Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
I'll spare you any response to the nonsense on this board.
My position(s):
1 There is a metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate diet.
2 A calorie is not always a calorie WRT adiposity
3 Insulin response is the primary regulator of adiposity
1) A key distinction here that has to be made is that the research on the whole does not match protein intakes between diets. So, the adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (ie, LBM support, satiety, thermic effect) compared to the inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it's not lower carb intake per se that imparts the advantage, it's the higher protein intake. Once you match protein intake between diets, the higher-carb diet is actually the one with the slight metabolic advantage.
2) Give this a read, Lyle does a good job of clearing up the confusion surrounding the energy balance equation:
The A to Z study http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/9/969 if you read it closely is a perfect example of the MA, that calories are not just calories and that insulin is the primary regulator of adipose tissue. Mike slapped it down saying it wasn't a ward study. So did James K. The Volek studies I cited were also perfect examples.
If you're going to cite the A to Z trial, then you can't cherry pick it & leave out the other 4 long-term (12 mo or more) diet comparison trials that found no significant weight loss differences.
Quote:
Well fellas, if your going to slap down ALL non-ward studies then this discussion MUST only reference ward studies on every topic we discuss from here on in. Agreed?
In addition to long-term interventions, the overwhelming majority of metabolic ward studies show no metabolic advantage of low-carb treatments. You can talk about theory all day long, Fred. But, the majority of research outcomes (in both long-term trials & metabolic ward studies) have simply not supported it.
Of course they do. And those responses consume energy, don't they? After reading your longer answers I think we actually agree on the "is a calorie a calorie" issue.
By closed system I mean that weight is a matter of energy output (variable based on a lot of factors) and input (which is processed different ways by different people at different times...I get it). But if I eat 200 grams of sugar I don't immediately add 20 pounds of weight. Metabolism may be a somewhat open/variable system, but bodymass is not.
We both agree that two people with identical weight can eat identical calories and still have different results. Because inside the body there's some metabolic variability. But neither will get huge on 400 calories/day, no matter what macronutrients are dominant.
The human body is an open system, not a closed system. What this means is, how fuel is used in not predictable.
If after reading what I wrote you have come away thinking that a calorie is a calorie, you either didn't read what I wrote or you didn't comprehend it and you need to re-read everything and read it more slowly.
1) A key distinction here that has to be made is that the research on the whole does not match protein intakes between diets. So, the adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (ie, LBM support, satiety) compared to the inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it's not lower carb intake per se that imparts the advantage, it's the higher protein intake. Once you match protein intake between diets, the higher-carb diet is actually the one with the slight metabolic advantage.
2) Give this a read, Lyle does a good job of clearing up the confusion surrounding the energy balance equation:
If you're going to cite the A to Z trial, then you can't cherry pick it & leave out the other 4 long-term (12 mo or more) diet comparison trials that found no significant weight loss differences. In addition to long-term interventions, the overwhelming majority of metabolic ward studies show no metabolic advantage of low-carb treatments. You can talk about theory all day long, Fred. But, the majority of research outcomes (in both long-term trials & metabolic ward studies) have simply not supported it.
There is a lot here to address.
You said that if protein intake is higher (than what?) the higher carb diets have the MA. Well, I'd need to see a study that supports this and of course, it would need to be a ward study, right? In saying this, you then agree that a MA is possible. And of people vary, and they do, then given the 2nd law of TD, a LC diet can show a MA in some people. (Volek, et. al.)
Can you please site the paper showing the MA to higher carb diets with protein equal in both groups?
Where are the 4 studies that show no MA to low carb? I missed the references I guess.
When you say "overwhelming majority of ward studies do not show a MA to low carb..." This means some do show a metabolic advantage to low carb, correct? Perhaps someone could list the ward studies you refer to because I don't have them.
I'll look at MacDonald's paper again but last I looked at it he too doesn't get the 2nd law of TD.
Here is Lyle's summation from the paper that was referenced in a recnet post:
"I think when you read articles decrying the energy balance equation as invalid or incorrect, you’ll find that they ignore (or simply are unaware) of all of the above. The equation is perfectly valid and humans are as subject to the laws of thermodynamics as anything else in the universe. Physics is not just a good idea, kids, it’s the law.
