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

LC Research



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 28th, 2007, 12:09 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
RRzVRR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 940
Default LC Research

Its always good new to see that a LC research trial is going on.
I usually find these at the research site, but this one is from
Craigslist.


Research Volunteers Needed - ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL


LOSE WEIGHT UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION
LOW CALORIE High Fat/Protein - Low Carbohydrate Weight Loss Diet

-Healthy Overweight Pre-menopausal Women 30-50 years old
-Study Duration: 10 weeks overnight as an inpatient
-Work or school are allowed while participating
-Compensation provided

CALL 1-800-RU-CARES and press #2 for more information
www.rucares.org
1230 York Avenue, New York, NY


--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm


  #2  
Old February 28th, 2007, 10:43 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
FOB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 231
Default LC Research

I don't know how you can get any worthwhile results on the effects of diet
in a period of only 10 weeks.

BlueBrooke wrote:

| "The first 2 weeks consist of a weight stabilization period, during
| which subjects will be required to eat an average American diet. This
| is followed by the 6 week weight loss period where subjects will be
| put on a low calorie, low-carbohydrate-high fat/protein diet. During
| the weight loss period, calories will be cut by 50% compared to the
| weight stabilization period. This will be followed by a 2 week weight
| maintenance period during which calories will be added to the diet to
| maintain the new weight. Appropriate adjustments will be made to keep
| the subject's weight stable."
|
| They mention the two week maintenance period "during which calories
| will be added" -- they don't mention the carbs.
|
| If they go back to the "average American diet" and adjust only
| calories for maintenance (and not carbs), they can say low carb works
| for weight loss, but then you gain all the weight back?
|
| It will be very interesting to see the results.


  #3  
Old March 1st, 2007, 12:33 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Aaron Baugher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 647
Default LC Research

BlueBrooke [email protected] writes:

Research Volunteers Needed - ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL


"The first 2 weeks consist of a weight stabilization period, during
which subjects will be required to eat an average American
diet. This is followed by the 6 week weight loss period where
subjects will be put on a low calorie, low-carbohydrate-high
fat/protein diet. During the weight loss period, calories will be
cut by 50% compared to the weight stabilization period. This will be
followed by a 2 week weight maintenance period during which calories
will be added to the diet to maintain the new weight. Appropriate
adjustments will be made to keep the subject's weight stable."


Why "low calorie"? Seems to me, if it succeeds, that'll just allow
people to give the credit to the low-calorie part instead of the
low-carb part.


--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."
  #4  
Old March 1st, 2007, 01:52 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Jbuch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default LC Research

Aaron Baugher wrote:
BlueBrooke [email protected] writes:


Research Volunteers Needed - ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL



"The first 2 weeks consist of a weight stabilization period, during
which subjects will be required to eat an average American
diet. This is followed by the 6 week weight loss period where
subjects will be put on a low calorie, low-carbohydrate-high
fat/protein diet. During the weight loss period, calories will be
cut by 50% compared to the weight stabilization period. This will be
followed by a 2 week weight maintenance period during which calories
will be added to the diet to maintain the new weight. Appropriate
adjustments will be made to keep the subject's weight stable."



Why "low calorie"? Seems to me, if it succeeds, that'll just allow
people to give the credit to the low-calorie part instead of the
low-carb part.




Somebody is thinking.

But you forgot the part that if the study doesn't succeed, the blame
will go to the low-carb part.

This could be a Presidentially inspired study.

Jim
  #5  
Old March 1st, 2007, 01:38 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
RRzVRR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 940
Default LC Research

FOB wrote:

I don't know how you can get any worthwhile results on the effects of diet
in a period of only 10 weeks.

BlueBrooke wrote:

| "The first 2 weeks consist of a weight stabilization period, during
| which subjects will be required to eat an average American diet. This
| is followed by the 6 week weight loss period where subjects will be
| put on a low calorie, low-carbohydrate-high fat/protein diet. During
| the weight loss period, calories will be cut by 50% compared to the
| weight stabilization period. This will be followed by a 2 week weight
| maintenance period during which calories will be added to the diet to
| maintain the new weight. Appropriate adjustments will be made to keep
| the subject's weight stable."
|
| They mention the two week maintenance period "during which calories
| will be added" -- they don't mention the carbs.
|
| If they go back to the "average American diet" and adjust only
| calories for maintenance (and not carbs), they can say low carb works
| for weight loss, but then you gain all the weight back?
|
| It will be very interesting to see the results.


I have a different take on this matter. One of the biggest
problems LC use to have was that there was so very little
research done looking at LC in any scenario. To me, the research
that has been done since the late 90's has been more balanced and
frequently with a lean toward more positive outlooks regarding LC
and its benefits.

What I'm looking for in the Rockefeller research is how LC
effects bodycomp. They do a good deal of research on bodycomp...
and I've tried a few times to get into those studies (turned down
mostly because of the pins I have in my jaw and/or due to the
amount or exercise that I do per week). So I'm hoping that when
they report on the study it will be more about LC's effect on
bodycomp.

In case anyone is interested they also do a good deal of
research on leptin.



--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

  #6  
Old March 1st, 2007, 02:26 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Aaron Baugher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 647
Default LC Research

Jbuch writes:

But you forgot the part that if the study doesn't succeed, the blame
will go to the low-carb part.


