Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
 

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120...study-suggests


Pro:

"The very-low-carb plan and the low-glycemic-index plan -- which
stresses a variety of high fiber and minimally processed foods -- also
resulted in better insulin sensitivity (necessary to process blood
sugar effectively) and cholesterol levels.

"This suggests that very-low-fat diets may actually slow a person's
metabolism down to a level where it is not burning calories as
effectively as it could, says researcher David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, who
directs the Optimal Weight for Life program at the Harvard-affiliated
Children's Hospital in Boston.

"Ludwig has long studied the low-glycemic-index diet and is one of the
diet's main proponents.

"He says while people often lose weight on very-low-fat and
very-low-carbohydrate diets, the vast majority end up gaining the
weight back very quickly.

"'From a metabolic perspective our study suggests that all calories
are not alike," Ludwig tells WebMD. "The quality of the calories going
in is going to affect the number of calories going out.'"

Con:

"Levels of the stress hormone cortisol and C-reactive protein -- an
indicator of inflammation in the body -- were higher during the
low-carb phase of the study.

"'The metabolic benefits of this diet may be undermined by more
inflammation and higher cortisol, both of which can increase [heart
disease and stroke] risk over time,' Ludwig says."

Inflammtion, of course, can be reduced by including anti-inflammatory
foods and supplements in the diet, e.g., adding omega 3 fatty acid
(fish oil), minimizing omega 6 (vegetable oil), eating small amounts
of dark chocolate, some berries, opting for grass-fed beef over
grain-fed, drinking green tea, red wine, adding supplements like
turmeric, etc.

So it's paramount that you track your hsC-RP or C-RP number. We're all
different, and what causes inflammation in my body may not be what
causes it in yours, and vice versa.

Also, even exercise can cause inflammation, so don't overdo it.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
 

Dogman wrote:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120...study-suggests

Pro:

"The very-low-carb plan and the low-glycemic-index plan -- which
stresses a variety of high fiber and minimally processed foods -- also
resulted in better insulin sensitivity (necessary to process blood
sugar effectively) and cholesterol levels.

"This suggests that very-low-fat diets may actually slow a person's
metabolism down to a level where it is not burning calories as
effectively as it could, says researcher David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, who
directs the Optimal Weight for Life program at the Harvard-affiliated
Children's Hospital in Boston.

Low carb fans have known this for a very long time.

"Ludwig has long studied the low-glycemic-index diet and is one of the
diet's main proponents.

"He says while people often lose weight on very-low-fat and
very-low-carbohydrate diets, the vast majority end up gaining the
weight back very quickly.

Note the "very" added to both. Consider that many studies are conducted
by the subjects staying with the directions for the first two weeks for
the entire study. Also consider that most plans have more than one
phase.

"'From a metabolic perspective our study suggests that all calories
are not alike," Ludwig tells WebMD. "The quality of the calories going
in is going to affect the number of calories going out.'"

Con:

"Levels of the stress hormone cortisol and C-reactive protein -- an
indicator of inflammation in the body -- were higher during the
low-carb phase of the study.

Time and again I repeat that the early phases of low carb programs
generally last two weeks and that if you step out in faith that's the
optimal length of time to stay in the first phase. There are a ton of
reasons why plans are designed this way no matter the fierce insistance
by many that they can search through their plan and find permission to
stay in phase one longer. Cortisol levels are one of those reasons.
Look for studies of extended very low carb and you'll find problems with
T3 thyroxine and once under some amount to lose with leptin.

"'The metabolic benefits of this diet may be undermined by more
inflammation and higher cortisol, both of which can increase [heart
disease and stroke] risk over time,' Ludwig says."

Sounds to me like this suggests low glycemic load moderately low carb
rather than very low carb while staying long term. Which is advice that
can be found in the table of contents of most popular low carb plans and
which I've been repeating regularly since 1999 when I started low
carbing. Step out in faith and move on to the later plans. Here's a
study that mentions one of the reasons why.