Most claims that the energy balance equation is invalid are due to people simply not knowing what they are talking about. The equation is valid, it has to be, what’s invalid are people’s assumptions about how things should work. Final note, I’m turning off comments on this article for reasons I think people will find obvious. On that note, don’t try to sneak in comments (good or bad) in the comments section of other articles, they will be deleted. And that goes for both positive AND negative comments. I just deleted one positive comment because it would be intellectually dishonest of me to allow positive ones to get through and delete negative ones. None of them are getting through on this piece."
Lyle, as intelligent as he is most of the time, doesn't get it. He invokes the 1st law with absolutely no reference to the 2nd. He probably doesn't even know about the 2nd law. If he did, he could not write what he did. I like how he shuts down the comments. See no evil, hear no evil..."
Here is my take:
He waffles on the calorie issue. He says:
"So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this:
A sufficient protein intake will always beat out an insufficient protein intake, no matter what you do. Since all of the diets described in this book are based around sufficient protein, this is a non-issue.
Assuming caloric intake can be controlled (and protein is adequate of course), shuffling of carbs and fats tends to have a minor, approaching negligble effect.
There might be exceptions at the extremes (folks going to single digit bodyfat or extreme obesity) but that doesn’t apply to the majority of folks."
Quite a waffle. What he is saying is that he notices there are differences, but since he can't explain it, he ignores it. Now let me ask you all this - what do you think would happen if you took the fat in your diet and replaced all of it with carbohydrates?
Assuming a low carber is eating a diet of 60 percent fat, 30 percent protein and 10 percent carb, switch that to 25 percent fat, 30 percent protein and 45 percent carbs. What do you think will happen to his weight and fat deposition?
Mike and most of the rest of you would say "Nothing. No fat would be gained." I disagree and research supports my position. I've already given you all the Volek studies to look at.
Lyle, as intelligent as he is most of the time, doesn't get it. He invokes the 1st law with absolutely no reference to the 2nd. He probably doesn't even know about the 2nd law. If he did, he could not write what he did. I like how he shuts down the comments. See no evil, hear no evil..."
Yeah, Fred, I shut down comments on ONE POST ON MY ENTIRE SITE. Clearly I don't want to hear the details. What I didn't want was to deal with ignorant folks like you who still do'nt have a clue what they're talking about.
Anyhow, here's the 2nd law
Quote:
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium, and that the entropy change dS of a system undergoing any infinitesimal reversible process is given by δq / T, where δq is the heat supplied to the system and T is the absolute temperature of the system. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is taken to be a basic postulate, while in statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a consequence of applying the equal prior probability postulate to the future while empirically accepting that the past was low entropy, for reasons not yet well understood
Please explain, with studies in humans what the impact of this is in terms of fat loss or energy expenditure. I know Feinman and Feinman have wanked about it but they have yet to quantify differences in anything.
Please quantify the total caloric expenditure. Note that any impact of entropy on claoric expenditure would go ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EQUATION ANYHOW. So nothing is invalidated.
Quote:
Quite a waffle. What he is saying is that he notices there are differences, but since he can't explain it, he ignores it
Read the rest of the article. If you switch out carbs or fat for protein, things change. Shifting around carbs asnd fat does nothing except for a small benefit of more carbs.
Quote:
Assuming a low carber is eating a diet of 60 percent fat, 30 percent protein and 10 percent carb, switch that to 25 percent fat, 30 percent protein and 45 percent carbs. What do you think will happen to his weight and fat deposition?
Given identical caloric intake, nothing would happen. And this has been studied. And nothing changes. NOTHING.
For example, you might chew on this one. But in teh same what you are 'unaware of studies showing the superiority of multiple sets' (there are only about a half dozen search on Rhea to get started), I'm sure you are unaware of this type of work.
Because rather than read, you stick your head in the sand and go lalalala when you see something you don't want to believe.
The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets.
Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.
