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
|
|||
|
|||
How does it work?!
"The unexamined reason that the weight loss looks so similar at one year
is that the low carb diets call for increased carb levels for maintenance and look more like the higher carb diets at that point. Further, the low carb dieters lose more fat mass and preserve more lean body mass than the higher carb, low fat dieters." As said, once all is said and done at 1 year weight loss was similar for all diets because of reduced calories, that is how in all diets it works. The details might vary to a degree but it is the calories in the end. Any energy cost for different metabolic pathway engagment is a detail and not an fundimental explanation. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How does it work?!
"Susan" wrote
:: :: Different calories matter differently. :: I like that statement! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How does it work?!
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How does it work?!
My remarks in various posts in this thread encompass all of the below.
1 year was used to illustrate that at the longest time of studies comparing various diets with high protein/low carb results were similar and could be explained by fewer calories consumed compared to daily energy needs. Up to 6 months the high protein/low carb diets have a small advantage as below. Thereafter differences start to disappear to the 1 year point as above. During those first 6 months it is reasonable to assume weight loss with high protein/low carb has higher energy costs for metablizing the different macronutrients, the energy costs of shifting to stored fat and protein intake, plus differential water loss not discussed before. By 6 months those higher energy costs have been consumed and the advantage starts to disappear. Even considering the advantage for differing energy costs for different ratios of macronutrients, weight loss in the end, the 1 year point used as proxy for same, is because there was a deficit in energy as measured by calories made up by stored energy sources. This is valid and accounts for the loss inspite of the tinkering done to evoke differing energy costs. Bty, exercise level can be one energy cost and is easily added to the sum with ease. Atkins wanted to distinguish his diet from others in part by suggesting some magic was at hand that calorie deficit did not account for in his results. High protein/low carb diets are now more generally accepted as working with some caloric advantage over others but with no reason to evoke some magical biophysics to describe the final result as compared to other equally caloric deficit diets. The 4 percent advantage for the first 6 months means for the same deficit another dieter will have to consume less to have the same weight loss results. At one year things have changed. Notice how you're carefull to pick a specific time frame in order to be technically correct on your stated point while at the same time ignoring the facts for earlier time frames. In many studies, low carbers without caloric restriction lose 4% more than low fatters with caloric restriction. The reason that loss at twice that length of time has reached the same levels is the metabolic advantage of ketosis is proportional to the amount of excess fat remaining to lose. A year later so many test subjects have bottomed out in both test groups that rates no longer mismatch. What these studies show is that if you're willing to stick with a low fat plus calorie restircted diet for longer than someone on a low carb non-restricted diet, you'll lose anyways. that is how in all diets works. A stance you reach by carefully ignoring one set of facts and selecting another set of facts without paying heed to why the numbers start different and end different. The details might vary to a degree but it is the calories in the end. Any energy cost for different metabolic pathway engagment is a detail and not an fundimental explanation. That's also incorrect on several levels. 1) Different fuels are burned using different metabolic pathways and they do have different efficiencies. Include digestion and calories have even greater inefficiencies. Calories are a poor measurement that happens to be easy to look up in a table. In a way, calories are rather like the scale reading that way. 2) Weight is caused by amount of stored body fat plus amount of lean plus other. If stored body fat is withdrwan from storage it is weight lost whether it is burned for fuel or not. Low insulin and high glucagon levels of ketosis draw fat from storage. Calories get wasted. Do enough studies on where it goes and I suggest you'll find where that 4% number above comes from. Also, low carbers lose less lean that low fatters. 3) Calories-in is not all there is to the equation. Calories-out is also a variable. It's why exercise is stressed. It's also why there is so much discussion of "starvation mode". What "starvation mode" is (other than something denied by folks who like to define stuff out of existance) is a reduction in basal metabolism. Carefully track basal metabolism in dieters and you'll discover some fun stuff. For example low carb reduces it less than low fat. But also extreme approaches to local carb reduce it more than mild approaches to low carb. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How does this work? | nanner | Weightwatchers | 7 | January 17th, 2006 03:24 PM |
Weight Gain, Work Fatigue and Work Overtime | jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | May 12th, 2005 03:33 PM |
Can someone work out my BMI | Ian | Weightwatchers | 2 | March 15th, 2005 08:15 PM |
New AGAIN.... hopefully this will work | Nessa | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 60 | May 14th, 2004 06:10 AM |
Does LC work for everyone? | Teeb | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 15 | January 15th, 2004 04:33 PM |