrome issues. Strict calorie quantity will get you down but strict calorie quality will get you healthy, keep you down, and make the road easier to maintain as oppsoed to quick unrealistic diets. If you weigh 300 lbs. plus and you are forced to do 1200 calories a day, it would be foolish to think you get the same results whether you did Keto/Paleo or 1200 calories of any junk food combinations. First it is impossible to stick to 1200 calories eating empty crap. Second, you will lose weight due to caloric restriction but you will not be getting healthier on the way down or changing the bad habits that got you up. It is not surprising that even patients who undergo bariatric surgeries who are morbidly obese are put in a ketogenic type diet since they are forced to eat in smaller quantities and need to maximize calories. I think most people do not realize that the USDA has been behind the food pyramid for many decades which first started the movement of limiting all fats (i.e. no distinction between healthy or unhealthy) and having larger portions of grains (i.e. USDA clients). Sugar lobbies were also called out for stopping any message putting down high sugars as cause of many diet issues and obesity. Then fat free craz took over in the '90s. My point in all of this is that caloric intake is clearly no longer the hard and fast rule in weight loss. Obviously caloric restriction will lead to weight loss on the scale but we have discussed that the scale number alone is meaningless. If you are losing water, lean body mass and fat then that is not good for the long run. The one exception I understand is morbidly obese where the only concern is get the total mass/number down. Always easy to build back up when someone can get from 350 to 200 lbs.
It doesn’t have to be either/or. You can use both. I recently started including chia seeds in my daily milkshakes, and I really like the thickness and texture they add to the drink. They don’t have a discernible taste of their own as flax seeds do, but they are a worthy addition for both the nutritional value and the added texture. But as w wrote earlier, flax seeds have lignans, which chia seeds do not. Lignans, as I understand it, have protective properties worth considering.
Interesting. This is exactly what I was discussing with Fred in another thread. This is what Gary Taubes talks about in "Why We Get Fat". But apparently there are bad reviews about it so it can't be true!
Caloric restriction doesn't work for several reasons. First, it isn't sustainable. The individual is essentially starving themselves and the constant hunger, constant restriction of calories is only a temporary fix. the individual will return to this as soon as the diet is over. Second, restricting calories without changing the composition of these calories will actually serve to leave the individual with less energy without as much weight loss. Allow me to explain. If insulin is spiked because of the types of calories consumed, then insulin is determining where those sugars and fatty acids are going. There is a marker called LPL (Lipoprotein Lipase) that is attached to fat cells or muscle cells and it is this marker that determines where fatty acids and sugars (in the form of glycerol) go once they are in the bloodstream. Think of this gauge as a metric for judging insulin levels. I just picked a random image. When insulin levels are high, fat and sugars are diverted to the fat cells for storage. Once inside, the fat cells use two fat molecules and one glycerin to create a Triglyceride. These are stored and cannot be removed from the fat cells without first being broken down. When insulin levels are low, these fats and sugars go to muscle cells (via the LPL marker) for energy. You burn them. If someone simply cuts calories but keeps the same amount of carbs and sugars, all that means is the muscle cells are getting less energy from the already small partition of fats and sugars they got before. The patient gets more sedentary. Weight loss is extremely challenging. Instead, understand how to keep the insulin level low by changing the calories you put in your body and then the fats and (hopefully minimal) sugars are used for energy in muscle cells. Remove sugars and refined flours and bad carbs from the diet completely and for long enough and the body has to tap into fat cells and break down triglycerides for use. This makes the individual leaner, lowers triglycerides and is overly beneficial to the patient. I've skipped a lot of the technical stuff to try to keep it simple.
No, we were not discussing that. We were discussing Taubes's misrepresentative zealotry. Just because simple carbs are unhealthy does not mean that complex carbs, with fiber, are not. Simple carbs spike insulin levels, which in turn encourage calories to be stored as fat. Complex carbs (i.e., with fiber) in moderation don't cause that kind of deleterious spike. Taubes is throwing out the baby with the bath water. And he thinks you should bathe in saturated fat. Did you watch the 2 Dean Ornish videos I posted in the other thread? I'm guessing you didn't.