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

Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss, lipid changes at two years



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 18th, 2008, 10:50 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
jay[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss,lipid changes at two years

HbA1c
LoFat 0.4%
Med 0.5%
LoCarb 0.9%

fBG (1 yr, 2 yr mg/dL)
LoFat
Med -23.6, -32.8
LoCarb -18.1, 1.2

*But why the reduction of HbA1c behaved differently from fasting
plasma glucose and HOMA-IR, so that it was larger in
low-carb group than in the Med group, is a mystery to me,
too. *Perhaps people familiar with diabetes could have
some kind of explanation or speculation about this?


Is it possible that a low-carb diet shifts cellular machinery towards
efficient fat metab, decreasing carb metab efficiency, thus increasing
insulin resistance. I'm not sure if HOMA takes this into account.
Ideally, insulin resistance should be tested after all three groups
are returned to a reference diet at the end of trials.

An improved cholestrol profile and Hb1Ac may not relate to improved
fBG and IR due to additional factors. For example, loCarb will likely
give lower HbA1c. But loCarb is higher in lipophilic toxins (ie PCBs,
dixions, etc). TCDD, a potent dioxin, increases mito ROS. Cellular ROS
is likely to increase insulin resistance. Lipophilic toxins are
highest in animal, fish, dairy & egg fats.

[TCDD decreases ATP levels and increases reactive oxygen production
through changes in mitochondrial F(0)F(1)-ATP synthase and
ubiquinone.]
Mitochondria generate ATP and participate in signal transduction and
cellular pathology and/or cell death. TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin) decreases hepatic ATP levels and generates mitochondrial
oxidative DNA damage, which is exacerbated by increasing mitochondrial
glutathione redox state and by inner membrane hyperpolarization. This
study identifies mitochondrial targets of TCDD that initiate and
sustain reactive oxygen production and decreased ATP levels. One week
after treating mice with TCDD, liver ubiquinone (Q) levels were
significantly decreased, while rates of succinoxidase and Q-cytochrome
c oxidoreductase activities were increased. However, the expected
increase in Q reduction state following TCDD treatment did not occur;
instead, Q was more oxidized. These results could be explained by an
ATP synthase defect, a premise supported by the unusual finding that
TCDD lowers ATP/O ratios without concomitant changes in respiratory
control ratios. Such results suggest either a futile cycle in ATP
synthesis, or hydrolysis of newly synthesized ATP prior to release.
The TCDD-mediated decrease in Q, concomitant with an increase in
respiration, increases complex 3 redox cycling. This acts in concert
with glutathione to increase membrane potential and reactive oxygen
production. The proposed defect in ATP synthase explains both the
greater respiratory rates and the lower tissue ATP levels. PMID:
17109908
  #12  
Old July 18th, 2008, 11:59 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Hannah Gruen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss, lipid changes at two years

"Doug Freyburger" wrote (2) the Atkins Foundation
funded the study.

This is both valid and invalid at the same time.


True. However, it is interesting to note that Doc McDougall bitched for
years that Dr. Atkins made a lot of money off his diet plan, but never did
any research. Now that the Atkins organization funds a study, he won't
accept the results!

The gray in my hair saw about 5 years worth of set back
in its advance.


Wow! Now that is one I never saw. How nice!

Yeah. Eating veggies is the low carb way. Strange how that
worked out. Strange enough that people who have never tried
low carb don't think it's a feature of the system.


Yeah. I loved veggies as a kid, but I don't find them very appealing as part
of a fat-free, high-starch meal. I like my olive oil sautees with a sliced
clove or 2 of garlic thrown in before the veggies.

In fact that is what I had for dinner. A huge panful of broccoli sauteed in
olive oil and garlic, then pepper jack cheese and eggs stirred in and
cooked. Salt and red pepper flakes to taste. Yum.

My whole family loves broccoli. My grandson expects it whenever he is here
for dinner. My new puppy... the first food he ever tried to steal and eat
from a grocery bag carelessly left on the floor... yep, broccoli. I give him
little sprigs of the raw stuff whenever I have it. He inhales it.

