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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/health/05brod.html
With Fruits and Vegetables, More Can Be Less By JANE E. BRODY Published: October 5, 2004 What determines how much we eat and how much we weigh? Is it the amount of fat in foods, the presence of carbohydrates, the size of our portions, what we drink with our meals, that elusive trait called willpower? Conflicting popular advice can prompt would-be dieters to give up before they even start. The good news based on solid research is that you can eat more - probably more food than you're now eating - and weigh less, if you choose more of the right kinds of foods. At a recent meeting on the worldwide obesity epidemic, important insights into successful weight management were offered by Dr. Barbara J. Rolls, a professor of behavioral health at Penn State. She began her presentation on weight control with this irrefutable statement: "Calories count, no matter what you read in the press. The laws of thermodynamics have not been reversed." With respect to weight gain and loss, the laws of thermodynamics can be translated as: Calories consumed must be used or they will be stored as body fat. The body does not waste energy, no matter what its source. When people are placed on carefully controlled calorie-restricted diets, the amount of fat in the diet - whether 25 percent or 45 percent of calories - has little effect on weight loss, Dr. Rolls reported. People who claim that they can eat as much as they want (of protein and fat, for example) and lose weight as long as they avoid certain kinds of foods (carbohydrates, for example) are really eating less (that is, fewer calories) than they did before. But what about a majority of people concerned about weight control who are not interested in cutting out breads, cereals, grapes, bananas, watermelon, carrots, beets, potatoes, rice and pasta (not to mention wine, beer, cakes, cookies, ice cream and other carbohydrate-rich foods banned on Atkins-style diets)? Are they doomed to remaining hopelessly overweight? Not according to Dr. Rolls, an expert on satiety and satiation, words that refer to what and how much a person has to eat at a meal to feel satisfied and stop eating. Many characteristics of foods affect satiety: how they look, taste and feel in the mouth; how much chewing they require; the nutrients they contain; how densely packed the calories are, and, independent of caloric density, the volume of food consumed. She does not dispute the popular premise that the "macronutrients" in foods - protein, fat, carbohydrates, alcohol and fiber - influence caloric intake and use. For example, calorie for calorie, protein appears to be the most satiating nutrient. Furthermore, during overeating, the body burns more calories to metabolize protein and carbohydrates than it does when processing fats, which are the nutrients most efficiently stored as body fat. Food Volume Counts So what makes your body say you've eaten enough? Dr. Rolls's studies on satiety have clearly demonstrated an overriding influence of food volume, prompting her to write an excellent book, "The Volumetrics Weight-Control Plan: Feel Full on Fewer Calories" (HarperCollins, 2000) with Robert A. Barnett. She found that the amount of calories in a given volume of food makes a big difference in how many calories people consume at a given meal, and throughout the day. In nutritional parlance, this is called the energy density of the food. The greater the energy density - the more calories packed into a given weight or volume of food - the easier it is to overeat. "People tend to eat a consistent weight of food," Dr. Rolls has found. When consuming a calorie-dense food high in fat, people are likely to eat more calories just to get in a satisfying amount of food. What increases food volume without adding calories? You guessed it. Water. And what foods naturally contain the most water? You got that right too. Fruits and vegetables. "People given the message to eat more fruits and vegetables lost significantly more weight than those told to eat less fat," Dr. Rolls said. "Advice to eat more is a lot more effective than advice to eat less. Positive messages about what can be eaten are more effective than restrictive messages about what not to eat." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
John WIlliams wrote:
(quoting Jane E Brody) People who claim that they can eat as much as they want (of protein and fat, for example) and lose weight as long as they avoid certain kinds of foods (carbohydrates, for example) are really eating less (that is, fewer calories) than they did before. Yes, they can "eat as much as they want". However, the absence of concentrated carbs sending their insulin and appetite signals out of whack means that "as much as they want", is far less than they used to want. But what about a majority of people concerned about weight control who are not interested in cutting out breads, cereals, grapes, bananas, watermelon, carrots, beets, potatoes, rice and pasta (not to mention wine, beer, cakes, cookies, ice cream and other carbohydrate-rich foods banned on Atkins-style diets)? Are they doomed to remaining hopelessly overweight? No, they'll still have to practice portion control, only it will be something they have to do very consciously, and contrary to what their appetite is saying to them. The difference for the LCer is that it's less difficult. Seldom does (IME) a low-carber need to force themselves to stop eating. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with the part about calories. However, her theory about volume does
not hold water. (pun intended) In an experiment where test subjects ate a liquid shake from a spout, the volume they ate varied with calories. It took about two weeks for the test subjects to adjust the volume they ate after experimenters changed the calorie density. This two week delay explains why the idiot doctor finds people eating the same volume, when she switches them to foods with a higher calorie density. She would have to feed the high calorie food to her test subjects for at least two weeks and then measure the volume of the eating. She would find that they would eat tiny portions. Stomach size has nothing to do with it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Newsflash: low-carb dieters like low-carb diets. You can drop
