Can a low-carb diet fail if you take in too many calories?

On 13 Aug 2004 19:41:38 GMT, jamie wrote:

Did you read the study extract?

Above lies a perfect example of why discussions outside of the science
community regarding "extracts", citations and (non)empirical studies have
little to no merit in alt.diet.support groups.

On 13 Aug 2004 19:41:38 GMT, jamie wrote:

If you have access to the full study, rather than the extract, I'd
like to see it. It might answer my questions about the extract.

If I did, I wouldn't publish it here. See above.

As for extracts, the only one I have at the moment is vanilla.

It was less a matter, IMO, of any problem discussing an extract in a
laypersons' group, than misleading math used in the way it's often
used in advertisements.

Math aside, discussing citations in a lay group is a waste of time.

It did say the children were ages 12 to 18, ranging from 20 to 100
pounds overweight. Speaking as a 5-foot-tall woman, my frame is about
the height of the average 12 year-old, and surely less active than
a 12 to 18 year-old, and 1100 calories would be very low for me.
I maintain goal at about 1400 to 1600 calories, and I'm not all
that active (although I have very large, dense bones for my height,
and a fortunate genetic tendency to be somewhat more muscley than my
activity level suggests, which skews my numbers from the average.)

1100 would be even lower for the older, larger teens in the study,
and those with a lot to lose. It's very possible that the ones on
the 1100 cal diet didn't have as much energy to be as active as the
ones eating a few hundred more calories on the low-carb diet, or was
low enough to promote muscle mass loss that would lower their basal
metabolism and reduce the amount of fat loss.

With the limit for the low-fat group set so low, and no further
details, it can't necessarily be assumed that it was low-carbing
accounting for higher losses at ~1700 calories, rather than a
more reasonable calorie level maintaining more muscle mass, and
perhaps energy for more activity.

Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your
analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically
valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the
experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is
little credibility in waht you have posted.

But it is nice conversation for conversations sake.

(DJ=A0Delorie) wrote:
"jk" writes:
It's a fact that dietary fat doesn't convert to serum or body fat.
This is so wrong it's amusing.
Dietary fat MUST "convert to" serum fat as there's no other way to get
it out of your digestive tract (how else do you expect fat to get to
your muscles and such to be used)?
And sufficient dietary fat causes fat storage via acylation stimulation
protein (ASP), even without elevated insulin levels.
Elevated ASP can also activate insulin release from the pancreas.


I came across still another explaination of this, but with an
interesting observation....from Sandra Cabot, Md. (Australian native)
author of a book relating to Syndrome X, and Secrets That Keep You
Fat....and I quote:
"When carb consumption is low snip you burn stored body fat. The
process cannot occur without the formation of ketones. Ketones can be
used as fuel by most parts of the body including the heart and brain."
I HAD NO CLUE ABOUT THIS NEXT PART. "The body cannot efficiently burn
ketones for energy without the presence of adequate carbohydrates. Thus
on a very low carb diet it is difficult for the body to use the ketones
for energy, and the excess ketones are excreted from the body in the
urine, feces, and breath. By liberating and excreting ketones, you are
eliminating he by-products of burning your body fat. This is a very
easy way to lose weight because you are eliminating the ketones, WITHOUT
your body having to use them for energy. Thus your body will utilize
other sources of energy either from your diet, or by burning even more
of it's fat reserve."

If I am understanding what Dr. Cabot is saying....then if no carbs (or
Low Carbs) are consumed, AND very little fat is consumed....then weight
loss is inevitable. It is my opinion (and I might be wrong) that the
body will burn the dietary fat for energy BEFORE it resorts to using
stored fats. Therefore large amounts of dietary fat will most certainly
offer APPETITE SUPPRESSION, but weight loss shall occur ONLY when you
eat less (Fats and other Calories) and exercise more. This is what works
for me; no two of us are alike.
Faye

"Yea tho I walk thru the valley of the shadow of Fatdom, I fear
not...'cuz I got a pic of Atkins in my pocket."
LC since 6/1/04 150/140/110

(Faye) writes:
I HAD NO CLUE ABOUT THIS NEXT PART. "The body cannot efficiently burn
ketones for energy without the presence of adequate carbohydrates.