Hannah


  #13  
Old July 20th, 2008, 05:23 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Cookie Cutter[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss,lipid changes at two years

jay wrote:
HbA1c
LoFat 0.4%
Med 0.5%
LoCarb 0.9%

fBG (1 yr, 2 yr mg/dL)
LoFat
Med -23.6, -32.8
LoCarb -18.1, 1.2

But why the reduction of HbA1c behaved differently from fasting
plasma glucose and HOMA-IR, so that it was larger in
low-carb group than in the Med group, is a mystery to me,
too. Perhaps people familiar with diabetes could have
some kind of explanation or speculation about this?


. . . .



I read in one report that the low carb group started out at 20 grams of
carb (with a focus on vegetable sources of protein and fat) and
increased their intake over the two years to around 110 grams. It
sounds like, toward the end of the study, that the low-carb and Med
diets might have been fairly similar. I can't figure out what these
people would be eating if they were minimizing/abstaining from meat,
cheese, eggs, etc. Israel is in the Middle East. Surely, a
Mediterranean style diet is closest to what they would normally eat and
most would probably aim as close to what they would be traditionally
eating as the confines of their diet group allowed. At 110 grams, they
could work in beans, pasta, many wheat-based dishes, etc.

I think that trying to solve the "mystery" of the results is probably
hopeless. Kind of a "What Did They Eat? And When Did They Eat It?"
conundrum.
  #14  
Old July 20th, 2008, 06:32 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss,lipid changes at two years

"Hannah Gruen" wrote:
"Doug Freyburger" wrote:

The gray in my hair saw about 5 years worth of set back
in its advance.


Wow! Now that is one I never saw. How nice!


It's a fairly common complaint that 6 months into a very
successful loss phase hair falls out. It's not as common
to come back later to report it ended up coming back in
thicker or less gray or whatever. Yet that's what usually
happens. But it's easier to come asking about a problem
than to come back several months later to report on the
long term result.
  #15  
Old July 21st, 2008, 12:44 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Hannah Gruen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss, lipid changes at two years


"Cookie Cutter" wrote
I read in one report that the low carb group started out at 20 grams of
carb (with a focus on vegetable sources of protein and fat) and increased
their intake over the two years to around 110 grams. It sounds like,
toward the end of the study, that the low-carb and Med diets might have
been fairly similar. I can't figure out what these people would be eating
if they were minimizing/abstaining from meat, cheese, eggs, etc. Israel
is in the Middle East. Surely, a Mediterranean style diet is closest to
what they would normally eat and most would probably aim as close to what
they would be traditionally eating as the confines of their diet group
allowed. At 110 grams, they could work in beans, pasta, many wheat-based
dishes, etc.

I think that trying to solve the "mystery" of the results is probably
hopeless. Kind of a "What Did They Eat? And When Did They Eat It?"
conundrum.


Yes, I've been reading more about this one, too. Even more puzzling (to me)
is the fact that the calories were restricted for the low-fat and
Mediterranean diet groups, but not for the LC group. My guess would be that
as the LC group started adding back carbs, they lost the natural appetite
suppresant function of the diet and calories may have increased? Not sure,
as I haven't read the full study or perused the data. If total calories in
is substantially different for the different groups, that can make a
difference in findings that may trump effects of macronutrient diet makeup.

At any rate, it seems like it would have been a good idea to keep as many
parameters as possible equivalent, if they wanted to compare diets. Like
calories, for instance. Sometimes I read these research designs, and wonder
who on earth reviewed and approved them. They just defy logic.

Anyway, it's just not a well-designed study, IMO, even if it does show
advantage for the lower-carb plans (no surprise there.)

HG


  #16  
Old July 21st, 2008, 01:42 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Matti Narkia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss,lipid changes at two years

Hannah Gruen wrote:

"Cookie Cutter" wrote
I read in one report that the low carb group started out at 20 grams of
carb (with a focus on vegetable sources of protein and fat) and increased
their intake over the two years to around 110 grams. It sounds like,
toward the end of the study, that the low-carb and Med diets might have
been fairly similar. I can't figure out what these people would be eating
if they were minimizing/abstaining from meat, cheese, eggs, etc. Israel
is in the Middle East. Surely, a Mediterranean style diet is closest to
what they would normally eat and most would probably aim as close to what
they would be traditionally eating as the confines of their diet group
allowed. At 110 grams, they could work in beans, pasta, many wheat-based
dishes, etc.