R.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu
We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption. We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss. To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- 0.28 kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet. Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects. Forty women completed the trial. The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight (9.79 +/- 0.71 vs. 6.14 +/- 0.91 kg; P < 0.05) and more body fat (6.20 +/- 0.67 vs. 3.23 +/- 0.67 kg; P < 0.05) than the low-fat group. There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ). Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months. The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = 0.017). Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.
Yeah, Fred, I shut down comments on ONE POST ON MY ENTIRE SITE. Clearly I don't want to hear the details. What I didn't want was to deal with ignorant folks like you who still do'nt have a clue what they're talking about.
Anyhow, here's the 2nd law
Please explain, with studies in humans what the impact of this is in terms of fat loss or energy expenditure. I know Feinman and Feinman have wanked about it but they have yet to quantify differences in anything.
Please quantify the total caloric expenditure. Note that any impact of entropy on claoric expenditure would go ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EQUATION ANYHOW. So nothing is invalidated.
Read the rest of the article. If you switch out carbs or fat for protein, things change. Shifting around carbs asnd fat does nothing except for a small benefit of more carbs.
Given identical caloric intake, nothing would happen. And this has been studied. And nothing changes. NOTHING.
For example, you might chew on this one. But in teh same what you are 'unaware of studies showing the superiority of multiple sets' (there are only about a half dozen search on Rhea to get started), I'm sure you are unaware of this type of work.
Because rather than read, you stick your head in the sand and go lalalala when you see something you don't want to believe.
The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets.
Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.
R.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu
We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption. We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss. To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- 0.28 kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet. Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects. Forty women completed the trial. The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight (9.79 +/- 0.71 vs. 6.14 +/- 0.91 kg; P < 0.05) and more body fat (6.20 +/- 0.67 vs. 3.23 +/- 0.67 kg; P < 0.05) than the low-fat group. There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ). Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months. The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = 0.017). Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.
Now you see? If someone like Lyle is going to call me "ignorant" even after I said he is intelligent most of the time, this then becomes a waste of all of our time.
Lyle, you are acting out of anger and this never leads to clear thought.
I explained how the 2nd law pertains to how calories are 'played' within the open system of human metabolism in an earlier post. You might want to read it. Or not I really don't care.
As for multiple sets, you obviously have not read the studies closely enough and/or are not reading critically enough. But this is off topic. Seek the works of Carpinelli, Otto, Winett first, read their take, and then refute THEM if you care to. I'd love to read your refutation.
To date, there is little if any evidence that multiple sets of the same exercise elicit a greater hypertrophic response than single sets of the same exercise.
And a calorie is not a calorie. Have any of you really read GCBC?
The human body is an open system, not a closed system. What this means is, how fuel is used in not predictable.
If after reading what I wrote you have come away thinking that a calorie is a calorie, you either didn't read what I wrote or you didn't comprehend it and you need to re-read everything and read it more slowly.
Where we agree:
1) A calorie is a measure of energy potential
2) Protein/fat/carb get processed in different ways
Where we disagree:
1) That when protein and caloric intake is identical, fat/carb ratio makes a difference worth worrying about
I also visisted T-Nation's site some this week and can also use their line of reasoning (anecdotal). When I went low-carb I lost some water weight but also the poo machine shut down. Regarding weight, these forces counteracted and I ended up more "solid" in theory since I lost fluid and added stinky solids internally. It also meant I was a closed system, at least anally, but that was resolved with a couple pieces of whole wheat bread, thus ending the n=1 experiment.
Just having some fun. I'll admit up front I haven't studied this nearly as much as the big guns in the room, so I'll retire to the peanut gallery for a bit.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
You said that if protein intake is higher (than what?) the higher carb diets have the MA. Well, I'd need to see a study that supports this and of course, it would need to be a ward study, right? In saying this, you then agree that a MA is possible. And of people vary, and they do, then given the 2nd law of TD, a LC diet can show a MA in some people. (Volek, et. al.)
You misread me. I'll restate it: Once you match protein intake between diets, the higher-carb diet is actually the one with the slight metabolic advantage (keep reading, support for this is clear in the metabolic ward studies I'll point you to).
