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.
Fierce Conversations 2: More important - Adequate protein or Carb reduction
This is part 2 of the ongoing debate I've had with the anonymous author (it's a poorly conceive thread title, I know).
And before I get to the issue at hand, let me just say that I realize that I'm not trying to suggest that nutritional science operates in a vacuum. I'm just trying to gather as much evidence, perspectives and knowledge as possible.
Here goes the debate:
My Take: Keeping protein adequately high and essential fats sufficient, the level of carbohydrate and fat makes little difference.
fficeffice" /> His Take: Reducing carbs is responsible for any fat loss – not the decrease in calories and/or the increase in protein (if weight loss is superior on higher protein, it’s because the decrease in carbs) My Evidence:Carol S Johnston, Sherrie L Tjonn, Pamela D Swan, Andrea White, Heather Hutchins and Barry Sears. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 83, No. 5, 1055-1061, May 2006 http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/conten t/full/83/5/1055
(virtually equal protein, varying ratios of carbs/fat) His response to my evidence: Funded by Barry Sears therefore invalid. Plus, the A to Z study invalidates this as well http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/ 9/969 My request: Show me evidence that low carb diets perform better when protein is equal and adequate.
His response to my request: I have plenty, but I don’t know where they are right now. (He uses the A to Z study to prove me wrong).
What's your experience/opinion? Is it the protein, the reduced carbs - do most poeple need to do both?
To reiterate my point: The best diet is the one that you can stay within a caloric deficit on. I am not anti low carb at all - I recommend lower carb diets for a variety of individuals depending on their circumstance. I don't subscribe to one particular dietary ideal.
First of all, Mike is misrepresenting my side of the issue and I do not take well to that.
As for the Sears diet, here is a comment about it from a professor of nutrition at a major medical school:
"The first thing that is wrong with this study is the title “Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets” which, even if we take the results at face value is not what was shown.
What was shown was that a ketogenic diet implemented by the authors offered no advantage over their nonketogenic diet. The only way to show that all ketogenic diets have no advantage is theoretically or doing a really large number of studies.
This all comes from a poor understanding of the logic of the problem. Nobody has claimed that a ketogenic diet must do better than another low carbohydrate or, for that matter, a low fat diet. It is only claimed that it is possible and that data in the literature suggests that it has, in fact, been measured. One has to attend to what scientific question you are asking.
For example, most of the time in the day-to-day world, mass is conserved and energy is conserved. Einstein suggested that it wasn’t necessarily true all the time, that both might be approximation of a more general law and predicted that the mass could be converted to energy and vice-versa. The question was whether it could be measured.
The impact of ketogenic diets is that metabolic advantage is in fact possible. If we take the idea seriously we can try to find out the conditions, if any, that will allow it to happen. Consistency with energy balance does not say that metabolic advantage is wrong, only that it has not yet been demonstrated. So how do you find it. Well, to find it, you have to ask the right question.
Lesson from the book 'Moneyball:'
In 1979… James [ the father of modern baseball statistics ] wrote, “A hitter should be measured by his success in that which he is trying to do, and that which he is trying to do is create runs… I find it remarkable that, in listing offenses, the league will list first -- meaning best -- not the team which scored the most runs, but the team with the highest batting average. It should be obvious that the purpose of an offense is not to compile a high batting average.” (p. 76)
The right question is not what is the average affect of assigning a group of people to a ketogenic diet. The correct question: is there anybody, even one person, who clearly shows metabolic advantage. Of course, depending on how pronounced the effect is, if you find it, you may have to repeat the experiment many times. So, to find this you must examine individual data; group statistics will obscure any metabolic advantage unless it is a very large effect. In other words, you cannot blindly follow traditional statistics , like batting average, you have to look at the data that will fit the question.
So, is there any reason to believe that there might be individual variation? Well, for that, you have to look at the error bars. And here, you can see what’s wrong with this paper: SE (standard error of the mean) is the wrong measure of individual variation. This error is very widespread in the literature for the simple reason that it makes your data look better than the correct measure, the SD (standard deviation).
What’s the difference? SE measures the extent to which two samples from a large population are representative of the population. It cannot be legitimately used to compare two different samples, two before and after samples, etc.
To convert SE to SD, you multiply by the square root of n, which in this case is about 3.2. So, the legend to figure 1 says:
“FIGURE 1. Mean (+- SE) change in body mass and fat mass in [diets] was significant after 6 wk (6.3 +/- 0.6 and 7.2 +/- 0.8 kg).” So now the errors are 1.9 and 2.5 suggesting a bigger spread and overlap in individual data and it may well be that one or another individual (from either group) may show metabolic advantage or disadvantage.
