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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Aaron wrote:
"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message in terms of bunk studies, I have one GI study that showed the low GI maintained RMR better than the high GI diet, and produced more weight loss (however not significantly more) but the fuktards made these relatively obese (~100kg) people eat a 15% protein High GI to a 25% low GI, which resulted in 0.4 vs 0.8g/kg protein intake! ****tards, you would 'hope' that somebody as big in the GI world like Ludwig would actually ****ing pick that to start with. that was the first one Omega cited, that I mentioned had 4 independent variables you mean I was meant to read thru that pile of papers for a mention of it? See, this is what happens when you found a country with nothign but criminals and let them breed: you end up with a bunch of lazy ass ****s like you. about the only thing of worth that you get out of it, is the 2day ad lib intake of high/low gi styff is that a high protein low GI diet will cuase a spontaneous reduction in calories compared to a high GI low protien... weeee yeah and no **** on that. Reminds me of this brilliant conclusion I read ina review a while back "While the optimal diet for obesity is not know, a diet based around sufficient amounts of protein, unrefined carbohydrates and healthy fats would seem to be ideal." Yeah, well no ****. Three decades and 30 billion dollars worth of nutrition research and this is the best they can do? what fun Whats the reference for the drink carbs all at once vs drip feeding it in, cos I cant be bothered hunting on pubmed... its sorta similar to borries (sp?) second protien speed study where they drip fed whey to 'simulate' casein. still don't have it handy. It was one of those things that I saw referenced in a review paper (probably on insulin sensitivity) and never bothered to actually look up. Lyle |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Elzinator wrote:
"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 I am interested in mechanisms as long as they lead to applicable endpoints. Most of the molecular/gene level stuff does not. Lyle |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:42:20 -0600, Lyle McDonald
wrote: yeah and no **** on that. Reminds me of this brilliant conclusion I read ina review a while back "While the optimal diet for obesity is not know, a diet based around sufficient amounts of protein, unrefined carbohydrates and healthy fats would seem to be ideal." Yeah, well no ****. Three decades and 30 billion dollars worth of nutrition research and this is the best they can do? Well what do you expect? That's a bare bones minimum of three independent variables. How you gonna design a non-bogus experiment when you've got that to contend with? --- Proton Soup "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?" -Saddam Hussein |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Lyle McDonald wrote:
still don't have it handy. It was one of those things that I saw referenced in a review paper (probably on insulin sensitivity) and never bothered to actually look up. Amazingly, I managed to track it down on Pubmed. Lyle *** Diabetes. 1990 Jul;39(7):775-81. Metabolic effects of reducing rate of glucose ingestion by single bolus versus continuous sipping. Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Ocana AM, Vuksan V, Cunnane SC, Jenkins M, Wong GS, Singer W, Bloom SR, Blendis LM, et al. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Modifying the rate of absorption has been proposed as a therapeutic principle of specific relevance to diabetes. To demonstrate clearly the metabolic benefits that might result from reducing the rate of nutrient delivery, nine healthy volunteers took 50 g glucose in 700 ml water on two occasions: over 5-10 min (bolus) and at a constant rate over 3.5 h (sipping). Despite similar 4-h blood glucose areas, large reductions were seen in serum insulin (54 +/- 10%, P less than 0.001) and C-peptide (47 +/- 12%, P less than 0.01) areas after sipping, together with lower gastric inhibitory polypeptide and enteroglucagon levels and urinary catecholamine output. There was also prolonged suppression of plasma glucagon, growth hormone, and free-fatty acid (FFA) levels after sipping, whereas these levels rose 3-4 h after the glucose bolus. An intravenous glucose tolerance test at 4 h demonstrated a 48 +/- 10% (P less than 0.01) more rapid decline in blood glucose (Kg) after sipping than after the bolus. Furthermore, FFA and total branched-chain amino acid levels as additional markers of insulin action were lower over this period despite similar absolute levels of insulin and C-peptide. These findings indicate that prolonging the rate of glucose absorption enhances insulin economy and glucose disposal. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... Aaron wrote: "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message in terms of bunk studies, I have one GI study that showed the low GI maintained RMR better than the high GI diet, and produced more weight loss (however not significantly more) but the fuktards made these relatively obese (~100kg) people eat a 15% protein High GI to a 25% low GI, which resulted in 0.4 vs 0.8g/kg protein intake! ****tards, you would 'hope' that somebody as big in the GI world like Ludwig would actually ****ing pick that to start with. that was the first one Omega cited, that I mentioned had 4 independent variables you mean I was meant to read thru that pile of papers for a mention of it? See, this is what happens when you found a country with nothign but criminals and let them breed: you end up with a bunch of lazy ass ****s like you. no, NZ is based on immigrants, aussie is based upon criminals texas is based upon cows innit? about the only thing of worth that you get out of it, is the 2day ad lib intake of high/low gi styff is that a high protein low GI diet will cuase a spontaneous reduction in calories compared to a high GI low protien... weeee yeah and no **** on that. Reminds me of this brilliant conclusion I read ina review a while back "While the optimal diet for obesity is not know, a diet based around sufficient amounts of protein, unrefined carbohydrates and healthy fats would seem to be ideal." Yeah, well no ****. Three decades and 30 billion dollars worth of nutrition research and this is the best they can do? yip by the time they have spent 25billion on buying some computerds, downloading porn and the likes, there aint much left over for studies of any value (and that research in the states costs 10x that it costs here...) what fun Whats the reference for the drink carbs all at once vs drip feeding it in, cos I cant be bothered hunting on pubmed... its sorta similar to borries (sp?) second protien speed study where they drip fed whey to 'simulate' casein. still don't have it handy. It was one of those things that I saw referenced in a review paper (probably on insulin sensitivity) and never bothered to actually look up. *******. Oh well, it will be a late nite so I may as well surf pubmed ---- Aaron |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... Lyle McDonald wrote: still don't have it handy. It was one of those things that I saw referenced in a review paper (probably on insulin sensitivity) and never bothered to actually look up. Amazingly, I managed to track it down on Pubmed. Lyle *** Diabetes. 1990 Jul;39(7):775-81. Metabolic effects of reducing rate of glucose ingestion by single bolus versus continuous sipping. Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Ocana AM, Vuksan V, Cunnane SC, Jenkins M, Wong GS, Singer W, Bloom SR, Blendis LM, et al. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Modifying the rate of absorption has been proposed as a therapeutic principle of specific relevance to diabetes. To demonstrate clearly the metabolic benefits that might result from reducing the rate of nutrient delivery, nine healthy volunteers took 50 g glucose in 700 ml water on two occasions: over 5-10 min (bolus) and at a constant rate over 3.5 h (sipping). Despite similar 4-h blood glucose areas, large reductions were seen in serum insulin (54 +/- 10%, P less than 0.001) and C-peptide (47 +/- 12%, P less than 0.01) areas after sipping, together with lower gastric inhibitory polypeptide and enteroglucagon levels and urinary catecholamine output. There was also prolonged suppression of plasma glucagon, growth hormone, and free-fatty acid (FFA) levels after sipping, whereas these levels rose 3-4 h after the glucose bolus. An intravenous glucose tolerance test at 4 h demonstrated a 48 +/- 10% (P less than 0.01) more rapid decline in blood glucose (Kg) after sipping than after the bolus. Furthermore, FFA and total branched-chain amino acid levels as additional markers of insulin action were lower over this period despite similar absolute levels of insulin and C-peptide. These findings indicate that prolonging the rate of glucose absorption enhances insulin economy and glucose disposal. it was done in canada that rules it out to start with... |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Elzinator" wrote in message om... 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 very similar to the issues facing cancer researchers. Three very different mechanisms/theories using separate processes all interacting to produce the endpoint. 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. Hmmm - the selection-for mechanisms have been theorized to include a way to reward both curiosity and activity given the nature of the nature most of homo sapiens' ancestors faced. Even the theory of neuronal group selection is based on (appropriate) activation upon perturbation (sensory modalities, motor skills etc.) .. 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 Deranged - now that's somethin I can identify with... 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). |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Aaron" hunt354 at hotmail dot com wrote in message ... "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... Aaron wrote: "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: \ Low carb need not be a form of or mean calorie restriction. The calories decreased via the low-carb approach can be added back in by taking some additional EFAs like fish/flax oils, to very good effect. Think nutrient partitioning- taking advantage of what the body does with certain types of nutrients (e.g., leptin- and insulin-modulated partitioning) and, as an extension, timing the intake of those different nutrients to best work with the body's metabolistic parameters governing their - well - metabolism! So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a