Low carb diets

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:


Being nice is optional (though generally frowned upon in misc.fitness.weights
;-), but he does know a lot about weight loss nutrition, and it pays to be
aware of that.

Since I don't subscribe to MFW he genius has yet to show up.

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

"roger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:38:38 -0600, Lyle McDonald
wrote:

Doug Freese wrote:


your argument is simplistic at best. You're using fairly active
individuals to your average obese person.

Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to
control weight.

Err, no.
People lose weight and maintain that loss without exercise all the time.

All the time?? While I agree that it is *possible* to lose weight and

Then if it is possible, and at least one person has done it (and I assure
you I alone know more than one who has), then the statement: "

"...because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to control weight.",

is false.

Granted using both approaches will likely result in faster and/or more
appropriate partitioning of your body composition and capacity to do
work/increase your general physical preparedness etc., but is is not
necessary for weight control.


maintain that loss without exercise, the majority of people who lose
weight and are successful in keeping it off combine some form of
exercise (weight training or aerobic) with reduced caloric intake.

Exercise is beneficial but it is by no means REQUIRED.

I agree it is not absolutely required but the recidivism among those
who try to keep off the fat by diet alone is quite high.

Roger

If one requires X number of calories per day and one deliberately
restricts ones consumption to less than this amount then one is
consuming less nutrients and energy than is required by the body.

Huh ?? Calories DO NOT equate to nutrients..etc. Take a ****ing
mulitvitamin idiot....how many calories in that ?? Dumb as dirt !!


And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.

You, of course, have some supporting documentation

The low-carb diet works specifically by

CREATING A CALORIE DEFICIT....PERIOD

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

In article , tcomeau wrote:
(gman99) wrote in message ...

n 1: a state of extreme hunger resulting from lack of essential
^^^^^^^^^
nutrients over a prolonged period [syn: famishment] 2: the act of
^^^^^^^^^
starving; "they were charged with the starvation of children in their
care" [syn: starving]
*****

If one requires X number of calories per day
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Requires" depends on context. What one "requires" for weight maintenance
is different to what one "requires" for weight loss.

Either way, it doesn't make much sense in the context of the above
definition, since calories are not themselves an "essential nutrient".

Err, how do you figure that?
Energy (which calories are a measure of) is essential for survival.

ie. mild ketosis.

Most low carb diets do not involve/require a state of ketosis (mild or
otherwise)

someone sholud probably define what they mean by 'low-carb' at some
point in this thread.

This is taking advantage of the bodies natural processes and avoiding
the carb induced insulin spikes that forces the body into storing fat.

Low GI carbs don't induce "insulin spikes".

And so what, anyhow?

Fact: people lose weight/fat on carb based diets ALL the time. For
example, folks in the National Weight Control Registry report a carb
intake of ~50% as I recall.

Fact: it takes only miniscule amounts of insulin to shut off fat
mobilization and induce storage (noting that storage can be stimulated
without insulin in the first place). Even a low GI carb based diet will
more than raise insulin sufficiently to affect fat cell metabolism.

Conclusion: Lowering insulin (or avoiding spikes) is not required to
lose fat. If it were, NOBODY would EVER lose fat on a carb-based diet
and they obviously do.

Why is this? Because they RESTRICT CALORIES to below what the body
requires, forcing it to find an alternative fuel (in this case, bodyfat,
in some proportion, depending on a whole host of other factors, will be
mobilized). Or slow metabolism to compensate.

Now, if you want to argue that lowcarb diets make it easier to restrict
calories (and for some, usually insulin resistant folks who were on a
****ty diet to begin with, this certainly appears to be the case),
that's an entirely different argument.

But it's not an issue of insulin or anything else: low-carb diets work
because (some) people eat less on them. Insulin and avoiding spikes
(which cause blood sugar to crash which can stimulate hunger) is only
relevant in terms of hunger/caloric control.

Lyle

"jmk" wrote in message
...


On 12/17/2003 10:29 AM, tcomeau wrote:

And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.

Please post evidence that any diet plan (low carb, low fat, reduced
calorie, TC's super secret special plan) works more often? What plan
are you recommending?

The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and
starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a
fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode ie. mild ketosis.

Please post evidence that low carb is not another form of calorie
restriction.

Low carb need not be a form of or mean calorie restriction. The calories
decreased via the low-carb approach can be added back in by taking some
additional EFAs like fish/flax oils, to very good effect.

