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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120...study-suggests Pro: "The very-low-carb plan and the low-glycemic-index plan -- which stresses a variety of high fiber and minimally processed foods -- also resulted in better insulin sensitivity (necessary to process blood sugar effectively) and cholesterol levels. "This suggests that very-low-fat diets may actually slow a person's metabolism down to a level where it is not burning calories as effectively as it could, says researcher David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, who directs the Optimal Weight for Life program at the Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital in Boston. "Ludwig has long studied the low-glycemic-index diet and is one of the diet's main proponents. "He says while people often lose weight on very-low-fat and very-low-carbohydrate diets, the vast majority end up gaining the weight back very quickly. "'From a metabolic perspective our study suggests that all calories are not alike," Ludwig tells WebMD. "The quality of the calories going in is going to affect the number of calories going out.'" Con: "Levels of the stress hormone cortisol and C-reactive protein -- an indicator of inflammation in the body -- were higher during the low-carb phase of the study. "'The metabolic benefits of this diet may be undermined by more inflammation and higher cortisol, both of which can increase [heart disease and stroke] risk over time,' Ludwig says." Inflammtion, of course, can be reduced by including anti-inflammatory foods and supplements in the diet, e.g., adding omega 3 fatty acid (fish oil), minimizing omega 6 (vegetable oil), eating small amounts of dark chocolate, some berries, opting for grass-fed beef over grain-fed, drinking green tea, red wine, adding supplements like turmeric, etc. So it's paramount that you track your hsC-RP or C-RP number. We're all different, and what causes inflammation in my body may not be what causes it in yours, and vice versa. Also, even exercise can cause inflammation, so don't overdo it. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
Dogman wrote:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120...study-suggests Pro: "The very-low-carb plan and the low-glycemic-index plan -- which stresses a variety of high fiber and minimally processed foods -- also resulted in better insulin sensitivity (necessary to process blood sugar effectively) and cholesterol levels. "This suggests that very-low-fat diets may actually slow a person's metabolism down to a level where it is not burning calories as effectively as it could, says researcher David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, who directs the Optimal Weight for Life program at the Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital in Boston. Low carb fans have known this for a very long time. "Ludwig has long studied the low-glycemic-index diet and is one of the diet's main proponents. "He says while people often lose weight on very-low-fat and very-low-carbohydrate diets, the vast majority end up gaining the weight back very quickly. Note the "very" added to both. Consider that many studies are conducted by the subjects staying with the directions for the first two weeks for the entire study. Also consider that most plans have more than one phase. "'From a metabolic perspective our study suggests that all calories are not alike," Ludwig tells WebMD. "The quality of the calories going in is going to affect the number of calories going out.'" Con: "Levels of the stress hormone cortisol and C-reactive protein -- an indicator of inflammation in the body -- were higher during the low-carb phase of the study. Time and again I repeat that the early phases of low carb programs generally last two weeks and that if you step out in faith that's the optimal length of time to stay in the first phase. There are a ton of reasons why plans are designed this way no matter the fierce insistance by many that they can search through their plan and find permission to stay in phase one longer. Cortisol levels are one of those reasons. Look for studies of extended very low carb and you'll find problems with T3 thyroxine and once under some amount to lose with leptin. "'The metabolic benefits of this diet may be undermined by more inflammation and higher cortisol, both of which can increase [heart disease and stroke] risk over time,' Ludwig says." Sounds to me like this suggests low glycemic load moderately low carb rather than very low carb while staying long term. Which is advice that can be found in the table of contents of most popular low carb plans and which I've been repeating regularly since 1999 when I started low carbing. Step out in faith and move on to the later plans. Here's a study that mentions one of the reasons why. Inflammtion, of course, can be reduced by including anti-inflammatory foods and supplements in the diet, e.g., adding omega 3 fatty acid (fish oil), minimizing omega 6 (vegetable oil), eating small amounts of dark chocolate, some berries, opting for grass-fed beef over grain-fed, drinking green tea, red wine, adding supplements like turmeric, etc. Low glycemic load eating reduces inflamation as does moderately low carb eating. So it's paramount that you track your hsC-RP or C-RP number. We're all different, and what causes inflammation in my body may not be what causes it in yours, and vice