Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Yeah, I'm not sure how helpful this study is without knowing the weights of
the people involved.

My prior experiences with dieting when I was younger was just to cut back on
total consumption, I never did low fat, just eating less worked. I was more
active then, of course, and one thing that makes it easier to eat less is to
be involved in activities that keep you so busy that you don't think about
food so much.

In om,
Doug Freyburger stated
|
| The fun part is it shows that both low carbing and low fatting
| work. If only that were obvious enough to justify a duh, sigh.
|
| "Find it impossible" is irrelevant. "Contray to intuition" is
| irrelevant. Measured observed facts are exactly that, measured,
| observed, facts. Are you saying the studies lie in stated
| facts? Or are you actually saying your intuition leads you
| down the worng road? Check, wrong road.
|
| All this shows is what non-low-carbers wildly dream that
| low-carbers eat is a wild dream. And for that matter it shows
| that low-fatters eat more than many think.
|
| Low carbing causes appetite suppression in most people. It's the
| greatest advantage low carb has going for it. It explains most
| of the rest of the numbers. Lower appetite, less drive to eat
| more food. Fat tends to reduce appetite and carbs tend to
| increase appetite, so low carbers tend to eat less.
|
| It's interesting that by month six, there was little different
| between low fat and low carb. Some will have reached goal and
| once at goal it no longer matters how you got there you will
| stay the same weight. I wonder how much difference that made.
| I do know that the metabolic advantage of ketosis gets less and
| less as you have less to lose, but I thought similar happened
| on low fat.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:12:30 GMT, Bob in CT
wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:42:38 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

[cut]
::
:: Ah heck, I'll continue. Yet another lie is that it's healtier, a la
:: the food pyramid, to eat a plate a pasta than to eat vegetables.
::

Note that many of these "lies" can still be the result of excess. Eating
too much pasta is as bad as eating too much fat. I'm not sure if it is
possible to eat too many veggies. They seem to have a self limiting
effect.




That's true, which is why pasta should not be lower on the food pyramid
than vegetables.

That may be why the pyramid is about to be overhauled. Have a look at
the proposed pyramid:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio.../pyramids.html

jmk wrote:
Bob in CT wrote:
jmk wrote:
Bob in CT wrote:

Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I
think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie.

Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low fat is
"a lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems to work for some.

In my opinion it was the claim that low fat must be the only valid
way to go no matter the lack of evidence. Certainly low fat is a
valid way to go for plenty of folks. But certainty not all folks.
When it started to come out that low fat was the only possible
healthy way of eating, obesity spread into an epidemic. Clearly
it fails to work for some. Heck if crazy doctors all switched to
saying low carb was the only possible healthy way of eating I
expect teh same would happen just a different set of obese folks.
Different strokes for different folks isn't just a corny sounding
folk saying. It's valid science.

I think it does work for some. The problem is that I thought I was one
of those people. I ate low fat for many years. I developed insulin
resistance. Was that genetic predisposition or the low fat diet? I
don't know, but I wouldn't hesitate to say the latter or at least a
combination of the two. Moreover, I could eat pasta or brown rice and
be hungry with an hour or even a half-hour of eating. Even if one
believes that saturated fat is bad (which I no longer do), "low fat" has
to include fat such as olive oil and nuts. These things sate me whereas
true low fat products do not.
So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or exacerbate
insulin resistance and requires one to forego potentially useful fats.

And if their hadn't been decades of pressure that low fat must be
the only valid answer, you would have tried it for a while and then
moved on to something else. Exactly. And in the meantime others
tried low fat and it worked for them. Good for those folks.

But couldn't one argue that many low-carb dieters forgo potentially
useful fruits and vegetables?

Only those who refuse to follow the directions.

Does that make low-carb "a lie?"

No it makes the average IQ be 100. Following the directions is
nasty hard work, book stuff.

I don't think that weight management is a one size fits all approach --
not even close to it.

Exactly.

"Opinicus" wrote in message
...
Bull****. Any diet that requires you to feel hunger all the
time is by definition a loser.

Not sure what you are replying to with this one, but I agree 100%. If I'm
constantly hungry I'm miserable. I lost a ton of weight on a low fat diet
about 20 years ago, but after 10 months I finally fell off the wagon. I was
constantly hungry every waking hour, from the minute I woke up until the
minute I went sleep - and I finally just could not stand being hungry all
the time like that.

