Six common beliefs addressed, Part 177

1. If you eat protein, without a lot of fat, it causes metabolism to stall.

Negative. As long as you are getting suffice calories, metabolism does not stall. In fact, during "rabbit starvation", metabolism keeps tracking along, completely depleting your body fat, until you die, with no slow down. This is precisely why diets like protein sparing modified fasts should not be followed by anyone with a low body fat percentage. As long as the body is getting enough protein, it continues burning through body fat. So, I don't know where these people get this stuff from. The only thing that causes "metabolism to stall" is leptin.

Protein prevents metabolic slowdown. The body recognizes its calories. The body just refuses to store the excess and refrains from using it for energy. This is because protein is extremely valuable as it is needed to rebuild your cells. Also protein increases metabolic rate, more than any other macronutrient, through the "thermic effect of food" as breaking down protein requires 20 - 35% of the energy consumed and because it takes a while to break down, it continues to keep resting metabolic rate high.

Now that we have cleared that up, it is extremely difficult to follow a diet that is mostly protein with very little fat, so no one is at risk of "rabbit starvation". The only way to accomplish that is to eat very lean, wild game, and nothing else, for a prolonged period of time. The alternative would be to live off whey protein powders, and eat nothing else, for a prolonged period of time. You also have to start out with normal to low body fat. No one eats this way and most people do not have normal to low body fat.

If you are eating farm animal meat, even if you do not add any fat to it, it will never be lacking in fat. Ever. So this is a moot subject matter.

2. My own N=1 tells me that it’s possible for "some" Type II diabetics to achieve "normal blood sugars", with no medications, by following a very low carb diet.

You aren't saying anything new. Everyone knows that a low carb diet is a palliative treatment for diabetes and can therefore lower blood glucose. Lower blood glucose does not mean "normal blood glucose". Lower blood glucose also does not mean your diabetes is "cured" as diabetes is not a disease of high blood glucose. It's a condition of poor blood glucose regulation.

The only diabetics that can achieve normal blood glucose by lowering it are Type I diabetics. Once Type I diabetics find their proper insulin requirement and maintain it through a supportive diet, they can achieve completely normal blood glucose regulation. This is because the only issue that Type I diabetics have is a lack of insulin. Once that's corrected, the problem is solved. Type II diabetes is not Type I. Type II diabetics have insulin resistance so they cannot achieve proper blood glucose regulation by merely lowering their blood glucose or dosing more insulin. This blog's focus is only on Type II diabetes, not Type I.

The fact you had to mention that "some" Type II diabetics see a benefit through diet is very telling. If some and not all see benefits, then it means another mechanism is at play besides diet. This is why your doctor does not promote any diet as a possible "cure" for your "disease".

3. If I want to lose weight, I need to not eat carbs. 

Incorrect. You can still lose weight while eating carbs. It's called caloric restriction. This will only work in the short term and the weight lost will not be body fat.

4. Depending on low carb to lose weight is "magical thinking".

Depending on anything besides leptin, for the loss of body fat, is magical thinking.

5. Dr. Spencer Nadolsky's approach makes sense.

Nadolsky's popularity has been gaining momentum as more and more people jump ship from the sinking low carb cruise, that was driven into an iceberg by the obese, and quacks who overtook it. But leaving one charlatan to follow another is not going to help you.

Nadolsky doesn't have an approach. He is a walking contradiction and all you have to do is read three of his posts to come to that realization. He doesn't know what to advise because he doesn't have a clue about obesity. He is just throwing as much crap as he can to see what sticks. That's his con. It allows him to not have to stand behind anything he says. Jack of all trades and master of none.

Nadolsky is a big calorie in/calorie out (CICO) proponent who insists that overweight/obesity is very difficult to tackle, yet it is as simple as sustaining a caloric deficit. If you think that doesn't make any sense, then try to decipher his other popular beliefs:

• Overweight/obesity has to be treated with a lifestyle approach even though calories are the main determiner of your weight.
• Carbs have nothing to do with weight loss even though macronutrients do change body composition.
• Sugar is absolutely benign even though he doesn't recommend it.

This goes on and on, in every one of his posts, with the occasional corny meme thrown in for comedic relief. They aren't needed. The content is comedic enough.

Don't get sucked into that BS storm. Leave these doctors, coaches, program directors, dietitians, etc. alone. Go directly to obesity research studies and not to crack pots. None of these people has been able to put a dent in the obesity epidemic and they have been trying to for decades. This guy is saying nothing different than all the others who came before him. Remember, they all only get richer while you get fatter.

6. Weight loss should be the least benefit you get from ketosis.

No. It should be the main benefit you get from ketosis. On this blog, the main objective for bettering metabolic function is weight loss, exclusively body fat loss. If you are following a ketogenic protocol, for the betterment of metabolic function, and it is not producing fat loss, then you need to find another protocol.