Yup, we knew that. That's why it's important to find your CCLL and
stay at that level, NOT the 20g/day level. Your metabolism is more
efficient (read: burns more calories) that way. One of us did a test
and found that the NET loss was more at CCLL than at lower carbs.

Thus on a very low carb diet it is difficult for the body to use the
ketones for energy,

Anecdotal evidence is that this is only true for the first few weeks,
then your body reduces the production of ketones to compensate,
relying more on FFAs for energy.

This is a very easy way to lose weight because you are eliminating
the ketones, WITHOUT your body having to use them for energy.

However, it's a negligible amount of calories.

If I am understanding what Dr. Cabot is saying....then if no carbs (or
Low Carbs) are consumed, AND very little fat is consumed....then weight
loss is inevitable.

Look up "Protein sparing modified fast".

(Faye) writes:
I HAD NO CLUE ABOUT THIS NEXT PART. "The body cannot efficiently burn
ketones for energy without the presence of adequate carbohydrates.

Yup, we knew that. That's why it's important to find your CCLL and
stay at that level, NOT the 20g/day level. Your metabolism is more
efficient (read: burns more calories) that way. One of us did a test
and found that the NET loss was more at CCLL than at lower carbs.

Thus on a very low carb diet it is difficult for the body to use the
ketones for energy,

Anecdotal evidence is that this is only true for the first few weeks,
then your body reduces the production of ketones to compensate,
relying more on FFAs for energy.

This is a very easy way to lose weight because you are eliminating
the ketones, WITHOUT your body having to use them for energy.

However, it's a negligible amount of calories.

If I am understanding what Dr. Cabot is saying....then if no carbs (or
Low Carbs) are consumed, AND very little fat is consumed....then weight
loss is inevitable.

Look up "Protein sparing modified fast".

"MU" wrote in message
...
snip
Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your
analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically
valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the
experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is
little credibility in waht you have posted.

But it is nice conversation for conversations sake.

ROFL!

Pot, kettle, black.

"MU" wrote in message
...
snip
Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your
analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically
valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the
experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is
little credibility in waht you have posted.

But it is nice conversation for conversations sake.

ROFL!

Pot, kettle, black.

"MU" wrote in message
...
snip
Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your
analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically
valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the
experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is
little credibility in waht you have posted.

But it is nice conversation for conversations sake.

ROFL!

Pot, kettle, black.

MU wrote:
As for extracts, the only one I have at the moment is vanilla.

Abstract, extract, I'm prone to a little aphasia if I post when
I'm overtired.

Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your
analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically
valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the
experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is
little credibility in waht you have posted.

I'm sure I could list as many diverse made-up qualifications under
anonymous screennames as you have over the years, but it wouldn't
enhance my credibility any more than it has yours.

--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."

MU wrote:
As for extracts, the only one I have at the moment is vanilla.

Abstract, extract, I'm prone to a little aphasia if I post when
I'm overtired.

Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your
analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically
valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the
experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is
little credibility in waht you have posted.

I'm sure I could list as many diverse made-up qualifications under
anonymous screennames as you have over the years, but it wouldn't
enhance my credibility any more than it has yours.

--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."

Ignoramus23157 wrote:

Do you mean abstract?

Abstract/extract, posting when overtired will do that.

Both diets, it seems, did not limit calories as such. So, if one group
ate less, that was due to their individual choices.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15148063


That's not the abstract cited that we were discussing.
It was this one:
Sondike S, Jacobson, Copperman. The ketogenic diet increases weight
loss but not cardiovascular risk: A randomized controlled trial. J
Adolescent Health Care 2000; 26: 91.

Which said,
One group ate a conventional low-fat, carbohydrate
based "slimming" diet composed of whole grains, fruits and vegetables
with fat-free dairy products, low-fat meats, poultry and fish. Their
total intake was limited to 1,100 calories per day.

--
jamie )

"There's a seeker born every minute."