Low carb diets

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

You might note one of the comments I made in one of my responses to
you:

Most studies supporting the idea of this type of effect are comparing
inadequate protein to adequate protein. Once you get protein to a
sufficient level, changing around carbs and fats does very little.
Also, the difference in teh Layman studies were TINY. They only got
significance with some keen statistical game playing.

Yes - but some diets increase the fat more than the protein.

So what?
Fat is just energetic ballast.

And probably
some therfore have inadequate protein. WOuld like to see a studt with
those parameters.

I'd like to see a lot of studies in terms of setup. One would be a
study comparing

a. adequate protein: 0.8-1 g/lb LBM and EFA's
b. moderate caloric deficit: 20% below maintenance
c. with weight training
d. shuffle around carbs and fat within those parameters

Because that's really the type of dieting situation I'm talking about
when I say I don't think the composition of the diet matters (in terms
of real world weight, fat and LBM loss; issues of adherence and exercise
performance are separate). There are some built in requirements and
qualifications.

Comparing an RDA protein diet to a lowcarb diet with double the protein
is a **** poor comparison but that's a lot of what's going on. Yeah, of
course, the lowcarb diet will work better. Because it has sufficient
protein. Not because of the low-carbs per se.

Yet the insulin effect of switching form hi-GI to low-G (or Hi-II to low II)
carbs is established. Likewise the effects of more fiber (hi-fiber carbs
being recommended for the carbs one does ingest) slowing the response.
When one lowers the carbs, in most if not all low-carb diets I have seen,
the carbs ingested are suggested to be the low-GI/II type, along with taking
in adequate fiber.

All independent of protein intake. Now before you jump all over me, I know
that of course combining carbs with the protein elicits a higher insulin
response even with lower-GI foods (Schenk et al).

I think it is certain that the low-carb approach affects composition more
from the insulemic effects than from getting adequate protein as a
replacement for the carbs. Especially longer-term where sensitivity changes
occur ( 3 months or so). Im talking non-obese, with normal fasting insulin
and glucose levels (no peripheral insulin resistence) to start with. E.g.,
the antilipolytic effects and lipogenesis.

Thnik about this: if the dieters are consumming that greater amount of
protein that you say is what is happening in the studies,one would expect
those people to be getting fatter and/*or* more insulin resistent
considering the protein effect on insulin release. I don;t think that is
what is being seen. In fact the opposite is being seen. I.e., in Schenk's
study, the glucose disposal was not significantly different between a hi-GI
and low-GI because in the low-GI group, the extra protein (with the carbs
taken) elicited a significant insulin response which would have led to
thethe antilipolytic effects and lipogenesis effect .

Also, think about the increased EFAs that usually come with a rec. to go on
a low-carb diet. That also augers for a more reasonable insulemic response.
As does timing and food combinations. All independent of gross protein
intake. I believe Kasper & Theil et al showed this in *non-obese*
individuals (1)

So there is certainly something happening beyond getting the adequate
protein. The low-carb diets end up changing the food combinations as well. I
mean if you are only gonn get from 30-200 gms -o-carbs per day (depending on
how low carb you are gonna go), then you are mostly, automatically, ensuring
that the food combinations you *used* to eat (those that most assuradly had
a fiar amount of carbs in *each* meal), are now gonna be meals with a
goodly-amount less carbs in each meal. SInce you are upping, usually, both
protein and fats (good presumably), some or all meals will have the effect
preventing large insulin releases with the attendent effects.

What is interesting is that even from the Cleveland Clinic (2), present lots
of studies (the paper referenced is a review of studies of sorts) and say
that the criticisms of the diet lack scientific evidence. Those that bash
studies because of confounding factors or the study population are missing
the ****ing point.

They also point out that weight loss goes "beyond water loss and includes
suppression of appetite, decreasing metabolic efficiency and shunting
nutrients away from fat storage".

Of course they (as do all researchers) say further study is warranted. No
****!

I do not have a dog in this fight as I do not really care about a low-carb
diet vs other diets. But the basic physiological mechansims underlying
success with such are similar across many types of individuals.

Other than that, perhaps your main point is that it doesn;t matter as people
lose on diets that they stick to regardless of type.

But given that an individual is going to choose *a* diet, it makes sense to
choose one that provides as many metabolic goodies as possible. Low-carb
(and thence upiing EFS and protein) offers that I believe. And I think you
do too - right?

You said below that (a) would have to be explained. That is a tough one and
I am taking your word that the results in the (a) group show what you claim.

It just seems that something is being missed given the theory of how all
this is supposed to work. Your statement below: "The most parsimonious
conclusion is that differences in food intake (whether real or simply
reported) under uncontrolled conditions is causing the difference." is
revealing as is the bodybuilder statement. But since adequate studies have
not been done to falsify the hypothesis (or combination of hypotheses since
the low-carb diet is manifest in so many possible configuration), the theory
(that low-carb diets without calorie decrease work to alter body
composition) is supported by some data (that data about insulin's effect on
lipolysis etc.). I have not seen a study (and this may be the issue you are
calling out) that shows that in normal populations (no confounding factors
such as obesity or diabetes) , a low-carb diet (with no lowered caloric
intake) does NOT result in altered body composition. True?



