Low carb diets

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Freese wrote:

And if we all had willpower we would not have wars

how do you figure?

Perhaps we would all be willing our excess carbs to our enemies.

Doug Freese wrote:

And if we all had willpower we would not have wars

how do you figure?

Doug Freese wrote in message ...
tcomeau wrote:


Yeah, and starving yourself can easily become a lifestyle, sure.

Who said anything about starving ?? That's quite an imagination...



****
starvation

n 1: a state of extreme hunger resulting from lack of essential

Note the word "extreme" unless you are reading challenged.


Note that any restriction of calories below what a person needs is
some form of starvation, just to a lesser degree.

nutrients over a prolonged period [syn: famishment] 2: the act of
starving; "they were charged with the starvation of children in their
care" [syn: starving]
*****

If one requires X number of calories per day and one deliberately
restricts ones consumption to less than this amount then one is
consuming less nutrients and energy than is required by the body. That
is restricting food, restricting required nutrition thus it is
essentially trying to *starve* the fat off. It may not be an extreme
level of starvation but it is starvation nonetheless.

According to you, if I eat 1 less calorie I'm in extreme hunger. I
enjoy your sense of humor and your gift for definition.


No, you are just consuming less than your body needs to function. You
are taking less nutrition than you need. You are, in effect, trying
to keep your body in a mild state of starvation to force it to use up
stored fat. My point is that this DOES NOT WORK. If it did work,
anyone who chooses to lose weight would simply eat less and voila,
weight loss.


And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.

Please Saturday Night Live is looking for some more comedy writers.


*You* calling someone else a comedian, that's rich.


The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and
starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a
fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode ie. mild ketosis.

Hmmm, starvation is bad and ketosis is good.


Of course. Duh....

This is taking advantage of the bodies natural processes and avoiding
the carb induced insulin spikes that forces the body into storing fat.
It isn't rocket science.

One can do very nicely eating carbs, sensing zero starvation, lose
weight and not have smelly breath as your body internally
hemorrhages from ketosis. Boy can you make up **** up on the fly.

Let's see, ready, fire, aim.

It is virtually impossible to lose weight on a diet that is high in
GI-load carbs unless one ups ones activity levels to a huge and
abnormal degree.

I've never suffered from bad breath on the Zone diet. So far no
hemorrhages either. And I am no longer fat, I will never be fat and I
will never go hungry trying to lose weight ever again, as long as I
live. I eat like a king on a low-carb diet and have never felt better,
energy wise. My blood lipids and blood pressure are bang-on normal.

Life is good when you aren't trying to starve yourself thin and
continually failing like the vast majority of the lo-fat/lo-cal
dieters are forced to endure. We low-carbers have found the elixir of
life and if you do not wish to partake, that is your misfortune, not
ours.

TC

In article , tcomeau wrote:
Doug Freese wrote in message ...
tcomeau wrote:


Yeah, and starving yourself can easily become a lifestyle, sure.

Who said anything about starving ?? That's quite an imagination...



****
starvation

n 1: a state of extreme hunger resulting from lack of essential

Note the word "extreme" unless you are reading challenged.


Note that any restriction of calories below what a person needs is
some form of starvation, just to a lesser degree.

The degree is part of the definition. If it's not "extreme", it's not
starvation either.

According to you, if I eat 1 less calorie I'm in extreme hunger. I
enjoy your sense of humor and your gift for definition.

No, you are just consuming less than your body needs to function.

Wrong. The body can function just fine on a caloric defecit.

You are taking less nutrition than you need.

Less than you need for *weight maintenance*. Which is fine, because we are
assuming here that weight maintenance is NOT the goal.

You are, in effect, trying
to keep your body in a mild state of starvation to force it to use up
stored fat.

Not only is your rhetoric about "starvation" is a load of horse****, you fail
to make any coherent argument that low carb diets are different from these
"starvation" diets.

In particular, you appear to implicitly make the claim that you can maintain
a caloric balance or even a surplus on a low carb diet, and still lose weight.
But you don't provide any corroborating evidence to support this claim. The
fact of the matter is that most researchers don't believe the claim you are
making to be true.

My point is that this DOES NOT WORK.

Nothing that requires a lifestyle change works. Which is why there is still an
abundance of obesity inspite of the fact that we know about low carb diets.