Debbie

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ...
Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:27:12 GMT, Bob in CT
:: wrote:
::
::: On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:53:25 -0400, jmk wrote:
:::
:::: On 5/18/2004 2:47 PM, Bob in CT wrote:
::::: On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:42:23 -0400, jmk
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: On 5/18/2004 2:24 PM, Bob in CT wrote:
::::::
::::::: The problem with studies like this is that there are so many
::::::: variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did,
::::::: as I think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie.
::::::
::::::
:::::: Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low
:::::: fat is "a lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems
:::::: to work for some.
::::::
:::::
::::: I think it does work for some. The problem is that I thought I
::::: was one of those people. I ate low fat for many years. I
::::: developed insulin resistance. Was that genetic predisposition or
::::: the low fat diet? I don't know, but I wouldn't hesitate to say
::::: the latter or at least a combination of the two. Moreover, I
::::: could eat pasta or brown rice and be hungry with an hour or even
::::: a half-hour of eating. Even if one believes that saturated fat
::::: is bad (which I no longer do), "low fat" has to include fat such
::::: as olive oil and nuts. These things sate me whereas true low fat
::::: products do not.
::::: So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or
::::: exacerbate insulin resistance and requires one to forego
::::: potentially useful fats.
:::::
:::: But couldn't one argue that many low-carb dieters forgo potentially
:::: useful fruits and vegetables? Does that make low-carb "a lie?"
::::
:::: I don't think that weight management is a one size fits all
:::: approach -- not even close to it.
::::
:::
::: What you say is true. Nonetheless, low carb has helped me lessen my
::: insulin resistance, raise my HDL, lower my triglycerides, and
::: improve my total choleserol/HDL ratio. Plus, I actually eat more
::: vegetables (and selected fruits) on low carb than I did on low fat.
::: On low fat, I couldn't eat salad dressings, so I typically ate more
::: beans and whole grains. For whatever reason, I neglected
::: vegetables (although I did eat tomatoes, corn, etc.), although I
::: did eat fruits.
:::
::: What I've found is that I feel so much better on low carb than on
::: low fat. That's another lie -- carbs give you energy. I workout
::: more now than I ever have. I also am way less depressed now than
::: when I was on low fat -- the blood sugar highs and lows on low fat
::: became so bad that I was always depressed. Yet one more lie (or at
::: least something the low fat proponents don't tell you) is blood
::: sugar swings. Yet another lie is that saturated fat is bad. Yet
::: another lie is that fat itself is bad. What about olive oil and
::: nuts?
:::
::: Should I go on?
:::
::
:: Ah heck, I'll continue. Yet another lie is that it's healtier, a la
:: the food pyramid, to eat a plate a pasta than to eat vegetables.
::

Note that many of these "lies" can still be the result of excess. Eating
too much pasta is as bad as eating too much fat. I'm not sure if it is
possible to eat too many veggies. They seem to have a self limiting effect.

Fat has a very strong self-limiting effect. The problem with pasta,
bread, potatoes and other starch is that there is basically no
satiation feedback. Starch can be consumed until the stomach is
stretched to the limit. But with any food consumption moderation is
the key. Ideally one would eat only at the point of hunger. People
are often surprised to find that if they downsize their meal portions
there isn't the expected price paid in hunger.

(kvs) wrote in message . com...
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ...
Fat has a very strong self-limiting effect. The problem with pasta,
bread, potatoes and other starch is that there is basically no
satiation feedback. Starch can be consumed until the stomach is
stretched to the limit. But with any food consumption moderation is
the key. Ideally one would eat only at the point of hunger. People
are often surprised to find that if they downsize their meal portions
there isn't the expected price paid in hunger.

again today I put in a 2 1/2hr bike ride (4:00 - 6:30pm) on a bowl of
cereal at 7:00AM and 1oz of almonds for lunch at 12:00, plus 40oz of
half-strength gatorade during the ride and 1/2 cup of pudding at the
turnaround point.

Today's intake (so far):
Fat: 7g / 63kcal
Simple Carbs: 84g / 336 kcal
Protein: 16g / 64 kcal

Total calories in so far, ~500. I'm not knowledgeable about the
science of carbing up before/during exercise (general working theory
for me is to maintain enough carbs to handle the BMR while exercising
and hopefully body fat and not muscle will get burned for the extra
power load of activity -- I'm trying to err on the side of not
'bonking' during cycling, since the idea is to feel energetic not
****ty, and I'm riding for fitness rather than straight loss anyway).

I'm going to be eating my usual ~1500kcal dinner, but as I type this
now I'm not starving at all (certainly hungry, but no stomach growling
or discomfort).

