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 > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Wed, Sep-02-09, 19:40
tiredangel tiredangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,110
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 235/175/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 71%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brpssm
I hope I haven't offended you, it isn't my point and I actually consider myself pretty much an Atkins success story so my intention isn't to sway anyone off of a low-carb diet. I would never eat any other way other than low-carb/high-fat/moderate-protein because it works for me. I am just trying to establish that there is a difference between anecdotal evidence and controlled scientific studies.

Anecdotally, I might be inclined to say that yes, I too can eat higher calories on a low-carb diet and lose more weight than on a low-fat diet with less calories, however, I don't have what I consider real empirical data on it so it doesn't meet the standards I would hold up other diet plans studies to.


Of course you didn't offend me And anecdote is all I can contribute, but while I would not submit my personal experience in any type of formal setting and expect it to be taken seriously, it's certainly enough for a weight loss forum!

I think the problem here, as you have said, is that the science regarding this is SO bad. For the past 30 years people have been attempting to prove that low-fat is good, high-fat is bad. And no matter how the scales have been tipped in low-fat's favor in these studies, no one has been able to prove what has been asserted all these years. The two studies I brought up had very unexpected results, and had the results gone the other way, there would have been a LOT more studies done confirming once and for all that low-fat is better. But since they seemed to confirm that low carb/high fat has merit, they were dropped like a hot rock.

So when called out for actual science regarding high fat being healthy, it's sorely lacking. The research just has not been done, because most of the researchers believe it is unhealthy, and results they get to the contrary are explained away.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Wed, Sep-02-09, 21:12
OregonRose's Avatar
OregonRose OregonRose is offline
Wag more, bark less.
Posts: 692
 
Plan: Meat.
Stats: 216/149/145 Female 65.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Eugene
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCaveman
(Laws of Thermodynamics) - (Cell Biology) = Calories In, Calories Out Theory


That's excellent, Caveman. I hope you don't mind if I steal it.
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Thu, Sep-03-09, 00:27
moggsy's Avatar
moggsy moggsy is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,072
 
Plan: IF
Stats: 350/235/150 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:generous
Progress: 57%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiredangel

So when called out for actual science regarding high fat being healthy, it's sorely lacking. The research just has not been done, because most of the researchers believe it is unhealthy, and results they get to the contrary are explained away.


Well, part of the research that is done to conclusively prove that we should eat lower fats, or at least lower saturated fats (starting with Keys and continuing to today) actually ends up indicating that higher fat diets either are protective of health or what we replace the fats (either the total fat or saturated fats) damages health and leads to death. It could be both.
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Thu, Sep-03-09, 03:34
Cajunboy47 Cajunboy47 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,900
 
Plan: Eat Fat, Get Thin
Stats: 212/162/155 Male 68 "
BF:32/23.5/23.5
Progress: 88%
Location: Breaux Bridge, La
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
I'm sorry you don't see what I see. Should I explain further or you'll just laugh it off?


can you back that up with scientific evidence? How can you possibly know what I can see? Can you prove it? Wait, you believe it, so it is science...
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Thu, Sep-03-09, 04:15
tiredangel tiredangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,110
 
Plan: Carnivore
Stats: 235/175/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 71%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moggsy
Well, part of the research that is done to conclusively prove that we should eat lower fats, or at least lower saturated fats (starting with Keys and continuing to today) actually ends up indicating that higher fat diets either are protective of health or what we replace the fats (either the total fat or saturated fats) damages health and leads to death. It could be both.


That was what I was saying (obviously badly). When the results come in showing a high-fat diet is healthy, alternative explanations are usually sought. Like the one where the researchers were trying to prove a link between bacon and colon cancer in mice. When the opposite was shown, it was attributed to increased water intake.
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Thu, Sep-03-09, 14:37
kdill kdill is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 44
 
Plan: Zone Good Enough
Stats: 223/194/185 Male 68 inches
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Maryland
Default

I think this is my first post here in this forum. I have read and enjoyed this most lively debate but i am left with one question, How does one go about measuring the calories out to disprove or prove the calorie theory? Id one is relying on an equation such as the ever popular Harris Benedict, what if its not that the theory is wrong, but just that the equation sucks?
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Thu, Sep-03-09, 15:15
Valtor's Avatar
Valtor Valtor is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,036
 