Why haven't low carb diets cured the obesity epidemic ?

If it did work, anyone who chooses to lose weight would simply eat less and
voila, weight loss.

That requires behavioural changes. Most people aren't good at these.

One can do very nicely eating carbs, sensing zero starvation, lose
weight and not have smelly breath as your body internally
hemorrhages from ketosis. Boy can you make up **** up on the fly.

Let's see, ready, fire, aim.

It is virtually impossible to lose weight on a diet that is high in
GI-load carbs unless one ups ones activity levels to a huge and
abnormal degree.

It is perfectly possible to do so provided that you have a caloric defecit.

Life is good when you aren't trying to starve yourself thin and
continually failing like the vast majority of the lo-fat/lo-cal
dieters are forced to endure.

Your rhetoric about "starvation" is bull**** and has no basis in science.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Doug Freese" wrote in message
...
snip

It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph
you are burning off roughly 200 calories.

15 mph, huh?

OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"jmk" wrote in message
...


On 12/17/2003 10:29 AM, tcomeau wrote:

And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.

Please post evidence that any diet plan (low carb, low fat, reduced
calorie, TC's super secret special plan) works more often? What plan
are you recommending?

The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and
starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a
fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode ie. mild ketosis.

Please post evidence that low carb is not another form of calorie
restriction.

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?


There are of course genetic and pharmacolocigal mechanisms (e.g., ephedrine)
involved with partitioning, but that is a longer story for another day
(e.g., see ref 1).

1. Leptin and Insulin Modulate Nutrient Partitioning and Weight Loss in
ob/ob Mice through Regulation of Long-Chain Fatty Acid Uptake by Adipocytes1
Xinqing Fan*, Michael W. Bradbury* and Paul D. Berk Departments of Medicine
and Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, The Mount Sinai School of
Medicine, New York, NY 10029

the ob mouse is an irrelevant model for 99.9% of obese humans. A few
cases of OB (leptin deficient) humans have been found but that's it.

Lyle

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"jmk" wrote in message
...


On 12/17/2003 10:29 AM, tcomeau wrote:

And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.

Please post evidence that any diet plan (low carb, low fat, reduced
calorie, TC's super secret special plan) works more often? What plan
are you recommending?

The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and
starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a
fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode ie. mild
ketosis.

Please post evidence that low carb is not another form of calorie
restriction.

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.

The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs lean
muscle maint.

What has your more-involved research shown?

From what I have read (less than you I am sure), it makes sense
theoretically. See the studies I found )posted in anoth3r post in this
thread) (some longer than what you said were not very long and thence not
very convincing).






There are of course genetic and pharmacolocigal mechanisms (e.g.,
ephedrine)
involved with partitioning, but that is a longer story for another day
(e.g., see ref 1).

1. Leptin and Insulin Modulate Nutrient Partitioning and Weight Loss in
ob/ob Mice through Regulation of Long-Chain Fatty Acid Uptake by
Adipocytes1
Xinqing Fan*, Michael W. Bradbury* and Paul D. Berk Departments of
Medicine
and Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, The Mount Sinai School of
Medicine, New York, NY 10029

the ob mouse is an irrelevant model for 99.9% of obese humans. A few
cases of OB (leptin deficient) humans have been found but that's it.

Lyle

Barry Wong wrote:

roger wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:38:38 -0600, Lyle McDonald
wrote:

Exercise is beneficial but it is by no means REQUIRED.

I agree it is not absolutely required but the recidivism among those
who try to keep off the fat by diet alone is quite high.

Isn't the recidivism (nice word) among those trying to keep off fat
quite high period? You can say that those who keep exercising regularly
do better, but so do those who really stick to their diets. The problem,
I'm guessing (and I really am guessing) is that people tend to stop
doing the things that led to weight loss, and return to the bad habits
that made them fat in the first place.

Well put.

The simple fact is that most people fail at most behavior mods. Whether
it's drinking, smoking, drugs, exercise, or diet; most return to old behaviors.

As well, even if someone engages in a regular exercise program AND
sticks with it, this is no guarantee of weight or fat loss per se. Look
around any gym for wonderful examples: folks who are in there day-in and
day-out exercising religiously who never lose a pound.

