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.
While working in Volek's lab over the past 5 years and conducting some of the research that Fred references, I must say that it's not as black and white as he states it to be and our work doesn't necessarily support his line of thinking in this instance or argument.
We had subjects do terribly on ketogenic low-carb, and others do fantastically. But, when you're writing your results, you're stating the average results, and on average, in the study population we researched (while I was in the lab), most responded more favorably to keto low-carb vs low-fat.
And, I wouldn't say that this is due to under-reporting or mis-reporting because we monitored those subjects like hawks and had them complete diet records and 24-hr recalls on a very regular basis.
But, in the studies I have been involved with that compared low-fat to low-carb, I can't say that protein was matched, so that research doesn't support Fred's argument.
From my experience, I'd say that yes, the protein component is very important and plays a pivotal role in the success of a hypocaloric (or even just a slight deficit) diet.
Low-carb does have it's advantages for some people, but usually it's those that are not very active and have a lot of body fat to lose. When they lose the fat and become more active, they can increase their carbs (while keeping protein constant), drop their fat intake and be very successful still.
For those that are more active, the extreme low-carb diet also does not appear to be as useful or beneficial. Depends on the activity though (and the person), if it's just lifting with no aerobic component, extreme low-carb can be very effective (think power-lifter who gets winded climbing the stairs). But, I think most people are in the mixed activity segment and don't want to get tired just walking around the mall or cleaning their house. However, there are some people that live a very low-carb life and are very fit -aerobically (Dr Stephen Phinney is one of these people).
So, overall, it depends on the person, but for the most part, with eucaloric diets and equal protein contents, their is probably little difference in altering the carb and fat ratios. (Carbs still need to be from whole foods though rather than Slurpees).
Fred is partly right, but mostly wrong. Also, as I read on Anthony C's website, Fred has a very delicate self-esteem, which is very evident by the way he is reacting here.
__________________
Fitness and Nutrition Scientist Blog:
Wonderful response & this especially rings a bell as it's what I & many others have observed as well:
Quote:
Low-carb does have it's advantages for some people, but usually it's those that are not very active and have a lot of body fat to lose. When they lose the fat and become more active, they can increase their carbs (while keeping protein constant), drop their fat and be very successful still.
Assuming here you meant 'drop their fat intake' , right?
This is exactly what has been said over & over again by physically active low carbers that discover they used to do wonderfully on very low carbs but are needing a higher carb (and lower fat) intake when leaning out.
Also, there is a consensus among female low-carbers that it takes time before they can tolerate the post-WO carbs well & do better on carbs that are ingested right before and during a workout in order to prevent 'falling into carbs face first' after a workout.
Anthony Colpo is really a great example of someone who's made a 180° degree turn after being faced with the facts. Very science-/fact-oriented.
Espi - yes, referred to fat intake in that sentence. I corrected it for clarity.
Thank you for your thoughts.
And, yes, falling face-first into carbs post-workout.... that's so common for many people who were once predominately carb-consumers. It does have to approached carefully - maybe especially more so for women until their carb tolerance and control improves.
__________________
Fitness and Nutrition Scientist Blog:
As long as he refuses to answer how insulin can make someone fat on a hypocaloric diet, don't give him room to wiggle.
The problem is that he always comes back with the same quote from a biochemistry textbook. He assumes insulin operates in a vacuum. In my last post I repeatedly stated to him that there is a variety of factors regulating fat metabolism other than insulin, and that insulin doesn't operate in a vacuum and its effects are not independent of the energy status of the body. We'll see how he responds, but I think he's just going to keep repeating the same B.S.
Quote:
His entire argument is resting on that one axiom - "insulin makes you fat"; as long as he can hold on to that, he can argue the rest of the details. Take that down, and he's got nothing.
The problem with people like him is even when you take it down, he'll ignore it. Mike presented him with research about how insulin and insulin sensitivity are not predictive of weight or fat change in a number of studies but he ignored it all.
And now he's talking about Pima Indians over there. He says there's research on Pima indians showing that insulin will increase fat gain in the absence of an energy surplus. I asked him to present it. He won't (because it doesn't exist); he'll probably come up with some excuse as to why he doesn't have the time to find it.
And now he's talking about Pima Indians over there. He says there's research on Pima indians showing that insulin will increase fat gain in the absence of an energy surplus. I asked him to present it. He won't (because it doesn't exist); he'll probably come up with some excuse as to why he doesn't have the time to find it.
he wont because it was likely claimed by Eades or Taubes, and Fred rides those two like hes paid for it.
