If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Seth Breidbart" wrote in message ... In article , Doug Freese wrote: Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to control weight. That explains all the fat people who came out of concentration camps how? Didn't they have to shovel the dead bodies into graves? Seen Night and Fog? Seth -- When I'm telling you to get a life, it's time to consider suicide very seriously. -- Lyle McDonald |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Seth Breidbart" wrote in message ... In article , jmk wrote: "The weight lost while on low-carb diets, such as the popular Atkins Diet, results mostly from eating fewer calories and sticking with the diet as long as possible, not in limiting carbohydrates per se, say researchers from Stanford and Yale Universities. Of course. That's been said here for years. "The researchers analyzed 107 studies published on low-carbohydrate diets in the past 35 years. They found that the diets of those who lost the most weight (22 pounds or more, on average) varied widely in carbohydrate content, up to 60 grams a day. You mean, from none to half the level required to get out of ketosis? That isn't "widely" to me. Yeah no **** that is an extremely low amount of carbs! What they all had in common, however, was that calories were restricted to about 1,100 per day and the diets lasted about four to five months." Losing the most weight requires the fewest calories per day, sure. What were the results for people who dieted for even longer than 4-5 months? I posted a few recent studies of 6m-1yr. Nutrient partitioning effects, theoretically - although Lyle's readings tell a different story. Seth -- "There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will Brink Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
In article , Doug Freese wrote:
Donovan Rebbechi wrote: Your rhetoric about "starvation" is bull**** and has no basis in science. Donovan, this is new set of groups for us and I'm beginning to think we are dealing with a troll (Maybe Roger. g). I sure hope this is true because if this guy is serious, he needs some serious help. I think we're dealing with a true moron. Every now and then, we (misc.fitness.weights) get some kook from sci.med.nutrition (these guys are usually loopy crackpots) or some drooling moron from a low carb or "support" group. In moderation, they're rather amusing. Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:08 GMT, Doug Freese
wrote: Chupacabra wrote: Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to control weight. Those that try to control their weight by food alone have at best short term results. Bull****. Those that try to control their weight by food alone just fine if they have any willpower. And if we all had willpower we would not have wars, our prisons would be empty and drugs would not exist. Earth to Chupacabra, Earth to Chupacabra.... Ah, I see. You're a dumbass. My mistake. Quality of life is one thing, and I'd agree with you that being physically active is ideal. Weight control is something completely different, and has very little to do with physical activity. Weight control has nothing to do with activity? Besides blatantly naive concerning willpower, may I suggest you read a little about physiology. I didn't say nothing, I said very little. It all comes down to caloric balance. Which for most people comes down to putting less food in their fat ****ing face. Can you do one without the other, sure. You can etch that number on the head of a pin. What the **** are you talking about? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote: Doug Freese wrote: And if we all had willpower we would not have wars how do you figure? Perhaps we would all be willing our excess carbs to our enemies. hmmm. if they're fat and sluggish from the carb intake, then it should be easy to keep them in line. you might be onto something. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
"jmk" wrote in message ... Please post evidence that people lose weight on low carb diets without reducing their caloric intake. Is the object WEIGHT loss or fat loss!!? It is fat loss. People can lose FAT mass (and increase LBM in some cases) on a low cal diet without reducing calorie intake by adding in the cals decreased (carbs) back in as EFs and protein. And indeed, cals in can remain the same and nutrient partitioning in body's metabolistic processes will enable fats to be preferentially used. With drugs maybe. "Dietary composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction1,2,3 Michael SD Agus, Janis F Swain, Courtney L Larson, Elizabeth A Eckert and David S Ludwig 1 From the Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Children's Hospital, Boston, and the General Clinical Research Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston. So you know, this is one of the worst studies ever done. It had 4 count 'em, 4 independent variables. It didn't prove ****. Conclusion: Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition." Note the conclusion!! ANd note that the diets had similar total energy/energy density!! Read the study, it is crap of the worst kind. Also, protein intake was one of the many variables, it was higher in the group that retained more nitrogen. Well no ****. "High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet The few studies that have examined body composition after a carbohydrate-restricted diet have reported enhanced fat loss and preservation of lean body mass in obese individuals. Few studies? What a load of ****, there are tons of studies and the issue of protein sparing under lowcarb (mostly very low calorie) conditions is all over the map. Predominantly it depends on total caloric intake and protein intake. if protein intake is sufficient, LBM is spared and more fat is lost. If not, it isn't. CONCLUSIONS-We concluded that 5 weeks of an LGI diet ameliorates some plasma lipid parameters, decreases total fat mass, and tends to increase lean body mass without changing body weight. These changes were accompanied by a decrease in the expression of some genes implicated in lipid metabolism. Such a diet could be of benefit to healthy, slightly overweight subjects and might play a role in the prevention of metabolic diseases and their cardiovascular complications. " Note that fat mass was decreased and LBM was increased without changing BW. " One of very few studies to show this. Do note that visceral fat (what was lost in this study as I recall) is highly mobile and changes there are not uncommon. Of course, all of these studise are also in obese individuals. Results. Voluntary energy intake after the high-GI meal (5.8 megajoule [mJ]) was 53% greater than after the medium-GI meal (3.8 mJ), and 81% greater than after the low-GI meal (3.2 mJ). In addition, compared with the low-GI meal, the high-GI meal resulted in higher serum insulin levels, lower plasma glucagon levels, lower postabsorptive plasma glucose and serum fatty acids levels, and elevation in plasma epinephrine. The area under the glycemic response curve for each test meal accounted for 53% of the variance in food intake within subjects. Conclusions. The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation. glycemic index, obesity, dietary carbohydrate, diets, insulin. . " yeah, no ****, high GI foods tend to make some people eat more. Then again, reviews of all papers on this topic show about a 50/50 split on the issue. Note that ONLY the ration of carbs (lower) to protein (higher) changed!! Energy input was the SAME!! Changing the insulin response thence facilitated weight loss. You might note one of the comments I made in one of my responses to you: Most studies supporting the idea of this type of effect are comparing inadequate protein to adequate protein. Once you get protein to a sufficient level, changing around carbs and fats does very little. Also, the difference in teh Layman studies were TINY. They only got significance with some keen statistical game playing. Forty-one (80%) of the 51 subjects attended visits through 6 months. In these subjects, the mean (± SD) body weight decreased 10.3% ± 5.9% (P 0.001) from baseline to 6 months (body weight reduction of 9.0 ± 5.3 kg and body mass index reduction of 3.2 ± 1.9 kg/m2). The mean percentage of body weight that was fat decreased 2.9% ± 3.2% from baseline to 6 months (P 0.001). The mean serum bicarbonate level decreased 2 ± 2.4 mmol/L (P 0.001) and blood urea nitrogen level increased 2 ± 4 mg/dL (P 0.001). Serum total cholesterol level decreased 11 ± 26 mg/dL (P = 0.006), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 10 ± 25 mg/dL (P = 0.01), triglyceride level decreased 56 ± 45 mg/dL (P 0.001), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level increased 10 ± 8 mg/dL (P 0.001), and the cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio decreased 0.9 ± 0.6 units (P 0.001). There were no serious adverse effects, but the possibility of adverse effects in the 10 subjects who did not adhere to the program cannot be eliminated. Conclusion A very low carbohydrate diet program led to sustained weight loss during a 6-month period Note no caloric restrictions!!! You may now return control of your computer to your mommy. no *enforced* calorie restriction. Studies of ad-lib caloric intakes on low-carb diets indicate spontaneous low caloric intakes, in the 1400-2000 cal/day range. So you're still wrong. Lyle |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:32:07 -0500, Chupacabra
wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:08 GMT, Doug Freese wrote: Chupacabra wrote: Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to control weight. Those that try to control their weight by food alone have at best short term results. Bull****. Those that try to control their weight by food alone just fine if they have any willpower. And if we all had willpower we would not have wars, our prisons would be empty and drugs would not exist. Earth to Chupacabra, Earth to Chupacabra.... Ah, I see. You're a dumbass. My mistake. You never know. We could have a triumph of the will. --- Proton Soup "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?" -Saddam Hussein |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: \ Low carb need not be a form of or mean calorie restriction. The calories decreased via the low-carb approach can be added back in by taking some additional EFAs like fish/flax oils, to very good effect. Think nutrient partitioning- taking advantage of what the body does with certain types of nutrients (e.g., leptin- and insulin-modulated partitioning) and, as an extension, timing the intake of those different nutrients to best work with the body's metabolistic parameters governing their - well - metabolism! So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a maintenance calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet will somehow cause something to occur wrt: body fat? Well - I read your previous posts on the matter, along with about 30 studies (some posted in another thread), that nutrient partitioning (via differntial response of metabolic parameters such as insulin and leptin etc.) will cause loss of bf and maint of lean body mass. Only when you are looking at increasing protein from subadequate to adequate levels in fat people. Of course, since protein is less energetically efficient (in terms of providing ATP to the body), switching out carbs/fat to protein results in a technically lower calorie diet. A little over 50% of the aminos from dietary protein are available for ATP production so for every 200 calories of carbs you replace with 200 calories of protein, you're getting ~100 calories less dietary energy. So at 2000 ostensible calories, a higher protein diet is technically NOT providing 2000 calories of useable energy. The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs lean muscle maint. No ****. What has your more-involved research shown? That once you meet protein and EFA requirements, and as long as you don't take calories too low (which tends to cause LBM loss), switching out carbs and fat within a controlled caloric environment does little to nothing (you might see a slight loss of visceral fat but that's only in some studies) outside of improving a dieter's ability to control calories. Of course, the protein issue is really the key one. As I said before, most of the studies that folks trot out to try and prove the point you're making are comparing low to high protein intakes. And by low I mean RDA levels. Well, no ****, a higher protein intake is going to win out under dieting conditions. You'll see better LBM retention which means more fat loss. AHA, you say, partitioning. Bunk, I say, it's a function of retarded vs. non-retarded diets. Bodybuilders have only been saying this for 30 years but many diet studies still use a paltry 12% protein or whatever. The Layman study you cited compared 0.8 g/kg (about the RDA) to 1.6 g/kg (a little less than the standard 1 g/lb bodybuilders use). Even then, the actual differnce in LBM vs. fat loss were small. No **** the 1.6 g/kg did better but I consider a diet with .8 g/kg to be protein deficient. And correcting a deficiency ALWAYS yields better results. An unfortunate confound in many of the recent studies comparing low-carb to low-fat is that they are allowing ad-lib intakes of everything. Usually the low-carb folks end up eating more protein. It happened in Volek's study (folks went from 113 g/day grams of protein to 176 g/day) and it happened in Brehm's 6 month study (protein intake went from 16 to 28% per day, it was about 80 vs. 50 g/day in absolute amounts). I bet if I bothered to look at the other recent studies, the same thing happened. I'm surprised you didn't track down this one to throw at me. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entre...&dopt=Abstract But look at the protein intakes: 25% vs. 12%. No **** the 25% did better. When you consider many of the metabolic effects of protein (thermogenic, in terms of appetite supression, and in terms of LBM sparing), it's no shock that low-carb is doing better. But it's not the lack of carbs per se, it's the increase in dietary protein. Now, this can be used to make an argument for low-carb diets in that many dieters (I suspect) on high-carb plans probably not getting sufficient protein. If nothing else, a lowcarb diet will tend to ensure adequate protein. But this is a false argument, you just need to make the point that people need to eat enough protein on a diet, no matter what the rest of the composition is. And once you get protein sufficient, shuffling other nutrients w/in a calorically controlled environment does little to nothing. See Golay A Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8. for example which was done within a hospital setting and where caloric intake was controlled meticulously (protein intake was kept constant and carbs and fats were