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
|
|||
|
|||
Bob in CT wrote:
On 11 Aug 2004 19:20:26 GMT, Ignoramus5937 wrote: In article , Bob in CT wrote: On 11 Aug 2004 18:52:25 GMT, Ignoramus5937 wrote: What an amazing find, as I am reading more about low carbing. Obese children who were fed a low carb diet lost weight and improved blood lipids. These children also ate 66% more calories than controls, who ate "heart healthy" starches and whole grains. What a surprise. Medline ID 15148063 Sondike S, Jacobson, Copperman. The ketogenic diet increases weight loss but not cardiovascular risk: A randomized controlled trial. J Adolescent Health Care 2000; 26: 91. Schneider Children?s Hospital in New Hyde Park, N.Y This study was conducted on overweight children aged 12 to 18. They were between 20 and 100 pounds overweight. The children were split into two groups. One group ate a conventional low-fat, carbohydrate based "slimming" diet composed of whole grains, fruits and vegetables with fat-free dairy products, low-fat meats, poultry and fish. Their total intake was limited to 1,100 calories per day. The other group ate a high-fat, low-carb diet in which they were allowed to eat as many calories as they wanted in the form of untrimmed meat, cheese, eggs, poultry and fish. Their carbohydrates came from two salads a day and minimal other carbs. RESULTS Despite consuming on average 66% more calories per day, after 12 weeks the children consuming the low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those following the low-fat, high-carb plan: Low-carb Low-fat Calorie intake 1830 1100 Weight loss 19 lbs 8.5 lbs HDL Increased Decreased Triglycerides -52% -10% As high-protein/fat diets are thought to have adverse effects on kidneys and liver, kidney and liver functions were regularly monitored. They were found to be unaffected by this diet. COMMENT: Six to twelve months later, most of the low-carb dieters had maintained their new lower weight. This study provides additional evidence for the efficacy of a low-carb weight loss programme specifically for the most vulnerable group ? teenagers. I think this is a great result (and in line with every other result regarding low carb), but unless they counted calories for the kids before putting them on the diet then counted calories for the kids after they put them on the diet, the calorie difference isn't really scientific. Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the conventionally dieting kids. That low carb children could eat more, surprised me. i Actually, almost every study that looks at calories and low carb comes up with the same results. However, some people are adamant (sp?) that if you took these people and put them in chambers to measure every calorie, there's no difference in low carb and high carb. There was one study that used twins and did this and determined no difference between low and high carb. However, most studies support the "low carb = more weight loss" hypothesis. Have you seen these: Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in Adult Women during Weight Loss (Journal Abstract) Added on: 4/29/2003 Hits: 263 From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Journal of Nutrition, 2003: In this study, researchers placed two groups of women on two diets, each of which was equal in calories and fat. One group was on a high protein, low carbohydrate diet and the second was on the USDA's low protein, high carbohydrate diet. The researchers noted that both groups lost 16 pounds on average, but the low carbohydrate, high protein group lost more body fat and less lean body mass than did the USDA food pyramid group. The researchers also noted that women in the high protein group had more stable glucose levels,lower insulin levels, and lower cholesterol levels. High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets (Magazine Article) Added on: 12/27/2002 Hits: 1145 From the Arizona State University and the the Doctor's Guide, 2002: This team of researchers compared the thermogenic effects of two different low fat diets. The first low fat diet was high in protein and the second was high in carbohydrate. The researchers found that the study participants' body temperature and resting energy expenditure was 100% greater after eating high protein meals that after eating high carbohydrate meals. They concluded that the thermogenesis that occurs after high-protein meals may partially explain the effectiveness of high-protein diets for weight loss. (From http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/r....asp?catid=199) Sounds like it should have been stated as: The researchers found that the study participants' body temperature was greater after eating high protein meals compared to those eating high carb meals. They also found that after eating high protein meals the resting energy expenditure was 100% greater for the low carb group than the high carb group. The temptation to save a few words in an abstract created a potential for confusion. Nice article.... Thanks for drawing attention to it. Jim |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Only calories matter?
"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
... Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the conventionally dieting kids. That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode. Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown that. During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower than what I ate before!). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
... Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the conventionally dieting kids. That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode. Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown that. During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower than what I ate before!). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Only calories matter?