What else is wrong: the title of the statistics book “The cult of statistical significance” tells the story. It is not enough to know whether two outcomes are statistically significant, you have to know how much “oomph” the data has, to use the phrase from that book. The difference at the end of the experiment is 0.9 kg. Many people lose that much weight overnight. Finally, something must be wrong. The difference in carbohydrate seems to be large enough to lead to a difference in triglycerides. Again, you would have to see the individual data.
There is a potential conflict of interest here, as indicated by the writing: “ketogenic diets have been associated with adverse metabolic events including elevated LDL (26) and cardiac complications (36, 37).”
Reference 36, from the key words (not mentioned in the abstract) was in kids with epilepsy and reference 37 is about Sudden cardiac death of an (sic!) adolescent during dieting. South Med J 2002;95: 1047–9., an adolescent."
Also, I asked Mike if he agreed or disagreed with the following:
"High blood glucose elicits the release of insulin, which speeds the uptake of glucose by tissues and favors the storage of fuels as glycogen and triaglycerols, while inhibiting fatty acid mobilization in adipose tissue."
Anyone want to take a stab at poking holes in this?
And for those who are interested in reading the thread where Mike and I 'duked' it out, here you go:
Hi Fred - glad you decided to come aboard and defend your position. I have to say, that is the most long-winded way of saying "no, I don't have any studies that show evidence of metabolic advantage".
Quote:
As for the Sears diet, here is a comment about it from a professor of nutrition at a major medical school:
May I ask which professor? What institution?
Quote:
What was shown was that a ketogenic diet implemented by the authors offered no advantage over their nonketogenic diet. The only way to show that all ketogenic diets have no advantage is theoretically or doing a really large number of studies.
To put things into context here, I cited this study to demonstrate that when protein levels are practically equal, varying percentages of macros make little difference if any. This runs counter to your claim that it's the lowering of carbs (and only this) that makes the difference. So although this study doesn't show a metabolic advantage (which you agreed with in the most painstakingly roundabout way possible), that wasn't even the purpose of its citation. I provided metabolic ward studies to cast doubt of a metabolic advantage.
Quote:
The impact of ketogenic diets is that metabolic advantage is in fact possible. If we take the idea seriously we can try to find out the conditions, if any, that will allow it to happen.
Your changing your tune on the metabolic advantage, I see. You've gone from denying a metabolic advantage exists is "dead wrong" to "it's a possibility". Can I assume then that you agree that research does not support a metabolic advantage?
Quote:
If we take the idea seriously we can try to find out the conditions, if any, that will allow it to happen.
I get ya - we're just not taking the idea seriously enough. So if we just believe hard enough, the metabolic advantage fairy will come and rescue us from our corpulance?
Quote:
Consistency with energy balance does not say that metabolic advantage is wrong, only that it has not yet been demonstrated. So how do you find it. Well, to find it, you have to ask the right question.
Consistency with gravity doesn't mean that people can't fly, only that it hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Quote:
Red herrings.... an obscure baseball reference... more red herrings...
I don't feel it necessary to comment on this - it's clearly another smoke screen to try and explain why the results of this study didn't go the way you had hoped.
Sorry Fred, it's the way studies work. A hypothesis is created, it is tested and conclusions are drawn from them. Science doesn't prove, it only reduces chance. The issue of metabolic advantage has been looked at pretty thoroughly. I don't claim to know the exact history of it, but I'm pretty confident it went something like this:
Researcher #1 "wow - fat people eat no more than skinny people - look at these food logs"
Researcher #2 "sweet Lincoln's mullet - you're right! But, we should see how accurately people are filling things out."
... a few months later...
Researcher #1 "ah... turns out the fat people are lying about how much food they are eating"
Researcher #2 "hmmm... yeah - so much for that idea, but just to be sure, let's lock a bunch of people up and monitor all their food intakes and activity levels"
Another scenario...
Researcher #1: "Check this out - the low carb eaters lost way more weight than the low fat dieters at the same level of calories!"
Reseacher #2: "I don't know, man, after that last fiasco, we should lock them up and monitor everything they eat and drink and how much they move. We damn near had to tell the world it doesn't matter how much or little you eat - you'll be a naturally pre-determined weight.
My point is that while I agree with you that we need to examine the possibilities, we can't go around chasing statistical anomaly after staistical anomaly. There are going to be some variances in weight loss and it is impossible to conduct a perfectly run study. We just have to draw conclusions based on what the weight of evidence suggests and stop trying to look for the black swan.
Quote:
Also, I asked Mike if he agreed or disagreed with the following:
"High blood glucose elicits the release of insulin, which speeds the uptake of glucose by tissues and favors the storage of fuels as glycogen and triaglycerols, while inhibiting fatty acid mobilization in adipose tissue."
Yes you did, to which I already responded - I will paraphrase: Insulin is a complicated, multi-functional hormone with both ephemeral and long-term physiological implications on the body. It appears to have a short-lived ability to interfere with fat mobilization under certain conditions. To call insulin a "fat storage" hormone, however is a misleading blanket statement as a) it has many roles in the body (as I mentioned) and b) there are other hormones and proteins involved with fat storage independent of insulin. I cited studies showing that insulin was a non-factor in fat loss in hypocaloric situations.
Everytime I see these guys pull this bullshit argument I want to ask them to explian that fat ass on that Fit TV low carb cook show that can't lose weight. Maybe insulin is another name for olive oil?
__________________
CSCS "Problems are to the mind what exercise is to the muscles, they toughen and make strong"
"High blood glucose elicits the release of insulin, which speeds the uptake of glucose by tissues and favors the storage of fuels as glycogen and triaglycerols, while inhibiting fatty acid mobilization in adipose tissue."
How is this relevant given a 24-hour negative calorie balance?
__________________
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
How is this relevant given a 24-hour negative calorie balance?
Bingo.
Fred, the body is a closed system, and contrary to the movie Kung Fu Panda our cells cannot just reach enlightenment and live on universe juice. If caloric expenditure consistently exceeds caloric intake, then weight loss will occur, wouldn't you say? Regardless of macronutrient ratios?
I'm not even saying fat loss, yet. Just weight loss.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
Hi Fred - glad you decided to come aboard and defend your position. I have to say, that is the most long-winded way of saying "no, I don't have any studies that show evidence of metabolic advantage".
May I ask which professor? What institution?
To put things into context here, I cited this study to demonstrate that when protein levels are practically equal, varying percentages of macros make little difference if any. This runs counter to your claim that it's the lowering of carbs (and only this) that makes the difference. So although this study doesn't show a metabolic advantage (which you agreed with in the most painstakingly roundabout way possible), that wasn't even the purpose of its citation. I provided metabolic ward studies to cast doubt of a metabolic advantage.
Your changing your tune on the metabolic advantage, I see. You've gone from denying a metabolic advantage exists is "dead wrong" to "it's a possibility". Can I assume then that you agree that research does not support a metabolic advantage?
I get ya - we're just not taking the idea seriously enough. So if we just believe hard enough, the metabolic advantage fairy will come and rescue us from our corpulance?
Consistency with gravity doesn't mean that people can't fly, only that it hasn't been demonstrated yet.
I don't feel it necessary to comment on this - it's clearly another smoke screen to try and explain why the results of this study didn't go the way you had hoped.
Sorry Fred, it's the way studies work. A hypothesis is created, it is tested and conclusions are drawn from them. Science doesn't prove, it only reduces chance. The issue of metabolic advantage has been looked at pretty thoroughly. I don't claim to know the exact history of it, but I'm pretty confident it went something like this:
Researcher #1 "wow - fat people eat no more than skinny people - look at these food logs"
Researcher #2 "sweet Lincoln's mullet - you're right! But, we should see how accurately people are filling things out."
... a few months later...
Researcher #1 "ah... turns out the fat people are lying about how much food they are eating"
Researcher #2 "hmmm... yeah - so much for that idea, but just to be sure, let's lock a bunch of people up and monitor all their food intakes and activity levels"
Another scenario...
Researcher #1: "Check this out - the low carb eaters lost way more weight than the low fat dieters at the same level of calories!"
Reseacher #2: "I don't know, man, after that last fiasco, we should lock them up and monitor everything they eat and drink and how much they move. We damn near had to tell the world it doesn't matter how much or little you eat - you'll be a naturally pre-determined weight.
My point is that while I agree with you that we need to examine the possibilities, we can't go around chasing statistical anomaly after staistical anomaly. There are going to be some variances in weight loss and it is impossible to conduct a perfectly run study. We just have to draw conclusions based on what the weight of evidence suggests and stop trying to look for the black swan.
Yes you did, to which I already responded - I will paraphrase: Insulin is a complicated, multi-functional hormone with both ephemeral and long-term physiological implications on the body. It appears to have a short-lived ability to interfere with fat mobilization under certain conditions. To call insulin a "fat storage" hormone, however is a misleading blanket statement as a) it has many roles in the body (as I mentioned) and b) there are other hormones and proteins involved with fat storage independent of insulin. I cited studies showing that insulin was a non-factor in fat loss in hypocaloric situations.
Mike - if you're going to be insulting:
"I have to say, that is the most long-winded way of saying..."
There are several studies, of which I listed 2 that you rejected because they were not ward studies from Volek et. al. that showed a MA to low carb. The 2nd law of TD tells us that the MA is indeed possible. The A to Z diet was another example. So if you insist on accusing me of not producing the research studies indicating a MA, I'm gone.
The rest of your post is too convoluted to address and you're acting like an asshole.
The professor is from SUNY Downstate, Richard Feinman.
The three replies to this thread only serve to indicate that this forum is inundated with people who have zero interest in science and learning. I will not bother for a second to come here and participate.
I thought you weren't participating.
Drama Queen.
__________________ Just because your mother thinks you're special doesn't mean I do
What gave you that idea? Who are you? And since you have chimed in, can you tell me what the 4 laws of thermodynamics are and the relevance the 2nd law has on fat gain and loss?
What gave you that idea? Who are you? And since you have chimed in, can you tell me what the 4 laws of thermodynamics are and the relevance the 2nd law has on fat gain and loss?
I think you've got me confused with someone else. You don't pay me. I suggest you look it up.
__________________ Just because your mother thinks you're special doesn't mean I do
ah, the joys of Fred Hahn. First (becuase people dont wanna swallow his babble) he claims that everyone has no interest in science or learning, and second (cos he has to) starts to trot out entropy to attempt to show the metabolic advantage, but much like the researchers attempting to use entropy to produce a hypothesis, cannot explain what relevance it has to this particular situation (and dont throw TEF into the picture, cos that aint an example of increasing entrophy no matter which way you spin it).
But fear not, he will throw out a collection of appeals to various (perceived) authorities, get upset and storm out
ah, the joys of Fred Hahn. First (becuase people dont wanna swallow his babble) he claims that everyone has no interest in science or learning, and second (cos he has to) starts to trot out entropy to attempt to show the metabolic advantage, but much like the researchers attempting to use entropy to produce a hypothesis, cannot explain what relevance it has to this particular situation (and dont throw TEF into the picture, cos that aint an example of increasing entrophy no matter which way you spin it).
But fear not, he will throw out a collection of appeals to various (perceived) authorities, get upset and storm out
Hey look another one! And who might you be? Let's hear you say something worthwhile. Sounds like you don't know how the 2nd law relates to fat loss or gain.
Couple things. 1st of all, it's odd for you to ask who people are & why they matter, because they could level the same question at you. Let's keep the focus on the data within the arguments rather than the particulars of the person arguing. 2ndly, I saw the other thread where you threw your hands up & white flagged it after thinking you weren't going to get a scientific discussion. I can assure you that if you present science supporting your contentions, you'll get an excellent discussion here.
But before any worthwhile discussion can occur, we have to get your points of contention straight.
Are you saying that when protein & calories are matched between two diets, the one with less carbohydrate has a metabolic advantage?
If I'm correct about your contention, then please furnish some relevant research supporting it. It's useless to cut/paste a page of references when this question I'm asking is very direct, and calls for directly relevant support.
If I'm incorrect about your contention, then please specify what your contentions are. I think the discussion can be a lot less convoluted that way.
I'm gonna catch up on client work & check back. In the mean time, try not to underestimate the knowledge of the members here. You'll get a good discussion, trust me on that. Just be open to learning things outside of your box.
What gave you that idea? Who are you? And since you have chimed in, can you tell me what the 4 laws of thermodynamics are and the relevance the 2nd law has on fat gain and loss?
You kinda need to address my question before you start with this kind of sophistry.
Putting the cart a bit before the horse, indeed.
__________________
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
Hey look another one! And who might you be? Let's hear you say something worthwhile. Sounds like you don't know how the 2nd law relates to fat loss or gain.
Study 1 is with children with Type 1 diabetes, how is this relevant to the mass populations? Also...
Quote:
Individual interviews with the research dietitian were usedto collect initial data, instruct the child and parent or parentsin the use of food records, and develop a rapport to enhanceparticipation throughout the 12-mo period. Each subject wasasked to complete a 3-d food diary at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-motime points. Two weekdays and one weekend day were specifiedto account for the variation in food intake at weekends (24).Food diaries were designed to distinguish between the 3 separatemeals and 3 snacks. Additional foods consumed before exerciseand for treatment of hypoglycemia were also noted. Familieswere encouraged not to alter their usual pattern of food intakeduring recording periods. A sample food diary and a contactphone number were provided. Phone calls were made 2 wk beforethe clinic visits to ensure compliance in completing the fooddiaries.
No real record food intake anyway. Next.
Study 2- GI values weren't even recorded, this was a mailing survey. Not too mention what they are discussing could cover so any variables including excess consumption.
Study 3- It's a meh study anyway, but if you want an apple to apple comparison I think you missed something.
You can't bring a bunch of studies that are filled with self reported food intake and start providing a (oddly aggressive) pop quiz on thermodynamics and your obsession with metabolic advantage. This is a argument that wastes time over and over again.
There may be advantages for some people to eat a low carb diet but these advantages can be measured and work with (not defy) thermodynamics. Shall we talk about the possible disadvantage of low carbing ranging from digestion issues to lethargy that could decrease overall daily caloric burn and activity level which is something far more powerful?
Why is it that all low carb fanatics seem to neglect that on a day to day basis it is how much you move your ass that determines the amount of food you should stuff your face with?
Dont worry Leigh, when you click the first one it links to one of Jennies AJCN articles... not something from plos med...
1. Serensen, TIA, et al. "Intention to Lose Weight, Weight Changes, and 18-y Mortality in Overweight Individuals without Co-Morbidities." PLoS Med. Volume2, Number 6, e171. June 28, 2005. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g ov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmc entrez&artid=1160579
never mind including
10.Yang M and Van Itallie TB. "Composition of weight lost during short-term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and nonketogenic diets." Journal of Clinical Investigations, Volume 58, Number 3, Pages722–730. September 1976. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/a rticlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentr ez&artid=333231
If I recall the paper correctly, during the low cal keto diet the people lost the same fat as the higher carb group, yet they also lost more water.
Fred, I have to echo Alan's sentiments here in that this could be a great discussion. It has become somewhat convoluted but if we can just reset and re-focus the discussion, I'm sure we can all learn from each other - agreed?
If I sounded like an a-hole - I'll be nicer. Don't take my bombast personally - I do get a bit fired up when I feel people are being evasive.
Dont worry Leigh, when you click the first one it links to one of Jennies AJCN articles... not something from plos med...
1. Serensen, TIA, et al. "Intention to Lose Weight, Weight Changes, and 18-y Mortality in Overweight Individuals without Co-Morbidities." PLoS Med. Volume2, Number 6, e171. June 28, 2005. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g ov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmc entrez&artid=1160579
never mind including
10.Yang M and Van Itallie TB. "Composition of weight lost during short-term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and nonketogenic diets." Journal of Clinical Investigations, Volume 58, Number 3, Pages722–730. September 1976. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/a rticlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentr ez&artid=333231
If I recall the paper correctly, during the low cal keto diet the people lost the same fat as the higher carb group, yet they also lost more water.
yaaay metabolic advantage
For some reason I thought you were Fred and was about to post a fierce reply.. good thing I noticed in time
And about this whole discussion: If you don't control calories and test ketogenic vs mixed diet, I think the difference in weight loss quickly can be attributed to higher protein in the ketogenic diet (I believe this has been shown several times) since protein is the macronutrient that gives you the most fullness + it has a higher thermic effect. So basically, people on ketogenic diets will probably eat more when compared to a mixed diet with less protein. If calories are controlled, the hunger reducing effects of protein won't be an issue, but the thermic effect still will. So you need to compare ketogenic and mixed diets with, the same amount of kcals and protein.
I'm not a low-carb basher or anything, they have their place, I just don't think insulin wins against thermodynamics. You can affect both sides of the equation by changing your diet composition (like more protein will mean more energy out and probably less energy in because of thermic effect and satiety, respectively.)
Now this is all talking about weight loss, if you discuss other factors that are relevant to health like blood cholesterol levels, you've got a whole other discussion.
And I know much of this has probably already been said.
I'm not a low-carb basher or anything, they have their place, I just don't think insulin wins against thermodynamics.
That's because it can't.
What they're trying to suggest is that having elevated insulin blocks fat oxidation and lipolysis....which is true. After a meal, this does happen.
The problem is even protein elevates insulin above fasting levels, so unless you're eating fat-only.....
Also ignores rate of digestion, in that eating even a high-carb diet does not necessarily imply chronically elevated insulin.
The big glaring hole here is that they don't account for what happens the rest of the day.
The LC guys haven't, too my knowledge, addressed what happens if, say, you eat one huge meal and spike the hell out of insulin, store fat, shut off lipolysis and all the rest - and then don't eat again for the rest of the day.
If that one meal was only 1000 calories and you need 2000 a day to cover your energy costs, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?
Right, it doesn't.
Quote:
You can affect both sides of the equation by changing your diet composition (like more protein will mean more energy out and probably less energy in because of thermic effect and satiety, respectively.)
This is what it boils down to, really. They've just taken this and extrapolated it to a non-existent physiological mechanism.
__________________
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
Alright - hopefully the dust can settle a bit and we can have a comfortable conversation.
I'll bring your responses here from your blog and respond.
Quote:
If I have misinterpreted your meaning, can you explain how the two are separate and distinct. Thanks.
(This is in regards to my contention that calories matter, but that a calorie is not a calorie).
Different macronutrients impart differing physiological effects on the body. The thermic effect is different for all 3 macros.
Calories matter because if you chronically overeat - you'll gain weight irrespective of where the calories come from. Yes, it is more difficult to overeat eggs, steak and a glass of warm lard, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Overfeading studies have demonstrated this.
