Low carb diets

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
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 ****.

Lyle

in terms of bunk studies, I have one GI study that showed the low GI
maintained RMR better than the high GI diet, and produced more weight loss
(however not significantly more) but the fuktards made these relatively
obese (~100kg) people eat a 15% protein High GI to a 25% low GI, which
resulted in 0.4 vs 0.8g/kg protein intake!
****tards, you would 'hope' that somebody as big in the GI world like Ludwig
would actually ****ing pick that to start with.

On 12/17/2003 8:58 PM, Seth Breidbart wrote:
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.


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?

Same results as any other diet plan.

"These same researchers found that after a year, there was no
significant difference in weight loss between the low-carbohydrate diet
and a standard low-calorie diet. Also, sticking to a low-carbohydrate
diet doesn't appear to be any easier than following other weight-loss
plans. People on the Atkins diet dropped out at a similar rate as those
following the low-fat diet. If dieters aren't getting the results they
want — anticipated weight loss — they drop out. This suggests that the
low-carbohydrate diet, like so many diets, is no easier to stick to long
term."
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm...99254FDF10BCB1

--
jmk in NC

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:34:21 GMT, Doug Freese wrote:



Donovan Rebbechi wrote:


Being nice is optional (though generally frowned upon in misc.fitness.weights
;-), but he does know a lot about weight loss nutrition, and it pays to be
aware of that.

Since I don't subscribe to MFW he genius has yet to show up.

Wait, you're from sci.med.nutrition, right? That explains a lot.


--
Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

and a standard low-calorie diet. Also, sticking to a low-carbohydrate
diet doesn't appear to be any easier than following other weight-loss
plans. People on the Atkins diet dropped out at a similar rate as
those
following the low-fat diet. If dieters aren't getting the results they
want — anticipated weight loss — they drop out. This suggests that the
low-carbohydrate diet, like so many diets, is no easier to stick to
long
term."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm...1-4F40-A099254
FDF10BCB1

I was thinking about this issue, as personaly for me low-carb menu seems
to be much attractive than low-fat one.

I came to conclusion, that this study, performed BEFORE other LC studies
being published, was going in "atkins will kill you" atmosphere. Maybe
that contributed to higher drop-out ratio. Dieters certainly were not
isolated from such claims. I would think that any problem, like raised
lipids levels in first stage ("atkins is bad for your heart") or weight
loss stall in third week ("atkins is just water loss"), would lead to
drop out much easier than similiar problems on "healthy" low-calorie
diet...

Mirek

Mirek Fidler wrote:

and a standard low-calorie diet. Also, sticking to a low-carbohydrate
diet doesn't appear to be any easier than following other weight-loss
plans. People on the Atkins diet dropped out at a similar rate as
those
following the low-fat diet. If dieters aren't getting the results they
want — anticipated weight loss — they drop out. This suggests that the
low-carbohydrate diet, like so many diets, is no easier to stick to
long
term."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm...1-4F40-A099254
FDF10BCB1

I was thinking about this issue, as personaly for me low-carb menu seems
to be much attractive than low-fat one.

and that, IMO, is the bottom line.

After all of these studies and 30+ years of research, the basic
conclusion is that all diets work, as long as people follow them. And
unless they are totally retarded, they all generate about teh same
weight/fat loss (and for the majority of dieters, small differences in
LBM retention are an irrelevancy; that only matters for athletes and
bodybuilders and tha'ts a tiny percentage of the dieting public).

Meaning this: pick the dietary approach (which is going to depend on
personal food preferences, activity, etc) that YOU CAN BEST STICK TO. I
have been saying this for years.

For some people, it's higher carb/low fat, for others it's low carb, etc.

Of course, this idea is too logical to ever be accepted: that different
people might better be able to follow a given diet and that their choice
of diet should be made as such.

Lyle

Aaron wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
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 ****.

Lyle

in terms of bunk studies, I have one GI study that showed the low GI
maintained RMR better than the high GI diet, and produced more weight loss
(however not significantly more) but the fuktards made these relatively
obese (~100kg) people eat a 15% protein High GI to a 25% low GI, which
resulted in 0.4 vs 0.8g/kg protein intake!
****tards, you would 'hope' that somebody as big in the GI world like Ludwig
would actually ****ing pick that to start with.

that was the first one Omega cited, that I mentioned had 4 independent variables

it had varying GI, varying amounts of protein (about double in the low
GI group), varying amounts of carbs and varying amounts of fats.

I have seen both Berardi and Kreider hang 'A calorie is not a calorie'
arguments on that study (arguing that low GI is protein sparing in
Krieder's case).

A ****ty study and ****tier conclusions drawn from it.

Lyle

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

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.

Yes - but some diets increase the fat more than the protein. And probably
some therfore have inadequate protein. WOuld like to see a studt with
those parameters.


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.