Inflammtion, of course, can be reduced by including anti-inflammatory
foods and supplements in the diet, e.g., adding omega 3 fatty acid
(fish oil), minimizing omega 6 (vegetable oil), eating small amounts
of dark chocolate, some berries, opting for grass-fed beef over
grain-fed, drinking green tea, red wine, adding supplements like
turmeric, etc.

Low glycemic load eating reduces inflamation as does moderately low carb
eating.

So it's paramount that you track your hsC-RP or C-RP number. We're all
different, and what causes inflammation in my body may not be what
causes it in yours, and vice versa.

Also, even exercise can cause inflammation, so don't overdo it.

What's over doing it? Running marathons certainly. I bet working up
through the "Cuch to 5K" plan and running 3 miles most days once you get
in shape is not over doing it.

Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:52:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
"This suggests that very-low-fat diets may actually slow a person's
metabolism down to a level where it is not burning calories as
effectively as it could, says researcher David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, who
directs the Optimal Weight for Life program at the Harvard-affiliated
Children's Hospital in Boston.

Low carb fans have known this for a very long time.

Yep. Now, maybe others will know it, too.

"Ludwig has long studied the low-glycemic-index diet and is one of the
diet's main proponents.

"He says while people often lose weight on very-low-fat and
very-low-carbohydrate diets, the vast majority end up gaining the
weight back very quickly.

Note the "very" added to both. Consider that many studies are conducted
by the subjects staying with the directions for the first two weeks for
the entire study. Also consider that most plans have more than one
phase.

Yeah, and it's hard to quantify what "very" means without seeing the
actual study.

[...]
Inflammtion, of course, can be reduced by including anti-inflammatory
foods and supplements in the diet, e.g., adding omega 3 fatty acid
(fish oil), minimizing omega 6 (vegetable oil), eating small amounts
of dark chocolate, some berries, opting for grass-fed beef over
grain-fed, drinking green tea, red wine, adding supplements like
turmeric, etc.

Low glycemic load eating reduces inflamation as does moderately low carb
eating.

So it's paramount that you track your hsC-RP or C-RP number. We're all
different, and what causes inflammation in my body may not be what
causes it in yours, and vice versa.

Also, even exercise can cause inflammation, so don't overdo it.

What's over doing it? Running marathons certainly. I bet working up
through the "Cuch to 5K" plan and running 3 miles most days once you get
in shape is not over doing it.

Again, I think it depends on the individual. I'd say anything over 3
miles, 3 times a week might be overdoing it for most of us. Running or
training for marathons, triathons, some kinds of cycling, etc.,
certainly would.

And an hsC-RP or C-RP test can help tell us where we stand.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to RegainLost Weight
 

On Jun 27, 1:15*pm, Dogman wrote:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120...t-created-equa...

Pro:

"The very-low-carb plan and the low-glycemic-index plan -- which
stresses a variety of high fiber and minimally processed foods -- also
resulted in better insulin sensitivity (necessary to process blood
sugar effectively) and cholesterol levels.

"This suggests that very-low-fat diets may actually slow a person's
metabolism down to a level where it is not burning calories as
effectively as it could, says researcher David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, who
directs the Optimal Weight for Life program at the Harvard-affiliated
Children's Hospital in Boston.

"Ludwig has long studied the low-glycemic-index diet and is one of the
diet's main proponents.

"He says while people often lose weight on very-low-fat and
very-low-carbohydrate diets, the vast majority end up gaining the
weight back very quickly.

Which is misleading, since by only including low-fat
and very-low-carb, he seems to be implying that the low-glycemic
diet is substantially better at keeping the weight off.

Yet further on in the article, we have:

"She says since the participants were only followed for
the three months that they followed the highly controlled
eating plans, it is not clear if one diet really is better than
another for maintaining weight loss."

Another example where researchers don't stick to the
facts of their own study and make statements that
could confuse people.

Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
 

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:57:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Another example where researchers don't stick to the
facts of their own study

You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc.
"studies."