Think nutrient partitioning- taking advantage of what the body does with
certain types of nutrients (e.g., leptin- and insulin-modulated
partitioning) and, as an extension, timing the intake of those different
nutrients to best work with the body's metabolistic parameters governing
their - well - metabolism!

There are of course genetic and pharmacolocigal mechanisms (e.g., ephedrine)
involved with partitioning, but that is a longer story for another day
(e.g., see ref 1).

1. Leptin and Insulin Modulate Nutrient Partitioning and Weight Loss in
ob/ob Mice through Regulation of Long-Chain Fatty Acid Uptake by Adipocytes1
Xinqing Fan*, Michael W. Bradbury* and Paul D. Berk Departments of Medicine
and Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, The Mount Sinai School of
Medicine, New York, NY 10029


Regarding ketosis, "Proponents of the Atkins diet claim that ketosis
helps burn fat. However, researchers found no correlation between
ketosis and weight loss in the Atkins diet"

(http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm...F40-A099254FDF
10BCB1)

"The bottom line appears to be that a calorie is a calorie."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/452064

--
jmk in NC

On 12/17/2003 2:51 PM, OmegaZero2003 wrote:
"jmk" wrote in message
...


On 12/17/2003 10:29 AM, tcomeau wrote:


And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.

Please post evidence that any diet plan (low carb, low fat, reduced
calorie, TC's super secret special plan) works more often? What plan
are you recommending?

The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and

starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a
fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode ie. mild ketosis.

Please post evidence that low carb is not another form of calorie
restriction.


Low carb need not be a form of or mean calorie restriction. The calories
decreased via the low-carb approach can be added back in by taking some
additional EFAs like fish/flax oils, to very good effect.

Please post evidence that people lose weight on low carb diets without
reducing their caloric intake.


--
jmk in NC

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

But it's not an issue of insulin or anything else: low-carb diets work
because (some) people eat less on them.

What about those that eat the same calories but change the ratio of P/C/F
and/or the timing and feeding frequency (breaking up the cals into 6 meals
instead of 3)?!!! Or eat the Carbs + Protein in first 3 meals and fats +
protein inlast threee meals. etc.


Insulin and avoiding spikes
(which cause blood sugar to crash which can stimulate hunger)

is only

^^^^^

relevant in terms of hunger/caloric control.

And nutrient partitioning/metabolism.

I am sure you are aware of the insulin- and leption- regulated metabolism of
foods so I don't need to tell you that your statement is not the whole
story, at best..

1. Leptin and Insulin Modulate Nutrient Partitioning and Weight Loss in
ob/ob Mice through Regulation of Long-Chain Fatty Acid Uptake by Adipocytes1
Xinqing Fan*, Michael W. Bradbury* and Paul D. Berk Departments of Medicine
and Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, The Mount Sinai School of
Medicine, New York, NY 10029

and about 200 other studies...





Lyle

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:33:00 GMT, Doug Freese
wrote:

It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph
you are burning off roughly 200 calories.

Geez, I'd think walking 7.5 miles in 30 minutes (a 4-minute mile pace)
would burn a heck of a lot more calories!

(I think you meant "average a 15-minute mile" :-) .)

Chris

"jmk" wrote in message
...


On 12/17/2003 2:51 PM, OmegaZero2003 wrote:
"jmk" wrote in message
...


On 12/17/2003 10:29 AM, tcomeau wrote:


And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.

Please post evidence that any diet plan (low carb, low fat, reduced
calorie, TC's super secret special plan) works more often? What plan
are you recommending?

The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and

starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a
fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode ie. mild ketosis.

Please post evidence that low carb is not another form of calorie
restriction.


Low carb need not be a form of or mean calorie restriction. The calories
decreased via the low-carb approach can be added back in by taking some
additional EFAs like fish/flax oils, to very good effect.

Please post evidence that people lose weight on low carb diets without
reducing their caloric intake.

Is the object WEIGHT loss or fat loss!!? It is fat loss.

People can lose FAT mass (and increase LBM in some cases) on a low cal diet
without reducing calorie intake by adding in the cals decreased (carbs) back
in as EFs and protein.

And indeed, cals in can remain the same and nutrient partitioning in body's
metabolistic processes will enable fats to be preferentially used.

