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 » Low Fat Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 18th, 2004, 08:39 PM
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:26:07 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:42:23 -0400, jmk wrote:
::
::: On 5/18/2004 2:24 PM, Bob in CT wrote:
:::
:::: The problem with studies like this is that there are so many
:::: variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as
:::: I think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie.
:::
::: Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low fat
::: is "a lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems to work
::: for some.
:::
::
:: I think it does work for some. The problem is that I thought I was
:: one of those people. I ate low fat for many years. I developed
:: insulin resistance. Was that genetic predisposition or the low fat
:: diet? I don't know, but I wouldn't hesitate to say the latter or at
:: least a combination of the two. Moreover, I could eat pasta or
:: brown rice and be hungry with an hour or even a half-hour of eating.
:: Even if one believes that saturated fat is bad (which I no longer
:: do), "low fat" has to include fat such as olive oil and nuts. These
:: things sate me whereas true low fat products do not.
:: So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or
:: exacerbate insulin resistance and requires one to forego potentially
:: useful fats.
::

I think low-fat is a lie in the sense that it leads one to believe that
fat
is bad. In the same sense, low-carb is a lie if one comes to the
conclusion
that carbs are bad. Excess carbs are bad as is excess fat. Too much of
both is a killer combination. Excessive calorie intake seems to be the
real
problem.

Low-fat is not a lie in the sense that if you reduce calories, you lose
fat.
In that same sense, low carb is not a lie.

As a type 2 diabetic, I was able to lose fat on a low-fat diet. I ate a
lot
because I had appetitie. However, I also exercised like a maniac (and
hurt
myself), and as result, lost weight. On low carb, I don't have that
appetite, and hence don't have to go overboard on exercise. I feel
maintenance will be easier for me on low carb. Low carb doesn't *seem* to
support the same volume of exercise for me that low fat did, but then
again,
I'm more than 10 years older now while doing low carb.





I think if you can exercise enough, then low fat might not be bad. I used
to walk many miles per day while in college, bike 3-4 days a week, lift
weights, play raquetball, etc. Now, I exercise more in terms of volume (I
bike a lot more miles now, for instance) for individual exercises, but my
overall activity level in college was much higher. For instance, I walked
a ton in college but never walk now. The problem comes in when you get
hurt, as I did in an African dance class (while biking and taking tennis
lessons). My ankle injury basically stopped all exercising. So, you're
eating a ton of carbs that have no where to go other than to increase your
insulin resistance. If you're Lance Armstrong, you can eat a low fat
diet; if you're suddenly an engineer with a desk job and an injury that
prevents you from exercising, you can't.

I think the problem is that low fat is perceived to be "right." Fat is
bad, regardless of the type of fat. That's total BS and the government
deserves to be sued for forcing the "food pyramid" on us without a shred
of evidence supporting it.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
  #22  
Old May 18th, 2004, 08:42 PM
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:29:39 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Ignoramus13397 wrote:
:: While I agree with your general philosophy, I am afraid that some
:: numbers became switched in the press release.

I admit that I find the numbers a bit odd too. I certainly don't think
LC
is high protein, but I would not have guessed that LC dieters eat less
protein than LC dieters, for the reasons you mentioned. If that is true,
then what does that mean for the supposed "protein sparing" benefit of
LC?
LC dieters are thought to retain a greater precentage of muscle mass
than LF
dieters. There are studies supporting that, aren't there?


