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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Doug Freese" wrote in message ... 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. Wrong. Your hypothesis is easily disproven as stated. Those that try to control their weight by food alone have at best short term results. If you sit in on a name_the_sport forum, the primary reason they start a program is some state of extra weight. When I was 39 I had a 38 inch waist. I took to running because I could do it all year around. At 40 my mid line was 34 and I now hover at 32-33 depending on my training level. My caloric content remains fairly constant all year to include my Heineken. True they're active but they did this knowing they needed take some action which is the first step. This in not unlike AA where you must admit you are an alcoholic before any corrective action can happen. When people like tcomeau suggests stagnation and Atkins, I find it very poor if not dangerous advice. It's a form of denial. Forget about runners (or athletes of any color), what about the average person who may be exercising not at all or only minimal amounts (either because they are unwilling, or because they are too heavy)? It's impossible to maintain weight without exercise and to try usually leads to the notorious yo-yo effect. I'm suggesting that exercise is not an option but a necessity if one cares about quality of life. QOL is a different story. And what constitutes exercise per se, vs. leading an active lifestyle!? There are countless people who have modified their diet alone and, with no additional "exercise" have achieved long-term weight control/fat control. What is the "exercise"? Can be normal, routine stuff like housework, yardwork, washing the cars, shopping, chasing/playing with kids - anything that is not specifically *for* exercise qua exercise. (Like running down the street or weightlifting in the gym etc.) Say walking briskly for 30' three times per week. 30 minutes X 3 is a great start. If one is too heavy a walking program is one of the best exercises. Biking, swimming are also good but hard to maintain all year in most states/countries. How many carbs do they need on a daily basis to sustain that? It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph you are burning off roughly 200 calories. Now 200 is better than zero but a cookie or two and you have broke even or possibly lost ground. One needs to work up to 45 or an hour a day AND take some necessary steps to eliminate some calories. I'm not suggesting elimination of fat but to cut it DOWN to maybe 30%. If your also health conscious and not just weight conscious then can the bad fats. Simple carbs is a good place to start, with bad fat a good second choice. Understand that while doing your exercise all at once may be easiest but there are lots of ways to include it during the day. Park your car in the far corner of the lot, or take the stairs, rake your leaves not blow them, go for walk at lunch time. In all honesty, most people know what they need to do to lose weight yet hold out for the magic pill or the next fad diet with the remote control in their hand. It's not so much a diet or exercise change but a lifestyle change that includes diet and exercise. Once you adapt to an active lifestyle you can then play with carb/pro/fat ratio. Even as an exerciser one still has to be careful of what they eat. I can exercise enough to stay thin and live on pure simple carbs. This makes me thin but not necessarily healthy. The newer pyramid as noted in http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio.../pyramids.html with exercise at the bottom and brandishes balance IMO is way to go. Then again as some contend the Harvard folks are part of this evil conspiracy paid for by big money. Probably funded by Osama... -- Doug Freese "Caveat Lector" |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"roger" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:38:38 -0600, Lyle McDonald wrote: Doug Freese wrote: 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. Err, no. People lose weight and maintain that loss without exercise all the time. All the time?? While I agree that it is *possible* to lose weight and Then if it is possible, and at least one person has done it (and I assure you I alone know more than one who has), then the statement: " "...because exercise MUST be used in tandem with food to control weight.", is false. Granted using both approaches will likely result in faster and/or more appropriate partitioning of your body composition and capacity to do work/increase your general physical preparedness etc., but is is not necessary for weight control. maintain that loss without exercise, the majority of people who lose weight and are successful in keeping it off combine some form of exercise (weight training or aerobic) with reduced caloric intake. 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. Roger |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
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. Huh ?? Calories DO NOT equate to nutrients..etc. Take a ****ing mulitvitamin idiot....how many calories in that ?? Dumb as dirt !! And, oh yeah, it doesn't work long term in more than 95% of cases. You, of course, have some supporting documentation The low-carb diet works specifically by CREATING A CALORIE DEFICIT....PERIOD |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
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". Err, how do you figure that? Energy (which calories are a measure of) is essential for survival. ie. mild ketosis. Most low carb diets do not involve/require a state of ketosis (mild or otherwise) someone sholud probably define what they mean by 'low-carb' at some point in this thread. 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". And so what, anyhow? Fact: people lose weight/fat on carb based diets ALL the time. For example, folks in the National Weight Control Registry report a carb intake of ~50% as I recall. Fact: it takes only miniscule amounts of insulin to shut off fat mobilization and induce storage (noting that storage can be stimulated without insulin in the first place). Even a low GI carb based diet will more than raise insulin sufficiently to affect fat cell metabolism. Conclusion: Lowering insulin (or avoiding spikes) is not required to lose fat. If it were, NOBODY would EVER lose fat on a carb-based diet and they obviously do. Why is this? Because they RESTRICT CALORIES to below what the body requires, forcing it to find an alternative fuel (in this case, bodyfat, in some proportion, depending on a whole host of other factors, will be mobilized). Or slow metabolism to compensate. Now, if you want to argue that lowcarb diets make it easier to restrict calories (and for some, usually insulin resistant folks who were on a ****ty diet to begin with, this certainly appears to be the case), that's an entirely different argument. But it's not an issue of insulin or anything else: low-carb diets work because (some) people eat less on them. Insulin and avoiding spikes (which cause blood sugar to crash which can stimulate hunger) is only relevant in terms of hunger/caloric control. Lyle |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"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! 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 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...F40-A099254FDF 10BCB1) "The bottom line appears to be that a calorie is a calorie." http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/452064 -- jmk in NC |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On 12/17/2003 2:51 PM, 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. Please post evidence that people lose weight on low carb diets without reducing their caloric intake. -- jmk in NC |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"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. Insulin and avoiding spikes (which cause blood sugar to crash which can stimulate hunger) is only ^^^^^ 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 so I don't need to tell you that your statement is not the whole story, at best.. 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 and about 200 other studies... Lyle |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:33:00 GMT, Doug Freese
wrote: It's still a calorie game. If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph you are burning off roughly 200 calories. Geez, I'd think walking 7.5 miles in 30 minutes (a 4-minute mile pace) would burn a heck of a lot more calories! (I think you meant "average a 15-minute mile" :-) .) Chris |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"jmk" wrote in message ... On 12/17/2003 2:51 PM, 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. Please post evidence that people lose weight on low carb diets without reducing their caloric intake. Is the object WEIGHT loss or fat loss!!? It is fat loss. People can lose FAT mass (and increase LBM in some cases) on a low cal diet without reducing calorie intake by adding in the cals decreased (carbs) back in as EFs and protein. And indeed, cals in can remain the same and nutrient partitioning in body's metabolistic processes will enable fats to be preferentially used. Of course, eating high-insulimic/hi-glycemic index foods will increase insulin and lower glucogan levels and does promote overeating as I believe Lyle was getting at in his post. Attend: "Dietary composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction1,2,3 Michael SD Agus, Janis F Swain, Courtney L Larson, Elizabeth A Eckert and David S Ludwig 1 From the Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Children's Hospital, Boston, and the General Clinical Research Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston. Background: The concept of a body weight set point, determined predominantly by genetic mechanisms, has been proposed to explain the poor long-term results of conventional energy-restricted diets in the treatment of obesity. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine whether dietary composition affects hormonal and metabolic adaptations to energy restriction. Design: A randomized, crossover design was used to compare the effects of a high-glycemic-index (high-GI) and a low-glycemic-index (low-GI) energy-restricted diet. The macronutrient composition of the high-GI diet was (as percent of energy) 67% carbohydrate, 15% protein, and 18% fat and that of the low-GI diet was 43% carbohydrate, 27% protein, and 30% fat; the diets had similar total energy, energy density, and fiber contents. The subjects, 10 moderately overweight young men, were studied for 9 d on 2 separate occasions. On days -1 to 0, they consumed self-selected foods ad libitum. On days 1-6, they received an energy-restricted high- or low-GI diet. On days 7-8, the high- or low-GI diets were consumed ad libitum. Results: Serum leptin decreased to a lesser extent from day 0 to day 6 with the high-GI diet than with the low-GI diet. Resting energy expenditure declined by 10.5% during the high-GI diet but by only 4.6% during the low-GI diet (7.38 ± 0.39 and 7.78 ± 0.36 MJ/d, respectively, on days 5-6; P = 0.04). Nitrogen balance tended to be more negative, and energy intake from snacks on days 7-8 was greater, with the high-GI than the low-GI diet. Conclusion: Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition." Note the conclusion!! ANd note that the diets had similar total energy/energy density!! "High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets A DGReview of :"Postprandial Thermogenesis Is Increased 100% on a High-Protein, Low-Fat Diet versus a High Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Diet in Healthy, Young Women" Journal of the American College of Nutrition 02/26/2002 By David Ball Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet The few studies that have examined body composition after a carbohydrate-restricted diet have reported enhanced fat loss and preservation of lean body mass in obese individuals. The role of hormones in mediating this response is unclear. We examined the effects of a 6-week carbohydrate-restricted diet on total and regional body composition and the relationships with fasting hormone concentrations. Twelve healthy normal-weight men switched from their habitual diet (48% carbohydrate) to a carbohydrate-restricted diet (8% carbohydrate) for 6 weeks and 8 men served as controls, consuming their normal diet. Subjects were encouraged to consume adequate dietary energy to maintain body mass during the intervention. Total and regional body composition and fasting blood samples were assessed at weeks 0, 3, and 6 of the experimental period. Fat mass was significantly (P .05) decreased (-3.4 kg) and lean body mass significantly increased (+1.1 kg) at week 6. There was a significant decrease in serum insulin (-34%), and an increase in total thyroxine (T4) (+11%) and the free T4 index (+13%). Approximately 70% of the variability in fat loss on the carbohydrate-restricted diet was accounted for by the decrease in serum insulin concentrations. There were no significant changes in glucagon, total or free testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), cortisol, or triiodothyronine (T3) uptake, nor were there significant changes in body composition or hormones in the control group. ***Thus, we conclude that a carbohydrate-restricted diet resulted in a significant reduction in fat mass and a concomitant increase in lean body mass in normal-weight men, which may be partially mediated by the reduction in circulating insulin concentrations. *** " Note subject dietary energy intake to maintain body mass as part of the protocol. " Five-Week, Low-Glycemic Index Diet Decreases Total Fat Mass and Improves Plasma Lipid Profile in Moderately Overweight Nondiabetic Men Clara Bouché, MD1, Salwa W. Rizkalla, MD, PHD1, Jing Luo, MD, PHD1, Hubert Vidal, PHD2, Annie Veronese, MB1, Nathalie Pacher, MB1, Caroline Fouquet, RN1, Vincent Lang, PHD3 and Gérard Slama, MD1 1 Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) Unit 341, Department of Diabetes, AP Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, Paris, France 2 INSERM Unit 449, Lyon, France 3 Danone Vitapole, Le Plessis Robinson, France OBJECTIVE-To evaluate whether a 5-week low-glycemic index (LGI) diet versus a high-glycemic index (HGI) diet can modify glucose and lipid metabolism as well as total fat mass in nondiabetic men. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-In this study, 11 healthy men were randomly allocated to 5 weeks of an LGI or HGI diet separated by a 5-week washout interval in a crossover design. RESULTS-The LGI diet resulted in lower postprandial plasma glucose and insulin profiles and areas under the curve (AUCs) than the HGI diet. A 5-week period of the LGI diet lowered plasma triacylglycerol excursion after lunch (AUC, P 0.05 LGI vs. HGI). These modifications were associated with a decrease in the total fat mass by 700 g (P 0.05) and a tendency to increase lean body mass (P 0.07) without any change in body weight. This decrease in fat mass was accompanied by a decrease in leptin, lipoprotein lipase, and hormone-sensitive lipase RNAm quantities in the subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue (P 0.05). CONCLUSIONS-We concluded that 5 weeks of an LGI diet ameliorates some plasma lipid parameters, decreases total fat mass, and tends to increase lean body mass without changing body weight. These changes were accompanied by a decrease in the expression of some genes implicated in lipid metabolism. Such a diet could be of benefit to healthy, slightly overweight subjects and might play a role in the prevention of metabolic diseases and their cardiovascular complications. " Note that fat mass was decreased and LBM was increased without changing BW. " PEDIATRICS Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1999, p. e26 ELECTRONIC ARTICLE: High Glycemic