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:28:05 +0200, Lictor
wrote: "Ignoramus5937" wrote in message ... Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the conventionally dieting kids. That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode. Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown that. During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower than what I ate before!). Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never know. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:28:05 +0200, Lictor
wrote: "Ignoramus5937" wrote in message ... Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the conventionally dieting kids. That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode. Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown that. During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower than what I ate before!). Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never know. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:28:05 +0200, Lictor
wrote: "Ignoramus5937" wrote in message ... Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the conventionally dieting kids. That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode. Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown that. During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower than what I ate before!). Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never know. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Only calories matter?
"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
... I am, personally, skeptical about glycemic index as a useful concept. It depends if you are diabetic or not Though I do agree it's only informative. It depends a lot on the whole composition of the meal, not of individual items. But it has a great educative value, and some true surprises (like, chocolate being rather low or industrial mashed potatoes being higher than sugar). Actually, I think the interresting part of GI is *what* can change the GI of a given food item (fats, proteins, acidity...). Like, the fact that acidity can lower GI dramatically, hence sourdough can be an alternative to wholewheat bread. What is also very interresting is looking at traditionnal cooking using that knowledge. Many traditionnal recipes are actually the best way to lower the GI of the food. Just have a look at Spanish paella : rice cooked in fat by absoption (= "al dente") along with proteins, fibers and some lemon juice. Likewise, a good Indian curry *requires* an acid base and some fat. France cooked beans in fat (duck fat, lard). There are many similar recipes. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Ignoramus5937" wrote in message
... I am, personally, skeptical about glycemic index as a useful concept. It depends if you are diabetic or not Though I do agree it's only informative. It depends a lot on the whole composition of the meal, not of individual items. But it has a great educative value, and some true surprises (like, chocolate being rather low or industrial mashed potatoes being higher than sugar). Actually, I think the interresting part of GI is *what* can change the GI of a given food item (fats, proteins, acidity...). Like, the fact that acidity can lower GI dramatically, hence sourdough can be an alternative to wholewheat bread. What is also very interresting is looking at traditionnal cooking using that knowledge. Many traditionnal recipes are actually the best way to lower the GI of the food. Just have a look at Spanish paella : rice cooked in fat by absoption (= "al dente") along with proteins, fibers and some lemon juice. Likewise, a good Indian curry *requires* an acid base and some fat. France cooked beans in fat (duck fat, lard). There are many similar recipes. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Only calories matter?
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:52:25 +0000, Ignoramus5937 wrote:
What an amazing find, as I am reading more about low carbing. Obese children who were fed a low carb diet lost weight and improved blood lipids. These children also ate 66% more calories than controls, who ate "heart healthy" starches and whole grains. What a surprise. Not at all. It's been known for some time that diets very low in fat make you loose less weight than if you allow a bit of healthy fats. So I don't find this is a very fair comparison. I also wonder about the long term effects of the high-protein diet on cholesterol and liver functions. I recently read that drinking grapefruit juice with every mail can make you loose more weight, since the fibers it contain make you feel fuller for longer. But hardly anybody is on a grapefruit diet... IMO too much is bad, but so is too little. I'm still not convinced. -- -- Boemsi 207 - 197 - 180 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Only calories matter?
"Ignoramus14701" wrote in message
... ``As high-protein/fat diets are thought to have adverse effects on kidneys and liver, kidney and liver fun ctions were regularly monitored. They were found to be unaffected by this diet.'' So, in that study, children had no impairment in liver or kidney. That was a 12 weeks study. I doubt *any* diet would manage to damage the liver or kidney in such a small amount of time, no matter how unbalanced. Both these organs are extremelly sturdy, it takes repeated assaults on them to finally cause them to malfunction. If one really wanted to see the health impacts of these diets, one would have to study them over several years, on a large population. That would be an interresting study in itself. I'm not convinced extreme low-fat is any healthier than extreme low-carb btw. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The last few pounds can come off! | curt | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 8 | June 7th, 2004 08:50 PM |
Does fat matter? | Gregg Davis | General Discussion | 8 | June 3rd, 2004 06:10 PM |
calories per day | suz | General Discussion | 96 | May 4th, 2004 02:26 AM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | tcomeau | Low Calorie | 113 | February 14th, 2004 02:26 PM |
Frustration and calories | carla | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | December 28th, 2003 05:59 PM |