1 Kasper H, Thiel H, Ehl M. Response of body weight to a
low carbohydrate, high fat diet in normal and obese subjects.



2 JEFF S. VOLEK, PhD, RD*

Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut;
Human Performance Laboratory, Department of
Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs

ERIC C. WESTMAN, MD, MHS*
Associate Professor, Division of General Medicine,
Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC
CLEVELAND CLINIC JOURNAL OF MEDICINE VOLUME 69 . NUMBER 11 NOVEMBER 2002
Very-low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets revisited



no *enforced* calorie restriction.

Studies of ad-lib caloric intakes on low-carb diets indicate
spontaneous
low caloric intakes, in the 1400-2000 cal/day range.

Hmmm. Certainly not stated there.

A huge problem with many of the recent lowcarb vs. lowfat studies is
that they are
a. allowing ad-lib intakes
b. relying on food reporting to get caloric intake estimates (noting
that people misreport horribly)

Admittedly, this is more representative of real world dieting situations
but it makes conclusions hard to draw. As I said, studies clearly show
that people reduce calories on ad-lib intakes on low-carbs. As I also
pointed out, protein intake frequently changes pretty drastically.

Such studies are terribly uncontrolled and are turning up conclusions
that go directly against the bulk of controlled studies (studies where
subjects are given a fixed amount of food and every calorie and nutrient
is accounted for).

basically, we have two data sets:
a. controlled calorie studies (frequently done in hospital situations):
these almost always show that, given adequate protein anyhow,
non-retarded calorie levels, and a few others, differences in true
weight or fat loss (or LBM sparing) are negligble (if they show up at all)

b. uncontrolled studies which show vast differences among diets

Now, any good model has to include all of the studies. And if you're
going to argue that lowcarb gives all of these magical effects (what the
studies in group 'b' suggest), you have to be able to explain why the
studies in group a did NOT show that effect. That is, if under
uncontrolled conditions, a lowcarb diet shows double the weight and fat
loss, how come the same thing isn't seen in controlled studies?

The most parsimonious conclusion is that differences in food intake
(whether real or simply reported) under uncontrolled conditions is
causing the difference.

Of course, this can still be used as a pro-lowcarb argument (making a
tangent here). If going to lowcarb gets the average person to
spontaneously eat sufficient protein and reduce caloric intake (compared
to a low-fat diet), that's fantastic. Frankly, I'm all for it.

but it doesn't really tell you anything useful about something like an
athlete or bodybuilder who will be controlling all of those variables
fairly strictly. They will ensure adequate protein no matter what the
rest of teh diet looks like, they will be counting calories strictly,
etc, etc.

Studies with enforced intake?

Don't know what you're asking here. By enforced intake, I mean studies
where caloric intake is being controlled and both groups are being given
the same number of calories (instead of being told to follow a diet and
then having them self-report their caloric intake).

Lyle

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Seth Breidbart" wrote in message

What they all had in common,
however, was that calories were restricted to about 1,100 per day and
the diets lasted about four to five months."

Losing the most weight requires the fewest calories per day, sure.

What were the results for people who dieted for even longer than 4-5
months?

I posted a few recent studies of 6m-1yr.

all those studies came after the big meta-analysis came out.

Nutrient partitioning effects, theoretically - although Lyle's readings
tell
a different story.

I posted a longer response to another post of yours before I saw this.

Thanks for the more in-depth info!!


I can also report empirically the feedback I've gotten. This was from a
few years ago (on the lowcarb-l list) from folks comparing things like
Isocaloric (33/33/33) diets to Bodyopus (CKD) types of diets. These
were motivated bodybuilder/athletic types who are known for being anal
compulsive about their diet and who were using similar protein inakes
and caloric deficits (and weight training and the rest). At *most*, the
variance in fat loss/LBM loss was ~3 lbs over 12 weeks. That is, they
might report 3 lbs more fat lost and 3 lbs more LBM maintained over that
period.

Adding:
a. Even then, the effects weren't consistent. Some folks did better on
CKD's, some folks better on Isocaloric (and lost more muscle on the
CKD). Meaning there was no consistent pattern with one diet being
absolutely superior.

Note: studies from Blundell and Rolls are supporting the idea of high
and low fat phenotypes, bascially folks who differ in how they adapt to
higher and low fat intakes (some resisting obesity despite a high fat
intake). The mechanisms are obscure at this point with the only measure
they had done finding that sleeping heart rate was higher in the
high-fat phenotype (as I recall). This suggests higher SNS output,
probably a function of high leptin, insulin, etc. sensitivity. This
would make some sense considering the other effects of that axis (and
other studies such as Levine's NEAT studies) which contribute to what's
going on.

Unfortunately, I have no way to predict who might or might not do better
on one diet vs. the other except in the vaguest sense. And that has
more to do with a choice by exclusion: folks who feel well/do well on
high-carb/low-fat diets tend to do terribly on low-carbs (they just
never adapt) and vice versa (some folks seem to have the metabolic
flexibility to go either way).

b. 3 lbs is within measurement error (sorry, this is the cynic in me
speaking). Hell, it's within the error of glycogen and water balance.

c. 3 lbs of fat vs LBM is hardly relevant for the majority of dieters.
For an athlete or bodybuilder, yeah, it matters. But without a
consistently superior diet or a way to know who will be ideally suited
for one or the other, the above is kind of meaningless (at this point,
there's no good way to apply it).