Of course, eating high-insulimic/hi-glycemic index foods will increase
insulin and lower glucogan levels and does promote overeating as I believe
Lyle was getting at in his post.

Attend:



"Dietary composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction1,2,3
Michael SD Agus, Janis F Swain, Courtney L Larson, Elizabeth A Eckert and
David S Ludwig
1 From the Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Children's
Hospital, Boston, and the General Clinical Research Center, Brigham and
Women's Hospital, Boston.


Background: The concept of a body weight set point, determined predominantly
by genetic mechanisms, has been proposed to explain the poor long-term
results of conventional energy-restricted diets in the treatment of obesity.

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine whether dietary
composition affects hormonal and metabolic adaptations to energy
restriction.

Design: A randomized, crossover design was used to compare the effects of a
high-glycemic-index (high-GI) and a low-glycemic-index (low-GI)
energy-restricted diet. The macronutrient composition of the high-GI diet
was (as percent of energy) 67% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 18% fat and
that of the low-GI diet was 43% carbohydrate, 27% protein, and 30% fat; the
diets had similar total energy, energy density, and fiber contents. The
subjects, 10 moderately overweight young men, were studied for 9 d on 2
separate occasions. On days -1 to 0, they consumed self-selected foods ad
libitum. On days 1-6, they received an energy-restricted high- or low-GI
diet. On days 7-8, the high- or low-GI diets were consumed ad libitum.

Results: Serum leptin decreased to a lesser extent from day 0 to day 6 with
the high-GI diet than with the low-GI diet. Resting energy expenditure
declined by 10.5% during the high-GI diet but by only 4.6% during the low-GI
diet (7.38 ± 0.39 and 7.78 ± 0.36 MJ/d, respectively, on days 5-6; P =
0.04). Nitrogen balance tended to be more negative, and energy intake from
snacks on days 7-8 was greater, with the high-GI than the low-GI diet.

Conclusion: Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects
on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and
nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy
restriction can be modified by dietary composition."



Note the conclusion!! ANd note that the diets had similar total
energy/energy density!!






"High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets

A DGReview of :"Postprandial Thermogenesis Is Increased 100% on a
High-Protein, Low-Fat Diet versus a High Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Diet in
Healthy, Young Women"
Journal of the American College of Nutrition
02/26/2002
By David Ball

Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet
The few studies that have examined body composition after a
carbohydrate-restricted diet have reported enhanced fat loss and
preservation of lean body mass in obese individuals. The role of hormones in
mediating this response is unclear. We examined the effects of a 6-week
carbohydrate-restricted diet on total and regional body composition and the
relationships with fasting hormone concentrations. Twelve healthy
normal-weight men switched from their habitual diet (48% carbohydrate) to a
carbohydrate-restricted diet (8% carbohydrate) for 6 weeks and 8 men served
as controls, consuming their normal diet. Subjects were encouraged to
consume adequate dietary energy to maintain body mass during the
intervention. Total and regional body composition and fasting blood samples
were assessed at weeks 0, 3, and 6 of the experimental period. Fat mass was
significantly (P .05) decreased (-3.4 kg) and lean body mass significantly
increased (+1.1 kg) at week 6. There was a significant decrease in serum
insulin (-34%), and an increase in total thyroxine (T4) (+11%) and the free
T4 index (+13%). Approximately 70% of the variability in fat loss on the
carbohydrate-restricted diet was accounted for by the decrease in serum
insulin concentrations. There were no significant changes in glucagon, total
or free testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), insulin-like
growth factor-I (IGF-I), cortisol, or triiodothyronine (T3) uptake, nor were
there significant changes in body composition or hormones in the control
group.


***Thus, we conclude that a carbohydrate-restricted diet resulted in a
significant reduction in fat mass and a concomitant increase in lean body
mass in normal-weight men, which may be partially mediated by the reduction
in circulating insulin concentrations. ***

"

Note subject dietary energy intake to maintain body mass as part of the
protocol.


