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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Lyle: Low carb diets
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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message . .. Doug Freese wrote: And if we all had willpower we would not have wars how do you figure? Perhaps we would all be willing our excess carbs to our enemies. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Doug Freese wrote:
And if we all had willpower we would not have wars how do you figure? |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Doug Freese wrote in message ...
tcomeau wrote: Yeah, and starving yourself can easily become a lifestyle, sure. Who said anything about starving ?? That's quite an imagination... **** starvation n 1: a state of extreme hunger resulting from lack of essential Note the word "extreme" unless you are reading challenged. Note that any restriction of calories below what a person needs is some form of starvation, just to a lesser degree. 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 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. That is restricting food, restricting required nutrition thus it is essentially trying to *starve* the fat off. It may not be an extreme level of starvation but it is starvation nonetheless. According to you, if I eat 1 less calorie I'm in extreme hunger. I enjoy your sense of humor and your gift for definition. No, you are just consuming less than your body needs to function. You are taking less nutrition than you need. You are, in effect, trying to keep your body in a mild state of starvation to force it to use up stored fat. My point is that this DOES NOT WORK. If it did work, anyone who chooses to lose weight would simply eat less and voila, weight loss. And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases. Please Saturday Night Live is looking for some more comedy writers. *You* calling someone else a comedian, that's rich. 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. Hmmm, starvation is bad and ketosis is good. Of course. Duh.... This is taking advantage of the bodies natural processes and avoiding the carb induced insulin spikes that forces the body into storing fat. It isn't rocket science. One can do very nicely eating carbs, sensing zero starvation, lose weight and not have smelly breath as your body internally hemorrhages from ketosis. Boy can you make up **** up on the fly. Let's see, ready, fire, aim. It is virtually impossible to lose weight on a diet that is high in GI-load carbs unless one ups ones activity levels to a huge and abnormal degree. I've never suffered from bad breath on the Zone diet. So far no hemorrhages either. And I am no longer fat, I will never be fat and I will never go hungry trying to lose weight ever again, as long as I live. I eat like a king on a low-carb diet and have never felt better, energy wise. My blood lipids and blood pressure are bang-on normal. Life is good when you aren't trying to starve yourself thin and continually failing like the vast majority of the lo-fat/lo-cal dieters are forced to endure. We low-carbers have found the elixir of life and if you do not wish to partake, that is your misfortune, not ours. TC |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
In article , tcomeau wrote:
Doug Freese wrote in message ... tcomeau wrote: Yeah, and starving yourself can easily become a lifestyle, sure. Who said anything about starving ?? That's quite an imagination... **** starvation n 1: a state of extreme hunger resulting from lack of essential Note the word "extreme" unless you are reading challenged. Note that any restriction of calories below what a person needs is some form of starvation, just to a lesser degree. The degree is part of the definition. If it's not "extreme", it's not starvation either. According to you, if I eat 1 less calorie I'm in extreme hunger. I enjoy your sense of humor and your gift for definition. No, you are just consuming less than your body needs to function. Wrong. The body can function just fine on a caloric defecit. You are taking less nutrition than you need. Less than you need for *weight maintenance*. Which is fine, because we are assuming here that weight maintenance is NOT the goal. You are, in effect, trying to keep your body in a mild state of starvation to force it to use up stored fat. Not only is your rhetoric about "starvation" is a load of horse****, you fail to make any coherent argument that low carb diets are different from these "starvation" diets. In particular, you appear to implicitly make the claim that you can maintain a caloric balance or even a surplus on a low carb diet, and still lose weight. But you don't provide any corroborating evidence to support this claim. The fact of the matter is that most researchers don't believe the claim you are making to be true. My point is that this DOES NOT WORK. Nothing that requires a lifestyle change works. Which is why there is still an abundance of obesity inspite of the fact that we know about low carb diets. Why haven't low carb diets cured the obesity epidemic ? If it did work, anyone who chooses to lose weight would simply eat less and voila, weight loss. That requires behavioural changes. Most people aren't good at these. One can do very nicely eating carbs, sensing zero starvation, lose weight and not have smelly breath as your body internally hemorrhages from ketosis. Boy can you make up **** up on the fly. Let's see, ready, fire, aim. It is virtually impossible to lose weight on a diet that is high in GI-load carbs unless one ups ones activity levels to a huge and abnormal degree. It is perfectly possible to do so provided that you have a caloric defecit. Life is good when you aren't trying to starve yourself thin and continually failing like the vast majority of the lo-fat/lo-cal dieters are forced to endure. Your rhetoric about "starvation" is bull**** and has no basis in science. Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Doug Freese" wrote in message ... snip It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph you are burning off roughly 200 calories. 15 mph, huh? |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