What about that the low carbers ate less saturated fat. How is that
possible? While I don't go out of my way to eat saturated fat, on low
fat, I ate nothing but skinless white chicken and the leanest meats I
could find, and I NEVER added oils to anything. If I used an oil for
cooking, it was olive oil, and even then it was a teaspoon. My fat
content was less than 10% of my calories.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
  #23  
Old May 18th, 2004, 08:42 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:27:12 GMT, Bob in CT
:: wrote:
::
::: On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:53:25 -0400, jmk wrote:
:::
:::: On 5/18/2004 2:47 PM, Bob in CT wrote:
::::: On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:42:23 -0400, jmk
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: On 5/18/2004 2:24 PM, Bob in CT wrote:
::::::
::::::: The problem with studies like this is that there are so many
::::::: variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did,
::::::: as I think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie.
::::::
::::::
:::::: Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low
:::::: fat is "a lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems
:::::: to work for some.
::::::
:::::
::::: I think it does work for some. The problem is that I thought I
::::: was one of those people. I ate low fat for many years. I
::::: developed insulin resistance. Was that genetic predisposition or
::::: the low fat diet? I don't know, but I wouldn't hesitate to say
::::: the latter or at least a combination of the two. Moreover, I
::::: could eat pasta or brown rice and be hungry with an hour or even
::::: a half-hour of eating. Even if one believes that saturated fat
::::: is bad (which I no longer do), "low fat" has to include fat such
::::: as olive oil and nuts. These things sate me whereas true low fat
::::: products do not.
::::: So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or
::::: exacerbate insulin resistance and requires one to forego
::::: potentially useful fats.
:::::
:::: But couldn't one argue that many low-carb dieters forgo potentially
:::: useful fruits and vegetables? Does that make low-carb "a lie?"
::::
:::: I don't think that weight management is a one size fits all
:::: approach -- not even close to it.
::::
:::
::: What you say is true. Nonetheless, low carb has helped me lessen my
::: insulin resistance, raise my HDL, lower my triglycerides, and
::: improve my total choleserol/HDL ratio. Plus, I actually eat more
::: vegetables (and selected fruits) on low carb than I did on low fat.
::: On low fat, I couldn't eat salad dressings, so I typically ate more
::: beans and whole grains. For whatever reason, I neglected
::: vegetables (although I did eat tomatoes, corn, etc.), although I
::: did eat fruits.
:::
::: What I've found is that I feel so much better on low carb than on
::: low fat. That's another lie -- carbs give you energy. I workout
::: more now than I ever have. I also am way less depressed now than
::: when I was on low fat -- the blood sugar highs and lows on low fat
::: became so bad that I was always depressed. Yet one more lie (or at
::: least something the low fat proponents don't tell you) is blood
::: sugar swings. Yet another lie is that saturated fat is bad. Yet
::: another lie is that fat itself is bad. What about olive oil and
::: nuts?
:::
::: Should I go on?
:::
::
:: Ah heck, I'll continue. Yet another lie is that it's healtier, a la
:: the food pyramid, to eat a plate a pasta than to eat vegetables.
::

Note that many of these "lies" can still be the result of excess. Eating
too much pasta is as bad as eating too much fat. I'm not sure if it is
possible to eat too many veggies. They seem to have a self limiting effect.



  #24  
Old May 18th, 2004, 08:46 PM
Mirek Fidler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

I admit that I find the numbers a bit odd too. I certainly don't
think LC
is high protein, but I would not have guessed that LC dieters eat less
protein than LC dieters, for the reasons you mentioned. If that is

true,
then what does that mean for the supposed "protein sparing" benefit of

LC?
LC dieters are thought to retain a greater precentage of muscle mass

than LF
dieters. There are studies supporting that, aren't there?


Perhaps it has to do something with protein quality too? I think low-fat
means a lot of protein from plant sources, which are incomplete and
often can be used only as energy. LC might bring better mix of
aminoacids.

Mirek


  #25  
Old May 18th, 2004, 08:50 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:29:39 -0400, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
::
::: Ignoramus13397 wrote:
::::: While I agree with your general philosophy, I am afraid that some
::::: numbers became switched in the press release.
:::
::: I admit that I find the numbers a bit odd too. I certainly don't
::: think LC
::: is high protein, but I would not have guessed that LC dieters eat
::: less protein than LC dieters, for the reasons you mentioned. If
::: that is true, then what does that mean for the supposed "protein
::: sparing" benefit of LC?
::: LC dieters are thought to retain a greater precentage of muscle mass
::: than LF
::: dieters. There are studies supporting that, aren't there?
:::
::
:: What about that the low carbers ate less saturated fat. How is that
:: possible? While I don't go out of my way to eat saturated fat, on
:: low fat, I ate nothing but skinless white chicken and the leanest
:: meats I could find, and I NEVER added oils to anything. If I used
:: an oil for cooking, it was olive oil, and even then it was a
:: teaspoon. My fat content was less than 10% of my calories.

Yeah, that seems unlikely too. Sounds like the entire thing is screwed up.


  #26  
Old May 18th, 2004, 08:51 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Mirek Fidler wrote:
::: I admit that I find the numbers a bit odd too. I certainly don't
::: think LC is high protein, but I would not have guessed that LC
::: dieters eat less protein than LC dieters, for the reasons you
::: mentioned. If that is true, then what does that mean for the
::: supposed "protein sparing" benefit of LC? LC dieters are thought to
::: retain a greater precentage of muscle mass than LF dieters. There
::: are studies supporting that, aren't there?
::
:: Perhaps it has to do something with protein quality too? I think
:: low-fat means a lot of protein from plant sources, which are
:: incomplete and often can be used only as energy. LC might bring
:: better mix of aminoacids.

Could be, but did the study break down protein in this way?


  #27  
Old May 18th, 2004, 08:56 PM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:26:07 -0400, Roger Zoul
:: wrote:
::
::: Bob in CT wrote:
::::: On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:42:23 -0400, jmk
::::: wrote:
:::::
:::::: On 5/18/2004 2:24 PM, Bob in CT wrote:
::::::
::::::: The problem with studies like this is that there are so many
::::::: variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did,
::::::: as I think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie.
::::::
:::::: Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low
:::::: fat is "a lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems
:::::: to work for some.
::::::
:::::
::::: I think it does work for some. The problem is that I thought I
::::: was one of those people. I ate low fat for many years. I
::::: developed insulin resistance. Was that genetic predisposition or
::::: the low fat diet? I don't know, but I wouldn't hesitate to say
::::: the latter or at least a combination of the two. Moreover, I
::::: could eat pasta or
::::: brown rice and be hungry with an hour or even a half-hour of
::::: eating. Even if one believes that saturated fat is bad (which I
::::: no longer do), "low fat" has to include fat such as olive oil and
::::: nuts. These things sate me whereas true low fat products do not.
::::: So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or
::::: exacerbate insulin resistance and requires one to forego
::::: potentially useful fats.
:::::
:::
::: I think low-fat is a lie in the sense that it leads one to believe
::: that fat
::: is bad. In the same sense, low-carb is a lie if one comes to the
::: conclusion
::: that carbs are bad. Excess carbs are bad as is excess fat. Too
::: much of both is a killer combination. Excessive calorie intake
::: seems to be the real
::: problem.
:::
::: Low-fat is not a lie in the sense that if you reduce calories, you
::: lose fat.
::: In that same sense, low carb is not a lie.
:::
::: As a type 2 diabetic, I was able to lose fat on a low-fat diet. I
::: ate a lot
::: because I had appetitie. However, I also exercised like a maniac
::: (and hurt
::: myself), and as result, lost weight. On low carb, I don't have that
::: appetite, and hence don't have to go overboard on exercise. I feel
::: maintenance will be easier for me on low carb. Low carb doesn't
::: *seem* to support the same volume of exercise for me that low fat
::: did, but then again,
::: I'm more than 10 years older now while doing low carb.
:::
:::
:::
:::
::
:: I think if you can exercise enough, then low fat might not be bad.
:: I used to walk many miles per day while in college, bike 3-4 days a
:: week, lift weights, play raquetball, etc. Now, I exercise more in
:: terms of volume (I bike a lot more miles now, for instance) for
:: individual exercises, but my overall activity level in college was
:: much higher. For instance, I walked a ton in college but never walk
:: now. The problem comes in when you get hurt, as I did in an African
:: dance class (while biking and taking tennis lessons). My ankle
:: injury basically stopped all exercising. So, you're eating a ton of
:: carbs that have no where to go other than to increase your insulin
:: resistance. If you're Lance Armstrong, you can eat a low fat diet;
:: if you're suddenly an engineer with a desk job and an injury that
:: prevents you from exercising, you can't.