"

Five-Week, Low-Glycemic Index Diet Decreases Total Fat Mass and Improves
Plasma Lipid Profile in Moderately Overweight Nondiabetic Men
Clara Bouché, MD1, Salwa W. Rizkalla, MD, PHD1, Jing Luo, MD, PHD1, Hubert
Vidal, PHD2, Annie Veronese, MB1, Nathalie Pacher, MB1, Caroline Fouquet,
RN1, Vincent Lang, PHD3 and Gérard Slama, MD1
1 Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) Unit
341, Department of Diabetes, AP Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Paris, France
2 INSERM Unit 449, Lyon, France
3 Danone Vitapole, Le Plessis Robinson, France

OBJECTIVE-To evaluate whether a 5-week low-glycemic index (LGI) diet versus
a high-glycemic index (HGI) diet can modify glucose and lipid metabolism as
well as total fat mass in nondiabetic men.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-In this study, 11 healthy men were randomly
allocated to 5 weeks of an LGI or HGI diet separated by a 5-week washout
interval in a crossover design.

RESULTS-The LGI diet resulted in lower postprandial plasma glucose and
insulin profiles and areas under the curve (AUCs) than the HGI diet. A
5-week period of the LGI diet lowered plasma triacylglycerol excursion after
lunch (AUC, P 0.05 LGI vs. HGI). These modifications were associated with
a decrease in the total fat mass by 700 g (P 0.05) and a tendency to
increase lean body mass (P 0.07) without any change in body weight. This
decrease in fat mass was accompanied by a decrease in leptin, lipoprotein
lipase, and hormone-sensitive lipase RNAm quantities in the subcutaneous
abdominal adipose tissue (P 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS-We concluded that 5 weeks of an LGI diet ameliorates some plasma
lipid parameters, decreases total fat mass, and tends to increase lean body
mass without changing body weight. These changes were accompanied by a
decrease in the expression of some genes implicated in lipid metabolism.
Such a diet could be of benefit to healthy, slightly overweight subjects and
might play a role in the prevention of metabolic diseases and their
cardiovascular complications.
"

Note that fat mass was decreased and LBM was increased without changing BW.




"

PEDIATRICS Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1999, p. e26

ELECTRONIC ARTICLE:
High Glycemic Index Foods, Overeating, and Obesity

Received Jun 15, 1998; accepted Nov 4, 1998.

David S. Ludwig*, Joseph A. Majzoub*, Ahmad Al-Zahrani*, Gerard E. Dallal,
Isaac Blanco, and Susan B. Roberts

From the * Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Children's
Hospital, and Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging,
Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.

Objective. The prevalence of obesity has increased dramatically in recent
years. However, the role of dietary composition in body weight regulation
remains unclear. The purpose of this work was to investigate the acute
effects of dietary glycemic index (GI) on energy metabolism and voluntary
food intake in obese subjects.

Methods. Twelve obese teenage boys were evaluated on three separate
occasions using a crossover study protocol. During each evaluation, subjects
consumed identical test meals at breakfast and lunch that had a low, medium,
or high GI. The high- and medium-GI meals were designed to have similar
macronutrient composition, fiber content, and palatability, and all meals
for each subject had equal energy content. After breakfast, plasma and serum
concentrations of metabolic fuels and hormones were measured. Ad libitum
food intake was determined in the 5-hour period after lunch.

Results. Voluntary energy intake after the high-GI meal (5.8 megajoule
[mJ]) was 53% greater than after the medium-GI meal (3.8 mJ), and 81%
greater than after the low-GI meal (3.2 mJ). In addition, compared with the
low-GI meal, the high-GI meal resulted in higher serum insulin levels, lower
plasma glucagon levels, lower postabsorptive plasma glucose and serum fatty
acids levels, and elevation in plasma epinephrine. The area under the
glycemic response curve for each test meal accounted for 53% of the variance
in food intake within subjects.

Conclusions. The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI
meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote
excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to
examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight
regulation. glycemic index, obesity, dietary carbohydrate, diets, insulin. .
"



"

© 2003 The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 133:405-410,
February 2003




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Human Nutrition and Metabolism
Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in Adult
Women during Weight Loss1,2
Donald K. Layman*,3, Harn Shiue, Carl Sather, Donna J. Erickson* and Jamie
Baum

* Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Division of Nutritional
Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
Amino acids interact with glucose metabolism both as carbon substrates and
by recycling glucose carbon via alanine and glutamine; however, the effect
of protein intake on glucose homeostasis during weight loss remains unknown.
This study tests the hypothesis that a moderate increase in dietary protein
with a corresponding reduction of carbohydrates (CHO) stabilizes fasting and
postprandial blood glucose and insulin during weight loss. Adult women (n =
24; 15% above ideal body weight) were assigned to either a Protein Group
[protein: 1.6 g/(kg · d); CHO 40% of energy] or CHO Group [protein: 0.8
g/(kg · d); CHO 55%]. Diets were equal in energy (7100 kJ/d) and fat (50
g/d). After 10 wk, the Protein Group lost 7.53 ± 1.44 kg and the CHO Group
lost 6.96 ± 1.36 kg. Plasma amino acids, glucose and insulin were determined
after a 12-h fast and 2 h after a 1.67 MJ test meal containing either 39 g
CHO, 33 g protein and 13 g fat (Protein Group) or 57 g CHO, 12 g protein and
14 g fat (CHO Group). After 10 wk, subjects in the CHO Group had lower
fasting (4.34 ± 0.10 vs 4.89 ± 0.11 mmol/L) and postprandial blood glucose
(3.77 ± 0.14 vs. 4.33 ± 0.15 mmol/L) and an elevated insulin response to
meals (207 ± 21 vs. 75 ± 18 pmol/L). This study demonstrates that
consumption of a diet with increased protein and a reduced CHO/protein ratio
stabilizes blood glucose during nonabsorptive periods and reduces the
postprandial insulin response. "



Note that ONLY the ration of carbs (lower) to protein (higher) changed!!
Energy input was the SAME!! Changing the insulin response thence facilitated
weight loss.

Also see:

- February issue of the Journal of Nutrition. The research was led by
Donald K. Layman, Professor of Nutrition in the Department of Food Science &
Human Nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. An
equi-caloric diet given to women, half with higher protein lower-carb, other
half control. Low carb group lost more fat mass and maintained more lean
mass than control group.


- -New England Journal of Medicine
Volume 348:2074-2081 May 22, 2003 Number 21
A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity

Frederick F. Samaha, M.D., Nayyar Iqbal, M.D., Prakash Seshadri, M.D.,
Kathryn L. Chicano, C.R.N.P., Denise A. Daily, R.D., Joyce McGrory,
C.R.N.P., Terrence Williams, B.S., Monica Williams, B.S., Edward J. Gracely,
Ph.D., and Linda Stern, M.D.



- Office of Medical Public Affairs, Washington University School of
Medicine at Washington University Medical Center, Campus Box 8508, 4444
Forest Park Ave., St. Louis MO 63108-2259,

Atkins' Dieters Lose More and Improve Lipids Over Conventional Dieters

St. Louis, May 22, 2003 - In the first multicenter trial to look at the
high-fat, low-carbohydrate Atkins' diet, researchers have found that at
three and six months, the Atkins' diet produces significantly greater weight
loss than a conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.

All study subjects had medically significant obesity, meaning that they
weighed at least 20 percent more than their ideal body weight. They began
the study an average of about 50 pounds overweight.

Atkins' dieters lost twice as much weight during the first six months of the
study. However, over the next six months, dieters on both plans tended to
regain weight, and there was no statistical weight difference between the
groups at one year.
The study also found that people on the Atkins' diet had greater
improvements in blood lipids than those on the conventional diet.
High-density lipoprotein (HDL), or "good" cholesterol, increased more in the
Atkins' group, and their serum triglycerides decreased more than
conventional dieters. Low HDL and high triglyceride levels increase risk of
cardiovascular disease.

The study was conducted by researchers from Washington University School of
Medicine in St. Louis, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in
Philadelphia and the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in
Denver. The results appear in the May 22 issue of The New England Journal of
Medicine.

"This study demonstrates that a low-carbohydrate diet can have beneficial
effects in treating obesity," says senior investigator Samuel Klein, M.D.,
the Danforth Professor of Medicine and Nutritional Science and director of
the Division of Geriatrics and Nutrition at Washington University School of
Medicine. "Additional research is needed to understand why subjects assigned
to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those assigned to a
conventional diet and to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of
low-carbohydrate diet therapy."

The researchers wanted to mimic what happens when most people diet, so they
did not offer behavior modification or extensive clinical supervision to
study subjects. Participants met with a registered dietitian at the start of
the study and again at three, six and 12 months. They were randomly selected
for either the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet or the high-fat,
low-carbohydrate Atkins' diet. The conventional dieters were given
instructional materials for a 1,200-1,500 calories per day (women) or
1,500-1,800 calories per day (men) diet that consisted of 60 percent
carbohydrate, 25 percent fat and 15 percent protein, based on the Food Guide
Pyramid. The other group was instructed to read and follow the diet
prescribed in Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution.

