I usually don't get involved in this type of discussion because I rather focus on subject matter that would help people on their metabolic journey. I also hate ruffling feathers with critiques, but I will make an exception with this one, since it does touch on a few misconceptions that often come up. I also want to prove a very important point that will be crystal clear by the end of this post.
If anyone is interested, you can read the entire article being discussed, for yourself here.
This article was written by Dr. Layne Norton, a so-called "renowned prep/physique coach and pro natural bodybuilder/power lifter with a PhD in Nutritional Sciences". (So, the next time a quack tells you to ask your doctor why they only took two hours of "nutrition" in school, remember this article. Your doctor was working hard to get an actual MD.) Layne is just another Dr. Stephan Guyenet minion. You can tell who they are from their extraordinarily long articles, about mostly nothing, and super corny memes. By that criteria, Layne is definitely one of them.
I personally don't care about these "diet wars" because I have no skin in the game. I don't sell anything, so I am not in competition with any of these fools. I just try to weed out the charlatans, so you can make better decisions on how to address your metabolic problems. I believe that both Fung and Layne are charlatans, desperately trying to convince you to buy their programs. This is why they endlessly go at each other. It's simply competition for your money. If you want a real debunking of Fung, you can read my article on him here.
In the meantime, let's tackle this new found BS. Layne has a bone to pick with Fung and he painstakingly details each gripe in this article. There is a lot to break down here, and most of it is nonsense, so I will only address key points and ignore everything else because this article is longer than 'War and Peace'. You will also be surprised that it ends in nothing. I know it's hard to believe that, but you will see for yourself by the end of this post. Let's begin.
Gripe 1 - Layne begins by introducing you to Dr. Fung and his obvious snake oil. Fung is the Canadian Nephrologist who self proclaims to be "a world-leading expert on intermittent fasting and low carb". Layne starts off by claiming that Fung "misinforms" his followers. Well, many would say that so does Layne. So, they basically both cancel each other out. After all, quack per quack still leaves you with a duck.
Gripe 2 - Layne is salty that Fung has refused to debate him. But, can we really blame Fung for that? If the debate goes the same way this article went, there would be no reason to have one. It would be a total waste of time and if someone out there doesn't believe me, go read the entire article for yourself. Better yet, you can hear what this debate would be like by simply searching on YouTube "Rogan Taubes Guyenet". This should take you to clips of a debate that's already been had. We don't need to hear it again from Fung and Layne because it will end up in the same place Taubes and Guyenet's did - No where. After all, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
Gripe 3 - Layne tries discrediting Fung by saying that 'Red Pen Reviews' gave - "The Obesity Code a shocking score of 31% for ‘Scientific Accuracy’". Then he goes on to say that - "Red Pen Reviews was founded by Seth Yoder and Dr. Stephan Guyenet to provide systematic reviews of nutrition books and the veracity of their claims" and "They are the best source of unbiased reviews of nutrition books available today". Wait, what? Guyenet is not biased? Guyenet wrote a book called 'The Hungry Brain' and is now peddling his own weight loss program online! Guyenet is obsessed with Gary Taubes for Pete's sake. Do your Googles, everyone, and find out for yourself.
Gripe 4 - Layne goes for the jugular by making the claim that - "There are several people who I have spoken with who Dr. Fung attempted to get fired from their jobs or get them kicked out of grad school, but these folks wish to remain anonymous". Well sir, if they wish to remain anonymous, it's as if they didn't exist. No point of mentioning them, since we can't corroborate this bit of info. Besides that, what the hell does that have to do with debunking Fung? After all, there's a difference between being "misinformed" and being an "a--hole".
Gripe 5 - Layne now tries to pull at your heart strings and says that - "In 2016, Dr. Fung fat-shamed two obesity researchers for being fat themselves at a scientific conference". LOL That was hilarious and yeah, that's actually true. Good for Fung! How the hell are you going to have fat obesity researchers? Rather than "fat shamed", they should have been fired and kicked out of the conference. If we can "fat shame" Jimmy Moore for being a fat diet monger, then we can "fat shame" two obesity researchers for being the same. Especially when they say they have the "solution" to a problem that they can't even solve for themselves. At least, if I regain 500 lbs., you can all say "Gina told us this would happen..."
Gripe 6 - Layne points out that Fung is promoting a - "Fasting tea that promises 2x the results with 50% the effort from your fast". Then he goes on to debunk the tea's ingredients. Well done, but what's surprising about this? I mean, what can you expect from a snake oil salesman? Fung is simply trying to sell the same snake oil every other diet monger is, including "pro natural body builders".