Index Foods, Overeating, and Obesity Received Jun 15, 1998; accepted Nov 4, 1998. David S. Ludwig*, Joseph A. Majzoub*, Ahmad Al-Zahrani*, Gerard E. Dallal, Isaac Blanco, and Susan B. Roberts From the * Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Children's Hospital, and Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. Objective. The prevalence of obesity has increased dramatically in recent years. However, the role of dietary composition in body weight regulation remains unclear. The purpose of this work was to investigate the acute effects of dietary glycemic index (GI) on energy metabolism and voluntary food intake in obese subjects. Methods. Twelve obese teenage boys were evaluated on three separate occasions using a crossover study protocol. During each evaluation, subjects consumed identical test meals at breakfast and lunch that had a low, medium, or high GI. The high- and medium-GI meals were designed to have similar macronutrient composition, fiber content, and palatability, and all meals for each subject had equal energy content. After breakfast, plasma and serum concentrations of metabolic fuels and hormones were measured. Ad libitum food intake was determined in the 5-hour period after lunch. Results. Voluntary energy intake after the high-GI meal (5.8 megajoule [mJ]) was 53% greater than after the medium-GI meal (3.8 mJ), and 81% greater than after the low-GI meal (3.2 mJ). In addition, compared with the low-GI meal, the high-GI meal resulted in higher serum insulin levels, lower plasma glucagon levels, lower postabsorptive plasma glucose and serum fatty acids levels, and elevation in plasma epinephrine. The area under the glycemic response curve for each test meal accounted for 53% of the variance in food intake within subjects. Conclusions. The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body weight regulation. glycemic index, obesity, dietary carbohydrate, diets, insulin. . " " © 2003 The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 133:405-410, February 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Human Nutrition and Metabolism Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in Adult Women during Weight Loss1,2 Donald K. Layman*,3, Harn Shiue, Carl Sather, Donna J. Erickson* and Jamie Baum * Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 Amino acids interact with glucose metabolism both as carbon substrates and by recycling glucose carbon via alanine and glutamine; however, the effect of protein intake on glucose homeostasis during weight loss remains unknown. This study tests the hypothesis that a moderate increase in dietary protein with a corresponding reduction of carbohydrates (CHO) stabilizes fasting and postprandial blood glucose and insulin during weight loss. Adult women (n = 24; 15% above ideal body weight) were assigned to either a Protein Group [protein: 1.6 g/(kg · d); CHO 40% of energy] or CHO Group [protein: 0.8 g/(kg · d); CHO 55%]. Diets were equal in energy (7100 kJ/d) and fat (50 g/d). After 10 wk, the Protein Group lost 7.53 ± 1.44 kg and the CHO Group lost 6.96 ± 1.36 kg. Plasma amino acids, glucose and insulin were determined after a 12-h fast and 2 h after a 1.67 MJ test meal containing either 39 g CHO, 33 g protein and 13 g fat (Protein Group) or 57 g CHO, 12 g protein and 14 g fat (CHO Group). After 10 wk, subjects in the CHO Group had lower fasting (4.34 ± 0.10 vs 4.89 ± 0.11 mmol/L) and postprandial blood glucose (3.77 ± 0.14 vs. 4.33 ± 0.15 mmol/L) and an elevated insulin response to meals (207 ± 21 vs. 75 ± 18 pmol/L). This study demonstrates that consumption of a diet with increased protein and a reduced CHO/protein ratio stabilizes blood glucose during nonabsorptive periods and reduces the postprandial insulin response. " Note that ONLY the ration of carbs (lower) to protein (higher) changed!! Energy input was the SAME!! Changing the insulin response thence facilitated weight loss. Also see: - February issue of the Journal of Nutrition. The research was led by Donald K. Layman, Professor of Nutrition in the Department of Food Science & Human Nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. An equi-caloric diet given to women, half with higher protein lower-carb, other half control. Low carb group lost more fat mass and maintained more lean mass than control group. - -New England Journal of Medicine Volume 348:2074-2081 May 22, 2003 Number 21 A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity Frederick F. Samaha, M.D., Nayyar Iqbal, M.D., Prakash Seshadri, M.D., Kathryn L. Chicano, C.R.N.P., Denise A. Daily, R.D., Joyce McGrory, C.R.N.P., Terrence Williams, B.S., Monica Williams, B.S., Edward J. Gracely, Ph.D., and Linda Stern, M.D. - Office of Medical Public Affairs, Washington University School of Medicine at Washington University Medical Center, Campus Box 8508, 4444 Forest Park Ave., St. Louis MO 63108-2259, Atkins' Dieters Lose More and Improve Lipids Over Conventional Dieters St. Louis, May 22, 2003 - In the first multicenter trial to look at the high-fat, low-carbohydrate Atkins' diet, researchers have found that at three and six months, the Atkins' diet produces significantly greater weight loss than a conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. All study subjects had medically significant obesity, meaning that they weighed at least 