Quote:
Can you please site the paper showing the MA to higher carb diets with protein equal in both groups?
Where are the 4 studies that show no MA to low carb? I missed the references I guess.
No problem. Note that these trials used the sedentary obese, so in the fit population (which has better glucose tolerance than the sedentary obese), any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Furthermore, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss was seen despite unequal protein intakes across treatments.
Brinkworth GD, et al. Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 mo. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jul;90(1):23-32.
Dansiger ML, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43-53.
Stern L, et al. The effects of low-carbohydrate versus conventional weight loss diets in severely obese adults: one-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004 May 18;140(10):778-85.
Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. N Engl J Med. 2003 May 22;348(21):2082-90.
Quote:
When you say "overwhelming majority of ward studies do not show a MA to low carb..." This means some do show a metabolic advantage to low carb, correct? Perhaps someone could list the ward studies you refer to because I don't have them.
These two reviews discuss the entire body of metabolic ward research, which clearly does not support your claims. Happy reading & learning:
Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter? J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5 Suppl 1):S24-8.
Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S.
As for multiple sets, you obviously have not read the studies closely enough and/or are not reading critically enough. But this is off topic. Seek the works of Carpinelli, Otto, Winett first, read their take, and then refute THEM if you care to. I'd love to read your refutation.
To date, there is little if any evidence that multiple sets of the same exercise elicit a greater hypertrophic response than single sets of the same exercise.
So you everyone's aware - for the sake of keeping somewhat on topic - I've begun a "fierce conversations pt. 3 thread" here that deals with the HIT vs. Volume issue.
Mike asked for research that supported low carb and fat loss and those that show a MA. Many of these do. This is a good resource list for anyone who is keeping a library of such studies. Jesus H.
you included papers that dont link to the correct paper, or support your dissertation
Let me add one more point for Fred: the majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high-carb/low-fat/low-protein versus low-carb/high-fat/moderate protein), and the majority of long-term trials (12 mo or more) STILL fail to show a significant weight loss difference. There's a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the metabolic advantage folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It's always either-or for you guys, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists. Perhaps your biggest folly, Fred, is the belief that carbs are bad, and thus low-carb dieting is the answer for everyone. Both research and practice do not support this.
I explained how the 2nd law pertains to how calories are 'played' within the open system of human metabolism in an earlier post. You might want to read it. Or not I really don't care.
no you did not.
Quote:
As for multiple sets, you obviously have not read the studies closely enough and/or are not reading critically enough. But this is off topic. Seek the works of Carpinelli, Otto, Winett first, read their take, and then refute THEM if you care to. I'd love to read your refutation.
Yes, the three hit jedi.
The value of their research (lol) has already been debated, and rates amongst the worst of the worst
Quote:
And a calorie is not a calorie. Have any of you really read GCBC?
Yes. Your reliance on a journalist to support your comments highlights why you also reference Carpinelli, otto and winnett...
And, yes, while there are reports that protein is a potent stimulator of insulin, that does not actually appear to be the case in protein-rich diets. I suspect it's because the protein sources like steaks, etc. take longer to eat, longer to digest, etc., and then break down into amino acids and convert to glucose (which is what ultimately stimulates insulin response), so that you get a more moderate insulin response as you would from getting your carbs in green vegetables rather than starches or bread. n">
you cant think that it might be related to fasted/intermeal insulin vs postprandial? or hasnt taubes told you what to believe yet?
If you're going to cite the A to Z trial, then you can't cherry pick it & leave out the other 4 long-term (12 mo or more) diet comparison trials that found no significant weight loss differences. .
Never mind putting all faith on a paper that relies on 24hr recall as their dietary intake measurement.
I am surprised he hasnt handed over the Greene (heather?) abstract that came from Walter Willetts group. Or perhaps Taubes doesn't like Willett anymore after Willett complained about Taubes stretched the truth like working with taffy
Fred, I have a copy of Taubes nosnsense. Here's some comments I wrote up elsewhere:
The end
****
And the biggest reason I think Taubes is full of crap is that he thinks calories don't matter. And that's where he is simply completely utterly wrong.
