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

Two Keys to Weight Loss



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 3rd, 2004, 08:16 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Two Keys to Weight Loss


As stated, over the long term fewer calories then required for daily
metabolism and tissue status will result in weight loss. Even with the
disorder as a variable, others have not so refined theier assertions,
energy stored will in time become the source when the external source is
lowered,ie. insulin promotes glucose utpake, but the pathway is a two lane
highway and the body also releases the energy. There is no doubt that
metabolic disorders complicate the system and the normal action of various
energy pathways is modified, but fat stored is but the future energy
source when the outside source is lowered enough. If this were not the
case, the low carb diet would not work. As cconcluded by a researcher
from the recent long term diet comparsion, in the end it was calories that
told the final story. The low carb diet is but one way over the long term
to lower calory intake and require use of stored energy. There is
variation in responce to the process in humans, as is the case in all
living systems, and it can be expressed as a bell curve. The 500
cal/day/week for 1 pound loss or gain describes the middle, the great hump
of the curve that is most people. A metabolic disorder can put an
individual near one tail of the curve, but all curves have in the end a
brickwall which describes all people. The calory balance model accounts
for all cases. We can look at the fine tuning and tinkering modifying the
sub parts of the system has,ie. low carb, but in the end there are no
exceptions. We are talking about a fundimental principle of how living
systems work. There is too much an urban legend that I think the diet
book authors permit to exist that there is some new twist on this
principle and that weight will be lost without doing what is obvious, one
must in the end by whatever means eat less,ie. calories, to lose weight.


You are correct in your statements that eating more than one burns
will always result in fat gain.
You're incorrect in assuming that in all people it is the calories
which control the metabolism, and therefore restricting calories and
disregarding macronutrient composition is the answer for all
overweight people. In normal people, the energy intake action precedes
the metabolic hormone reaction. Therefore, type of calories matter
very little to a normal person and they can lose weight just by
cutting back and ignoring macronutrient composition.

However, for those with a pathology of metabolism like insulin
resistance, the energy intake action is *incongruent* with the
metabolic hormone reaction. Hypoinsulinemia is a prerequisite for
catabolism (lipolysis from body fat or gluconeogensis from muscle
mass). In a normal person, hypoinsulinemia occurs when consumed energy
is low relative to metabolic needs. The body then raises glucagon
which facilitates catabolism. The thing is, if one is insulin
resistant, they are by definition hyperinsulinemic (T2 diabetics with
obliterated beta cells excluded). This means they produce too much
insulin in the blood per energy consumed. This also means that their
body requires inordinately low amounts of consumed energy in order to
facilitate catabolism. A hyperinsulinemic person might not lose weight
on a 1500, 1400, 1300 or less calorie diet for this reason - that all
depends on glycemic load of the macronutrient composition, and the
degree of insulin resistance. Please see my earlier post which goes
into detail on the physiology of hormones on metabolism to understand
why, it is really too complex a subject to explain in a footnote.

If you are suffering from uncontrolled insulin resistance and wish to
lose weight, you would be well advised to first control the insulin
resistance through a low glycemic diet before attempting to create a
catabolic environment via energy restriction. Those with insulin
resistance (which, by the way, is the majority of considerably
overweight people) *must* be careful to structure their diets in such
a way so that foods which do not elicit a big insulin response are
favored.

Yes, it is possible to lose weight while ignoring dietary composition
when you have a tendency towards hyperinsulinemia. Is it practical? Is
it sustainable? For most with this unfortunate problem, the answer is
a resounding HELL no! Some people who are so insulin resistant find
they have to restrict calories to *starvation* levels to decrease
insulin sufficiently enough to facilitate catabolism on a high
glycemic load diet.

Dawn is correct in that she understands the crucial relationship
between metabolic hormones and weight management. However she seems to
be a bit confused. In a normal person, macronutrient composition is
much less important and ultimately calories determine the metabolic
hormone state. The hormonal state is *reactionary* to the energy
balance state of a normal person. Meaning, hormone synthesis is
reactionary to the amount of energy consumed. A lot of low carbers
seem to be under the influence that sugar is the only macronutrient
which requires insulin. This is untrue. All consumed energy needs
insulin, the difference is that sugar is broken down so rapidly that
it puts a demand for a LOT of insulin in a short period time.

If a normal person who has no insulin resistance at all eats 1000
calories of sugar, they will lose just as much weight as they would
have if they ate 1000 calories of pure fat. This is untrue for those
with insulin resistance though. The insulin resistant person will
produce too much insulin when eating things which are broken down so
quickly as to require a rapid uptake of energy. Their insensitive
insulin receptors will only clear out the huge hit of blood sugar when
a mondo sized dose of insulin is released into the blood. WHen the
insulin resistant person eats a diet of slowly digested energy sources
(fat, protein, and fiberous low digestible energy carbohydrate), there
is never a huge surge of energy, and thus the body is never assaulted
with energy more rapidly than their receptors can receive it. So, they
preemptively avoid the problem of hyperinsulinemia.

Basically, LC allows one to make caloric deficits more easily -
especially if you have insulin resistance. It is incorrect to say LC
is not a low-calorie diet. It may appear that way to some (especially
the very insulin resistant who see a big difference between how they
lose/feel on LC vs a regular diet), but do be certain that the only
way to elicit catabolism is by reducing energy intake to the point
where hypoinsulinemia occurs. There is *no other way to burn body fat
other than this*.



wrote in message -n
et.com...
It was one of the research people who made the observation based on her
knowledge of the published results. please do provide support to the
contrary that macro source in the end determines weight status and not
consuming fewer calories then required to maintain energy balance,
regardless of diet. I have done alot of reading on insulin and it's role
in metabolism, and I'm willing to be as open in reaching conclusions as
the data provides; I feel free to speculate beyond the data but leave it
open knowing it is not supportable. If one eats fewer calories then one
expends, one will in the long term lose weight, that is the reference to
which info to the contrary should be shown.

Macro
source of food is irellevant, in the end calories consumed will determine
weight status. In the two most recent studies done, one author said it
was in the end the amount of caloires for both low and high carb diets
that made the difference.

One guy can say anything he wants to support his own pre-drawn
conclusions. But it's possible to be smarter and more open-minded than
that -- do some reading on insulin response and weight gain.

While it is not calorgy restricted, it works
when it is calory restricted for what ever reason.

For some people, but not all. Which is beside the point, anyway. I
said it's not a calorie restriction diet. And look - you agree with
me.

That's two times you've agreed with me but made it seem as if you were
arguing. Weird.

One of the marketing
spins some low carb diet book authors made was to infer that one can eat
as much as one wants because calorie counting or protion size is of little
value and not a central part of the practice of the diet.

"Some low carb diet book authors" have said that, have they? Very
specific, that.

I don't believe there's a single low-carb plan in existence that says
one can eat "as much as one wants." Even Atkins' beginning induction
level, when calories and portion sizes are pretty much disregarded,
specifies that you should eat only until satisfied and not overeat.

Dawn

 




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
Ok, fine, whatever, I give up Luna Low Carbohydrate Diets 101 November 1st, 2005 05:33 AM
Two Keys to Weight Loss ta General Discussion 57 June 7th, 2004 01:17 AM
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet Diarmid Logan Low Carbohydrate Diets 127 May 27th, 2004 09:11 PM
Shakes and a thank you to you all! Mark General Discussion 12 March 19th, 2004 07:11 AM
Dr Phil 7 keys to weight loss damson General Discussion 42 January 20th, 2004 05:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 PM.


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