Lyle

You certainly cram a lot of good info into a short space - thanks!

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Doug Freese wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote:

and that, IMO, is the bottom line.

After all of these studies and 30+ years of research, the basic
conclusion is that all diets work, as long as people follow them. And
unless they are totally retarded, they all generate about teh same
weight/fat loss (and for the majority of dieters, small differences in
LBM retention are an irrelevancy;

If the focus is strictly on weight loss then what you both have said
seems obvious, at least to some of us. When one introduces
additional notions such as, likelihood of staying on it, overall
health concerns which dovetails into quality of life, sprinkle in
some exercise, the discussion gets interesting and sometimes heated.

I mentioned that in a different post.
There are other issues that factor into optimal diet choice.

Activity is one, potential health issues is another, there are certainly
others.


Someone realized that I post from sci.med.nutrition.

Explaining why you are a total dip**** (I'm basing this on your moronic
carb and exercise arguments, just so you know).

I have been in
and out of SMN for years and regardless of the number of degrees and
experience there is very little agreement on nutrition. I listen in
and get a few weeks of my daddy can beat up your daddy and put it on
the back burner. I would say most people agree that simple carbs aka
empty calories could be eliminated from everyone's diet and lose
nothing but possibly some weight. We have churned for years the
amounts, contents and proportions of pro/car/fat. Anyone think over
the next 5-10 years anything will be concluded?

Yes: Moderation in all things.

My grandmother knew this 50 years ago and many nutrition studies are
coming to the same basic conclusion. Both extremely low-fat and
extremely high-fat diets can cause health problems (low-fat can raise
triglcyeride levels and increase small LDL particles; high fat has a
separate set of problems although it depends on the rest of the diet).
Same for protein (tho the risk of 'high-protein' are drastically
overstated). High-carb diets (esp if the carbs come from refined
sources and, let's face it, they do in modern diets) cause all kinds of
problems. Lowcarbs can or can not be a problem depending on other
specifics.

for the majority of individuals, I feel that a diet containing

1. ~25-30% dietary protein (in the realm of .8-1 g/lb LBM)
2. 25-35% dietary fat (from mostly healthy/monounsaturated sources): I
use .45 g/lb as a pulled out my ass value for now (it's about 25-30% at
maintenance calories)
3. the remainder carbs: preferably less refined. Meaning that, at most,
carbs are going to be 50% of total calories. They can go lower but,
unless you're talking about elite endurance performance, there's rarely
a need to go higher.
4. High fiber (goes with 3)
5. Allow one or two don't worry about it, eat whatever the **** you want
meals per week to get it out of your damn system.

is probably about right.

There are outliers to any such schema. Elite endurance athletes may
need relatively more carbs (of course, their total claorie intakes go
through the roof so their absolute carb intakes will go up). Folks with
severe insulin resistance may need to reduce carbs further for health
reasons and/or to control calories.

Lyle

OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...

Because that's really the type of dieting situation I'm talking about
when I say I don't think the composition of the diet matters (in terms
of real world weight, fat and LBM loss; issues of adherence and exercise
performance are separate). There are some built in requirements and
qualifications.

Comparing an RDA protein diet to a lowcarb diet with double the protein
is a **** poor comparison but that's a lot of what's going on. Yeah, of
course, the lowcarb diet will work better. Because it has sufficient
protein. Not because of the low-carbs per se.

Yet the insulin effect of switching form hi-GI to low-G (or Hi-II to low II)
carbs is established.

Yes it is.

All independent of protein intake. Now before you jump all over me, I know
that of course combining carbs with the protein elicits a higher insulin
response even with lower-GI foods (Schenk et al).

There's that.

as well, it's important to note that the amount of insuli nrequired to
affect fat cell metabolism is tiny and more than met by even low GI
carbs. Frankly, you can make an argument for high GI carbs being better
for fat loss anyhow.

One study (I don't have the reference handy) compared folks sipping
glucose (50 grams over an hour or two) vs drinking it all at once and
looked at things like insulin, blood glucose and FFA levels. The
sipping trial was to mimick a slow digesting/low GI carb but they wanted
to minimize variables by not changing carb sources or adding fiber or
what have you (this is how you do good science, btw, you minimize
variables). The low GI food supressed blood FFA levels much longer than
the high GI food (which spiked insulin but FFA rebounded after the blood
glucose/insulin crash that occurred). Read that closely: you'll achieve
higher blood FFA levels FASTER with high GI carbs (of course, the
drawback is the near impossibility of calorie control under such conditions).

something you need to remember when you read about all of the low
GI/insulin sensitivity studies is that part of the way low GI foods
improve insulin sensitivity is by lowering blood FFA levels. That is,
they limit fatty acid mobilization from the fat cell (which tends to be
inappropriately high in insulin resistance/obesity in the first place).
In one brilliant study (and *thats* sarcasm), diabetics were given
either a high GI or low GI carb at bedtime and morning insulin
sensitivity was checked. It was better in the low GI trial...because
the low GI food prevented teh normal increase in blood fatty acids that
would have occurred at nighttime. Which is great, you limit morning
insulin resistance but at the expense of preventing a time when fatty
acids would be mobilized and oxidized for fuel.