In other news, in the last few minutes I have seen a couple of interesting papers. One linking the negative metabolic effects of obesity to intrahepatic lipids, and another showng a higher protein diet reduces intrahepatic lipids.
While working in Volek's lab over the past 5 years and conducting some of the research that Fred references, I must say that it's not as black and white as he states it to be and our work doesn't necessarily support his line of thinking in this instance or argument.
We had subjects do terribly on ketogenic low-carb, and others do fantastically. But, when you're writing your results, you're stating the average results, and on average, in the study population we researched (while I was in the lab), most responded more favorably to keto low-carb vs low-fat.
And, I wouldn't say that this is due to under-reporting or mis-reporting because we monitored those subjects like hawks and had them complete diet records and 24-hr recalls on a very regular basis.
But, in the studies I have been involved with that compared low-fat to low-carb, I can't say that protein was matched, so that research doesn't support Fred's argument.
From my experience, I'd say that yes, the protein component is very important and plays a pivotal role in the success of a hypocaloric (or even just a slight deficit) diet.
Low-carb does have it's advantages for some people, but usually it's those that are not very active and have a lot of body fat to lose. When they lose the fat and become more active, they can increase their carbs (while keeping protein constant), drop their fat intake and be very successful still.
For those that are more active, the extreme low-carb diet also does not appear to be as useful or beneficial. Depends on the activity though (and the person), if it's just lifting with no aerobic component, extreme low-carb can be very effective (think power-lifter who gets winded climbing the stairs). But, I think most people are in the mixed activity segment and don't want to get tired just walking around the mall or cleaning their house. However, there are some people that live a very low-carb life and are very fit -aerobically (Dr Stephen Phinney is one of these people).
So, overall, it depends on the person, but for the most part, with eucaloric diets and equal protein contents, their is probably little difference in altering the carb and fat ratios. (Carbs still need to be from whole foods though rather than Slurpees).
Fred is partly right, but mostly wrong. Also, as I read on Anthony C's website, Fred has a very delicate self-esteem, which is very evident by the way he is reacting here.
Thanks for your in-the-trenches wisdom, Cassandra! Some excellent, evenhanded insight there.
I have read the Pima Indian-high carb-diabetes supposed connection in many low carb articles and books. It turns out researchers believe it is a genetic anomaly not because of a high carb diet.
Well James I submitted my first post on that forum. Not that you need a wingman or anything (I'd probably just get in the way) but in reading PMDL's thoughts, I decided to just lay in out there for him point blank.
I'm sure he'll accuse me of being impolite but like I told him - nut up or shut up - provide some credible evidence and stop with the red herrings, obfuscated ramblings, weak evidence and cherry-picked quotes.
Well James I submitted my first post on that forum. Not that you need a wingman or anything (I'd probably just get in the way) but in reading PMDL's thoughts, I decided to just lay in out there for him point blank.
I'm sure he'll accuse me of being impolite but like I told him - nut up or shut up - provide some credible evidence and stop with the red herrings, obfuscated ramblings, weak evidence and cherry-picked quotes.
Hey, Mike, I think your response was great.
Fred's mind isn't going to change. For me, it's the other readers reading his stuff which is why I post. They need to be exposed to differing viewpoints because the casual reader can easily take Fred's claims as fact otherwise.
Quote:
Give Fred this - he is dogged in his beliefs.
He's the same as he was when I used to debate him back around 1999-2000. It is very similar to religious zealotry, complete with idol worship and unquestioning mindset towards the "leaders" (he takes Taubes & Eades as gospel), claims of absolute truth (his way is the one true way), and an us vs. them mentality (the scientific organizations are biased and against him).
I have had opportunities to present different ideas to some world leaders (in their areas), and the debate you can get is often interesting, challanging and ultimately educating for myself or others.
Discussions with zealots, of any sorts, typically results in headaches, nobody learning anything and ultimately, a waste of time.
Thats why I just poke and prod, and generally try to be as annoying as possible. Cos if they are not going to listen, I may as well enjoy the 'debate'
It is very similar to religious zealotry, complete with idol worship and unquestioning mindset towards the "leaders" (he takes Taubes & Eades as gospel), claims of absolute truth (his way is the one true way), and an us vs. them mentality (the scientific organizations are biased and against him).
