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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
On 18 May 2004 11:01:16 -0700, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Ignoramus13397 wrote: I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition suggests. The fun part is it shows that both low carbing and low fatting work. If only that were obvious enough to justify a duh, sigh. "Find it impossible" is irrelevant. "Contray to intuition" is irrelevant. Measured observed facts are exactly that, measured, observed, facts. Are you saying the studies lie in stated facts? Or are you actually saying your intuition leads you down the worng road? Check, wrong road. All this shows is what non-low-carbers wildly dream that low-carbers eat is a wild dream. And for that matter it shows that low-fatters eat more than many think. Low carbing causes appetite suppression in most people. It's the greatest advantage low carb has going for it. It explains most of the rest of the numbers. Lower appetite, less drive to eat more food. Fat tends to reduce appetite and carbs tend to increase appetite, so low carbers tend to eat less. It's interesting that by month six, there was little different between low fat and low carb. Some will have reached goal and once at goal it no longer matters how you got there you will stay the same weight. I wonder how much difference that made. I do know that the metabolic advantage of ketosis gets less and less as you have less to lose, but I thought similar happened on low fat. 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. However, to be really good, a study should split groups into multiple "to lose" weight classes (i.e., this takes into account body type so that a muscular but obese person wouldn't be the same as a person of thin stature but obese). The study should regulate or at least try to determine how much exercising is done. How do we know that people on the low carb diet didn't simply exercise more? If the study really wants to study Atkins, then carbs should increase after induction (a mere two weeks long). Also, did you note that saturated fat was less on the low carb group? -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
Ignoramus13397 wrote:
While I agree with your general philosophy, I am afraid that some numbers became switched in the press release. but you don't know that yet. Steve -- Steve http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/ "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen on television or bought in a shopping mall" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
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. -- jmk in NC |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
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. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
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. -- jmk in NC |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
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? -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
"jmk" píse v diskusním príspevku
... 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. IF the real cause of hear disease is increased insulin secretion due to metabolic syndrome, which is quite probably right now, then high-carb / low-fat diet is simply the worst imaginable diet for the purpose it is usually recommended. Mirek |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
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? :: :: i :: :: In article , Doug :: Freyburger wrote: ::: Ignoramus13397 wrote: :::: :::: I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low :::: carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition :::: suggests. ::: ::: The fun part is it shows that both low carbing and low fatting ::: work. If only that were obvious enough to justify a duh, sigh. ::: ::: "Find it impossible" is irrelevant. "Contray to intuition" is ::: irrelevant. Measured observed facts are exactly that, measured, ::: observed, facts. Are you saying the studies lie in stated ::: facts? Or are you actually saying your intuition leads you ::: down the worng road? Check, wrong road. ::: ::: All this shows is what non-low-carbers wildly dream that ::: low-carbers eat is a wild dream. And for that matter it shows ::: that low-fatters eat more than many think. ::: ::: Low carbing causes appetite suppression in most people. It's the ::: greatest advantage low carb has going for it. It explains most ::: of the rest of the numbers. Lower appetite, less drive to eat ::: more food. Fat tends to reduce appetite and carbs tend to ::: increase appetite, so low carbers tend to eat less. ::: ::: It's interesting that by month six, there was little different ::: between low fat and low carb. Some will have reached goal and ::: once at goal it no longer matters how you got there you will ::: stay the same weight. I wonder how much difference that made. ::: I do know that the metabolic advantage of ketosis gets less and ::: less as you have less to lose, but I thought similar happened ::: on low fat. :: :: :: -- :: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- :: char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}"; main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} :: "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
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. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 12:12 PM |
Low carb diets | General Discussion | 249 | January 8th, 2004 11:15 PM | |
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 01:06 AM |