alt.support.diet from this thread any time now. Dally |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:44:59 -0400, Dally wrote:
Newsflash: low-carb dieters like low-carb diets. You can drop alt.support.diet from this thread any time now. Update: low-carb dieters are, nonetheless, dieters. Xpost reinstated. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
(John WIlliams) wrote in message . com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/health/05brod.html She found that the amount of calories in a given volume of food makes a big difference in how many calories people consume at a given meal, and throughout the day. The author of this report is a quack. The appetite suppression caused by puffed up low calorie density food is nothing like the effectiveness of the appetite suppression of a low-carb diet. Give me a few huge bowls of dry popocorn and a few minutes later I will be just as hungry. Give the same calories in eggs and bacon and if I avoid the carbs I'll be satisfied. Any why does it seem that every second-rate pseudo-scientist that the popular media can come up with say that equal calories result in equal weight gain or loss according to thermodynamics. The process is much more complicated than that. Calories are not absorbed with perfect efficiency and there are places that energy goes other than body fat. One experiment showed that low-carb dieters lost fat (not total weight) faster than fasters. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"John WIlliams" wrote in message om... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/health/05brod.html With Fruits and Vegetables, More Can Be Less By JANE E. BRODY effect on weight loss, Dr. Rolls reported. People who claim that they can eat as much as they want (of protein and fat, for example) and lose weight as long as they avoid certain kinds of foods (carbohydrates, for example) are really eating less (that is, fewer calories) than they did before. This woman is just plain stupid. She has no concept of what a low-carb diet is, obvously, or how it is done. z(Which plan states that you can eat "as much as they want of protein and fat and lose weight at slong as they avoid carbohydrates?) I'm embarrassed for her that she made such ignorant statements publicly. How sad for her. Peter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
From: Verity
Date: Thursday, 7 October 2004, 1:52 AM Subject: Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets On 2004-10-06 12:09:08 +1000, "marengo" said: "John WIlliams" wrote in message om... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/health/05brod.html With Fruits and Vegetables, More Can Be Less By JANE E. BRODY effect on weight loss, Dr. Rolls reported. People who claim that they can eat as much as they want (of protein and fat, for example) and lose weight as long as they avoid certain kinds of foods (carbohydrates, for example) are really eating less (that is, fewer calories) than they did before. This woman is just plain stupid. As against colorfully stupid, intricately stupid, or some other kind of stupid. How many varieties of stupid do you believe exist, and which category do fit into? She has no concept of what a low-carb diet is, obvously, or how it is done. There is no such thing as a low carb diet per se, low carb is a generic description of a style of diet, not a diet in and of itself. There is a world of difference between South Beach, Atkins and many other diets that fit into the low carb genre. You apparently are the one with no concept. z(Which plan states that you can eat "as much as they want of protein and fat and lose weight at slong as they avoid carbohydrates?) Duh? Atkins maybe? If you can read Atkins and not have the impression that he is claiming exactly that, then perhaps you invent another category of stupid. One just for yourself. In the first chapter second page, Atkins writes about his diet that it: Sets no limit on the amount of food you can eat. Completely excludes hunger from the dieting experience. Includes foods so rich that you've never seen them on any other diet Reduces your appetite by ... etc, etc, and goes on to support exactly that claim throughout the rest of the book. He also adds that one of the factors is that his low carb diet suppresses appetite, allowing the dieter to eat less calories, exactly what this woman is claiming. Quotes from Atkins: "Those who are doing Atkins may be eating fewer calories as a result of being less hungry and less obsessed with food. "And if you eat fewer calories-as many Atkins people do because their appetite is usually diminished-you'll likely lose weight even faster. " I'm embarrassed for her that she made such ignorant statements publicly. I imagine that you often have occasion to be embarrassed, you should be used to it. How sad for her. Not. She is absolutely correct in what she says. Why do you attack others without cause, and in a manner that shows the world just how ignorant you really are? Wouldn't it be better to simply say, well I disagree because ..., rather than call others, who have far more knowledge and experience than you, stupid? Verity |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets | John WIlliams | General Discussion | 24 | October 7th, 2004 04:03 PM |
Something new | MOM PEAGRAM | Weightwatchers | 7 | June 13th, 2004 01:35 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 01:06 AM |
CNN Moneyline - The lowdown on low carb | Kalish | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 3 | December 2nd, 2003 04:54 AM |
Now Harvard study backs up Atkins diet | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 84 | November 16th, 2003 11:31 PM |