Where he made his mistake was doing what he criticized others for in the first half of the book: he started with his conclusion and went looking for a cause to support it.
So he started with a report in 1980 that said that that the obese ate the same amount as the lean. Clearly if they are fat on the same number of calories, he had to go LOOKING for another reason and he came up with insulin and then cherry picked his data to support his preconceived notion. Conveniently ignoring reams of stuff that contradicted him.
Here's the problem, the 1980 report was wrong (a point which George Bray, who worked on the report, pointed out his his critique of Bray's book in Obesity Reviews).
It was based on self-reporting of food intake and it's absolutely true that the obese SAY that they eat the same amount as lean people. But that was before we knew about the underreporting that is endemic among the obese (there are a ton of studies on this topic).
What they say they are eating and what they are actually eating is not the same with true caloric intake being 30-50% above self-reports.
Apparently in his '5 years of research' Taubes never came across that little factoid: that the obese systematically underreport their food intake and overreport their activity. And that looking for a mechanism to explain what he thought was going on was missing the point entirely.
He was too busy trying to prove his notion by cherry picking data on the insulin hypothesis (relying on data from teh 1930's and 1960's and ignoring stuff more current) that he missed all the data demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that the obese do eat more calories than the lean.
Clear enough?
***
Obes Rev. 2008 May;9(3):251-63.
Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf.
Bray GA.
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. brayga@pbrc.edu
Good Calories, Bad Calories has much useful information and is well worth reading. Gary Taubes's tenets related to obesity can be summarized in four statements (i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance; (ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity; (iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity and (iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity. However, some of the conclusions that the author reaches are not consistent with current concepts about obesity. There are many kinds of obesity, and only some depend on diet composition. Two dietary manipulations produce obesity in susceptible people: eating a high-fat diet and drinking sugar- or high-fructose corn syrup-sweetened beverages. Insulin is necessary but not sufficient in the diet-dependent obesities. When diet is important, it may be the combination of fat and fructose (the deadly duo) that is most important. Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity. Obese people clearly eat more than do lean ones, and food-intake records are notoriously unreliable, as documented by use of doubly labelled water. Underreporting of food intake is greater in obese than in normal-weight people and is worse for fat than for other macronutrient groups. Accepting the concept that obesity results from a positive energy balance does not tell us why energy balance is positive. This depends on a variety of environmental factors interacting with the genetic susceptibility of certain individuals. Weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to its macronutrient composition.
First of all, when protein is ingested insulin goes up - but so does glucagon.
The pancreas secretes glucagon in response to consuming protein. It does not do so in response to carbohydrates. Glucagon is a lipolytic hormone, meaining it frees fatty acids from the fat cells so the net effect on fat accumulation in the fat cells cancels out the effect of insulin. (I can't upload the PDF of the paper becaue this forum for some dumb reason only allows 19.5mb files.)
If this is relevant, then why isn't the role of ASP in fat-gains relevant?
Meaning, people can get fat without chronic insulin elevation.
Quote:
And, yes, while there are reports that protein is a potent stimulator of insulin, that does not actually appear to be the case in protein-rich diets. I suspect it's because the protein sources like steaks, etc. take longer to eat, longer to digest, etc., and then break down into amino acids and convert to glucose (which is what ultimately stimulates insulin response), so that you get a more moderate insulin response as you would from getting your carbs in green vegetables rather than starches or bread.
Or because it fills you up faster and you eat less.
Which is important to realize when you're using studies with self-reported calorie intake.
Insulin magic need not apply when there's a simpler explanation that accounts for it.
Quote:
Eating a huge carb meal and then not eating for the rest of the day could, and I say could, constitute an overall low carb diet depending how how many grams of carbs you are eating in a day. A 1000 calorie intake as mentioned above - assuming adequate fat and protein intake (even just the RDA of these 2 macronutrients) leaves you eating only 70-80 grams of carbs. That's pretty low.