Some type of dietary modification (wehether qualitative or quantitative)
is almost always going to be necessary (the exceptions are usually
exercise programs, think marathon training, where teh exercise calorie
expenditure is just so monstrous that subjects don't cancel it out but
that's hardly indicative of what's recommended or what most people do).

Now, some studies do suggest that adding exercise causes a spontaneous
change in eating habits (in terms of macronutrient selection). There is
also data to suggest that appetite better autoregulates when daily
activity is above a certain level (it's pretty high as I recall). Both
could lead to weight/fat loss.

At the same time, some people compensate the other way, essentially use
exercise as an 'excuse' to eat more crap (i.e. "I did an aerobics class,
I deserve that milkshake" syndrome). This gets into a lot of other
issues having to do with psychological models of eating behavior.

Again, look around the gym: you can find lots of people who are in there
every day who don't lose a pound.

So exercise alone isn't any more of a guarantee than diet alone is
(except inasmuch as diet alone WILL cause weight loss, exercise alone
may or may not: adherence being a separate issue).

The bigger question (rather, the more important issue IMO), is whether
diet+exercise has better or worse compliance (or effects wrt: weight)
than diet alone (or exercise alone). The data, as usual, is mixed.

I've seen studies suggesting that exercise makes people adhere to
dietary changes better but I can also think of at least one study which
found that diet + exercise did worse than the other two groups (as I
recall) in terms of weight regain. Shocked the researchers too.
Presumably the subjects linked the diet and exercise so when they quit
one, they quit the other too.

Basically, it's complicated. Humans are crafy *******s and can find
ways out of just about anything you throw at them.

But the bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is pretty much this: any
behavior modification has to be forever. And most people, no matter
what you're talking about, just aren't very good at that type of
long-term change. Most diets fail, most exercise programs fail, most
attempts to change drinking or drug habits fail. Which says a lot more
about humans than anything else.

Lyle

"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message
s.com...

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"jmk" wrote in message
...


On 12/17/2003 10:29 AM, tcomeau wrote:

And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases.

Please post evidence that any diet plan (low carb, low fat, reduced
calorie, TC's super secret special plan) works more often? What
plan
are you recommending?

The low-carb diet works specifically by not causing hunger and
starvation, but by 1) satiating and 2) keeping the body out of a
fat-storage mode and keeping it in a fat-using mode ie. mild
ketosis.

Please post evidence that low carb is not another form of calorie
restriction.

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.

The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs lean
muscle maint.

What has your more-involved research shown?

From what I have read (less than you I am sure), it makes sense
theoretically. See the studies I found )posted in anoth3r post in this
thread) (some longer than what you said were not very long and thence not
very convincing).

PS: I think it is more about insulin than leptin, immediately postprandial.
Leptin has more of an affect via brain (behavior).







There are of course genetic and pharmacolocigal mechanisms (e.g.,
ephedrine)
involved with partitioning, but that is a longer story for another day
(e.g., see ref 1).

1. Leptin and Insulin Modulate Nutrient Partitioning and Weight Loss
in
ob/ob Mice through Regulation of Long-Chain Fatty Acid Uptake by
Adipocytes1
Xinqing Fan*, Michael W. Bradbury* and Paul D. Berk Departments of
Medicine
and Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology, The Mount Sinai School
of
Medicine, New York, NY 10029

the ob mouse is an irrelevant model for 99.9% of obese humans. A few
cases of OB (leptin deficient) humans have been found but that's it.

Lyle

OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

But it's not an issue of insulin or anything else: low-carb diets work
because (some) people eat less on them.

What about those that eat the same calories but change the ratio of P/C/F
and/or the timing and feeding frequency (breaking up the cals into 6 meals
instead of 3)?!!! Or eat the Carbs + Protein in first 3 meals and fats +
protein inlast threee meals. etc.

What about 'em?

relevant in terms of hunger/caloric control.

And nutrient partitioning/metabolism.

I am sure you are aware of the insulin- and leption- regulated metabolism of
foods

Very.

so, when calories are strictly controlled (and things like adequate
protein and EFA's are given), how come differences don't show up in
studies? seriously, just about any variation you can care to name has
been tested.

Any differences in terms of actual weight or fat loss amounts to noise
(the only major differences occur in studies comparing inadequate to
adequate protein intakes).

Lyle