Read those paragraphs again VERY CLOSELY.

Ask yourself: is that (= limiting FFA availability) what you want to
occur on a diet?


I think it is certain that the low-carb approach affects composition more
from the insulemic effects than from getting adequate protein as a
replacement for the carbs.

Ok, I can't figure out what the hell this means.

But part of the problem is that you're laboring under what is,
basically, an out of date model: that insulin is all that matters. For
example, two different studies have shown that the mere presence of fat
in the bloodstream (via oral ingestion or infusion) affects fat cell
metabolism (slowing lipolysis) with (stay with me here): NO CHANGE IN INSULIN.

http://tinyurl.com/3b783

Refs 1 and 3.

That is, the mere presence of fat in the bloodstream inhibits fat mobilization.
Other studies, examining a new thing called acylation stimulation
protein have shown that the presence of chylomicrons (from fat
ingestion/digestion/processing) stimulate fat storage. This process is
insulin independent.

Meaning that the body will figure it all out in the end. For any given
calorie level, replacing carbs with fat, or vice versa, ends up doing
very little (again, assumptions are that protein is adequate and EFA
requirements are met). Fat loss still comes down to fat balance
(oxidation - intake) and that ultimately comes down, basically, to
calorie balance.

Thnik about this: if the dieters are consumming that greater amount of
protein that you say is what is happening in the studies,one would expect
those people to be getting fatter and/*or* more insulin resistent
considering the protein effect on insulin release.

Huh? Although protein increaes insulin, it's still to a far lesser
degree than carbs. So I'm not sure how your conclusion follows.

Also, think about the increased EFAs that usually come with a rec. to go on
a low-carb diet. That also augers for a more reasonable insulemic response.
As does timing and food combinations. All independent of gross protein
intake. I believe Kasper & Theil et al showed this in *non-obese*
individuals (1)

you'll note that I specified adequate EFA intake as part and parcel of
any diet I care to consider. Of course, a diet comparing adequate EFA
intake to inadequate EFA intake is going to be beneficial. Becuase the
inadequate EFA intake diet has a nutrient deficiency.

It'd be like comparing a diet with inadequate zinc (which controls
eating behavior and nutrient partitioning to some degree) to one with
adequate zinc (adding zinc to the diets of folks who are zinc deficient
causes some magical **** to happen: once your requirements are met,
adding more does nothing). Or arguing that the diet that causes
adequate zinc intake is therefore better. It's a poor comparison IMO
because you're comparing a ****ty diet to a non-****ty diet.


So there is certainly something happening beyond getting the adequate
protein. The low-carb diets end up changing the food combinations as well. I
mean if you are only gonn get from 30-200 gms -o-carbs per day (depending on
how low carb you are gonna go), then you are mostly, automatically, ensuring
that the food combinations you *used* to eat (those that most assuradly had
a fiar amount of carbs in *each* meal), are now gonna be meals with a
goodly-amount less carbs in each meal. SInce you are upping, usually, both
protein and fats (good presumably), some or all meals will have the effect
preventing large insulin releases with the attendent effects.

See above.

They also point out that weight loss goes "beyond water loss and includes
suppression of appetite, decreasing metabolic efficiency and shunting
nutrients away from fat storage".

any diet that is below maintenance levels will shut nutrients away from
fat storage.
My point is that the composition of that diet just doesn't seem to
matter because the body will figure it out. Yeah, if it ONLy came down
to insulin, it would matter. But since the mere ingestion of dietary
fat (in the absence of an increase in insulin) affects fat cell
metabolism, it turns out not to matter.

But given that an individual is going to choose *a* diet, it makes sense to
choose one that provides as many metabolic goodies as possible. Low-carb
(and thence upiing EFS and protein) offers that I believe. And I think you
do too - right?

No. As per my previous post, if there is any benefit (in terms of body
composition per se, not taking into account any other considerations)
they a

a. minor
b. inconsistent (some people do worse on lowcarb diets compared to carb-based)

don't get me wrong, the theoretical stuff sounds good and looks good.
In the real world it just doesn't amount to much.

It just seems that something is being missed given the theory of how all
this is supposed to work.

Suggests that perhaps the theory is wrong.

Hopefully my explanation of insulin (and non-insulin) stuff helps you to
understand that.

Your statement below: "The most parsimonious
conclusion is that differences in food intake (whether real or simply
reported) under uncontrolled conditions is causing the difference." is
revealing as is the bodybuilder statement. But since adequate studies have
not been done to falsify the hypothesis (or combination of hypotheses since
the low-carb diet is manifest in so many possible configuration),

You'll have to translate this into English for me.

My point was that a absolute ****load of studies have been done under
strictly controlled conditions testing any diet you care to name. They
show little to no difference among diets assuming a few requirements are
met. You have to be able to explain those in any claim that there are
magic differences (based on relatively uncontrolled studies).

the theory
(that low-carb diets without calorie decrease work to alter body
composition) is supported by some data (that data about insulin's effect on
lipolysis etc.). I have not seen a study (and this may be the issue you are
calling out) that shows that in normal populations (no confounding factors
such as obesity or diabetes) , a low-carb diet (with no lowered caloric
intake) does NOT result in altered body composition. True?

1 Kasper H, Thiel H, Ehl M. Response of body weight to a
low carbohydrate, high fat diet in normal and obese subjects.

Oh, dude, I can't believe you trudged this one out for me.

Kasper's studies and most of what was done in the late 60's and early
70's were such ****. They lasted, on average, from 4-9 days and
measured only weight loss. Concluded that lowcarb led to greater weight
loss. Well, yeah, but the difference was water.


2 JEFF S. VOLEK, PhD, RD*

Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut;
Human Performance Laboratory, Department of
Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs

I mentinoed Volek's paper before. It did seem to support what you're claiming.
Problem was that protein intake went from 119 to 178 grams/day which is
a huge ass confound.

you can say that the effect was from the low-carbs but that's not an
automatically valid conclusion. The paper states that the individuals
were all moderately active performing varions aerobic or weight training
routines. AVerage starting weight was 79 kg (173 lbs). STarting diet
was 113+- 40 grams of protein. On lowcarbs, this bumped to 176+-45. So
they went from .65 g/lb to 1 g/lb. I would simply argue that they were
protein deficient (even the lowest protein recommendatios for active
people are about 0.7 g/lb which they were just under). Calories also
dropped although it was not statistically significant (about 1 MJ or 240
calories in the lowcarb group and the same in the control group). The
control group only got 80 grams of protein.

Basically, we got a lot of different variables here (changes in caloric
intake, protein intake, fat intake, carb intake), concluding that
lowered carbs per se was the cause is inappropriate. I know they
correlated the results to teh drop in insulin but that's all it was: a correlation.

Lyle

Thanks Lyle - A lot to think about for sure.


"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...

Because that's really the type of dieting situation I'm talking about
when I say I don't think the composition of the diet matters (in terms
of real world weight, fat and LBM loss; issues of adherence and
exercise
performance are separate). There are some built in requirements and
qualifications.

Comparing an RDA protein diet to a lowcarb diet with double the
protein
is a **** poor comparison but that's a lot of what's going on. Yeah,
of
course, the lowcarb diet will work better. Because it has sufficient
protein. Not because of the low-carbs per se.

Yet the insulin effect of switching form hi-GI to low-G (or Hi-II to low
II)
carbs is established.

Yes it is.

All independent of protein intake. Now before you jump all over me, I
know
that of course combining carbs with the protein elicits a higher insulin
response even with lower-GI foods (Schenk et al).

There's that.

as well, it's important to note that the amount of insuli nrequired to
affect fat cell metabolism is tiny and more than met by even low GI
carbs. Frankly, you can make an argument for high GI carbs being better
for fat loss anyhow.

One study (I don't have the reference handy) compared folks sipping
glucose (50 grams over an hour or two) vs drinking it all at once and
looked at things like insulin, blood glucose and FFA levels. The
sipping trial was to mimick a slow digesting/low GI carb but they wanted
to minimize variables by not changing carb sources or adding fiber or
what have you (this is how you do good science, btw, you minimize
variables). The low GI food supressed blood FFA levels much longer than
the high GI food (which spiked insulin but FFA rebounded after the blood
glucose/insulin crash that occurred). Read that closely: you'll achieve
higher blood FFA levels FASTER with high GI carbs (of course, the
drawback is the near impossibility of calorie control under such
conditions).

something you need to remember when you read about all of the low
GI/insulin sensitivity studies is that part of the way low GI foods
improve insulin sensitivity is by lowering blood FFA levels. That is,
they limit fatty acid mobilization from the fat cell (which tends to be
inappropriately high in insulin resistance/obesity in the first place).
In one brilliant study (and *thats* sarcasm), diabetics were given
either a high GI or low GI carb at bedtime and morning insulin
sensitivity was checked. It was better in the low GI trial...because
the low GI food prevented teh normal increase in blood fatty acids that
would have occurred at nighttime. Which is great, you limit morning
insulin resistance but at the expense of preventing a time when fatty
acids would be mobilized and oxidized for fuel.

Read those paragraphs again VERY CLOSELY.

Ask yourself: is that (= limiting FFA availability) what you want to
occur on a diet?


I think it is certain that the low-carb approach affects composition
more
from the insulemic effects than from getting adequate protein as a
replacement for the carbs.

Ok, I can't figure out what the hell this means.

But part of the problem is that you're laboring under what is,
basically, an out of date model: that insulin is all that matters. For
example, two different studies have shown that the mere presence of fat
in the bloodstream (via oral ingestion or infusion) affects fat cell
metabolism (slowing lipolysis) with (stay with me here): NO CHANGE IN
INSULIN.

http://tinyurl.com/3b783

Refs 1 and 3.

That is, the mere presence of fat in the bloodstream inhibits fat
mobilization.
Other studies, examining a new thing called acylation stimulation
protein have shown that the presence of chylomicrons (from fat
ingestion/digestion/processing) stimulate fat storage. This process is
insulin independent.

Meaning that the body will figure it all out in the end. For any given
calorie level, replacing carbs with fat, or vice versa, ends up doing
very little (again, assumptions are that protein is adequate and EFA
requirements are met). Fat loss still comes down to fat balance
(oxidation - intake) and that ultimately comes down, basically, to
calorie balance.

Thnik about this: if the dieters are consumming that greater amount of
protein that you say is what is happening in the studies,one would
expect
those people to be getting fatter and/*or* more insulin resistent
considering the protein effect on insulin release.

Huh? Although protein increaes insulin, it's still to a far lesser
degree than carbs. So I'm not sure how your conclusion follows.

Also, think about the increased EFAs that usually come with a rec. to go
on
a low-carb diet. That also augers for a more reasonable insulemic
response.
As does timing and food combinations. All independent of gross protein
intake. I believe Kasper & Theil et al showed this in *non-obese*
individuals (1)

you'll note that I specified adequate EFA intake as part and parcel of
any diet I care to consider. Of course, a diet comparing adequate EFA
intake to inadequate EFA intake is going to be beneficial. Becuase the
inadequate EFA intake diet has a nutrient deficiency.

It'd be like comparing a diet with inadequate zinc (which controls
eating behavior and nutrient partitioning to some degree) to one with
adequate zinc (adding zinc to the diets of folks who are zinc deficient
causes some magical **** to happen: once your requirements are met,
adding more does nothing). Or arguing that the diet that causes
adequate zinc intake is therefore better. It's a poor comparison IMO
because you're comparing a ****ty diet to a non-****ty diet.


So there is certainly something happening beyond getting the adequate
protein. The low-carb diets end up changing the food combinations as
well. I
mean if you are only gonn get from 30-200 gms -o-carbs per day
(depending on
how low carb you are gonna go), then you are mostly, automatically,
ensuring
that the food combinations you *used* to eat (those that most assuradly
had
a fiar amount of carbs in *each* meal), are now gonna be meals with a
goodly-amount less carbs in each meal. SInce you are upping, usually,
both
protein and fats (good presumably), some or all meals will have the
effect
preventing large insulin releases with the attendent effects.

See above.

They also point out that weight loss goes "beyond water loss and
includes
suppression of appetite, decreasing metabolic efficiency and shunting
nutrients away from fat storage".

any diet that is below maintenance levels will shut nutrients away from
fat storage.
My point is that the composition of that diet just doesn't seem to
matter because the body will figure it out. Yeah, if it ONLy came down
to insulin, it would matter. But since the mere ingestion of dietary
fat (in the absence of an increase in insulin) affects fat cell
metabolism, it turns out not to matter.

But given that an individual is going to choose *a* diet, it makes sense
to
choose one that provides as many metabolic goodies as possible.
Low-carb
(and thence upiing EFS and protein) offers that I believe. And I think
you
do too - right?

No. As per my previous post, if there is any benefit (in terms of body
composition per se, not taking into account any other considerations)
they a

a. minor
b. inconsistent (some people do worse on lowcarb diets compared to carb-ba
sed)

don't get me wrong, the theoretical stuff sounds good and looks good.
In the real world it just doesn't amount to much.

It just seems that something is being missed given the theory of how all
this is supposed to work.

Suggests that perhaps the theory is wrong.

Hopefully my explanation of insulin (and non-insulin) stuff helps you to
understand that.

Your statement below: "The most parsimonious
conclusion is that differences in food intake (whether real or simply
reported) under uncontrolled conditions is causing the difference." is
revealing as is the bodybuilder statement. But since adequate studies
have
not been done to falsify the hypothesis (or combination of hypotheses
since
the low-carb diet is manifest in so many possible configuration),

You'll have to translate this into English for me.

My point was that a absolute ****load of studies have been done under
strictly controlled conditions testing any diet you care to name. They
show little to no difference among diets assuming a few requirements are
met. You have to be able to explain those in any claim that there are
magic differences (based on relatively uncontrolled studies).

the theory
(that low-carb diets without calorie decrease work to alter body
composition) is supported by some data (that data about insulin's effect
on
lipolysis etc.). I have not seen a study (and this may be the issue you
are
calling out) that shows that in normal populations (no confounding
factors
such as obesity or diabetes) , a low-carb diet (with no lowered caloric
intake) does NOT result in altered body composition. True?

1 Kasper H, Thiel H, Ehl M. Response of body weight to a
low carbohydrate, high fat diet in normal and obese subjects.

Oh, dude, I can't believe you trudged this one out for me.

Kasper's studies and most of what was done in the late 60's and early
70's were such ****. They lasted, on average, from 4-9 days and
measured only weight loss. Concluded that lowcarb led to greater weight
loss. Well, yeah, but the difference was water.


2 JEFF S. VOLEK, PhD, RD*

Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut;
Human Performance Laboratory, Department of
Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs

I mentinoed Volek's paper before. It did seem to support what you're
claiming.
Problem was that protein intake went from 119 to 178 grams/day which is
a huge ass confound.

you can say that the effect was from the low-carbs but that's not an
automatically valid conclusion. The paper states that the individuals
were all moderately active performing varions aerobic or weight training
routines. AVerage starting weight was 79 kg (173 lbs). STarting diet
was 113+- 40 grams of protein. On lowcarbs, this bumped to 176+-45. So
they went from .65 g/lb to 1 g/lb. I would simply argue that they were
protein deficient (even the lowest protein recommendatios for active
people are about 0.7 g/lb which they were just under). Calories also
dropped although it was not statistically significant (about 1 MJ or 240
calories in the lowcarb group and the same in the control group). The
control group only got 80 grams of protein.