It's amazing that you get so close to the mark right here, then just totally derail it because you're so convinced that your pet theory is correct - you start shoe-horning in other things to make the explanation work, instead of invoking parsimony.
Quote:
But bear in mind we ultimately desire fat loss only - not weight loss. If a low cal, low fat, diet resilts in lean loss you're on the wrong track. I can lose weight by cutting my arm off but that won't do.
Evidence that this will happen in someone 1) training correctly 2) eating enough protein?
Quote:
To suggest that a low carb intake resulting in a low insulin response and its effect on adiposity as a "non-existent physiological mechanism." indicates a severe lack of knowledge on the subject.
To suggest that insulin is responsible for a net gain in mass/energy in a living organism, without regards to net mass/energy intake, indicates a severe lack of knowledge in every subject.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
But bear in mind we ultimately desire fat loss only - not weight loss. If a low cal, low fat, diet resilts in lean loss you're on the wrong track. I can lose weight by cutting my arm off but that won't do.
I missed this one... thanks Matt for pointing that out. Let me understand correctly here. When I started RFL (one of Lyle's diets approaches), I weighed 250 lbs and had a 42" gut (lowest and largest part of my girth). After 5 weeks, I got down to 233 lbs and my gut shrunk down to 38". I also maintained my strength levels. Are you saying that there was no fat loss involved here? Think about this for a minute. If I lost 17 lbs and 4" in my waist, wouldn't that constitute a pretty significant amount of fat loss?
Let me take this one step further. I'm now at the end of my 2 week diet break in which I'm consuming 3,000 calories per day with 1,200 coming from any carb source I can get my hands on. I've miraculously lost an additional 1 lbs and 1/4" in my waist. Isn't biscuits and cookies and bananas suppose to jack up my insulin levels and a jacked up insulin level makes us fat?
As for multiple sets, you obviously have not read the studies closely enough and/or are not reading critically enough. But this is off topic. Seek the works of Carpinelli, Otto, Winett first, read their take, and then refute THEM if you care to.
Hi, Fred,
The reviews by Carpinelli & Otto are flawed in the sense that they leave out important studies (which, interestingly, they accuse others of doing in other papers). But this is not appropriate for this thread. I will address this further in the thread over in the Training Section.
Let me add one more point for Fred: the majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high-carb/low-fat/low-protein versus low-carb/high-fat/moderate protein), and the majority of long-term trials (12 mo or more) STILL fail to show a significant weight loss difference. There's a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the metabolic advantage folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It's always either-or for you guys, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists. Perhaps your biggest folly, Fred, is the belief that carbs are bad, and thus low-carb dieting is the answer for everyone. Both research and practice do not support this.
Actually research does support it but I'll accept your comments for the moment for the sake of argument.
Who may I ask, who seeks to lose a significant amount of body fat, would do better on a high carbohydrate diet? Please describe the scenario and the mechanisms. I am genuinely curious.
Calling those who understand the mechanisms by which a low carbohydrate diet works are hardly 'absolutists.' I spent quite a large amount of my time explaining how the 2nd law of TD relates to fat loss or gain and it appears it fell on deaf ears. No one even had a question. Hey, I tried.
Anyhow, I'd like to hear your explanation of how some people require a high carb diet for fat loss and the mechanisms by which it would be superior to low carb.
I'll look over the studies you mentioned and see what they are all about. This will take me some time as I'll have to locate the full text of each and spend time reading them thoroughly.
BTW, from now on I'll only answer those folks who speak in a civil tone. One chance only. I say this not because I am someone special, but because it's a waste of time to have dialogue with with people who behave like that.
Fred Hahn, how does the 2nd law of thermodynamics work in terms of nutrition? You've mentioned it half a dozen times about it in this thread but haven't even stated anything relevant pertaining to it.
Actually research does support it but I'll accept your comments for the moment for the sake of argument.
Who may I ask, who seeks to lose a significant amount of body fat, would do better on a high carbohydrate diet? Please describe the scenario and the mechanisms. I am genuinely curious.