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. 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! So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a maintenance calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet will somehow cause something to occur wrt: body fat? 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 the ob mouse is an irrelevant model for 99.9% of obese humans. A few cases of OB (leptin deficient) humans have been found but that's it. Lyle |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... 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. 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! So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a maintenance calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet will somehow cause something to occur wrt: body fat? Well - I read your previous posts on the matter, along with about 30 studies (some posted in another thread), that nutrient partitioning (via differntial response of metabolic parameters such as insulin and leptin etc.) will cause loss of bf and maint of lean body mass. The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs lean muscle maint. What has your more-involved research shown? From what I have read (less than you I am sure), it makes sense theoretically. See the studies I found )posted in anoth3r post in this thread) (some longer than what you said were not very long and thence not very convincing). 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 the ob mouse is an irrelevant model for 99.9% of obese humans. A few cases of OB (leptin deficient) humans have been found but that's it. Lyle |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Barry Wong wrote:
roger wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:38:38 -0600, Lyle McDonald wrote: 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. Isn't the recidivism (nice word) among those trying to keep off fat quite high period? You can say that those who keep exercising regularly do better, but so do those who really stick to their diets. The problem, I'm guessing (and I really am guessing) is that people tend to stop doing the things that led to weight loss, and return to the bad habits that made them fat in the first place. Well put. The simple fact is that most people fail at most behavior mods. Whether it's drinking, smoking, drugs, exercise, or diet; most return to old behaviors. As well, even if someone engages in a regular exercise program AND sticks with it, this is no guarantee of weight or fat loss per se. Look around any gym for wonderful examples: folks who are in there day-in and day-out exercising religiously who never lose a pound. Some type of dietary modification (wehether qualitative or quantitative) is almost always going to be necessary (the exceptions are usually exercise programs, think marathon training, where teh exercise calorie expenditure is just so monstrous that subjects don't cancel it out but that's hardly indicative of what's recommended or what most people do). Now, some studies do suggest that adding exercise causes a spontaneous change in eating habits (in terms of macronutrient selection). There is also data to suggest that appetite better autoregulates when daily activity is above a certain level (it's pretty high as I recall). Both could lead to weight/fat loss. At the same time, some people compensate the other way, essentially use exercise as an 'excuse' to eat more crap (i.e. "I did an aerobics class, I deserve that milkshake" syndrome). This gets into a lot of other issues having to do with psychological models of eating behavior. Again, look around the gym: you can find lots of people who are in there every day who don't lose a pound. So exercise alone isn't any more of a guarantee than diet alone is (except inasmuch as diet alone WILL cause weight loss, exercise alone may or may not: adherence being a separate issue). The bigger question (rather, the more important issue IMO), is whether diet+exercise has better or worse compliance (or effects wrt: weight) than diet alone (or exercise alone). The data, as usual, is mixed. I've seen studies suggesting that exercise makes people adhere to dietary changes better but I can also think of at least one study which found that diet + exercise did worse than the other two groups (as I recall) in terms of weight regain. Shocked the researchers too. Presumably the subjects linked the diet and exercise so when they quit one, they quit the other too. Basically, it's complicated. Humans are crafy *******s and can find ways out of just about anything you throw at them. But the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is pretty much this: any behavior modification has to be forever. And most people, no matter what you're talking about, just aren't very good at that type of long-term change. Most diets fail, most exercise programs fail, most attempts to change drinking or drug habits fail. Which says a lot more about humans than anything else. Lyle |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message s.com... "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... 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. 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! So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a maintenance calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet will somehow cause something to occur wrt: body fat? Well - I read your previous posts on the matter, along with about 30 studies (some posted in another thread), that nutrient partitioning (via differntial response of metabolic parameters such as insulin and leptin etc.) will cause loss of bf and maint of lean body mass. The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs lean muscle maint. What has your more-involved research shown? From what I have read (less than you I am sure), it makes sense theoretically. See the studies I found )posted in anoth3r post in this thread) (some longer than what you said were not very long and thence not very convincing). PS: I think it is more about insulin than leptin, immediately postprandial. Leptin has more of an affect via brain (behavior). 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 the ob mouse is an irrelevant model for 99.9% of obese humans. A few cases of OB (leptin deficient) humans have been found but that's it. Lyle |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
Low Carb Week in Review | Dave N | General Discussion | 0 | November 24th, 2003 12:06 AM |
Latest Low Carb News | Dave N | General Discussion | 1 | November 18th, 2003 07:13 AM |
What is low carb? | Jarkat2002 | General Discussion | 7 | October 30th, 2003 02:21 PM |
named vs. homegrown diets Curiosity about posters who drop out of this NG | JayJay | General Discussion | 16 | September 27th, 2003 02:16 AM |