Quote:
Mike said:
Although I'm a little perplexed. In one sentence you say; "Insulin doesn't make us fat" And in the next breath you say; "Increases in insulin via high carbohydrate diets favor fat storage and inhibit fat mobilization" So... how is this different?"
Fred said:
I shouldn't have to explain this to you Mike. Insulin in and of itself does many things. Regulates blood sugar, helps transport AA to cells (anabolism), but one of it's primary jobs is fat storage. Insulin contributes to obesity when levels are high. By keeping insulin levles chronically high, you are telling the body to store macronutrients as fat more readily than when insulin leves are low.
So to be clear: Insulin does other things other than make us fat - but its primary function is to store fat?
I won't pretend to know the deepest of intricacies of insulin - at least not enough to know how much insulin is involved with fat storage vs. it's other functions. I'm just going by the literature - which isn't very supportive of insulin as specifically obesigenic - at least not in a hypocaloric situation.
Quote:
The body doesn't recognize calories. There are no calorie receptors. Calories don't matter. Let me repeat, calories don't matter. Fat, protein and carbohydrates matter (not semantics here - were talking science) and the ratio of these macronutrients effect hormonal response. When carbs are high, insulin is high. when insulin is high, fat storage is favored. That is a fact. And the more we secrete insulin the more insulin insensitive we become. (I suppose this mechanism was either never taught to you or you glossed over this when reading Gary's book where he discusses this from a scientific standpoint in great depth.)
Again, I'm not arguing that differing macros have varying impacts on hormones. I'm also not arguing that eating carbohydrates (specifically refined carbohydrates) spike insulin levels. What I am suggesting, is that in a hypocaloric state, this doesn't appear to translate into fat gain.
Quote:
It boils dowen to the AMOUNT of carbohydrate. Don't you see? Sure - on an 800 calorie diet fat is lost (let's forget lean mass loss for now for the sake of argument). But how many grams of carbs are in an 800 calorie diet? If protein and fat are kept adequate for health, barely any. On an 800 cal a day diet, you'd need at least 60gms protein (240 cals) 30gms fat (270 cals) which leaves 290 cals. from carbs. This = 73 grams of carbs. Viola! a low carb diet!
Yup - it's a low carb diet alright, but most professionals would probably call it a "low everything" diet. This example is completely impractical. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove here. You are re-hashing your old argument that it is not the calories and the the protein keeping those calories low, it's the lowering of the carbs that is responsible for the weight (fat loss). I've already shown you the studies that compare equal protein levels that differing carb/fat proportions don't make a big difference. Where is your evidence that they do?
Quote:
What studies are you asking for? I've posted several. YOU my friend ignored the A to Z study. Care to comment?
Ahh yes, the A-Z study. First, this was the only long term diet comparison study out of 4 that showed a superiority in the low carb group (hat tip to Alan for that bit). And while technically statistically significant, the difference was minimal. In defense of the low carb (and other diets) the adherance was crap - peoples macros went all over the place. And as Lyle McDonald pointed out, the Atkins group lost all the weight by month 2 - consistent with short term low carb studies when glycogen/water loss peaks.
Contrast this with methodological superiority of the KLC vs the NKLC trial and there is no contest.
I think this can be a great evidence-based debate, but I suggest we keep it ad hominem and flame-free. I realize that my tone hasn't been a shining example of this and I am as guilty as anybody of being on the side of snark, but I'll try and set the exxample.
Also, I understand that demanding who somebody is and why they matter is offputting. I'm confident that in return, Fred will refrain from this kind of caustic tone.
, I think the difference in weight loss quickly can be attributed to higher protein in the ketogenic diet (I believe this has been shown several times) since protein is the macronutrient that gives you the most fullness + it has a higher thermic effect. So .
Higher protein is the main driver.
The thermic effect is a small variable. When talking about TEF of rptoein vs other nutrients, the guys typicallyt report the biggest measured response from protein, adn the lowest from the other nutrients. Research on the subject is pretty garbage. But ultimately, it adds up to 3/5 of fook all. 50kcals, if you are lucky. But... there is also the issue that the atwater factors used for general food energy estimates are garbage. Fats are close to right, carbohydrates are also close, but protein may be 25% out. Thats when you start talking about the various energy availability measures, such as metaboliseable energy, yada yada.
Satiety is a potential effect. You also have the influence of removing an entire macronutrient from the diet limiting the food intake. Carbohdyrates are great in this respect, as its possible to maintain a high protein intake while completely removing carbohydrates. Its nearly impossible to remove fat to that same level, while maintaining a higher protein diet (thats where palatability influences food intake).
I guess normally people get impressed with the cut n paste sctick?
I have seen the majority of these papers, except a few that have no relationship to the conversation but hey, cut and pasting must be hard?
Mike and James -
Do you see what I mean? Who are these trolls???
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.