varied). And this study is a real problem for the model you're trying to argue because it has to be able to explain this data point. The question being this: if low-carb diets are causing such greater results in relatively uncontrolled conditions, why aren't they having the same effect in strictly controlled conditions? One researcher (Westerterp-Plantenga MS. The significance of protein in food intake and body weight regulation Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metabolic Care. (2003) 6:635-638) has opined that the beneficial results in the low carb diet trials is from the increased protein intake. You also find that the primary determinent of nutrient partitioning is bodyfat percentage. It explains something like 75-80% of the variance in what is lost during dieting or gained during overfeeding. There's a reason for that. Frankly, most of it is under genetic control. Lyle |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message s.com... "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: "jmk" wrote in message ... On 12/17/2003 10:29 AM, tcomeau wrote: And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases. Please post evidence that any diet plan (low carb, low fat, reduced calorie, TC's super secret special plan) works more often? What plan are you recommending? The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode ie. mild ketosis. Please post evidence that low carb is not another form of calorie restriction. Low carb need not be a form of or mean calorie restriction. The calories decreased via the low-carb approach can be added back in by taking some additional EFAs like fish/flax oils, to very good effect. Think nutrient partitioning- taking advantage of what the body does with certain types of nutrients (e.g., leptin- and insulin-modulated partitioning) and, as an extension, timing the intake of those different nutrients to best work with the body's metabolistic parameters governing their - well - metabolism! So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a maintenance calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet will somehow cause something to occur wrt: body fat? Well - I read your previous posts on the matter, along with about 30 studies (some posted in another thread), that nutrient partitioning (via differntial response of metabolic parameters such as insulin and leptin etc.) will cause loss of bf and maint of lean body mass. The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs lean muscle maint. What has your more-involved research shown? From what I have read (less than you I am sure), it makes sense theoretically. See the studies I found )posted in anoth3r post in this thread) (some longer than what you said were not very long and thence not very convincing). PS: I think it is more about insulin than leptin, immediately postprandial. Leptin has more of an affect via brain (behavior). There are central (brain) controllers on nutrient partitioning. Lyle |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... Donovan Rebbechi wrote: But it's not an issue of insulin or anything else: low-carb diets work because (some) people eat less on them. What about those that eat the same calories but change the ratio of P/C/F and/or the timing and feeding frequency (breaking up the cals into 6 meals instead of 3)?!!! Or eat the Carbs + Protein in first 3 meals and fats + protein inlast threee meals. etc. What about 'em? relevant in terms of hunger/caloric control. And nutrient partitioning/metabolism. I am sure you are aware of the insulin- and leption- regulated metabolism of foods Very. so, when calories are strictly controlled (and things like adequate protein and EFA's are given), how come differences don't show up in studies? seriously, just about any variation you can care to name has been tested. OK - I believe you and will not pursue/read about it further. It is just that the theory was/is so nice. Hey, I know. I really wish it worked that way, I really do. Any differences in terms of actual weight or fat loss amounts to noise (the only major differences occur in studies comparing inadequate to adequate protein intakes). I am surprised! As I said, the studies I read (and posted some) leads one to believe the theoretcial model of nutrient partitioning would lead to less BF and more (or mainatained) LBM. See my other post. The studies you pulled end up changing so damn many variables at once that you can't conclude **** except that it's easy to get crappy nutrition studies published. Lyle |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
Low Carb Week in Review | Dave N | General Discussion | 0 | November 24th, 2003 12:06 AM |
Latest Low Carb News | Dave N | General Discussion | 1 | November 18th, 2003 07:13 AM |
What is low carb? | Jarkat2002 | General Discussion | 7 | October 30th, 2003 02:21 PM |
named vs. homegrown diets Curiosity about posters who drop out of this NG | JayJay | General Discussion | 16 | September 27th, 2003 02:16 AM |