Basically, we got a lot of different variables here (changes in caloric
intake, protein intake, fat intake, carb intake), concluding that
lowered carbs per se was the cause is inappropriate. I know they
correlated the results to teh drop in insulin but that's all it was: a
correlation.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald writes:
Meaning that the body will figure it all out in the end. For any given
calorie level, replacing carbs with fat, or vice versa, ends up doing
very little (again, assumptions are that protein is adequate and EFA
requirements are met). Fat loss still comes down to fat balance
(oxidation - intake) and that ultimately comes down, basically, to
calorie balance.

Do all these studies assume a healthy metabolism, and is there any
evidence that abnormal metabolisms (esp. insulin resistance, diabetes)
might affect the calorie balance argument? I'm thinking that the
calorie balance assumes that fat storage and fat release are equally
sensitive to blood composition (FFAs, insulin, etc), but if they
aren't - could there exist a situation where FFA storage happens
readily, but release is reluctant? Also, would variations in such
sensitivities account for "stubborn" fat areas? I.e. it's easy to
lose weight at first not because of the hormone balance but because
more of the fat cells are responsive; as you reach goal the fat that
remains, by definition, would be in less responsive cells.

These are all thought experiment type ideas, just wondering if any of
them have any basis in fact.

Lyle McDonald wrote:


Explaining why you are a total dip**** (I'm basing this on your moronic
carb and exercise arguments, just so you know).

My god you hurt my feelings. That ok, until I read this post I
thought the same of you. Since you always address proteins first it
suggested your a muscle head and you probably post from m.f.weights.
Have we finished with the name calling?


Yes: Moderation in all things.

I think I said that a few times.

My grandmother knew this 50 years ago and many nutrition studies are
coming to the same basic conclusion. Both extremely low-fat and
extremely high-fat diets can cause health problems (low-fat can raise
triglcyeride levels and increase small LDL particles; high fat has a
separate set of problems although it depends on the rest of the diet).
Same for protein (tho the risk of 'high-protein' are drastically
overstated). High-carb diets (esp if the carbs come from refined
sources and, let's face it, they do in modern diets) cause all kinds of
problems. Lowcarbs can or can not be a problem depending on other specifics.

for the majority of individuals, I feel that a diet containing

1. ~25-30% dietary protein (in the realm of .8-1 g/lb LBM)
2. 25-35% dietary fat (from mostly healthy/monounsaturated sources): I
use .45 g/lb as a pulled out my ass value for now (it's about 25-30% at
maintenance calories)
3. the remainder carbs: preferably less refined. Meaning that, at most,
carbs are going to be 50% of total calories. They can go lower but,
unless you're talking about elite endurance performance, there's rarely
a need to go higher.
4. High fiber (goes with 3)
5. Allow one or two don't worry about it, eat whatever the **** you want
meals per week to get it out of your damn system.

In a nut shell your 50/25/25 give or take a few. There is not a word
above that I disagree with so what did I say that you disagree with.



There are outliers to any such schema. Elite endurance athletes may
need relatively more carbs (of course, their total claorie intakes go
through the roof so their absolute carb intakes will go up).

You don't have to be elite, even slow endurance will drive the
demands for carbs up higher. I'm probably 60/20/20 on average.


--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message ws.com...
"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
After all of these studies and 30+ years of research, the basic
conclusion is that all diets work, as long as people follow them. And
unless they are totally retarded, they all generate about teh same
weight/fat loss (and for the majority of dieters, small differences in
LBM retention are an irrelevancy; that only matters for athletes and
bodybuilders and tha'ts a tiny percentage of the dieting public).

Meaning this: pick the dietary approach (which is going to depend on
personal food preferences, activity, etc) that YOU CAN BEST STICK TO. I
have been saying this for years.

Oh I agree with this 100%.

But it is interesting to look at the mechanisms and theories.

Dude, mechanisms rool. (Lyle only likes endpoints

Lyle McDonald wrote in message .. .
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

Meaning this: pick the dietary approach (which is going to depend on
personal food preferences, activity, etc) that YOU CAN BEST STICK TO. I
have been saying this for years.

Oh I agree with this 100%.

But it is interesting to look at the mechanisms and theories.

No doubt. But the more you look, the more you find it comes down, more
or less to the above.

I mean, fundamentally, weight loss is a function of

eat less (or eat differently so that you automatically eat less)
exercise (or not)
repeat
forever

most of the mechanistic stuff has to do with determining the details of
those 4 steps.

Which has more relavence for pathophysiologies and age-related issues
than the general populace. I agree that mechanistic knowledge is not
as important for the general populace, and, as you mention later in
your post, it is easy to attain weight loss (and maintain it) by
adjusting the two components: diet and exericse. However, age-related
changes in gene expression and metabolism alter the effects of both
diet and exericse. Pathophysiologies are often associated with genetic
mutations and resulting congenital or acquired phenotypes in which the
effects of diet and exercise may be dissimilar with normal
individuals.

