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 » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Only calories matter?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 12th, 2004, 01:08 AM
jbuch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob in CT wrote:

On 11 Aug 2004 19:20:26 GMT, Ignoramus5937
wrote:

In article , Bob in CT wrote:

On 11 Aug 2004 18:52:25 GMT, Ignoramus5937
wrote:

What an amazing find, as I am reading more about low carbing.

Obese children who were fed a low carb diet lost weight and improved
blood lipids. These children also ate 66% more calories than controls,
who ate "heart healthy" starches and whole grains. What a surprise.

Medline ID 15148063

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.

Schneider Children?s Hospital in New Hyde Park, N.Y

This study was conducted on overweight children aged 12 to 18. They
were between 20 and 100 pounds overweight. The children were split
into two groups. 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. The other group
ate a high-fat, low-carb diet in which they were allowed to eat as
many calories as they wanted in the form of untrimmed meat, cheese,
eggs, poultry and fish. Their carbohydrates came from two salads a day
and minimal other carbs.
RESULTS Despite consuming on average 66% more calories per day, after
12 weeks the children consuming the low-carbohydrate diet lost more
weight than those following the low-fat, high-carb plan:
Low-carb Low-fat
Calorie intake 1830 1100
Weight loss 19 lbs 8.5 lbs
HDL Increased Decreased
Triglycerides -52% -10%


As high-protein/fat diets are thought to have adverse effects on
kidneys and liver, kidney and liver functions were regularly
monitored. They were found to be unaffected by this diet.

COMMENT: Six to twelve months later, most of the low-carb dieters had
maintained their new lower weight. This study provides additional
evidence for the efficacy of a low-carb weight loss programme
specifically for the most vulnerable group ? teenagers.


I think this is a great result (and in line with every other result
regarding low carb), but unless they counted calories for the kids
before
putting them on the diet then counted calories for the kids after
they put
them on the diet, the calorie difference isn't really scientific.


Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That low carb children could eat more, surprised me.

i



Actually, almost every study that looks at calories and low carb comes
up with the same results. However, some people are adamant (sp?) that
if you took these people and put them in chambers to measure every
calorie, there's no difference in low carb and high carb. There was one
study that used twins and did this and determined no difference between
low and high carb. However, most studies support the "low carb = more
weight loss" hypothesis. Have you seen these:

Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in
Adult Women during Weight Loss (Journal Abstract) Added on: 4/29/2003
Hits: 263
From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Journal of
Nutrition, 2003: In this study, researchers placed two groups of women
on two diets, each of which was equal in calories and fat. One group was
on a high protein, low carbohydrate diet and the second was on the
USDA's low protein, high carbohydrate diet. The researchers noted that
both groups lost 16 pounds on average, but the low carbohydrate, high
protein group lost more body fat and less lean body mass than did the
USDA food pyramid group. The researchers also noted that women in the
high protein group had more stable glucose levels,lower insulin levels,
and lower cholesterol levels.


High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets
(Magazine Article) Added on: 12/27/2002 Hits: 1145
From the Arizona State University and the the Doctor's Guide, 2002:
This team of researchers compared the thermogenic effects of two
different low fat diets. The first low fat diet was high in protein and
the second was high in carbohydrate. The researchers found that the
study participants' body temperature and resting energy expenditure was
100% greater after eating high protein meals that after eating high
carbohydrate meals. They concluded that the thermogenesis that occurs
after high-protein meals may partially explain the effectiveness of
high-protein diets for weight loss.

(From http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/r....asp?catid=199)


Sounds like it should have been stated as:

The researchers found that the study participants' body temperature was
greater after eating high protein meals compared to those eating high
carb meals. They also found that after eating high protein meals the
resting energy expenditure was 100% greater for the low carb group than
the high carb group.

The temptation to save a few words in an abstract created a potential
for confusion.

Nice article....

Thanks for drawing attention to it.

Jim


  #12  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:28 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only calories matter?

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.


That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower
than what I ate before!).


  #13  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:28 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.


That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower
than what I ate before!).


  #14  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only calories matter?

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:28:05 +0200, Lictor
wrote:

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.


That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only
changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It
would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in
order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of
a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have
shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the
first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good
rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting
the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much
lower
than what I ate before!).



Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly
assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on
the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically
active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would
think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never
know.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
  #15  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:28:05 +0200, Lictor
wrote:

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.