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to RegainLost Weight
 

On Jun 28, 3:42*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:57:03 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Another example where researchers don't stick to the
facts of their own study

You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc.
"studies."

--
Dogman



No, I never did any such thing. And here you go again
trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread
that has nothing whatever to do with it. Haven't you embarrassed
yourself enough with your
AIDS denialist nonsense?

Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
 

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Another example where researchers don't stick to the
facts of their own study

You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc.
"studies."

No, I never did any such thing.

And that's precisely the problem, moron!

And here you go again
trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread
that has nothing whatever to do with it.

Look, you don't get to make the rules here.

I'll reply to any post I want!

And for any reason I want!

And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear.

And if you were really so concerned about someone starting trouble,
you wouldn't have started this all off by calling me an "idiot" and a
"moron"!

Asshole.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to RegainLost Weight
 

On Jun 28, 5:01*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Another example where researchers don't stick to the
facts of their own study

You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc.
"studies."
No, I never did any such thing.

And that's precisely the problem, moron!

As usual, you're not making any sense here and
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.




And here you go again
trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread
that has nothing whatever to do with it.

Look, you don't get to make the rules here.

I'll reply to any post I want!

And for any reason I want!

And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear.

And if you were really so concerned about someone starting trouble,
you wouldn't have started this all off by calling me an "idiot" and a
"moron"!

Asshole.

--
Dogman

You really are losing it or deliberately lying. No where in
this thread did I call you any names. All I did was post
a perfectly legitimate comment about the article you
referenced. Apparently that is all that it takes to set
you off into releasing a barrage of vulgarity.

Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
 

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:20:36 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Another example where researchers don't stick to the
facts of their own study

You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc.
"studies."
No, I never did any such thing.

And that's precisely the problem, moron!

As usual, you're not making any sense here and
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

That's because you're too stupid to figure it out!

And here you go again
trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread
that has nothing whatever to do with it.

Look, you don't get to make the rules here.

I'll reply to any post I want!

And for any reason I want!

And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear.

And if you were really so concerned about someone starting trouble,
you wouldn't have started this all off by calling me an "idiot" and a
"moron"!

Asshole.

You really are losing it or deliberately lying. No where in
this thread did I call you any names.

You've been calling me names and insulting me from the moment I first
mentioned that, IN MY OPINION, HIV doesn't cause AIDS! Note: You don't
get to decide which threads I can retaliate in; I make my own rules.

And that's when you lost it, and started gnawing on my ankles,
reposting post after post after post. You just won't let it go. Do
you really think you're going to run me off?

Guess again, asshole.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to RegainLost Weight
 

On Jun 29, 12:36*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:20:36 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Another example where researchers don't stick to the
facts of their own study

You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc.
"studies."
No, I never did any such thing.

And that's precisely the problem, moron!

As usual, you're not making any sense here and
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

That's because you're too stupid to figure it out!





And here you go again
trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread
that has nothing whatever to do with it.

Look, you don't get to make the rules here.

I'll reply to any post I want!

And for any reason I want!

And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear.

And if you were really so concerned about someone starting trouble,
you wouldn't have started this all off by calling me an "idiot" and a
"moron"!

Asshole.
You really are losing it or deliberately lying. *No where in
this thread did I call you any names.

You've been calling me names and insulting me from the moment I first
mentioned that, IN MY OPINION, HIV doesn't cause AIDS! Note: You don't
get to decide which threads I can retaliate in; I make my own rules.

And that's when you lost it, and started gnawing on my ankles,
reposting post after post after post. You just won't let it go. *Do
you really think you're going to run me off?

Guess again, asshole.

--
Dogman


It takes two to continue the exchange, hypocrite. And I have never
started
a new attack on you in another thread. You have repeatedly and you
acknowledge it above. In this thread, all I did was make a simple
observation about the study. That's all it takes with you and we're
off
to the races. As for the name calling, clearly that is your province.
Vulgarity too.