versa. Also, even exercise can cause inflammation, so don't overdo it. What's over doing it? Running marathons certainly. I bet working up through the "Cuch to 5K" plan and running 3 miles most days once you get in shape is not over doing it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:52:50 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote: [...] "This suggests that very-low-fat diets may actually slow a person's metabolism down to a level where it is not burning calories as effectively as it could, says researcher David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, who directs the Optimal Weight for Life program at the Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital in Boston. Low carb fans have known this for a very long time. Yep. Now, maybe others will know it, too. "Ludwig has long studied the low-glycemic-index diet and is one of the diet's main proponents. "He says while people often lose weight on very-low-fat and very-low-carbohydrate diets, the vast majority end up gaining the weight back very quickly. Note the "very" added to both. Consider that many studies are conducted by the subjects staying with the directions for the first two weeks for the entire study. Also consider that most plans have more than one phase. Yeah, and it's hard to quantify what "very" means without seeing the actual study. [...] Inflammtion, of course, can be reduced by including anti-inflammatory foods and supplements in the diet, e.g., adding omega 3 fatty acid (fish oil), minimizing omega 6 (vegetable oil), eating small amounts of dark chocolate, some berries, opting for grass-fed beef over grain-fed, drinking green tea, red wine, adding supplements like turmeric, etc. Low glycemic load eating reduces inflamation as does moderately low carb eating. So it's paramount that you track your hsC-RP or C-RP number. We're all different, and what causes inflammation in my body may not be what causes it in yours, and vice versa. Also, even exercise can cause inflammation, so don't overdo it. What's over doing it? Running marathons certainly. I bet working up through the "Cuch to 5K" plan and running 3 miles most days once you get in shape is not over doing it. Again, I think it depends on the individual. I'd say anything over 3 miles, 3 times a week might be overdoing it for most of us. Running or training for marathons, triathons, some kinds of cycling, etc., certainly would. And an hsC-RP or C-RP test can help tell us where we stand. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to RegainLost Weight
On Jun 27, 1:15*pm, Dogman wrote:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20120...t-created-equa... Pro: "The very-low-carb plan and the low-glycemic-index plan -- which stresses a variety of high fiber and minimally processed foods -- also resulted in better insulin sensitivity (necessary to process blood sugar effectively) and cholesterol levels. "This suggests that very-low-fat diets may actually slow a person's metabolism down to a level where it is not burning calories as effectively as it could, says researcher David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD, who directs the Optimal Weight for Life program at the Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital in Boston. "Ludwig has long studied the low-glycemic-index diet and is one of the diet's main proponents. "He says while people often lose weight on very-low-fat and very-low-carbohydrate diets, the vast majority end up gaining the weight back very quickly. Which is misleading, since by only including low-fat and very-low-carb, he seems to be implying that the low-glycemic diet is substantially better at keeping the weight off. Yet further on in the article, we have: "She says since the participants were only followed for the three months that they followed the highly controlled eating plans, it is not clear if one diet really is better than another for maintaining weight loss." Another example where researchers don't stick to the facts of their own study and make statements that could confuse people. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:57:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] Another example where researchers don't stick to the facts of their own study You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc. "studies." -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to RegainLost Weight
On Jun 28, 3:42*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:57:03 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Another example where researchers don't stick to the facts of their own study You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc. "studies." -- Dogman No, I never did any such thing. And here you go again trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread that has nothing whatever to do with it. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough with your AIDS denialist nonsense? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] Another example where researchers don't stick to the facts of their own study You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc. "studies." No, I never did any such thing. And that's precisely the problem, moron! And here you go again trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread that has nothing whatever to do with it. Look, you don't get to make the rules here. I'll reply to any post I want! And for any reason I want! And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear. And if you were really so concerned about someone starting trouble, you wouldn't have started this all off by calling me an "idiot" and a "moron"! Asshole. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to RegainLost Weight
