Low carb diets

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.

Regarding ketosis, "Proponents of the Atkins diet claim that ketosis
helps burn fat. However, researchers found no correlation between
ketosis and weight loss in the Atkins diet"
(http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm...99254FDF10BCB1)

"The bottom line appears to be that a calorie is a calorie."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/452064

--
jmk in NC

In article , Doug Freese wrote:

Didn't you just tell me to be nice to Lyle? The ? at the end
suggests Lyle was busting on TC.

Don't know what Lyle meant by that, but he has at least one humerous insult for
every type of athlete and non-athlete out there.

Being nice is optional (though generally frowned upon in misc.fitness.weights
;-), but he does know a lot about weight loss nutrition, and it pays to be
aware of that.

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

In article , jmk wrote:


On 12/17/2003 9:55 AM, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

"If they have any willpower" is the bit that gets most of them (-;

The ideal weight loss/maintenance program shouldn't demand enormous amounts
of willpower.

I don't really agree that it is a willpower issue. I think it's more of
a paying attention issue. No matter what plan you are following, you
need to pay attention to what you are eating and how much you eat
(portion control).

A 500 calorie a day deficit isn't that easy to maintain through restrained
eating alone. In the absence of exercise, one must exercise greater restraint
in eating to achieve the same results. Exercise is very beneficial for those
who have that option.

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

In article , Chupacabra wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
wrote:

In article , Chupacabra wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:33:00 GMT, Doug Freese
wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote:
this depends on a host of factors such as

duration/intensity
length of adaptation

Quite true.


your argument is simplistic at best. You're using fairly active
individuals to your average obese person.

Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to
control weight. Those that try to control their weight by food alone
have at best short term results.

Bull****. Those that try to control their weight by food alone just
fine if they have any willpower.

"If they have any willpower" is the bit that gets most of them (-;

The ideal weight loss/maintenance program shouldn't demand enormous amounts
of willpower.

Understood, but nor does it demand exercise per se

While I disagree with Doug's suggestion that one *MUST* combine diet with
exercise to have long term success, I think exercise certainly helps.

And IMO it takes just as much willpower for most people to stick to a
decent exercise regimen ("It's cold! It's raining! I'm tired! I'm
busy!" et cetera ad infinitum) than it does to make a few dietary
changes.

People get addicted to, hooked on exercise. Once you get to this point,
cold and rain don't matter any more. I've yet to hear of someone becoming
a "low carb addict".

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

In article , tcomeau wrote:
(gman99) wrote in message ...

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

"Requires" depends on context. What one "requires" for weight maintenance
is different to what one "requires" for weight loss.

Either way, it doesn't make much sense in the context of the above
definition, since calories are not themselves an "essential nutrient".

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.

Bull****.

It may not be an extreme
level of starvation but it is starvation nonetheless.

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

I've rebutted this idiocy in another thread.

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

Being in a "fat using mode" doesn't help a whole lot if you have a net
caloric defecit (because regardless of the amount of fat you're "using",
if you have a surplus, you're either replenishing glycogen which will kick you
out of your "fat using mode" and into your "fat storing mode", or you're
taking in enough dietary fat that your body doesn't need to mobilise
stored fat)

ie. mild ketosis.

Most low carb diets do not involve/require a state of ketosis (mild or
otherwise)

This is taking advantage of the bodies natural processes and avoiding
the carb induced insulin spikes that forces the body into storing fat.

Low GI carbs don't induce "insulin spikes".

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

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.

Chupacabra wrote:


Of course I am because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to
control weight. Those that try to control their weight by food alone
have at best short term results.


Bull****. Those that try to control their weight by food alone just
fine if they have any willpower.

And if we all had willpower we would not have wars, our prisons
would be empty and drugs would not exist. Earth to Chupacabra, Earth
to Chupacabra....



Quality of life is one thing, and I'd agree with you that being
physically active is ideal. Weight control is something completely
different, and has very little to do with physical activity.

Weight control has nothing to do with activity? Besides blatantly
naive concerning willpower, may I suggest you read a little about
physiology.

Can you do one without the other, sure. You can etch that number on
the head of a pin.


--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

In article , Doug Freese wrote:

Didn't you just tell me to be nice to Lyle? The ? at the end
suggests Lyle was busting on TC.

Don't know what Lyle meant by that, but he has at least one humerous insult for
every type of athlete and non-athlete out there.

I have long referred to myself (primarily in-line skating, some cycling)
as an endurance clad weenie.

Trust me, I make fun of everyone, including me.

Lyle

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

In article , jmk wrote:


On 12/17/2003 9:55 AM, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

"If they have any willpower" is the bit that gets most of them (-;

The ideal weight loss/maintenance program shouldn't demand enormous amounts
of willpower.

I don't really agree that it is a willpower issue. I think it's more of
a paying attention issue. No matter what plan you are following, you
need to pay attention to what you are eating and how much you eat
(portion control).

A 500 calorie a day deficit isn't that easy to maintain through restrained
eating alone.

doesn't that depend entirely on how much you were eating previously?
Or, more accurately, what types of foods?

I had a client years ago who was drinking, on average, 3-4 large regular
sodas per day. I told him to switch out to diet. It saved him easily
500 calories/day (and he lost weight of course) and was hardly tough to maintain.

If someone is eating a large amount of highly refined or high energy
density foods (think most of what's available in any US supermarket),
reducing food intake by 500 cal/day may be trivial by simply making
qualitative substitutions. They don't even have to be very extreme if
the diet is horrible to begin with.

Obviously, the stricter someone's diet is to begin with, the harder it
will be to remove 500 calories from the diet.

As well, one can just as easily argue that the average person will have
no easier time maintaining a 500 cal/day daily exercise energy
expenditure. Unless you're well trained to begin with, that's an hour+
of activity and most are unlikely to do that daily in the long-term
(adherence to exercise routines is just as bad as for diets).

In the absence of exercise, one must exercise greater restraint
in eating to achieve the same results. Exercise is very beneficial for those
who have that option.

Very true.

Lyle

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"