IS A CALORIE REALLY A CALORIE? METABOLIC ADVANTAGE OF LOW-CARBOHYDRATE DIETS
I think this paper has been discussed here already (most certainly the topic
has) but I thought some LC newbies might be interested. ABSTRACT The first law of thermodynamics dictates that body mass remains constant when caloric intake equals caloric expenditure. It should be noted, however, that different diets lead to different biochemical pathways that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics. It is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage. Well-controlled studies suggest that calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption. Biologically speaking, a calorie is certainly not a calorie. The ideal weight loss diet, if it even exists, remains to be determined, but a high-carbohydrate/low-protein diet may be unsatisfactory for many obese individuals. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 1(2):21-26, 2004 Keywords: low-carbohydrate diets, ketogenic diets, high-protein diets, obesity, energy balance, Atkins diet, body composition, thermodynamics http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.or...2-21-26-05.pdf |
IS A CALORIE REALLY A CALORIE? METABOLIC ADVANTAGE OF LOW-CARBOHYDRATE DIETS
Thanks Roger. You're one of the best posters in here. "Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... I think this paper has been discussed here already (most certainly the topic has) but I thought some LC newbies might be interested. ABSTRACT The first law of thermodynamics dictates that body mass remains constant when caloric intake equals caloric expenditure. It should be noted, however, that different diets lead to different biochemical pathways that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics. It is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage. Well-controlled studies suggest that calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption. Biologically speaking, a calorie is certainly not a calorie. The ideal weight loss diet, if it even exists, remains to be determined, but a high-carbohydrate/low-protein diet may be unsatisfactory for many obese individuals. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 1(2):21-26, 2004 Keywords: low-carbohydrate diets, ketogenic diets, high-protein diets, obesity, energy balance, Atkins diet, body composition, thermodynamics http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.or...2-21-26-05.pdf |
IS A CALORIE REALLY A CALORIE? METABOLIC ADVANTAGE OF LOW-CARBOHYDRATEDIETS
There's a new study to chew on right now that pits
low carb against two other higher carb diets. Some of the results are interesting--particularly the fact that as much lean mass was lost on the low carb diet as on the low fat diet. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.co...3-7075-3-7.pdf -- Roger Zoul wrote: I think this paper has been discussed here already (most certainly the topic has) but I thought some LC newbies might be interested. http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.or...2-21-26-05.pdf |
IS A CALORIE REALLY A CALORIE? METABOLIC ADVANTAGE OF LOW-CARBOHYDRATE DIETS
I posted that link here the other day. I also posted another link where an
author claims that the DEXA data used by the authors in the paper you reference below leads to an incorrect conclusion (by the authors). Here's the link: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.co...3-7075-3-9.pdf and the author of this commentary paper says: "I would like to compliment Noakes et al. on their well-controlled study comparing effects of different diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk [1]. The authors suggested that a very-low-carbohydrate diet (VLCARB) may not be associated with protein-sparing, because their dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) data indicated that both VLCARB and very-low-fat diet resulted in significantly more loss of lean mass than the highunsaturated fat diet. It should be noted, however, that DEXA provides a measure of lean soft tissue (LST), and the original notion that LST hydration is constant is not correct. Rather, LST hydration varies as a function of extra- and intracellular water distribution [16]. I feel it is very unlikely that the VLCARB group catabolized more muscle protein than the high-unsatured fat diet group. This commentary provides some basic information on metabolic adaptations that lead to sparing of muscle protein during a VLCARB, and reviews studies examining the effects of VLCARB interventions on body composition. " Bill Eitner wrote: :: There's a new study to chew on right now that pits :: low carb against two other higher carb diets. Some :: of the results are interesting--particularly the :: fact that as much lean mass was lost on the low carb :: diet as on the low fat diet. :: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.co...3-7075-3-7.pdf :: -- :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: I think this paper has been discussed here already (most certainly ::: the topic has) but I thought some LC newbies might be interested. ::: http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.or...2-21-26-05.pdf |
IS A CALORIE REALLY A CALORIE? METABOLIC ADVANTAGE OF LOW-CARBOHYDRATEDIETS
The DEXA data is definitely in conflict among the
references cited in very-low-carbohydrate diets and preservation of muscle mass article. -- Roger Zoul wrote: I posted that link here the other day. I also posted another link where an author claims that the DEXA data used by the authors in the paper you reference below leads to an incorrect conclusion (by the authors). Here's the link: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.co...3-7075-3-9.pdf and the author of this commentary paper says: "I would like to compliment Noakes et al. on their well-controlled study comparing effects of different diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk [1]. The authors suggested that a very-low-carbohydrate diet (VLCARB) may not be associated with protein-sparing, because their dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) data indicated that both VLCARB and very-low-fat diet resulted in significantly more loss of lean mass than the highunsaturated fat diet. It should be noted, however, that DEXA provides a measure of lean soft tissue (LST), and the original notion that LST hydration is constant is not correct. Rather, LST hydration varies as a function of extra- and intracellular water distribution [16]. I feel it is very unlikely that the VLCARB group catabolized more muscle protein than the high-unsatured fat diet group. This commentary provides some basic information on metabolic adaptations that lead to sparing of muscle protein during a VLCARB, and reviews studies examining the effects of VLCARB interventions on body composition. " Bill Eitner wrote: :: There's a new study to chew on right now that pits :: low carb against two other higher carb diets. Some :: of the results are interesting--particularly the :: fact that as much lean mass was lost on the low carb :: diet as on the low fat diet. :: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.co...3-7075-3-7.pdf :: -- :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: I think this paper has been discussed here already (most certainly ::: the topic has) but I thought some LC newbies might be interested. ::: http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.or...2-21-26-05.pdf |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
WeightLossBanter