That pretty much is exactly my exerience...

::
:: I think the problem is that low fat is perceived to be "right." Fat
:: is bad, regardless of the type of fat. That's total BS and the
:: government deserves to be sued for forcing the "food pyramid" on us
:: without a shred of evidence supporting it.

Right. Which, imo, is why the government ought to get out of the business
being big brother. Same goes for insurance companies, but that isn't quite
as bad since we know they have a vested interest. Government should be
neutral and objective.

::
:: --
:: Bob in CT
:: Remove ".x" to reply


  #28  
Old May 18th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

On Tue, 18 May 2004 21:46:00 +0200, Mirek Fidler wrote:

I admit that I find the numbers a bit odd too. I certainly don't

think LC
is high protein, but I would not have guessed that LC dieters eat less
protein than LC dieters, for the reasons you mentioned. If that is

true,
then what does that mean for the supposed "protein sparing" benefit of

LC?
LC dieters are thought to retain a greater precentage of muscle mass

than LF
dieters. There are studies supporting that, aren't there?


Perhaps it has to do something with protein quality too? I think low-fat
means a lot of protein from plant sources, which are incomplete and
often can be used only as energy. LC might bring better mix of
aminoacids.

Mirek



compare my typical low carb and low fat days:

Low carb: eggs, cheese, meat, salsa for breakfast. Chicken/other meat
for lunch. Snack is salad with oil and vinegar. Another snack might be
another vegetable. Dinner is yet another type of meat (this week, ground
meat), and another vegetable. Usually, onions and tomatoes and salsa but
maybe green beans with pine nuts and butter. I usually have nuts, yogurt,
and fruit (berries). I generally add light cream to my coffee and sour
cream to breakfast or dinner or both.

Low fat: oats for breakfast (no milk, no sugar, no nothing). Lunch is
pasta with low fat tomato sauce I made myself. If I ate a salad, I ate it
plain (absolutely no olive oil -- that's fat). Dinner would be brown
rice, beans, corn, tomotoes, onions, and salsa. I might have low fat meat
with whole wheat bread. I never added oil or butter to anything, save
when I cooked, then I added a tiny amount. I might have chicken breast or
tuna in water. For my coffee, I drank it black. If I ate dairy, it was
always the "no fat" variety. For instance, I might have skim milk with
some high fiber cereal.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
  #29  
Old May 18th, 2004, 09:12 PM
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:42:38 -0400, Roger Zoul
wrote:

[cut]
::
:: Ah heck, I'll continue. Yet another lie is that it's healtier, a la
:: the food pyramid, to eat a plate a pasta than to eat vegetables.
::

Note that many of these "lies" can still be the result of excess. Eating
too much pasta is as bad as eating too much fat. I'm not sure if it is
possible to eat too many veggies. They seem to have a self limiting
effect.




That's true, which is why pasta should not be lower on the food pyramid
than vegetables. I never have blood sugar spikes after eating vegetables,
but I do after eating pasta (even cooked al dente, which supposedly is low
glycemic). Plus, I never want to eat too many vegetables, whereas pasta
basically lacks any nutrition and is a highly concentrated source of
calories (when's the last time you ate two ounces of pasta? Well, for me,
it's been a long time since I've had pasta) and causes me to want more
food. I believe that pasta and rice and wheat should be at the top of the
food pyramid.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
  #30  
Old May 18th, 2004, 09:28 PM
Opinicus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find

Bull****. Any diet that requires you to feel hunger all the
time is by definition a loser.

--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://www.kanyak.com

 




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
Something new MOM PEAGRAM Weightwatchers 7 June 13th, 2004 01:35 AM
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find Steve General Discussion 50 May 31st, 2004 05:44 AM
Low Carb intelligence vs. low carb STUPIDITY Steven C. \(Doktersteve\) Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 February 5th, 2004 01:12 PM
Low carb diets General Discussion 249 January 9th, 2004 12:15 AM
The First and Only Low Carb Cafe In The Country Will Open in Beverly Hills, CA This January Preesi Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 January 7th, 2004 02:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 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.