Intermission 1. Start elevator music here. In this section of the article, Layne goes into a very long winded and boring break down of calories in/calories out (CICO) theory. As usual, it's full of the same repetitive jargon and reeked with out of context information, that everyone before him has already hashed with no results, including the two fat obesity researchers at the conference. Here are just a few I addressed spiffily or I'll be here forever:
- The Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The body is an open system. So, please stop mentioning it.
- Basal Metabolic Rate is the main focus of every diet because it makes up to 70% of your energy usage and it's all from body fat. So, please stop minimizing it.
- We already know that all calories are the same because they are just units of energy. So, please stop repeating it as if it's something profound.
Before Layne allows us back to his regularly scheduled article, he flip flops and says - "It’s important to note that all caloric sources do not affect energy expenditure in the same way". Wait, what? That entire encyclopedia worth of CICO crap to basically end up agreeing with Fung? Surprisingly, the flip flops won't stop here....
Gripe 7 - After that long interlude, Layne now goes to hormones and says - "Dr. Fung has spent many articles and videos nebulously discussing ‘hormones’", only to flip and then say - "Some hormones indeed DO impact energy expenditure". Layne then points out one - thyroid hormone, which is affected by fasting. He just didn't mention that this effect can be negative or positive, depending on what your issues are. So, Layne didn't do a thing to clear up Fung's "nebulous" hormone discussion.
Gripe 8 - Layne criticizes Fung for calling insulin - "The fat storage hormone", but then goes on to say -"Insulin does inhibit lipolysis, fat oxidation, and increases fat uptake into adipose". So, is it a fat storage hormone or not? Layne can't say for sure, so he just says that - "Its effects on body fat levels are more complicated". He's right about this getting ever so much more complicated....
Gripe 9 - Layne now pulls the rabbit out of a hat and says - "Before you blame insulin for the cause of obesity, understand that fat can be stored in adipose without increases in insulin via a protein called acylation stimulating protein (ASP)". Whoa! But, he fails to mention that ASP also stores glucose into adipose and it stimulates insulin release. Damn! Just when we were making headway..... back to square one.
Gripe 10 - To make things ever more complicated, Layne says that - "Of the fat that winds up in adipose tissue, over 98% of it comes from dietary fat, and less than 2% comes from dietary carbohydrates". That's very interesting and who knows what context he's referring to, since he is as "nebulous" as Fung. Regardless, in practice, people can drop incredible amounts of weight on low carb diets and others can still remain fat, while getting fatter, on low to no fat diets. Of course, Layne continuously reminds us, it's much more complicated than that. Well then, that's why he shouldn't try to make it appear so simple.
Intermission 2. Start elevator music here. In this section, Layne goes into a long winded rant about different studies, etc. which "prove" Fung wrong. Beat yourself up if you're interested. He provides links to all his sources, so have at it.
Intermission 2 continues. If anyone is still awake, in this section, Layne goes into another tirade about metabolic adaptation and appears to not really believe in it, but then cites the 'Biggest Loser Study'. That of course makes him flip flop, yet again, and he points out that other studies have shown less metabolic adaptation. Then he flip flops again and says basically that metabolic adaptation occurs with all diets. Then he says it is - "Unlikely that simply eating 500 calories less will cause 500 calories per day attenuation in energy expenditure". He just fails to mention that it is also unlikely it will reverse your obesity.
Then Layne ends up at The Law of Thermodynamics, once again, which I already explained is being misapplied to the human body. Layne finally returns to metabolic adaptation and debates how quickly it can occur or under what deficits, blah, blah, blah.... the song that appears to never end... but it does end. It ends in the weirdest of ways when Layne says - "The body does have elaborate compensatory mechanisms in place, and whole-body physiology is messy". So, what was his point? No one knows.
The kicker to all of this is how this entire article ends. It literally does so with Layne stating - "I am not saying that hormones do not matter for weight loss. I am not saying that insulin plays no role in weight gain or weight loss. I am not saying low carb does not work. It certainly does. I am not saying that Intermittent Fasting/Time Restricted Eating does not work. It certainly does. I am NOT saying that energy expenditure isn’t modifiable based on energy intake."
Basically, Layne is not saying any of the things that he just spent the entire article trying to say. So, WTF is he saying? No one knows. Not even himself. But, it seems like the article's point was - "The harm is that singling out foods, macronutrients, or hormones as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ can create disordered eating patterns in some people". But, then again - "I’m not saying that low-carb diets or Intermittent Fasting/Time Restricted Eating cause binge eating". Well, I'm not saying that calorie restriction can also cause disordered eating habits, even though it most certainly has.
And that's a good way to make the point I said I would make by the end of this post. Forget everything in that article or whether Fung or Layne are right or wrong. All that matters is the end result. The end result, ladies and gentlemen, is that as you listen to these two fools you get fatter, while they get richer and solve nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment