A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Carb-Loading at Breakfast Makes Dieting Easier Long-Term



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 25th, 2008, 10:19 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Carb-Loading at Breakfast Makes Dieting Easier Long-Term

Loading up on protein and carbohydrates at breakfast may help obese patients
with metabolic syndrome stick to a low-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet the
rest of the day, researchers found.

Such a breakfast was associated with five-fold greater weight loss than was
achieved on a low-carb, low-calorie diet alone, reported Daniela Jakubowicz,
M.D., of the Hospital de Clinicas in Caracas, Venezuela, at the Endocrine
Society meeting.

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/res...ryarticle=5854


  #2  
Old June 30th, 2008, 11:59 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Carb-Loading at Breakfast Makes Dieting Easier Long-Term

On 2008-06-25, Roger Zoul wrote:
Loading up on protein and carbohydrates at breakfast may help obese patients
with metabolic syndrome stick to a low-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet the
rest of the day, researchers found.


The ``big breakfast'' subjects ate only 1260 kcal per day. Even though
breakfast was nearly half of that, it's not such a large breakfast. Consider
that a McDonald's Big Mac (with no fries or drink) contains about 540 kcal.

The point is that it hardly makes sense to call it ``loading''.

Such a breakfast was associated with five-fold greater weight loss than was
achieved on a low-carb, low-calorie diet alone, reported Daniela Jakubowicz,
M.D., of the Hospital de Clinicas in Caracas, Venezuela, at the Endocrine
Society meeting.


The stated ``results'' of this study are deceitful, and transparently so.

While participating in the experiment, the subjects who consumed 1080 kcal/d
in fact lost more weight than those who consumed 1260 kcal/d. This is the only
outcome of the experiment which can be called a ``result''.

Jakubowicz' experiment confirmed that body weight is linked to energy balance.
Everything else in the report isn't a set of experimental results, but pure
conjecture.

Yet some of the news reports try to downplay this one and only real result,
stating that there were no significant differences in weight loss between the
groups at 4 months. Insignificant? Pardon? An average of 23 pounds in one
group, versus 28 in the other? That's nearly a 22% spread!

The difference in calories was 180: 1260 - 1080.

The duration was four months, or about 120 days.

120 days times 180 calories is 21,600 calories. Divided by 3500, that's 6
pounds, very close to the 5 lb difference in weight loss between the groups.

Wow!

Now, the weight regain, at 8 months, among the 1080 kcal/d group could not
possibly have taken place while that group was still participating in the
experiment; such regain is the obviously the result of ad-lib eating. Ad-lib
eating after a dietary experiement isn't part of that experiment. At that
point, there is no control and no measurement. The experiementer doesn't know
what the subjects are eating, nor how much, nor at what times throughout the
day. It is simply unbelievable that the ``low carb'' group would have lost an
average of 28 pounds, but then gained back 18, while still adhering to the 1080
kcal/day diet. Sorry, you don't gain 18 pounds on 1080 calories a day, if
you're an adult of normal size. The controlled part of the experiment must
have concluded at somewhere around the four month mark, at which point began
ad-lib eating.

The only halfway plausible conjecture Jakobovicz could have gotten away with
(provided that it had been properly offered as a conjecture and not an
experimental result) is that caloric restrictions lead to subsequent
overeating.

Also, anyone calling himself or herself a scientist must know that in order to
study the effect of some change of some independent variable X1 on some
dependent variable of interest Y, all other variables must be held constant. If
the experiment changes two variables X1 and X2, then a change in Y cannot be
attributed to only the change in X1, or to only the change in X2.
Yet this very error is committed in the results. There was a caloric
difference between the two plans (1080 kcal vesus 1260), differences in the
circadian distribution of the calories, as well as differences in the
constitution of the two diets. Yet, in her infinite stupidity, Jakobovicz
makes assertions regarding what her experiement shows about the effectiveness
of low-carb diets!

Then there are other problems with the study itself. It's by no means a
double-blind experiment. The subjects know what they are eating, and the
experimenters administering it to them also know. The subjects know about the
experimenter's expectations; they know that Jakobovicz wants the ``low carb''
group to fail and the ``big breakfast'' group to succeed. It's natural for one
group of subjects to identify themselves as the losers, and the other to take
on a virtuous self-image. When the experiment is over, it's easy to see how
the subjects who see themselves as the losers who are expected to regain would
sabotage their weight loss by returning to old overeating habits, whereas the
subjects who foster a virtuous self-image would continue in their adherence.

I predict that the fate of Jakobovicz career is hereby sealed: its remainder
consists of more mundane pig farming in some obscure Latin kmerican university,
instead of real science.

Phew! I put more thought into this article it than what went into the entire
study.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
 




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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So we have established that a luxury watch makes a good gift, but howmuch is this going to set you back? Price doesn't really come into it if youvalue the rest of your assets and recognise the potential long term mileageyou could get from your gratef [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 April 21st, 2008 10:31 AM
Low Carb Losers Keep it off Long Term - Some Study Links Hollywood Low Carbohydrate Diets 4 October 24th, 2007 08:45 PM
Carb Loading OT sort of Rick King Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 August 5th, 2006 04:59 PM
On the dangers of long term low-carb diets.... Roger Zoul Low Carbohydrate Diets 53 May 15th, 2004 08:28 AM
Article: Do It Yourself Dieting Long(extreme low carb) Carol Frilegh General Discussion 0 January 10th, 2004 03:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.