Plan: VLC 4 days a week
Stats: 337/258/200 Male 6' 1"
BF:
Progress: 58%
Location: Québec, Canada
Default

This video explains how it works. It's very good!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Patrick
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Thu, Sep-03-09, 22:20
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,328
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

To really measure Eout you have to put each person in a glass jar so that you can measure their sweat, water vapor exhaled, urine & feces, monitor their body temperature after eating, and have some way of measuring their fast & slow twitch muscle activity, brown fat activity, etc..

n=1, but only on vLC/vHF could/can I both lose and maintain my weight on 30-40% extra calories (from fat) than on HC/LF (and I have recorded what I eat for most of the past 40 years on every diet there is). On low-fat, low-cal (~1200) "balanced" diets popular with doctors and many schemes, my body temperature was 2F lower than "normal" and I moved like a sloth even when exercising (those Eout calculations for calories expended never worked for me!) Whereas now I sometimes find myself fidgeting (wasting calories), but that doesn't count as exercise.

Most studies only measure 2 or 3 of the In and Out variables and then make sweeping proclamations. Only when all variables are studied or controlled simultaneously will we be able to answer the question of metabolic advantage. I also suspect that young people who have never had a weight problem may not get the metabolic advantage that longtime low-cal dieters & type II diabetics may get.

Last edited by deirdra : Thu, Sep-03-09 at 22:32.
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Fri, Sep-04-09, 04:06
Matador Matador is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 125
 
Plan: My own.
Stats: 308/165/140 Male 175cm / 5"9
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default



There is no spoon.
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Fri, Sep-04-09, 06:48
kdill kdill is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 44
 
Plan: Zone Good Enough
Stats: 223/194/185 Male 68 inches
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Maryland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
To really measure Eout you have to put each person in a glass jar so that you can measure their sweat, water vapor exhaled, urine & feces, monitor their body temperature after eating, and have some way of measuring their fast & slow twitch muscle activity, brown fat activity, etc..

Most studies only measure 2 or 3 of the In and Out variables and then make sweeping proclamations. Only when all variables are studied or controlled simultaneously will we be able to answer the question of metabolic advantage. I also suspect that young people who have never had a weight problem may not get the metabolic advantage that longtime low-cal dieters & type II diabetics may get.


That was kinda my point.
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Fri, Sep-04-09, 10:46
KJF KJF is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 130
 
Plan: 30/40/30
Stats: 225/135/135 Male 73 in.
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: US
Default

(Energy in) = (Energy out) + (Energy stored) is true of course regarding the body, but each variable is pretty complicated. Energy in is affected by the digestion efficiency of the different macronutrients; energy out is affected by the thermic effect of food, NEAT, etc. The calories assigned to food are not completely correct for this reason; the equations for kcal/g need to be updated (energy out also needs to be updated to match the body's scaling of expenditure with food intake). The bottom line though is that the amount of food ingested is still integral to the equation. Insulin hasn't been conclusively shown to cause weight gain independent of food intake.
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Fri, Sep-04-09, 12:25
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Some quotes:

Quote:
I loved his examples from the works of biochemist Dr. Roger Williams, who wrote Biochemical Individuality, and others in that field. Just the few examples Bowden gave were so impressive that I want to quote the little section of chapter 2 here for others to see and consider.
From the Atlas of Human Anatomy, he reproduces illustrations of nineteen different laboratory speciman human stomachs of dramatically different shape and size and does the same for seventeen different livers. He reports on differences--dramatic differences--among normal healthy infants in leukocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, basophils, lymphocytes and monocytes. He reports on huge differences in the musculature of the pectoralis minor muscle and on the variations in the amount of islet tissue in the pancrease. He suggests that the potential rate of production for insulin alone probably varies throughout a ten-fold or greater range, and that the number of insulin-producing cells in the pancreas varies from 200,000 to 2.5 million. This, by the way, in normal people. The thyroid gland in normal people varies from a weight of 8 grams to 50 grams. Pepsin, a digestive enzyme produced by the stomach and one of the two most important functional constituents of gastric juice, varies in the normal stomach by a thousand-fold. [...]