maintenance calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet will somehow cause something to occur wrt: body fat? Well - I read your previous posts on the matter, along with about 30 studies (some posted in another thread), that nutrient partitioning (via differntial response of metabolic parameters such as insulin and leptin etc.) will cause loss of bf and maint of lean body mass. Only when you are looking at increasing protein from subadequate to adequate levels in fat people. Of course, since protein is less energetically efficient (in terms of providing ATP to the body), switching out carbs/fat to protein results in a technically lower calorie diet. A little over 50% of the aminos from dietary protein are available for ATP production so for every 200 calories of carbs you replace with 200 calories of protein, you're getting ~100 calories less dietary energy. So at 2000 ostensible calories, a higher protein diet is technically NOT providing 2000 calories of useable energy. The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs lean muscle maint. No ****. Lyle in terms of bunk studies, I have one GI study that showed the low GI maintained RMR better than the high GI diet, and produced more weight loss (however not significantly more) but the fuktards made these relatively obese (~100kg) people eat a 15% protein High GI to a 25% low GI, which resulted in 0.4 vs 0.8g/kg protein intake! ****tards, you would 'hope' that somebody as big in the GI world like Ludwig would actually ****ing pick that to start with. that was the first one Omega cited, that I mentioned had 4 independent variables you mean I was meant to read thru that pile of papers for a mention of it? it had varying GI, varying amounts of protein (about double in the low GI group), varying amounts of carbs and varying amounts of fats. I have seen both Berardi and Kreider hang 'A calorie is not a calorie' arguments on that study (arguing that low GI is protein sparing in Krieder's case). A ****ty study and ****tier conclusions drawn from it. Lyle about the only thing of worth that you get out of it, is the 2day ad lib intake of high/low gi styff is that a high protein low GI diet will cuase a spontaneous reduction in calories compared to a high GI low protien... But not for those with adequate protein to start with! One does not need a reduction in calories to change bodycomp. weeee what fun Whats the reference for the drink carbs all at once vs drip feeding it in, cos I cant be bothered hunting on pubmed... its sorta similar to borries (sp?) second protien speed study where they drip fed whey to 'simulate' casein. --- Aaron |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message s.com... "Aaron" hunt354 at hotmail dot com wrote in message ... "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... Aaron wrote: "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: \ Low carb need not be a form of or mean calorie restriction. The calories decreased via the low-carb approach can be added back in by taking some additional EFAs like fish/flax oils, to very good effect. Think nutrient partitioning- taking advantage of what the body does with certain types of nutrients (e.g., leptin- and insulin-modulated partitioning) and, as an extension, timing the intake of those different nutrients to best work with the body's metabolistic parameters governing their - well - metabolism! So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a maintenance calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet will somehow cause something to occur wrt: body fat? Well - I read your previous posts on the matter, along with about 30 studies (some posted in another thread), that nutrient partitioning (via differntial response of metabolic parameters such as insulin and leptin etc.) will cause loss of bf and maint of lean body mass. Only when you are looking at increasing protein from subadequate to adequate levels in fat people. Of course, since protein is less energetically efficient (in terms of providing ATP to the body), switching out carbs/fat to protein results in a technically lower calorie diet. A little over 50% of the aminos from dietary protein are available for ATP production so for every 200 calories of carbs you replace with 200 calories of protein, you're getting ~100 calories less dietary energy. So at 2000 ostensible calories, a higher protein diet is technically NOT providing 2000 calories of useable energy. The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs lean muscle maint. No ****. Lyle in terms of bunk studies, I have one GI study that showed the low GI maintained RMR better than the high GI diet, and produced more weight loss (however not significantly more) but the fuktards made these relatively obese (~100kg) people eat a 15% protein High GI to a 25% low GI, which resulted in 0.4 vs 0.8g/kg protein intake! ****tards, you would 'hope' that somebody as big in the GI world like Ludwig would actually ****ing pick that to start with. that was the first one Omega cited, that I mentioned had 4 independent variables you mean I was meant to read thru that pile of papers for a mention of it? it had varying GI, varying amounts of protein (about double in the low GI group), varying amounts of carbs and varying amounts of fats. I have seen both Berardi and Kreider hang 'A calorie is not a calorie' arguments on