This is alas the truth for many diet-worshipers, especially once they form a forum. No other viewpoints are allowed. And if you do, you're banned from the forum.
One of the Atkins forums I'm still a member of (don't post here anymore) has a separate section for the 'oldies' and within that section there's a group who is trying to lose wt differently : low calories, somewhat higher in carbs and lo & behold, they are losing weight.
Yet, they keep their mouths sealed as it is so radically against the 'Atkins' doctrine & keep pretending the Atkins diet is 'the only way'.
Granted, a very low/ketodiet is especially a true blessing for people with auto-immune disorders: a lot of them say that while they don't really lose weight easily on it, they no longer are in pain or discomfort. For auto-immune related pain relief, ketosis seems to work wonders..
Fred closed the two threads over on his forum. And of course, he did it AFTER he made his responses.
James - I asked you to go to the new thread I started to continue the dialogue, didn't I? See here: http://seriousstrength.yuku.com/topic/1282 Try and get it straight please and tell the truth. Thanks.
James - I asked you to go to the new thread I started to continue the dialogue, didn't I? See here: http://seriousstrength.yuku.com/topic/1282 Try and get it straight please and tell the truth. Thanks.
If you wanted to "continue the dialogue", then why would you close the thread?
You obviously didn't like what was being said. You claim you were being "belittled" but that's just you playing victim. I never insulted you anywhere. I questioned your knowledge of the literature, and I questioned whether you've read papers, and I claimed you were using very weak arguments, and I had very good reason to say all these things (for example, you made incorrect comments about Jim Levine's papers....if you make an incorrect comment about a paper, you obviously haven't read it). Those aren't personal insults. If you take them personally, then maybe your ego is a bit too delicate to be debating these issues.
I could respond to your lengthy response in the new thread, but you're just going to do the same thing.
Fred - you've cited Volek a few times now. Well, the co-author of his recent work (Cassandra), who's worked closely with Volek for the past 5 years just told you that you're mostly wrong. Is it fair enough to say that you might wanna reconsider things? Plus, look at Cassandra's guns.
While working in Volek's lab over the past 5 years and conducting some of the research that Fred references, I must say that it's not as black and white as he states it to be and our work doesn't necessarily support his line of thinking in this instance or argument.
We had subjects do terribly on ketogenic low-carb, and others do fantastically. But, when you're writing your results, you're stating the average results, and on average, in the study population we researched (while I was in the lab), most responded more favorably to keto low-carb vs low-fat.
And, I wouldn't say that this is due to under-reporting or mis-reporting because we monitored those subjects like hawks and had them complete diet records and 24-hr recalls on a very regular basis.
But, in the studies I have been involved with that compared low-fat to low-carb, I can't say that protein was matched, so that research doesn't support Fred's argument.
From my experience, I'd say that yes, the protein component is very important and plays a pivotal role in the success of a hypocaloric (or even just a slight deficit) diet.
Low-carb does have it's advantages for some people, but usually it's those that are not very active and have a lot of body fat to lose. When they lose the fat and become more active, they can increase their carbs (while keeping protein constant), drop their fat intake and be very successful still.
For those that are more active, the extreme low-carb diet also does not appear to be as useful or beneficial. Depends on the activity though (and the person), if it's just lifting with no aerobic component, extreme low-carb can be very effective (think power-lifter who gets winded climbing the stairs). But, I think most people are in the mixed activity segment and don't want to get tired just walking around the mall or cleaning their house. However, there are some people that live a very low-carb life and are very fit -aerobically (Dr Stephen Phinney is one of these people).
So, overall, it depends on the person, but for the most part, with eucaloric diets and equal protein contents, their is probably little difference in altering the carb and fat ratios. (Carbs still need to be from whole foods though rather than Slurpees).
Fred is partly right, but mostly wrong. Also, as I read on Anthony C's website, Fred has a very delicate self-esteem, which is very evident by the way he is reacting here.
Hi Cassandra,
You work in Jeff's lab? Cool. Tell him I said hello.
A couple of questions:
Why didn't you and Jeff match the protein content equally in the papers I cited here? (20% and 28%). Was there a reason or did you feel it wasn't important?
As for me thinking that fat loss and gain (which is what my original position was addressing) is all "black and white," I was referring to this and this alone - fat loss. I mean , it's pretty black and white when people say to lose weight you have to expend more energy than you take in, right? There are many black and white statements made by many that are, for the most part, true almost all of the time. So there is nothing wrong with making a black and white diet statement when the majority of people react favorably to a particular diet - as you admitted they do on keto diets. Like James insists, we must look at the totality of the evidence. What does the totality of the evidence say about keto vs. low fat diets ITO fat loss?