Calling those who understand the mechanisms by which a low carbohydrate diet works are hardly 'absolutists.' I spent quite a large amount of my time explaining how the 2nd law of TD relates to fat loss or gain and it appears it fell on deaf ears. No one even had a question. Hey, I tried.
Anyhow, I'd like to hear your explanation of how some people require a high carb diet for fat loss and the mechanisms by which it would be superior to low carb.
I'll look over the studies you mentioned and see what they are all about. This will take me some time as I'll have to locate the full text of each and spend time reading them thoroughly.
BTW, from now on I'll only answer those folks who speak in a civil tone. One chance only. I say this not because I am someone special, but because it's a waste of time to have dialogue with with people who behave like that.
Fred, it seems you're so wrapped up in low-carb zeal that you continually misread my points. Where have I mentioned that fat loss is best on a high-carb diet? Nowhere. I explicitly said that the majority of the research compares extremes, and there's a middle ground between low & high that gets ignored, but for some individuals is optimal. You appear to contend that low-carb (which you defined as 60 percent fat, 30 percent protein and 10 percent carb) is the only way to go for all conditions, but you lack scientific support for this. It's that simple. Please re-read my posts and the links therein. I bet you'll learn something if you really open your mind to being objective.
I spent quite a large amount of my time explaining how the 2nd law of TD relates to fat loss or gain and it appears it fell on deaf ears. No one even had a question. Hey, I tried.
When you're postulating that insulin can create fat storage in the absence of calories and raw mass to make it happen, of course we're going to call your understanding into question.
Quote:
BTW, from now on I'll only answer those folks who speak in a civil tone. One chance only. I say this not because I am someone special, but because it's a waste of time to have dialogue with with people who behave like that.
That's a very convenient shield to hide behind.
It would almost make one think you can't actually refute the points by dismissing posts with a style-over-substance fallacy.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Fred, I have a copy of Taubes nosnsense. Here's some comments I wrote up elsewhere:
The end
****
And the biggest reason I think Taubes is full of crap is that he thinks calories don't matter. And that's where he is simply completely utterly wrong.
Where he made his mistake was doing what he criticized others for in the first half of the book: he started with his conclusion and went looking for a cause to support it.
So he started with a report in 1980 that said that that the obese ate the same amount as the lean. Clearly if they are fat on the same number of calories, he had to go LOOKING for another reason and he came up with insulin and then cherry picked his data to support his preconceived notion. Conveniently ignoring reams of stuff that contradicted him.
Here's the problem, the 1980 report was wrong (a point which George Bray, who worked on the report, pointed out his his critique of Bray's book in Obesity Reviews).
It was based on self-reporting of food intake and it's absolutely true that the obese SAY that they eat the same amount as lean people. But that was before we knew about the underreporting that is endemic among the obese (there are a ton of studies on this topic).
What they say they are eating and what they are actually eating is not the same with true caloric intake being 30-50% above self-reports.
Apparently in his '5 years of research' Taubes never came across that little factoid: that the obese systematically underreport their food intake and overreport their activity. And that looking for a mechanism to explain what he thought was going on was missing the point entirely.
He was too busy trying to prove his notion by cherry picking data on the insulin hypothesis (relying on data from teh 1930's and 1960's and ignoring stuff more current) that he missed all the data demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that the obese do eat more calories than the lean.
Clear enough?
***
Obes Rev. 2008 May;9(3):251-63.
Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf.
Bray GA.
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. brayga@pbrc.edu
Good Calories, Bad Calories has much useful information and is well worth reading. Gary Taubes's tenets related to obesity can be summarized in four statements (i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance; (ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity; (iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity and (iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity. However, some of the conclusions that the author reaches are not consistent with current concepts about obesity. There are many kinds of obesity, and only some depend on diet composition. Two dietary manipulations produce obesity in susceptible people: eating a high-fat diet and drinking sugar- or high-fructose corn syrup-sweetened beverages. Insulin is necessary but not sufficient in the diet-dependent obesities. When diet is important, it may be the combination of fat and fructose (the deadly duo) that is most important. Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity. Obese people clearly eat more than do lean ones, and food-intake records are notoriously unreliable, as documented by use of doubly labelled water. Underreporting of food intake is greater in obese than in normal-weight people and is worse for fat than for other macronutrient groups. Accepting the concept that obesity results from a positive energy balance does not tell us why energy balance is positive. This depends on a variety of environmental factors interacting with the genetic susceptibility of certain individuals. Weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to its macronutrient composition.