The caloric deficit is going to be high today (1500 or so), but when I
do two hours on the bike I usually skip a day of exercise to not get
too far ahead of my intended loss rate (2lb/week).

I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never felt
deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a years
now) nicely and easily...

That being said.. low fat doesn't mean no fat.. and as with everything else,
I think the way to go is all in moderation.. carbs, fat, whatever.. there is
nothing I can't eat.. it's all a matter of choices..

--
Will~

The problem with this world is stupidity, now I'm not saying there should
be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself?


"Debbie Cusick" wrote in message
news

"Opinicus" wrote in message
...
Bull****. Any diet that requires you to feel hunger all the
time is by definition a loser.

Not sure what you are replying to with this one, but I agree 100%. If I'm
constantly hungry I'm miserable. I lost a ton of weight on a low fat diet
about 20 years ago, but after 10 months I finally fell off the wagon. I
was
constantly hungry every waking hour, from the minute I woke up until the
minute I went sleep - and I finally just could not stand being hungry all
the time like that.

Debbie

On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:56:17 GMT, "Fleur de Lys"
announced in front of God and everybody:

I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never felt
deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a years
now) nicely and easily...

That being said.. low fat doesn't mean no fat.. and as with everything else,
I think the way to go is all in moderation.. carbs, fat, whatever.. there is
nothing I can't eat.. it's all a matter of choices..

It all depends on the individual -- no matter how much some people may
want it to be so, there's no "one size fits all" when it comes to
diet.

As some suffering from serious insulin resistance -- made worse by
years of yo-yo dieting -- I was never successful on a low-fat,
low-calorie diet. I felt like I was starving to death, my blood sugar
was so low I wanted to commit murder and my mood swings were deadly.
And my weight loss was sloooooooow. Deathly slow. Even with
starvation-level calories, which for me had to be well below what was
recommended or else I couldn't drop a pound.

A low-carb diet, on the other hand, has equalized my blood sugar,
eliminated my mood swings, elevated my mood and I don't feel like I'm
starving to death. And I've lost weight at a nice clip -- at a
considerably higher calorie level than on a low-fat diet.

Is it for everyone? No, of course not. Most people really just need to
cut back on calories and exercise more. If low-fat does that for them
and they're eating in a healthy fashion, great. But for some of us,
low-carb is definitely a superior diet.

Nobody's body's the same.

Dawn

"Dawn Taylor" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:56:17 GMT, "Fleur de Lys"
announced in front of God and everybody:

I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never
felt
deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a
years
now) nicely and easily...

That being said.. low fat doesn't mean no fat.. and as with everything
else,
I think the way to go is all in moderation.. carbs, fat, whatever.. there
is
nothing I can't eat.. it's all a matter of choices..

It all depends on the individual -- no matter how much some people may
want it to be so, there's no "one size fits all" when it comes to
diet.

Agreed

As some suffering from serious insulin resistance -- made worse by
years of yo-yo dieting -- I was never successful on a low-fat,
low-calorie diet. I felt like I was starving to death, my blood sugar
was so low I wanted to commit murder and my mood swings were deadly.
And my weight loss was sloooooooow. Deathly slow. Even with
starvation-level calories, which for me had to be well below what was
recommended or else I couldn't drop a pound.

sounds bad


A low-carb diet, on the other hand, has equalized my blood sugar,
eliminated my mood swings, elevated my mood and I don't feel like I'm
starving to death. And I've lost weight at a nice clip -- at a
considerably higher calorie level than on a low-fat diet.

Is it for everyone? No, of course not. Most people really just need to
cut back on calories and exercise more. If low-fat does that for them
and they're eating in a healthy fashion, great. But for some of us,
low-carb is definitely a superior diet.

Nobody's body's the same.

Dawn

I agree.. I have to admit I'm dedicated to Weight watchers and their plan
has fitted me like a glove since the begining.. can't say that I'm a food
nazi or a food cop though.. I eat what I want.. when I want.. generally 6 to
8 meals a day.. just controlling the portions.. *shrugs* works for me.. ;o)
Good luck on your life Journey !
--
Will~

The problem with this world is stupidity, now I'm not saying there should
be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself?

"Ignoramus29645" wrote in message
...
In article .net, Fleur
de Lys wrote:
I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never
felt
deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a
years
now) nicely and easily...

cheetos are not low fat...

http://www.dietfacts.com/item.asp?itemid=6051

i

On a low-fat diet it's the overall fat intake and not the fat contained in
one food. I've done low-fat before but didn't give up the high fat content
foods I liked - just had to limit the quantity.