Which seems likely. Cutting calories by 50% certainly has nothing to
do with low-carb eating, and starving the test subjects the whole time
is just going to encourage recidivism and weight gain when they go
into their maintenance (whatever that means to them) period.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."
  #7  
Old March 1st, 2007, 02:54 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Hollywood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default LC Research

On Mar 1, 8:26 am, Aaron Baugher wrote:
Jbuch writes:
But you forgot the part that if the study doesn't succeed, the blame
will go to the low-carb part.


Which seems likely. Cutting calories by 50% certainly has nothing to
do with low-carb eating, and starving the test subjects the whole time
is just going to encourage recidivism and weight gain when they go
into their maintenance (whatever that means to them) period.

--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 --http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."


While I agree that calories are somewhat secondary given the metabolic
advantage, the insulin metabolism, and the hunger quashing effects of
LC diets, even Atkins wrote that at some point, calories matter
(Atkins for Life). The Drs. Eades concur.

By 50% seems like a Kimkins kind of thing. Lot of LC diets out there,
and not everything is Atkins-South Beach-Protein Power(LifePlan). I
wouldn't do Kimkins if it were the only thing that actually worked,
but that's me, I guess.

  #8  
Old March 1st, 2007, 03:53 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Cookie Cutter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default LC Research

RRzVRR wrote:
Its always good new to see that a LC research trial is going on.


There is an incredible amount of carbohydrate research going on.

You can go to: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/action/GetStudy

Type in the word "carbohydrate"

When the page comes up, be sure to click on the box, "Include trials
that are no longer recruiting patients"

You will see 128 studies involving carbohydrates. One of those is a
long term study on the Atking diet. Study start: April 2003; Study
completion: May 2007


Cookie
  #9  
Old March 1st, 2007, 05:30 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default LC Research

On Mar 1, 8:54 am, "Hollywood" wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:26 am, Aaron Baugher wrote:

Jbuch writes:
But you forgot the part that if the study doesn't succeed, the blame
will go to the low-carb part.


Which seems likely. Cutting calories by 50% certainly has nothing to
do with low-carb eating, and starving the test subjects the whole time
is just going to encourage recidivism and weight gain when they go
into their maintenance (whatever that means to them) period.


--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 --http://aaron.baugher.biz/


"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."


While I agree that calories are somewhat secondary given the metabolic
advantage, the insulin metabolism, and the hunger quashing effects of
LC diets, even Atkins wrote that at some point, calories matter
(Atkins for Life). The Drs. Eades concur.

By 50% seems like a Kimkins kind of thing. Lot of LC diets out there,
and not everything is Atkins-South Beach-Protein Power(LifePlan). I
wouldn't do Kimkins if it were the only thing that actually worked,
but that's me, I guess.



The whole thing sounds rather dubious to me. Also curious about why
this is 10 weeks of overnight stays. What's up with that? They say
the subjects can go to work or school, so they are obviously not
trying to keep them from eating unaccounted for food. Are they
afraid they will sleep walk and raid the fridge? LOL




  #10  
Old March 1st, 2007, 06:53 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default LC Research

wrote:
:: On Mar 1, 8:54 am, "Hollywood" wrote:
::: On Mar 1, 8:26 am, Aaron Baugher wrote:
:::
:::: Jbuch writes:
::::: But you forgot the part that if the study doesn't succeed, the
::::: blame will go to the low-carb part.
:::
:::: Which seems likely. Cutting calories by 50% certainly has nothing
:::: to do with low-carb eating, and starving the test subjects the
:::: whole time is just going to encourage recidivism and weight gain
:::: when they go into their maintenance (whatever that means to them)
:::: period.
:::
:::: --
:::: Aaron -- 285/235/200 --http://aaron.baugher.biz/
:::
:::: "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
:::: zebras."
:::
::: While I agree that calories are somewhat secondary given the
::: metabolic advantage, the insulin metabolism, and the hunger
::: quashing effects of LC diets, even Atkins wrote that at some point,
::: calories matter (Atkins for Life). The Drs. Eades concur.
:::
::: By 50% seems like a Kimkins kind of thing. Lot of LC diets out
::: there, and not everything is Atkins-South Beach-Protein
::: Power(LifePlan). I wouldn't do Kimkins if it were the only thing
::: that actually worked, but that's me, I guess.
::
::
:: The whole thing sounds rather dubious to me. Also curious about why
:: this is 10 weeks of overnight stays. What's up with that? They
:: say the subjects can go to work or school, so they are obviously not
:: trying to keep them from eating unaccounted for food. Are they
:: afraid they will sleep walk and raid the fridge? LOL

Well, there is a lot of eating that goes on through the evening....which
packs the pounds on since calories & carbs do add up. Keeping them
overnight may tend to decrease that random eating and thus result in some
weight loss.

Of course, cutting food by 50% might upset some, causing them to look for
extra calories during the day.

But what do they mean by standard American diet? How many calories are in
that? 5000? if so, then cutting to 2500 may leave some of these people
full. When the gain weight, they'll blame that on low-carb, too.


 




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
research this [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 October 6th, 2006 07:43 AM
Some New Research RRzVRR Low Carbohydrate Diets 4 June 19th, 2006 08:17 PM
LC Research RRzVRR Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 January 5th, 2006 03:17 PM
research help? Amy General Discussion 1 November 3rd, 2003 02:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.