Since I like you're work Lyle I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and respond.
Clearly you are not in agreement with Gary's work. I have to say it sounds as if you have not read it or only read it once because you are glossing over many aspects of the book where he clearly points out and discusses the issue of under eating and obesity especially in poor nations where the children of the obese women were starving.
Gary is an investigative reporter. He did not go looking for anything to prove. Have you read his other works? Of course, his work on how we get fat turns upside down a lot of your work and the work of many others on this subject and this of course is a tough pill to swallow.
I am certainly not going to try and convince you of anything. The way you write smacks of a close mind on this particular subject so all I can say is, let the research continue and don't forget the biochemistry. In my opinion you are not looking closely enough. You have made up your mind on the issue and refuse to learn or, rather, see something in a new way.
It appears that no matter how many studies show that low carb trumps low fat on an isocaloric diet ITO fat loss, you and many others will cry afoul and claim that the low carb people ate less - or that the low fat people ate more. This is because you and many others thing the 1st law of TD is all there is to consider. I imagine that even in a ward study you'd claim the low carbers were bulemic or something.
Let me ask you this - do you really believe that if two identical twins ate two completely different diets one VLC and one very high carb but isocaloric to meet their BMR, there would be no difference in their body composition after say 1 year? If one ate a pure fat-meat (Eskimo) diet and the other 80% carbs (say Ornish) there would be no difference in how they gained or lost fat or their overall body composition?
Anyhow, I'd like to hear your explanation of how some people require a high carb diet for fat loss and the mechanisms by which it would be superior to low carb.
There are multiple scenarios for higher carbohydrate being superior in fat loss.
To throw out 2 real quick.
-Lethargy is a common problem for a lot of people on low carbohydrate diets. This alone can decrease daily output of caloric burn leading to a lower overall daily burn. If you lower caloric output while lowering caloric input you are going to start to run closer to even slowing fat loss.
Now a deficit in general, even one high in carbohydrates could do this as well, but being that protein is a known weaker energy source versus carbohydrates it stands that on that basis alone you might perform better.
-Both leptin and thyroid are directly affected by carbohydrate intake as thyroid circulating levels of T3 are suppressed generally when dieting down but a few studies have shown that in on a VLCD that t3 levels stayed higher with carbohydrates over pro/fat.
This could decrease fat loss stalls, could not but shouldn't be ignored.
This is not to mention the loads of gastro issues, psychological issues, etc. Metabolic advantage in the lab may be interesting and not worth discounting for discussion, but in the real world there are some many mental and physical barriers that to tout it as the one size fits all savoir is not only close minded but naive.
Fred Hahn, how does the 2nd law of thermodynamics work in terms of nutrition? You've mentioned it half a dozen times about it in this thread but haven't even stated anything relevant pertaining to it.
What? If you didn't get it from what I write a few posts ago, I don't know what else to say. Try reading it again.
Fred, it seems you're so wrapped up in low-carb zeal that you continually misread my points. Where have I mentioned that fat loss is best on a high-carb diet? Nowhere. I explicitly said that the majority of the research compares extremes, and there's a middle ground between low & high that gets ignored, but for some individuals is optimal. You appear to contend that low-carb (which you defined as 60 percent fat, 30 percent protein and 10 percent carb) is the only way to go for all conditions, but you lack scientific support for this. It's that simple. Please re-read my posts and the links therein. I bet you'll learn something if you really open your mind to being objective.
Alan - you said that for some a low carb diet is not best for fat loss. I asked when is it not best?
You said:
"There's a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the metabolic advantage folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It's always either-or for you guys, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't."
Who isn't it warranted for Alan? We're talking fat loss now not extreme endurance athletes. Give me an example of who it's not warranted for?
Linear Mode