Couple things. 1st of all, it's odd for you to ask who people are & why they matter, because they could level the same question at you. Let's keep the focus on the data within the arguments rather than the particulars of the person arguing. 2ndly, I saw the other thread where you threw your hands up & white flagged it after thinking you weren't going to get a scientific discussion. I can assure you that if you present science supporting your contentions, you'll get an excellent discussion here.
But before any worthwhile discussion can occur, we have to get your points of contention straight.
Are you saying that when protein & calories are matched between two diets, the one with less carbohydrate has a metabolic advantage?
If I'm correct about your contention, then please furnish some relevant research supporting it. It's useless to cut/paste a page of references when this question I'm asking is very direct, and calls for directly relevant support.
If I'm incorrect about your contention, then please specify what your contentions are. I think the discussion can be a lot less convoluted that way.
I'm gonna catch up on client work & check back. In the mean time, try not to underestimate the knowledge of the members here. You'll get a good discussion, trust me on that. Just be open to learning things outside of your box.
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
On one hand you ask me to present relevant reasearch and then in the same breath say "It's useless to cut and paste references." DO you want references from relevant research or do you not? Do you not want to take the time to read them? Is it irrelevant to say "read Gary Taubes' book GCBC?" If so, why?
My statement to you all is:YOU provide research that indicates that the three points that I contend are true are not and that what is said in GCBC and a host of other books and papers written by other experts like Dr. Eades, Dr. Vernon, Dr. Westman, Dr. Bowden, Dr. Volek, Dr. Feinman, Dr. Fine, etc. are invalid.
I have also opened the floor to discussing the 2nd law of TD when most of you all use the first law as 'proof' that a calorie is a calorie. You realize of course that there are no calorie receptors in the human body. The body doesn't recognize calories. Let's start thinking from right there shall we?
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.
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?
For some reason I thought you were Fred and was about to post a fierce reply.. good thing I noticed in time
And about this whole discussion: If you don't control calories and test ketogenic vs mixed diet, I think the difference in weight loss quickly can be attributed to higher protein in the ketogenic diet (I believe this has been shown several times) since protein is the macronutrient that gives you the most fullness + it has a higher thermic effect. So basically, people on ketogenic diets will probably eat more when compared to a mixed diet with less protein. If calories are controlled, the hunger reducing effects of protein won't be an issue, but the thermic effect still will. So you need to compare ketogenic and mixed diets with, the same amount of kcals and protein.
I'm not a low-carb basher or anything, they have their place, I just don't think insulin wins against thermodynamics. You can affect both sides of the equation by changing your diet composition (like more protein will mean more energy out and probably less energy in because of thermic effect and satiety, respectively.)
Now this is all talking about weight loss, if you discuss other factors that are relevant to health like blood cholesterol levels, you've got a whole other discussion.
And I know much of this has probably already been said.
Here again thermodynamics is invoked without a thorough understanding of the 2nd law or of TD in general. TD is VERY complicated. Anyone who says they comprehend and full understand it, is proof they don't have a clue.
I have had the luxury of being taught TD by Dr. Richard Feinman himself who teaches nutrition and biochemistry at SUNY downstate. I BARELY grasp the concepts but I will try to relate them to our discussion now. If this all goes way over all your heads, don't be alarmed. BUT if it does, realize as I did that TD should not be uttered in a conversation about fat gain or loss if you don't understand it.
The 1st law is only relevant to closed systems like automobile engines, etc. The 2nd law tells us not what will happen in an open system (like human metabolism) but that something CAN happen.
Above it was mentioned that protein has a "higher thermic effect." Let's keep that in mind as we go along.
Both laws of thermodynamics work together. If you eat more calories than you burn you CAN get fat and you MAY, but you need more information to find out whether you actually do or will. Agreed?
The calorie is a measure of thermodynamic potential which is directly analogous to potential energy in mechanics. If a rock (ATP + fatty acids let's say) is at the top of a hill it can be made to react. No guarantee that it will. You need to make it go: actively push it off the hill (have right enzyme, right hormone, etc.). What you measure in a calorimeter is a reaction - not a thing. (Read that sentence again please.) You measure the total energy available from complete combustion of food. If you compare two people who are similar and, if they are in roughly the same state (one isn't growing, or sick, or whatever) then they probably have roughly comparable levels of combustion. That is the maximum energy available. How they distribute it -- making fat, doing exercise, generating heat MAY depend on the macronutrient composition of the diet BUT there are many homeostatic mechanisms that keep it mostly constant.
Experimentally, most of the time a calorie is a calorie because metabolism can shift the reactions around and, unless you're in basic training or on a professional basketball team, the exercise component is small.
The point is that thermodynamics does not require this, it is the unique features of living systems. If the two subjects have drastically different diets then, again, thermodynamics does not require the same reactions, the biology will determine the outcome and you may see one gain more weight per calorie.