That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only
changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It
would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in
order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of
a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have
shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the
first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good
rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting
the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much
lower
than what I ate before!).



Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly
assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on
the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically
active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would
think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never
know.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
  #16  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:28:05 +0200, Lictor
wrote:

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.


That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only
changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It
would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in
order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of
a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have
shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the
first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good
rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting
the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much
lower
than what I ate before!).



Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly
assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on
the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically
active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would
think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never
know.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
  #17  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only calories matter?

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
I am, personally, skeptical about glycemic index as a useful concept.


It depends if you are diabetic or not Though I do agree it's only
informative. It depends a lot on the whole composition of the meal, not of
individual items. But it has a great educative value, and some true
surprises (like, chocolate being rather low or industrial mashed potatoes
being higher than sugar).
Actually, I think the interresting part of GI is *what* can change the GI of
a given food item (fats, proteins, acidity...). Like, the fact that acidity
can lower GI dramatically, hence sourdough can be an alternative to
wholewheat bread. What is also very interresting is looking at traditionnal
cooking using that knowledge. Many traditionnal recipes are actually the
best way to lower the GI of the food. Just have a look at Spanish paella :
rice cooked in fat by absoption (= "al dente") along with proteins, fibers
and some lemon juice. Likewise, a good Indian curry *requires* an acid base
and some fat. France cooked beans in fat (duck fat, lard). There are many
similar recipes.


  #18  
Old August 12th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
...
I am, personally, skeptical about glycemic index as a useful concept.


It depends if you are diabetic or not Though I do agree it's only
informative. It depends a lot on the whole composition of the meal, not of
individual items. But it has a great educative value, and some true
surprises (like, chocolate being rather low or industrial mashed potatoes
being higher than sugar).
Actually, I think the interresting part of GI is *what* can change the GI of
a given food item (fats, proteins, acidity...). Like, the fact that acidity
can lower GI dramatically, hence sourdough can be an alternative to
wholewheat bread. What is also very interresting is looking at traditionnal
cooking using that knowledge. Many traditionnal recipes are actually the
best way to lower the GI of the food. Just have a look at Spanish paella :
rice cooked in fat by absoption (= "al dente") along with proteins, fibers
and some lemon juice. Likewise, a good Indian curry *requires* an acid base
and some fat. France cooked beans in fat (duck fat, lard). There are many
similar recipes.


  #19  
Old August 12th, 2004, 05:36 PM
Boemsi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only calories matter?

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:52:25 +0000, Ignoramus5937 wrote:

What an amazing find, as I am reading more about low carbing.

Obese children who were fed a low carb diet lost weight and improved
blood lipids. These children also ate 66% more calories than controls,
who ate "heart healthy" starches and whole grains. What a surprise.


Not at all. It's been known for some time that diets very low in fat make
you loose less weight than if you allow a bit of healthy fats. So I don't
find this is a very fair comparison. I also wonder about the long term
effects of the high-protein diet on cholesterol and liver functions.

I recently read that drinking grapefruit juice with every mail can make
you loose more weight, since the fibers it contain make you feel fuller
for longer. But hardly anybody is on a grapefruit diet... IMO too much is
bad, but so is too little. I'm still not convinced.

--
-- Boemsi
207 - 197 - 180




  #20  
Old August 12th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Only calories matter?

"Ignoramus14701" wrote in message
...
``As high-protein/fat diets are thought to have adverse effects on
kidneys and liver, kidney and liver fun ctions were regularly
monitored. They were found to be unaffected by this diet.''

So, in that study, children had no impairment in liver or kidney.


That was a 12 weeks study. I doubt *any* diet would manage to damage the
liver or kidney in such a small amount of time, no matter how unbalanced.
Both these organs are extremelly sturdy, it takes repeated assaults on them
to finally cause them to malfunction. If one really wanted to see the health
impacts of these diets, one would have to study them over several years, on
a large population. That would be an interresting study in itself. I'm not
convinced extreme low-fat is any healthier than extreme low-carb btw.


 




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
The last few pounds can come off! curt Low Carbohydrate Diets 8 June 7th, 2004 08:50 PM
Does fat matter? Gregg Davis General Discussion 8 June 3rd, 2004 06:10 PM
calories per day suz General Discussion 96 May 4th, 2004 02:26 AM
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret tcomeau Low Calorie 113 February 14th, 2004 03:26 PM
Frustration and calories carla Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 December 28th, 2003 06:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 PM.


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