"The particular insertion of a muscle in the back of a hand can make the difference between a concert pianist and a person who's all thumbs," stated Dr. Alexander Ballin, in a lecture about biochemical individuality and vitamin needs. Twenty-two percent of people have differences in the structure of this muscle; 13 percent don't have the muscle at all; 1 percent have two muscles.

...I'll ... sum it all up for you in two words: Everybody's different.


and

Quote:
He doesn't discount calories at all, but he points out the (in my opinion vastly) more important issue on the "energy in vs. out" question, with an example and an analogy:
When I taught personal training at New York's Equinox Fitness Clubs, we had an exercise physiology lab that contained an apparatus called a metabolic cart. You would get on a treadmill and put on a mask attached to a computer that would measure your oxygen intake and your carbon dioxide output at different levels of exercise intensity. Then the computer would calculate your caloric expenditure as you exercised. The individual variations were absolutely astonishing, and they would often vary enormously from what the standard equations would predict.

Suppose I rented a car in Los Angeles and wanted to buy just enough gas to get to San Diego. The distance is 120 miles. If I fill the tank and only use 1/3 of it, there's no refund and I will have wasted money, so I want to get an idea of how much gas to buy. Think about it for a minute and see if you can guess the answer to this question: How many gallons should I purchase?

...There's no correct answer unless you have one missing critical piece of information, which I didn't give you. Before you can answer the question of how many gallons of gas I need, you have to answer another question: What kind of car did I rent?

If I rented a jeep I might get only ten miles to the gallon, but if I rented a Volkswagon I might get thirty. And it's the same thing with calories. ... we are all metabolically unique.


from http://thedivinelowcarb.blogspot.co...-different.html
which was quoting Jonny Bowden from his book "Shape Up"
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Sun, Sep-06-09, 10:04
KJF KJF is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 130
 
Plan: 30/40/30
Stats: 225/135/135 Male 73 in.
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: US
Default

From the second quote, that's a good point to keep in mind- although basal metabolism may be similar among people of similar bodyweight, energy expenditure from activity and NEAT can vary a lot. It may be that energy out can't be generalized into equations like energy in; you can't say "running burns x calories/mile" when people are so different. Anyway, current calorie burn estimates don't adjust for the fact that for many people, voluntary exercise will just cause a decrease in NEAT later to try and retain homeostasis.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Sun, Sep-06-09, 15:52
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KJF
Insulin hasn't been conclusively shown to cause weight gain independent of food intake.

Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories, page 376, top:
Quote:
The fact that insulin increases the formation of fat has been obvious ever since the first emaciated dog or diabetic patient demonstrated a fine pad of adipose tissue, made as a result of treatment with the hormone.
REGINALD HAIST AND CHARLES BEST,
The Physiological Basis of Medical Practice, 1966

As insulin causes some calories to be locked in fat tissue, it creates an internal caloric deficit which we must compensate for by eating more.
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Mon, Sep-07-09, 03:15
Matador Matador is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 125
 
Plan: My own.
Stats: 308/165/140 Male 175cm / 5"9
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories, page 376, top:

As insulin causes some calories to be locked in fat tissue, it creates an internal caloric deficit which we must compensate for by eating more.


In conclusion, if we don't follow the binge urging slin can cause, there's nothing about slin that makes you gain weight in a caloric deficit?

I'm majorly confused about insulin and fat oxidation. the more recent studies I read about it, the less it seems to be linked to weight gain in caloric deficits.

for example, 40 people eating high GI for 3 months in a caloric deficit, and 40 people eating low GI for 3 months, both on a 2000 calorie diet. They lost the same amount of weight on average. So, according to that study insulin in a caloric deficit surely dosen't do much. (Yes, i know low gi high fiber foods are highly desired for general health since they make you feel satisfied and full for longer, can be a part of preventing heart diseases, lower bloodpreasure and whatnot. but purely weight gain/loss wise the diffrence seems nonexisting)
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 20:27.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.