I think that trying to solve the "mystery" of the results is probably
hopeless. Kind of a "What Did They Eat? And When Did They Eat It?"
conundrum.


Yes, I've been reading more about this one, too. Even more puzzling (to me)
is the fact that the calories were restricted for the low-fat and
Mediterranean diet groups, but not for the LC group.


I think that the idea was that higher protein adn fat consumption and
lower carb consumption of LC diet suppresses appetite so that LC group
kind of automatically and voluntarily reduces its calories. It seems to
have also worked that way.

My guess would be that
as the LC group started adding back carbs, they lost the natural appetite
suppresant function of the diet and calories may have increased? Not sure,
as I haven't read the full study or perused the data. If total calories in
is substantially different for the different groups, that can make a
difference in findings that may trump effects of macronutrient diet makeup.

If you look at

Table 2. Changes in Dietary Intake, Energy Expenditure, and Urinary
Ketones during 2 Years of Intervention
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229/T2

you'll see that calorie reductions in LC and LF groups were almost
identical. In the Mediterranean group the reductions were a little
smaller, but still not statistically significantly different from
LC and LF groups.

At any rate, it seems like it would have been a good idea to keep as many
parameters as possible equivalent, if they wanted to compare diets. Like
calories, for instance.


As I mentioned, the realized calorie reductions were not statistically
significantly different between groups, and in LC and LF groups they
were almost identical.

Sometimes I read these research designs, and wonder
who on earth reviewed and approved them. They just defy logic.

Anyway, it's just not a well-designed study, IMO, even if it does show
advantage for the lower-carb plans (no surprise there.)

I have to disagree with you. Although not completely without flaws,
this is, however, a large, long term (2 years), well-designed and
well-published (NEJM) study, which compared well-designed and
well-known diets. Additionally, if it wasn't well-designed, it
probably wouldn't have been published in NEJM, the number one
medical journal in the world.

Here's an interesting excerpt from

Low-fat Diets May Not Be Best For Weight Loss, Study Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716171134.htm :

"Dr. Iris Shai is a researcher at the S. Daniel Abraham
International Center for Health and Nutrition in the Department of
Epidemiology at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. She conceived
the study with Dr. Stampfer, the senior author, while she was a
Fulbright fellow at Harvard School of Public Health and Channing
Laboratory in Boston, Massachusetts."

Dr. Meir Stampfer is one of the authors of the study in question and
a very remarkable scientist. Harvard's press release

HSPH Department Chairs Meir Stampfer and Walter Willett Most Cited
Scientists of the Decade in Clinical Medicine
Harvard School of Public Health Press Release, Friday, September 23,
2005
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press09232005.html

from September 23, 2005, writes about him as follows:

"Meir Stampfer, Chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the
Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) has been ranked the number
one most cited scientist in clinical medicine for the last decade.
According to ISI Essential Science Indicators, 376 of his published
research findings were cited nearly 31,000 times between 1995 and
August of 2005."

Dr. Stampfer's web page at Harvard:

Meir Stampfer
Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology
Department of Epidemiology
Department of Nutrition
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/meir-stampfer/

I wonder, if a major force like Stampfer would have allowed his name
to be used in this study, if there were any doubts about its quality.

--
Matti Narkia

http://ma.gnolia.com/groups/Nutrition
  #17  
Old July 21st, 2008, 10:16 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Kaz Kylheku
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss, lipid changes at two years

On 2008-07-21, Matti Narkia wrote:
Hannah Gruen wrote:
Anyway, it's just not a well-designed study, IMO, even if it does show
advantage for the lower-carb plans (no surprise there.)

I have to disagree with you. Although not completely without flaws,
this is, however, a large, long term (2 years), well-designed and
well-published (NEJM) study, which compared well-designed and
well-known diets. Additionally, if it wasn't well-designed, it
probably wouldn't have been published in NEJM, the number one
medical journal in the world.