20 percent more than their ideal body weight. They began the study an average of about 50 pounds overweight. Atkins' dieters lost twice as much weight during the first six months of the study. However, over the next six months, dieters on both plans tended to regain weight, and there was no statistical weight difference between the groups at one year. The study also found that people on the Atkins' diet had greater improvements in blood lipids than those on the conventional diet. High-density lipoprotein (HDL), or "good" cholesterol, increased more in the Atkins' group, and their serum triglycerides decreased more than conventional dieters. Low HDL and high triglyceride levels increase risk of cardiovascular disease. The study was conducted by researchers from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia and the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. The results appear in the May 22 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. "This study demonstrates that a low-carbohydrate diet can have beneficial effects in treating obesity," says senior investigator Samuel Klein, M.D., the Danforth Professor of Medicine and Nutritional Science and director of the Division of Geriatrics and Nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine. "Additional research is needed to understand why subjects assigned to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those assigned to a conventional diet and to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diet therapy." The researchers wanted to mimic what happens when most people diet, so they did not offer behavior modification or extensive clinical supervision to study subjects. Participants met with a registered dietitian at the start of the study and again at three, six and 12 months. They were randomly selected for either the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet or the high-fat, low-carbohydrate Atkins' diet. The conventional dieters were given instructional materials for a 1,200-1,500 calories per day (women) or 1,500-1,800 calories per day (men) diet that consisted of 60 percent carbohydrate, 25 percent fat and 15 percent protein, based on the Food Guide Pyramid. The other group was instructed to read and follow the diet prescribed in Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution. At three months, those on the Atkins' diet lost an average of 17.6 pounds. While the, conventional dieters lost about 8.3 pounds. After six months, those on the Atkins' diet had lost an average of 21.2 pounds while those on the conventional diet lost an average of 11.5 pounds. At 12 months, the Atkins' diet group was down an average of 15.9 pounds versus 9.7 pounds for those on the conventional diet . - Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program * Eric C. Westman MD, MHS a,b * , William S. Yancy MD a,b , Joel S. Edman DSc c , Keith F. Tomlin a and Christine E. Perkins MSW a Received: 4/2/2001. Revised: 1/24/2002. Accepted: 1/31/2002. Abstract Purpose To determine the effect of a 6-month very low carbohydrate diet program on body weight and other metabolic parameters. Subjects and methods Fifty-one overweight or obese healthy volunteers who wanted to lose weight were placed on a very low carbohydrate diet (25 g/d), with no limit on caloric intake. They also received nutritional supplementation and recommendations about exercise, and attended group meetings at a research clinic. The outcomes were body weight, body mass index, percentage of body fat (estimated by skinfold thickness), serum chemistry and lipid values, 24-hour urine measurements, and subjective adverse effects. Result Forty-one (80%) of the 51 subjects attended visits through 6 months. In these subjects, the mean (± SD) body weight decreased 10.3% ± 5.9% (P 0.001) from baseline to 6 months (body weight reduction of 9.0 ± 5.3 kg and body mass index reduction of 3.2 ± 1.9 kg/m2). The mean percentage of body weight that was fat decreased 2.9% ± 3.2% from baseline to 6 months (P 0.001). The mean serum bicarbonate level decreased 2 ± 2.4 mmol/L (P 0.001) and blood urea nitrogen level increased 2 ± 4 mg/dL (P 0.001). Serum total cholesterol level decreased 11 ± 26 mg/dL (P = 0.006), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 10 ± 25 mg/dL (P = 0.01), triglyceride level decreased 56 ± 45 mg/dL (P 0.001), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level increased 10 ± 8 mg/dL (P 0.001), and the cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio decreased 0.9 ± 0.6 units (P 0.001). There were no serious adverse effects, but the possibility of adverse effects in the 10 subjects who did not adhere to the program cannot be eliminated. Conclusion A very low carbohydrate diet program led to sustained weight loss during a 6-month period Note no caloric restrictions!!! You may now return control of your computer to your mommy. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
Low Carb Week in Review | Dave N | General Discussion | 0 | November 24th, 2003 12:06 AM |
Latest Low Carb News | Dave N | General Discussion | 1 | November 18th, 2003 07:13 AM |
What is low carb? | Jarkat2002 | General Discussion | 7 | October 30th, 2003 02:21 PM |
named vs. homegrown diets Curiosity about posters who drop out of this NG | JayJay | General Discussion | 16 | September 27th, 2003 02:16 AM |