Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone

Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey

Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Thu, Sep-16-21, 10:13
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,701
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA

Originally Posted by teaser
If you read into the ketogenic diet for epilepsy, look for mechanisms of action. You'll find--direct effects of ketones. Effects of medium and short chain fatty acids that change when somebody is on a ketogenic diet. Effects of the ketogenic diet on essential fatty acid levels in the brain. Effects of the ketogenic diet on sodium and potassium channels. This is just top of my head, there's a lot more. Thing is, there's reasonable argument for lots of different routes by which it might be helpful. I don't think there has to be one over-arching explanation. Ketogenic metabolism is different enough from a more glucose-based metabolism--there's more than one point where things can go wrong with glucose metabolism, so it makes sense for there to be more than one mechanism of action when trying to sidestep much of it with a ketogenic diet. Appetite and bodyweight is also a complex system. Our body has to keep track of fat, carbohydrate and protein status and appetite(s), when a low carb--or even a low fat--diet works, it actually makes sense to me that there might be different mechanisms of action in different people.

Exactly and well stated. We've wasted a lot of time attempting to debate the "perfect human diet" when individual reactions to a way of eating may vary so much. People like Kevin Hall believe they've put an end to the proposed carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis when in reality, it can work so well for many. Insulin is hardly a killer, but managing it to achieve a healthy level is a good thing. Managing calories never worked for me in the traditional sense of controlling consumption. It worked when I ignored caloric measurement and simply ate the right ones for me.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Thu, Sep-16-21, 13:48
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,171
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta

Originally Posted by teaser
My big problem isn't with people disproving the mechanism, or thinking they have--it's when the original observation is thrown out as well. Original observation--just telling people to avoid carbohydrate is often enough of an intervention to cause weight loss, for some people it solves their overweight problem entirely.
In the 1950's & 60's it was "common knowledge" that white carbs made people fat. For many, just skipping the bread or roll with dinner was all that was needed to avoid gaining weight.
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Thu, Sep-16-21, 16:04
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,594
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas

In addition to carbohydrates, if anyone wants badly enough to go down the rabbit hole of obesogenic effects of linoleic acid from n-6 polyunsaturated fats (which were promoted as a "healthy" replacement for saturated fat, hmmm, right around the time 20th century obesity rates started exploding), a good place to start is here on Brad Marshall's website. Or for the even more science-minded, the protons thread at Peter of Hyperlipid. Fascinating stuff for those who enjoy this type of thing. Long story really short, those seed oils mess with the mitochondria in a way that denies fat cells the signal they're full so they just keep getting more and more stuffed. Explained why I never felt nearly as full with equal amounts of oils compared with nice saturated fat. Also a good explanation of how people in the earlier 20th century did eat a lot of refined carbs, pies, desserts, white bread, pasta etc. but were thin and then, boom, suddenly everyone is getting fat all at once when linoleic acid rich seed/bean oils replaced healthy saturated fats like tallow, coconut/palm, dairy, all the stuff big "health" organizations and governments began popularly saying were bad for the heart. What made sense to me as I had the curiosity to explore this rabbit hole was how reducing carbohydrate helps me deal with my metabolic problems but wasn't likely the cause, per se, but rather all the years of damage from eating those "healthy" seed oils and their artificially hydrogenated friends.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Thu, Sep-16-21, 18:41
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,748
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida

Everything is for sale in America (and elsewhere). Many of the so-called scientific articles are nothing more than advertisements for a particular industry. Everything must be read with a critical eye.

Plus there is no one diet that is best for everyone. If there was, there would only need to be one diet book.

But if you try something that you believe is right, and year after year it isn't working, you should wake up and decide that it's not right for me.

That's what I did.

The rest of my immediate family members are over 300 pounds, and my parents died too soon from obesity related diseases.

I tried salads, low fats, cutting calories, and a few other things that didn't work for me. If in 6 or more months if it didn't seem like what I was trying wasn't working, I'd declare it the wrong way and try something else.

My DW's uncle lost a lot of weight on Atkins and he got to eat lots of the things I was denying myself so I gave that one a try.

It worked, in 6 months I had lost close to 40 pounds and wasn't hungry all the time.