Here's an interesting excerpt from

Low-fat Diets May Not Be Best For Weight Loss, Study Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716171134.htm :

"Dr. Iris Shai is a researcher at the S. Daniel Abraham
International Center for Health and Nutrition in the Department of
Epidemiology at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. She conceived
the study with Dr. Stampfer, the senior author, while she was a
Fulbright fellow at Harvard School of Public Health and Channing
Laboratory in Boston, Massachusetts."


The reason this study was conducted and published is simply because it's
the type of thing which can attract media attention these days.
The institutions behind it become visible in the act of doing something
regarding a large problem which faces the general public.

It's nothing more than a circus show, of absolutely no consequence.

It's poor science, but it doesn't appear dishonest. That is to say, as long as
no data was falsified, no reputations are going to be damaged by this type of
thing.

Dr. Meir Stampfer is one of the authors of the study in question and
a very remarkable scientist. Harvard's press release


Maybe Stampfer is so confident in his credentials, that he no longer gives a
damn. If he wants to do a little bit of fun, unscientific pig farming, he can
boldly attach his name to it without scathing his reputation.

HSPH Department Chairs Meir Stampfer and Walter Willett Most Cited
Scientists of the Decade in Clinical Medicine
Harvard School of Public Health Press Release, Friday, September 23,
2005
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press09232005.html

from September 23, 2005, writes about him as follows:

"Meir Stampfer, Chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the
Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) has been ranked the number
one most cited scientist in clinical medicine for the last decade.
According to ISI Essential Science Indicators, 376 of his published
research findings were cited nearly 31,000 times between 1995 and
August of 2005."


In science, people cut-and-paste citations from other papers, without even
/reading/ the original papers that are being cited! Do you know that
misspellings in citations propagate among unrelated papers from different
authors?

The more citations you have in your paper, the more it seems that you have done
a thorough job of covering the prior research. There is a pressure to cite,
which leads to padded citations lists.

A citation is not always positive. There are citations which are used to
exemplify lesser quality prior work. If you include such a citation, it gives
you an opportunity to extend your paper by a paragraphs of text which does
nothing but criticize the earlier work, and explain how the new work improves
on it.

The choice of citation can also be influenced by the degree to which the cited
researcher confirms a hypothesis which the new researcher is trying to argue.
If your paper argues that unlimited amounts of energy can be obtained from a
perpetually moving machine, a significant fraction of your citations will be
to other crackpot papers.
  #18  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 11:21 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Hannah Gruen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss, lipid changes at two years


"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
...
"Hannah Gruen" wrote:
"Doug Freyburger" wrote:

The gray in my hair saw about 5 years worth of set back
in its advance.


Wow! Now that is one I never saw. How nice!


It's a fairly common complaint that 6 months into a very
successful loss phase hair falls out. It's not as common
to come back later to report it ended up coming back in
thicker or less gray or whatever. Yet that's what usually
happens. But it's easier to come asking about a problem
than to come back several months later to report on the
long term result.


Yes, true. Well, and younger people without much or any gray in their hair
won't have any change of course. But this is the first time I recall hearing
anyone note lessening of the gray from LC. Cool. BTW, I recall reading way
in the past that increasing certain B vitamins can sometimes reverse
premature graying. I know you're like me - much healthier,
high-nutrient-density fare since starting LC.

I can say I virtually never get sick any more. I'm not sure to attribute
that to LC (I think that is part of it) or to the fact that I started
supplementing with higher doese of Vitamin D. Probably both.

HG


  #19  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 11:34 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Hannah Gruen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss, lipid changes at two years

"Matti Narkia" wrote

I think that the idea was that higher protein adn fat consumption and
lower carb consumption of LC diet suppresses appetite so that LC group
kind of automatically and voluntarily reduces its calories. It seems to
have also worked that way.


Matti I am going to defer to you on this one, more or less. From reading
your posts over the years, it's clear you know a lot more about this stuff
than do I.

However, from a non-biological scientist POV, it makes absolutely no logical
sense to me to set up a study in which calories are controlled in only 2 of
3 groups. Yes, as it turned out the group that was not controlled for
calories ended up eating the same amount as the other groups. But what if it
hadn't? Why take that chance? I don't get it.

Table 2. Changes in Dietary Intake, Energy Expenditure, and Urinary
Ketones during 2 Years of Intervention
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229/T2

you'll see that calorie reductions in LC and LF groups were almost
identical. In the Mediterranean group the reductions were a little
smaller, but still not statistically significantly different from
LC and LF groups.


Again, since I assume that appetite reduction was not one of the parameters
being studied here, why not just control all groups?

I have to disagree with you. Although not completely without flaws,
this is, however, a large, long term (2 years), well-designed and
well-published (NEJM) study, which compared well-designed and
well-known diets. Additionally, if it wasn't well-designed, it
probably wouldn't have been published in NEJM, the number one
medical journal in the world.


Well, if you say so. I have, however, noted quite a bit of carping on
various blogs of people who really are (unlike me) experts at this stuff.
I'm not going to argue that the results are not interesting or valid,
however.


Here's an interesting excerpt from

Low-fat Diets May Not Be Best For Weight Loss, Study Suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716171134.htm :


I think appeals from authority are a bit weak. And yet, I did just that
(above). I know some of the criticism has revolved around the fact that none
of the 3 diets tested were done in a way that satisfied all proponents of
such diets. LC had too many carbs. LF wasn't low enough. Etc. Overall it
seems to have been a reasonable effort, but had caloric intake differed
substantially from group to group, that would have been a different story,
wouldn't it have? Why take that chance?

HG


  #20  
Old July 22nd, 2008, 03:32 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Low-carb and Mediterranean diets beat low-fat for weight-loss,lipid changes at two years

"Hannah Gruen" wrote:

... I know some of the criticism has revolved around the fact that none
of the 3 diets tested were done in a way that satisfied all proponents of
such diets.


Thinking about this since it came out I've ended up at a
different vewpoint than my initial reaction. The low carb
group ended up at 120 grams per day after a couple of
months at 20. That's not a weight loss diet at all. In
fact for me it isn't even a maintenance level. But there
are plenty of people who do have 120 as a maintenance
level.

LC had too many carbs. LF wasn't low enough. Etc.


Since the LC group was a maintenance group, I don't
think the intent was to compare loss phases at all. I
think the intent was to compare the impact of the
maintenace phases on long term health. Since the
experiement lasted 2 years it was too long for just doing
loss phases for any of the plans.

Given the experiment is about the maintenance phase
(inferred but not mentioned in the abstract) the fact that
there was an average loss on all of the plan types is
nice but irrelevant. I'd want to know what percentage
regained not what the mean value is. Since it's not
about loss all the mean value means is the ones with
net loss out numbered the ones with net gain, and it
was number of pounds in each direction that got out
numbered not number of subjects.

Being a comparison of the maintenance phases, the
health markers other than average loss are all more
important results.

Overall it
seems to have been a reasonable effort, but had caloric intake differed
substantially from group to group, that would have been a different story,
wouldn't it have?


There is precedent from prior studies that LC groups do
not get instruction to reduce total calories by LF groups
do. Neither of us agrees with that precedent but that
precedent seems to be the source for it.

Why take that chance?


I wonder about encouraging low carbers to cut total
calories. I think about posters to ASDLC over the years -
Some have wanted to use the appetite suppression of
ketosis to drive their calorie intake levels down to
starvation levels with minimum or no discomfort. I
would certainly hesitate to push a group of low carbers
to reduce calories if I were in charge of an experiment
in fear of harming someone with an eating disorder I
hadn't detected.
 




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
Increasing evidence supports carb diets for weight loss and improvement in cardiovascular disease (CVD); Mr. Natural-Health General Discussion 17 May 10th, 2006 04:47 PM
Increasing evidence supports carb diets for weight loss and improvement in cardiovascular disease (CVD); Mr. Natural-Health Low Carbohydrate Diets 17 May 10th, 2006 04:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.