that study (arguing that low GI is protein sparing in Krieder's case). A ****ty study and ****tier conclusions drawn from it. Lyle about the only thing of worth that you get out of it, is the 2day ad lib intake of high/low gi styff is that a high protein low GI diet will cuase a spontaneous reduction in calories compared to a high GI low protien... But not for those with adequate protein to start with! One does not need a reduction in calories to change bodycomp. no, but it will happen slower, if not at all. And not in sedentary subjects to any great extent. weeee what fun Whats the reference for the drink carbs all at once vs drip feeding it in, cos I cant be bothered hunting on pubmed... its sorta similar to borries (sp?) second protien speed study where they drip fed whey to 'simulate' casein. --- Aaron |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Aaron" hunt354 at hotmail dot com wrote in message ... "OmegaZero2003" wrote in message s.com... "Aaron" hunt354 at hotmail dot com wrote in message ... "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... Aaron wrote: "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: "Lyle McDonald" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: \ Low carb need not be a form of or mean calorie restriction. The calories decreased via the low-carb approach can be added back in by taking some additional EFAs like fish/flax oils, to very good effect. Think nutrient partitioning- taking advantage of what the body does with certain types of nutrients (e.g., leptin- and insulin-modulated partitioning) and, as an extension, timing the intake of those different nutrients to best work with the body's metabolistic parameters governing their - well - metabolism! So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a maintenance calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet will somehow cause something to occur wrt: body fat? Well - I read your previous posts on the matter, along with about 30 studies (some posted in another thread), that nutrient partitioning (via differntial response of metabolic parameters such as insulin and leptin etc.) will cause loss of bf and maint of lean body mass. Only when you are looking at increasing protein from subadequate to adequate levels in fat people. Of course, since protein is less energetically efficient (in terms of providing ATP to the body), switching out carbs/fat to protein results in a technically lower calorie diet. A little over 50% of the aminos from dietary protein are available for ATP production so for every 200 calories of carbs you replace with 200 calories of protein, you're getting ~100 calories less dietary energy. So at 2000 ostensible calories, a higher protein diet is technically NOT providing 2000 calories of useable energy. The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs lean muscle maint. No ****. Lyle in terms of bunk studies, I have one GI study that showed the low GI maintained RMR better than the high GI diet, and produced more weight loss (however not significantly more) but the fuktards made these relatively obese (~100kg) people eat a 15% protein High GI to a 25% low GI, which resulted in 0.4 vs 0.8g/kg protein intake! ****tards, you would 'hope' that somebody as big in the GI world like Ludwig would actually ****ing pick that to start with. that was the first one Omega cited, that I mentioned had 4 independent variables you mean I was meant to read thru that pile of papers for a mention of it? it had varying GI, varying amounts of protein (about double in the low GI group), varying amounts of carbs and varying amounts of fats. I have seen both Berardi and Kreider hang 'A calorie is not a calorie' arguments on that study (arguing that low GI is protein sparing in Krieder's case). A ****ty study and ****tier conclusions drawn from it. Lyle about the only thing of worth that you get out of it, is the 2day ad lib intake of high/low gi styff is that a high protein low GI diet will cuase a spontaneous reduction in calories compared to a high GI low protien... But not for those with adequate protein to start with! One does not need a reduction in calories to change bodycomp. no, but it will happen slower, Myriad physiological factors affect this; hormonal milieu, age (and as you mention - degree of activity). if not at all. And not in sedentary subjects to any great extent. Well, it depends on how sedentary - but your point is well taken. weeee what fun Whats the reference for the drink carbs all at once vs drip feeding it in, cos I cant be bothered hunting on pubmed... its sorta similar to borries (sp?) second protien speed study where they drip fed whey to 'simulate' casein. --- Aaron |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Latest "Net Carb" Scam? | Jenny | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | June 26th, 2004 07:00 PM |
Article: The TRUTH About Low Carb Diets by Keith Klein | Steve | General Discussion | 24 | June 7th, 2004 09:05 PM |
Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory | John | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 14 | March 30th, 2004 05:32 AM |
Low Carb intelligence vs. low carb STUPIDITY | Steven C. \(Doktersteve\) | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | February 5th, 2004 12:12 PM |
low carb fad diets do work in the short-term | rob | Weightwatchers | 3 | October 19th, 2003 02:58 AM |