My annual physicals and blood-tests show me to be in excellent physical condition, I never get sick anymore, and at 75 I'm on zero prescriptions.

I consider that a healthy way for me to eat, and no scare articles selling grain products are going to convince me otherwise. I went that route and it didn't work for me.

Now if my annual checkups start changing for the worse, I'll try to figure out why, and if it's diet, I'll change again.

I am my own test case. I know of no other way to do it.

I found for me LCHF works for my weight and my health. I doubt that would work for everyone, but I think it would work for a lot of others.

Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Fri, Sep-17-21, 03:29
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,489
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
Progress: 139%
Location: USA

Originally Posted by Zei
Also a good explanation of how people in the earlier 20th century did eat a lot of refined carbs, pies, desserts, white bread, pasta etc. but were thin and then, boom, suddenly everyone is getting fat all at once when linoleic acid rich seed/bean oils replaced healthy saturated fats like tallow, coconut/palm, dairy, all the stuff big "health" organizations and governments began popularly saying were bad for the heart.

I was always suspicious of that claim. Since before they were invented, we were all barely getting out of our teens due to heart disease? So not so.

Now, because Dr. Cate online is so down on them, I've realized how inflammatory they are.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Fri, Sep-17-21, 04:05
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 11,897
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/151/169 Female 5' 9"
Progress: 132%
Location: NC

For readers of Dr. Michael Eades Newsletter, The Arrow, today's edition #37, includes his comments about the article and explains CIM as illustrated by the graphic. It includes his take on how all these authors who usually have opposing views signed one paper.

Strangely, this long, comprehensive paper doesn't mention meat consumption at all. Instead it tends to describe low-carbohydrate foods a little differently than I would. Or, I'm guessing, as readers of this newsletter would. Here is a sentence that jumped out at me describing the nutritional strategy advocated in switching to a diet more in agreement with the CIM:

"A practical strategy is to substitute high-GL foods (refined grains, potato products, concentrated sugars) with high-fat foods (e.g., nuts, seeds, avocado, olive oil), allowing for moderate intake of total carbohydrate from whole-kernel grains, whole fruits, and legumes and nonstarchy vegetables.
As I say, not a mention of meat. Or, as the more enlightened these days call it, food of animal origin."

Perhaps there were politics involved in an effort to get the whole array of people--some of whom have blasted low-carb diets in the past--to agree to be listed as co-authors. Whatever the reason, I found it a bit grating.

Conclusion of CIM

If you cut calories, but keep the calories you do eat high-carb calories, then you continue to stimulate the release of insulin and all that goes along with that. If, on the other hand, you reduce your carbs, insulin falls, and your fat cells give up their contents. The fat coming from the fat cells tells your signaling system that you have plenty of fuel available, so you're not plagued with hunger. I hope this explanation helps. If it doesn't, you can always study this graphic from the article. It basically says the same thing.

One of the primary arguments for the CIM, in my mind, at least, is the number of studies collected by the Public Health Collaboration in the UK looking at low-carb diets vs low-fat diets. The folks who run the PHC have found 67 RCTs done over the past couple of decades comparing the diets, and, well, there is really no comparison. Of the 67 studies evaluated, 58 showed greater weight loss with low-carb diets than with low-fat one. In 7 of the 67, the low-fat diet brought about the greater weight loss. But when all these studies were looked from a statistical perspective, 36 out of the 67 showed a statistically significant weight loss with the low-carb diet whereas none, zero, showed a statistically significantly greater weight loss with the low-fat diet.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Fri, Sep-17-21, 13:17
Grav Grav is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,373
Plan: Banting
Stats: 302/187/187 Male 175cm
Progress: 100%
Location: New Zealand

I'd say Eades' assessment seems pretty likely. The details of the various levels of participation are laid out at the bottom of the originating article itself:

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows—DSL: wrote the first draft of the manuscript and takes responsibility for design, writing, and the final content; LJA, AA, RdC, LCC, MIF, SBH, JDJ, JCK, RMK, DEL, GT, JSV, ECW, WCW, WSY, and CBE: participated in manuscript revision; and all authors: read and approved the final manuscript.

So it looks like it was very much a David Ludwig piece primarily - which makes sense as the CIM has always been his concept - with the rest having largely contributed after the fact.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:51.

Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.