On Jun 28, 5:01*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Another example where researchers don't stick to the facts of their own study You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc. "studies." No, I never did any such thing. And that's precisely the problem, moron! As usual, you're not making any sense here and I have no idea what point you're trying to make. And here you go again trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread that has nothing whatever to do with it. Look, you don't get to make the rules here. I'll reply to any post I want! And for any reason I want! And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear. And if you were really so concerned about someone starting trouble, you wouldn't have started this all off by calling me an "idiot" and a "moron"! Asshole. -- Dogman You really are losing it or deliberately lying. No where in this thread did I call you any names. All I did was post a perfectly legitimate comment about the article you referenced. Apparently that is all that it takes to set you off into releasing a barrage of vulgarity. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to Regain Lost Weight
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:20:36 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: Another example where researchers don't stick to the facts of their own study You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc. "studies." No, I never did any such thing. And that's precisely the problem, moron! As usual, you're not making any sense here and I have no idea what point you're trying to make. That's because you're too stupid to figure it out! And here you go again trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread that has nothing whatever to do with it. Look, you don't get to make the rules here. I'll reply to any post I want! And for any reason I want! And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear. And if you were really so concerned about someone starting trouble, you wouldn't have started this all off by calling me an "idiot" and a "moron"! Asshole. You really are losing it or deliberately lying. No where in this thread did I call you any names. You've been calling me names and insulting me from the moment I first mentioned that, IN MY OPINION, HIV doesn't cause AIDS! Note: You don't get to decide which threads I can retaliate in; I make my own rules. And that's when you lost it, and started gnawing on my ankles, reposting post after post after post. You just won't let it go. Do you really think you're going to run me off? Guess again, asshole. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Low-Fat Eaters Burned Fewer Calories, Were More Likely to RegainLost Weight
On Jun 29, 12:36*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:20:36 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: Another example where researchers don't stick to the facts of their own study You should remember you said that, too, when reading AIDS, Inc. "studies." No, I never did any such thing. And that's precisely the problem, moron! As usual, you're not making any sense here and I have no idea what point you're trying to make. That's because you're too stupid to figure it out! And here you go again trying to start trouble about AIDS in yet another thread that has nothing whatever to do with it. Look, you don't get to make the rules here. I'll reply to any post I want! And for any reason I want! And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear. And if you were really so concerned about someone starting trouble, you wouldn't have started this all off by calling me an "idiot" and a "moron"! Asshole. You really are losing it or deliberately lying. *No where in this thread did I call you any names. You've been calling me names and insulting me from the moment I first mentioned that, IN MY OPINION, HIV doesn't cause AIDS! Note: You don't get to decide which threads I can retaliate in; I make my own rules. And that's when you lost it, and started gnawing on my ankles, reposting post after post after post. You just won't let it go. *Do you really think you're going to run me off? Guess again, asshole. -- Dogman It takes two to continue the exchange, hypocrite. And I have never started a new attack on you in another thread. You have repeatedly and you acknowledge it above. In this thread, all I did was make a simple observation about the study. That's all it takes with you and we're off to the races. As for the name calling, clearly that is your province. Vulgarity too. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
calories burned after work out? | dvdrx | General Discussion | 0 | September 4th, 2004 06:22 AM |
Calories burned question | jmk | General Discussion | 5 | February 19th, 2004 04:57 PM |
A ? regarding calories burned | CaityH | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 33 | January 26th, 2004 04:00 PM |
The Eat More Fat To Eat Fewer Calories Diet | Preesi | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 10 | January 13th, 2004 01:11 PM |
Chewing Less = Fewer Calories? | James | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 3 | September 22nd, 2003 09:48 PM |