Hmmm. Certainly not stated there. Studies with enforced intake?

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Mirek Fidler wrote:

and a standard low-calorie diet. Also, sticking to a low-carbohydrate
diet doesn't appear to be any easier than following other weight-loss
plans. People on the Atkins diet dropped out at a similar rate as
those
following the low-fat diet. If dieters aren't getting the results they
want - anticipated weight loss - they drop out. This suggests that the
low-carbohydrate diet, like so many diets, is no easier to stick to
long
term."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm...1-4F40-A099254
FDF10BCB1

I was thinking about this issue, as personaly for me low-carb menu seems
to be much attractive than low-fat one.

and that, IMO, is the bottom line.

After all of these studies and 30+ years of research, the basic
conclusion is that all diets work, as long as people follow them. And
unless they are totally retarded, they all generate about teh same
weight/fat loss (and for the majority of dieters, small differences in
LBM retention are an irrelevancy; that only matters for athletes and
bodybuilders and tha'ts a tiny percentage of the dieting public).

Meaning this: pick the dietary approach (which is going to depend on
personal food preferences, activity, etc) that YOU CAN BEST STICK TO. I
have been saying this for years.

Oh I agree with this 100%.

But it is interesting to look at the mechanisms and theories.


For some people, it's higher carb/low fat, for others it's low carb, etc.

Of course, this idea is too logical to ever be accepted: that different
people might better be able to follow a given diet and that their choice
of diet should be made as such.

Lyle

OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

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.

Yes - but some diets increase the fat more than the protein.

So what?
Fat is just energetic ballast.

And probably
some therfore have inadequate protein. WOuld like to see a studt with
those parameters.

I'd like to see a lot of studies in terms of setup. One would be a
study comparing

a. adequate protein: 0.8-1 g/lb LBM and EFA's
b. moderate caloric deficit: 20% below maintenance
c. with weight training
d. shuffle around carbs and fat within those parameters

Because that's really the type of dieting situation I'm talking about
when I say I don't think the composition of the diet matters (in terms
of real world weight, fat and LBM loss; issues of adherence and exercise
performance are separate). There are some built in requirements and
qualifications.

Comparing an RDA protein diet to a lowcarb diet with double the protein
is a **** poor comparison but that's a lot of what's going on. Yeah, of
course, the lowcarb diet will work better. Because it has sufficient
protein. Not because of the low-carbs per se.

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.

Hmmm. Certainly not stated there.

A huge problem with many of the recent lowcarb vs. lowfat studies is
that they are
a. allowing ad-lib intakes
b. relying on food reporting to get caloric intake estimates (noting
that people misreport horribly)

Admittedly, this is more representative of real world dieting situations
but it makes conclusions hard to draw. As I said, studies clearly show
that people reduce calories on ad-lib intakes on low-carbs. As I also
pointed out, protein intake frequently changes pretty drastically.

Such studies are terribly uncontrolled and are turning up conclusions
that go directly against the bulk of controlled studies (studies where
subjects are given a fixed amount of food and every calorie and nutrient
is accounted for).

basically, we have two data sets:
a. controlled calorie studies (frequently done in hospital situations):
these almost always show that, given adequate protein anyhow,
non-retarded calorie levels, and a few others, differences in true
weight or fat loss (or LBM sparing) are negligble (if they show up at all)

b. uncontrolled studies which show vast differences among diets

Now, any good model has to include all of the studies. And if you're
going to argue that lowcarb gives all of these magical effects (what the
studies in group 'b' suggest), you have to be able to explain why the
studies in group a did NOT show that effect. That is, if under
uncontrolled conditions, a lowcarb diet shows double the weight and fat
loss, how come the same thing isn't seen in controlled studies?

The most parsimonious conclusion is that differences in food intake
(whether real or simply reported) under uncontrolled conditions is
causing the difference.

Of course, this can still be used as a pro-lowcarb argument (making a
tangent here). If going to lowcarb gets the average person to
spontaneously eat sufficient protein and reduce caloric intake (compared
to a low-fat diet), that's fantastic. Frankly, I'm all for it.

but it doesn't really tell you anything useful about something like an
athlete or bodybuilder who will be controlling all of those variables
fairly strictly. They will ensure adequate protein no matter what the
rest of teh diet looks like, they will be counting calories strictly,
etc, etc.

Studies with enforced intake?

Don't know what you're asking here. By enforced intake, I mean studies
where caloric intake is being controlled and both groups are being given
the same number of calories (instead of being told to follow a diet and
then having them self-report their caloric intake).

Lyle

On 12/18/2003 1:35 PM, Lyle McDonald wrote:
eat sufficient protein

Lyle, I follow you up to a point but what are you calling sufficient
protein? US RDA (or DRI or whatever it is these days)? WHO's
recommendations? Some other amount?

--
jmk in NC