The low calorie diet they were put on reduced fat in their organs. Not fat intake. You're misunderstanding. The reduction of fat in the organs was responsible for the increase in insulin sensitivity, because the free fatty acids that ended up in non-adipose tissues are lipotoxic. They lost fat from their organs because they were on a low calorie diet, as anyone would expect. Any diet that reduces fat in the liver and pancreas is going to improve health.
Skinny people can still develop type 2 diabetes even if they maintain a normal weight range if their diet is just as unhealthy as a lot of obese individuals. I have seen this in action. It is not as simple as obese = insulin resistance/diabetes.
That said, I will stay lean and not take the added risk.
Last edited by Drumroll; 03-07-2013 at 06:38 PM.
I am eating almost 1000kcal more per day before going Paleo.
Your theories do not explain my results. Therefore, I believe your theories are incomplete.
"It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan
Consistent starvation over a long period will no doubt lead to weight loss, but this is unhealthy and each individual's health will deteriorate respective to that individual.
After starvation period is over, there may be a time interval for binging and the weight that was lost would be gained and then some.
If a person eats the right food for that individual and at the right time, then those foods and the energies from those foods will assist the individual's ultimate goal (losing weight, gaining weight, losing fat, gaining muscle).
If a person does not choose the correct foods that match his or her ultimate goal then side effects happen on top of an unachieved ultimate goal.
There are always stories about the obese person who feasts only on carrots and goes to the gym 4-5 times per week, but cannot seem to lose weight. Likewise there are the stories of the skinny person who eats everything, all the junk, all the fast foods, all the candy, sugary sweets etc. and does not gain a pound/kilo.
I feel CICO is wrong and at the very least, certainly incomplete. Humans are not just "physics", we are more than that. We are biological, anatomical, physiological, pharmcoketical....etc.
To only attribute a partial law of physics to humans and the way humans ingest, digest, metabolize, absorb, utilize, excrete foods/energy is deeply flawed.
I am interested in point's raised about healthy weight, where it appears that the body can maintain a healthy profile without specifically adhering to an artificial image of health, i.e. lean and mean.
This makes more sense to me as it would only seem logical that those thet could store some fat in the good times would have a greater survival rate than those that were absolutely relient on a lean profile for good health.
It also rolls into the "weight plateau", where my personal belief is it is the bodies choice to be there and artificially pushing it can not be healthy, instead it is a response to an environmental nutrient profile, primarily the defficiency in specific micronutrients and the only way to shift this equilibrium naturally is to provide rich sources of micronutrients and let the body do what it does best, the only proviso being that adequate physical movement and lower stress levels are also maintained.
So to get true health is not about counting calories and standing on the scales in front of the mirror, it is about eating well, getting plenty of exercise and letting your body do all the required adjustments.