A calorie is not just a calorie inside the human body.
This may help too. This is part of the tutorial educational emails I received from Dr. Feinman:
"Every chemical reaction is accompanied by an exchange of energy between the chemical system and the environment. Under conditions of constant temperature and pressure (the only conditions we consider), the energy change is referred to as the change in Gibbs free energy, or delta G.
We have a definition of whether a given reaction goes in the forward direction, gives up energy: if deltaG = (-) the reaction goes forward. If the the reverse direction is favored,delta G = (+), that is, it will cost you to make the reaction go forward.
The delta G for making fat, under standard conditions is positive. It costs you energy to make fat.
In biochemistry, we speak of ATP as an "energy" molecule, because its hydrolysis is spontaneous (delta G is negative) and enzymes have evolved so that hydrolysis of ATP can be used to drive up-hill reactions like muscle contraction or making fat.
You get ATP from processing food.
What thermodynamics tells you is the maximum amount of fat you can make from a certain amount of food. This is absolutely true. Nobody can tell you otherwise. However, thermodynamics can't tell you whether you will make any fat or anything else. All it can tell you is what's possible.
Because it can't tell you everything, doesn't mean it can't tell you anything. Because many think a calorie is a calorie doesn't mean calories are irrelevant. It just says you need to know more.
If thermodynamics says that 1500 calories a day is not enough to make excess fat, it will not happen. Period. If it is possible, it still may not happen."
I hope thus far you can begin to see that a calories is not a calories. That the 1st law is incomplete information. If your BMR is 2000 calories and you eat 2100 calories in a rested state (no exercise) you may or may not gain fat. The first 1st law of TD says you will. The 2nd law says maybe, maybe not.
I'd be more than happy to go further with this if you all want me too. Remember, this is tough stuff to grasp. And believe me if you haven't studied it, it gets A LOT tougher.
What they're trying to suggest is that having elevated insulin blocks fat oxidation and lipolysis....which is true. After a meal, this does happen.
The problem is even protein elevates insulin above fasting levels, so unless you're eating fat-only.....
Also ignores rate of digestion, in that eating even a high-carb diet does not necessarily imply chronically elevated insulin.
The big glaring hole here is that they don't account for what happens the rest of the day.
The LC guys haven't, too my knowledge, addressed what happens if, say, you eat one huge meal and spike the hell out of insulin, store fat, shut off lipolysis and all the rest - and then don't eat again for the rest of the day.
If that one meal was only 1000 calories and you need 2000 a day to cover your energy costs, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?
Right, it doesn't.
This is what it boils down to, really. They've just taken this and extrapolated it to a non-existent physiological mechanism.
You're not thinking clearly on this.
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.) Here's is the title:
Effect of a High-Protein, Low-Carbohydrate Diet on
Blood Glucose Control in People With Type 2 Diabetes
Mary C. Gannon1,2,3 and Frank Q. Nuttall1,3
From the 1Metabolic Research Laboratory and the Section of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota; the 2Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the 3Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
This paper has some good data on diets they tested over the years with varying protein levels.
Dietary Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Personal Odyssey
Frank Q. Nuttall, MD, PhD, FACN, MACN, Mary C. Gannon, PhD, FACN
Section of Endocrinology, Metabolism & Nutrition, and the Metabolic Research Laboratory, Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Center (F.Q.N., M.C.G.), Department of Medicine (F.Q.N., M.C.G.) and Department of Food Science & Nutrition
(M.C.G.), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Key words: diabetes, diet, dietary protein, dietary carbohydrate, glycemic index, starvation, glycogen, glycogen synthase
Again too large to be accepted on this forum.
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.
The above referenced papers from Frank Nuttal and Mary Gannon studying diets with different protein concentrations (and so fat and carbs, too) on diabetics are looking at the blood sugar and insulin responses. You can see how much better the high protein (high fat) diets are than the others and how this improved with time on the diet. Glucagon response also improved with time.
So when you say increased protein should also increase insulin it does, but there are vast differences in the response.
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.
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.
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.
Fred, the body is a closed system, and contrary to the movie Kung Fu Panda our cells cannot just reach enlightenment and live on universe juice. If caloric expenditure consistently exceeds caloric intake, then weight loss will occur, wouldn't you say? Regardless of macronutrient ratios?
I'm not even saying fat loss, yet. Just weight loss.
The human body is a "closed system?" Really. Can you cite or reference the support of this statement? That's a new one on me! Last I checked fat, carbs and protein all eleict a vastly different response.
The human body is a "closed system?" Really. Can you cite or reference the support of this statement? That's a new one on me! Last I checked fat, carbs and protein all eleict a vastly different response.
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.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
Fierce Conversations 2: More important - Adequate protein or Carb reduction
ffice" />
Linear Mode