After the symposium that I attended today on lipodystrophy, the
multifactorial nature of these pathophysiologies was very apparent;
not one treatment or therapy will result in equal response in all
individuals.

This is why pursuing mechanistic studies in diet and exercise and
weight regulation is imperative. And why I find it so fascinating and
challenging.

What to eat and does it even matter what the composition of the diet is?
Given a few requirements (which I stated previously), the differences
are minor approaching 4/5th of **** all (they certainly aren't that
important for your average obese individual; a few pounds either way may
be huge for an athlete or bodybuilder). So all diets basically work as
long as you reduce calories. One issue is whether or not the diet is
going to be strictly controlled or you're allowing ad-lib intakes. If
the latter, you need to pick a diet that spontaneously makes folks
reduce food intake. Both low-fat and low-carb approaches have studies
to back them (reducing fat tends to reduce calories in the short-term
because of the high energy density, in that carbs typically make up 50%
or more of the daily diet, reducing/removing them tends to reduce
calories as well). High-fiber is key and protein is turning out to be
the big player as it decreases hunger/appetite the most. A high fiber,
high protein, low GI carb, and low to moderate fat diet would probably
lead to the greatest spontaneous reduction in caloric intake.

Exercise. What type, how much, how often? Studies are showing that
exercise has a bigger role in preventing weight regain (but it takes a
lot) than in causing weight or fat loss per se. Of course, most
exercise studies use pretty paltry intervenions. Of course, the average
person won't do/can't handle intense exercise, at least not at first.

Exercise also plays a large role in other traits, such as
cardioprotection and aiding the immune system. Reduction of diabetes
and CVD risk, ETC. What we don't know is what exercise prescription to
assign for each of these, or all for that matter. I suspect that it is
a combinatin of resistance and aerobic training. Each confers benefits
the other may not.


On and on it goes. One of these days I'll write a real diet book and
adress all of the above issues in the anal retentive detail I'm known for.

Uh, yeah....

Allow me to paste in the introduction of a very recent review authored
by one of my favorite reserchers in molecular/cellular biology of
exericse, Dr. Frank Booth (who up until a few years ago, was in
Houston) and a co-author:

"On a superficial level, many would consider it intuitive to
make the statement that exercise in general is a good thing.
However, when the layers of the exercise onion are peeled, the
answer to the question of how exactly at the mechanistic level
is exercise beneficial for human health does not seem that
obvious to the general scientific community, although there is
extensive literature at a descriptive level documenting the
precise benefits of exercise for many aspects of human health.

If, peeling those layers even further, we then consider the
notion that gene selection during the eons of human evolution
was likely influenced by physical activity to support human
health, we would suspect the reaction would be one of great
skepticism. Therefore, the major objectives of this review are
1) to amalgamate the presently known information, parts of which have
been separately developed from previous investigators
(5, 12–16, 21, 39, 40), that support the above notion of
an evolutionarily derived need for undertaking regular physical
activity to maintain normality of specific metabolic functions,
and 2) to present a hypothesis that the combination of continuous
food abundance and a sedentary lifestyle results in metabolic
derangements because of the stalling of the evolutionarily
programmed metabolic cycles that were selected to support
cycles of feast and famine and of physical activity and
rest.

We contend that achieving such an understanding of
potential gene selection will provide further avenues for fruitful
research into dissecting the cellular and molecular mechanisms
of physical inactivity-mediated chronic diseases."

Very well put (and a very excellent review).

Elzinator wrote:

Allow me to paste in the introduction of a very recent
review authored by one of my favorite reserchers in
molecular/cellular biology of exericse, Dr. Frank Booth (who
up until a few years ago, was in Houston) and a co-author:

"On a superficial level, many would consider it intuitive to
make the statement that exercise in general is a good thing.
However, when the layers of the exercise onion are peeled,
the answer to the question of how exactly at the mechanistic
level is exercise beneficial for human health does not seem
that obvious to the general scientific community, although
there is extensive literature at a descriptive level
documenting the precise benefits of exercise for many
aspects of human health.

If, peeling those layers even further, we then consider the
notion that gene selection during the eons of human
evolution was likely influenced by physical activity to
support human health, we would suspect the reaction would be
one of great skepticism. Therefore, the major objectives of
this review are 1) to amalgamate the presently known
information, parts of which have been separately developed
from previous investigators (5, 12–16, 21, 39, 40), that
support the above notion of an evolutionarily derived need
for undertaking regular physical activity to maintain
normality of specific metabolic functions, and 2) to present
a hypothesis that the combination of continuous food
abundance and a sedentary lifestyle results in metabolic
derangements because of the stalling of the evolutionarily
programmed metabolic cycles that were selected to support
cycles of feast and famine and of physical activity and
rest.

We contend that achieving such an understanding of
potential gene selection will provide further avenues for
fruitful research into dissecting the cellular and molecular
mechanisms of physical inactivity-mediated chronic
diseases."

Very well put (and a very excellent review).

Sounds great.

--
-Wayne