I'm a little confused by your point on lean people. You said that if you don't have much fat to lose than it doesn't matter what diet you go on, so long as it's hypocaloric. When you start talking about more active people needing more carbs, you seem to be talking about a population you haven't researched, which implies that you're basing it on preconceptions. Am I misunderstanding you or have you researched this?
Clearly from your research some people do poorly on a keotgenic diet. But even that's a different question than what makes people fat to begin with. That's why I try to discuss this more in terms of what makes people fat, because once people get fat, there are probably a fair share who can't get lean regardless for whatever reason.
Since your study was not a ward study, it is possible that some people cheated, correct? It is a distinct possibility. In the studies you have done, specifically the ones I referenced, did you test people for ketosis to see if they were in fact cheating? I can't remember if you did or not. If not, why not? This would have helped you to know who was up to no good, would it not?
Lastly, you made mention of powerlifters getting winded climbing the stairs. Unless they are obese or ill, I have never witnessed this. This seems to be more of a bias you have about aerobic vs anaerobic conditioning. Perhaps you were just exaggerating to make a point? Strength training increases total mitochondria and thus aerobic capacity.
The effect of strength training on estimates of mitochondrial density
and distribution throughout muscle Fibres Eur J Appl Physiol (1999) 80: 604±609 .
Having said all this, I'm curious to know how I am only "partly right and mostly wrong" if the majority of subjects you've actually studied fared better on a low carb keto diet. Would I not then be mostly right and partly wrong at the very least?
If you wanted to "continue the dialogue", then why would you close the thread?
You obviously didn't like what was being said. You claim you were being "belittled" but that's just you playing victim. I never insulted you anywhere. I questioned your knowledge of the literature, and I questioned whether you've read papers, and I claimed you were using very weak arguments, and I had very good reason to say all these things (for example, you made incorrect comments about Jim Levine's papers....if you make an incorrect comment about a paper, you obviously haven't read it). Those aren't personal insults. If you take them personally, then maybe your ego is a bit too delicate to be debating these issues.
I could respond to your lengthy response in the new thread, but you're just going to do the same thing.
The 2 threads were becoming unwieldy. Comments within comments that were often doubled and tripled up. That's all.
Now, you can pretend I closed them because I was all in a huff, couldn't take the heat, was getting my itty bitty feelings hurt, trying to imply I am weak of will and a coward or what have you. You can claim that I made an incorrect statement on the Levine paper and then boast it's because I didn't read it and so am a fraud of a person and blah blah blah. Do me a favor and spare me the superiority nonsense.
If you want to discuss this issue on my site, you'll go to the new thread and do so. If not, not. The big question is, if you're so smart and right and I'm just a dumb zealot who doesn't read anything, why in the world are you wasting your time debating me? If everything you say about me is so true, why do you bother? Good question right? Do you know the answer? I think I do.
Because I do like to read as much of the literature as I can I am going to start by looking over the 4 papers Alan mentioned.
I think Fred's main problem was that he assumed everyone here thinks that a calorie is a calorie no matter if it is carb protein or fat. None of the studies he posted up, that compared low carb to low fat, kept protein at a constant like Alan was stating.
His other problem was his focus on the 2nd law. The 2nd law can be related to fat loss but he was looking at only the carb compared to fat and protein and not all three macros compared to each other.
The 2nd law can be related to fat loss in that if in a calorie deficit it is impossible to gain fat. It also states that in a caloric surplus fat gain CAN happen but not necessarily that it does.
It can also be related based on the efficiency of the macros during different reactions. For instance your body keeps blood sugar in a certain range and if carbs are eliminated, your body relies on protein and it is less efficient to use protein than it is to use carbs to regulate blood sugar. So yes if carbs are replaced with protein, than you have less net calories to work with therefore a greater deficit.
The problem comes in that fat and carbs are more efficient in some reactions and less in others and so if protein is kept constant and the rest of the calories are either from all fat or all carbs, then there is very little change in the total efficiency of the body's reactions and so the 2nd law doesn't effect the fat loss at all.
Sorry for the long post, just putting what he was pointing out with the 2nd law even if his overall view point was wrong.
Linear Mode