At three months, those on the Atkins' diet lost an average of 17.6 pounds.
While the, conventional dieters lost about 8.3 pounds. After six months,
those on the Atkins' diet had lost an average of 21.2 pounds while those on
the conventional diet lost an average of 11.5 pounds.

At 12 months, the Atkins' diet group was down an average of 15.9 pounds
versus 9.7 pounds for those on the conventional diet .




- Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program *
Eric C. Westman MD, MHS a,b * , William S. Yancy MD a,b , Joel S. Edman DSc
c , Keith F. Tomlin a and Christine E. Perkins MSW a
Received: 4/2/2001. Revised: 1/24/2002. Accepted: 1/31/2002.

Abstract

Purpose
To determine the effect of a 6-month very low carbohydrate diet program on
body weight and other metabolic parameters.
Subjects and methods

Fifty-one overweight or obese healthy volunteers who wanted to lose weight
were placed on a very low carbohydrate diet (25 g/d), with no limit on
caloric intake. They also received nutritional supplementation and
recommendations about exercise, and attended group meetings at a research
clinic. The outcomes were body weight, body mass index, percentage of body
fat (estimated by skinfold thickness), serum chemistry and lipid values,
24-hour urine measurements, and subjective adverse effects.
Result

Forty-one (80%) of the 51 subjects attended visits through 6 months. In
these subjects, the mean (± SD) body weight decreased 10.3% ± 5.9% (P
0.001) from baseline to 6 months (body weight reduction of 9.0 ± 5.3 kg and
body mass index reduction of 3.2 ± 1.9 kg/m2). The mean percentage of body
weight that was fat decreased 2.9% ± 3.2% from baseline to 6 months (P
0.001). The mean serum bicarbonate level decreased 2 ± 2.4 mmol/L (P
0.001) and blood urea nitrogen level increased 2 ± 4 mg/dL (P 0.001).
Serum total cholesterol level decreased 11 ± 26 mg/dL (P = 0.006),
low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 10 ± 25 mg/dL (P =
0.01), triglyceride level decreased 56 ± 45 mg/dL (P 0.001), high-density
lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level increased 10 ± 8 mg/dL (P 0.001), and
the cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio decreased 0.9 ± 0.6 units (P 0.001).
There were no serious adverse effects, but the possibility of adverse
effects in the 10 subjects who did not adhere to the program cannot be
eliminated.
Conclusion
A very low carbohydrate diet program led to sustained weight loss during a
6-month period



Note no caloric restrictions!!!



You may now return control of your computer to your mommy.

Lyle, I read you post of:

From: Lyle McDonald )
Subject: Lyle...cals in/cals out?

View: Complete Thread (59 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: misc.fitness.weights
Date: 2000/03/25

I see you talk of the initial water loss in low-carb diets.

I agree.

But see the longer-term studies I posted (6 months to a year) in this thread
in answer to jmk.

Also, my point is about FAT loss/retaining lean muslce mass, as opposed to
mere weight loss.

I think there are plenty of studies showing the effect of insulin and leptin
in different metabolism scenarios to account for the nutrient partioning
thence body-composition changes seen.

THoughts?
..


"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message
s.com...

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

But it's not an issue of insulin or anything else: low-carb diets work
because (some) people eat less on them.

What about those that eat the same calories but change the ratio of P/C/F
and/or the timing and feeding frequency (breaking up the cals into 6 meals
instead of 3)?!!! Or eat the Carbs + Protein in first 3 meals and fats +
protein inlast threee meals. etc.


Insulin and avoiding spikes
(which cause blood sugar to crash which can stimulate hunger)

is only

^^^^^

relevant in terms of hunger/caloric control.

And nutrient partitioning/metabolism.

I am sure you are aware of the insulin- and leption- regulated metabolism
of
foods so I don't need to tell you that your statement is not the whole
story, at best..

1. Leptin and Insulin Modulate Nutrient Partitioning and Weight Loss in
ob/ob Mice through Regulation of Long-Chain Fatty Acid Uptake by
Adipocytes1
Xinqing Fan*, Michael W. Bradbury* and Paul D. Berk Departments of
Medicine
and Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, The Mount Sinai School of
Medicine, New York, NY 10029

and about 200 other studies...





Lyle