Low carb diets

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
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".

Except that some people do seem to become addicted to weight loss and
to dieting (some are anorexics) and low carb dieting also attracts
these kind of people. Posters to asdlc can't have forgotten the woman
who was well within normal weight range posting because 'low carb
dieting didn't work for her.'

For myself, excercise is a 'good thing' but it needs to be the kind of
exercise I'll carry on doing, so it has to be fun (I swim because it
still has the connotations of the major treat it was for me to be
taken swimming as a child) and it has to be something I can fit in to
a normal working day, like taking the stairs and walking from the
underground rather than taking the bus. Anything boring or which
requires me to go too far out of my way simply isn't realistic because
I won't continue with it. And I think that's true for a lot of
people.

--
Lexin
(300/241/182)
(halfway to initial goal!)

"Aaron" hunt354 at hotmail dot com wrote in message
...

"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message
s.com...

"Aaron" hunt354 at hotmail dot com wrote in message
...

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
Aaron wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in
message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
\
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!

So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a
maintenance
calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet
will
somehow
cause something to occur wrt: body fat?

Well - I read your previous posts on the matter, along with
about
30
studies
(some posted in another thread), that nutrient partitioning
(via
differntial

response of metabolic parameters such as insulin and leptin
etc.)
will
cause
loss of bf and maint of lean body mass.

Only when you are looking at increasing protein from subadequate
to
adequate levels in fat people. Of course, since protein is less
energetically efficient (in terms of providing ATP to the body),
switching out carbs/fat to protein results in a technically
lower
calorie diet.

A little over 50% of the aminos from dietary protein are
available
for
ATP production so for every 200 calories of carbs you replace
with
200
calories of protein, you're getting ~100 calories less dietary
energy.
So at 2000 ostensible calories, a higher protein diet is
technically
NOT
providing 2000 calories of useable energy.

The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf
loss
vs
lean
muscle maint.

No ****.

Lyle

in terms of bunk studies, I have one GI study that showed the low
GI
maintained RMR better than the high GI diet, and produced more
weight
loss
(however not significantly more) but the fuktards made these
relatively
obese (~100kg) people eat a 15% protein High GI to a 25% low GI,
which
resulted in 0.4 vs 0.8g/kg protein intake!
****tards, you would 'hope' that somebody as big in the GI world
like
Ludwig
would actually ****ing pick that to start with.

that was the first one Omega cited, that I mentioned had 4
independent
variables


you mean I was meant to read thru that pile of papers for a mention of
it?

it had varying GI, varying amounts of protein (about double in the
low
GI group), varying amounts of carbs and varying amounts of fats.

I have seen both Berardi and Kreider hang 'A calorie is not a
calorie'
arguments on that study (arguing that low GI is protein sparing in
Krieder's case).

A ****ty study and ****tier conclusions drawn from it.

Lyle

about the only thing of worth that you get out of it, is the 2day ad
lib
intake of high/low gi styff is that a high protein low GI diet will
cuase
a
spontaneous reduction in calories compared to a high GI low protien...

But not for those with adequate protein to start with! One does not need
a
reduction in calories to change bodycomp.

no, but it will happen slower,

Myriad physiological factors affect this; hormonal milieu, age (and as you
mention - degree of activity).

if not at all. And not in sedentary subjects
to any great extent.

Well, it depends on how sedentary - but your point is well taken.





weeee

what fun

Whats the reference for the drink carbs all at once vs drip feeding it
in,
cos I cant be bothered hunting on pubmed... its sorta similar to
borries
(sp?) second protien speed study where they drip fed whey to
'simulate'
casein.

---
Aaron

Lyle McDonald wrote in message .. .
Lyle McDonald wrote:

still don't have it handy. It was one of those things that I saw
referenced in a review paper (probably on insulin sensitivity) and never
bothered to actually look up.

Amazingly, I managed to track it down on Pubmed.

Lyle

***
Diabetes. 1990 Jul;39(7):775-81.

Metabolic effects of reducing rate of glucose ingestion by single bolus versus
continuous sipping.

Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Ocana AM, Vuksan V, Cunnane SC, Jenkins M, Wong GS,
Singer W, Bloom SR, Blendis LM, et al.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.

Modifying the rate of absorption has been proposed as a therapeutic
principle of
specific relevance to diabetes. To demonstrate clearly the metabolic benefits
that might result from reducing the rate of nutrient delivery, nine healthy
volunteers took 50 g glucose in 700 ml water on two occasions: over 5-10 min
(bolus) and at a constant rate over 3.5 h (sipping). Despite similar 4-h blood
glucose areas, large reductions were seen in serum insulin (54 +/- 10%,
P less
than 0.001) and C-peptide (47 +/- 12%, P less than 0.01) areas after sipping,
together with lower gastric inhibitory polypeptide and enteroglucagon
levels and
urinary catecholamine output. There was also prolonged suppression of plasma
glucagon, growth hormone, and free-fatty acid (FFA) levels after sipping,
whereas these levels rose 3-4 h after the glucose bolus. An intravenous glucose
tolerance test at 4 h demonstrated a 48 +/- 10% (P less than 0.01) more rapid
decline in blood glucose (Kg) after sipping than after the bolus. Furthermore,
FFA and total branched-chain amino acid levels as additional markers of insulin
action were lower over this period despite similar absolute levels of insulin
and C-peptide. These findings indicate that prolonging the rate of glucose
absorption enhances insulin economy and glucose disposal.

I think it's pretty clear that there is sufficient evidence that the
overwhelming majority of people fare better on a low carb diet, for
health and body composition reasons. I've read quite a bit recently
about (ROS) being the cause of many illnesses, and the role that
glucose plays as well.

Oxidative stress in diabetes.

Piconi L, Quagliaro L, Ceriello A.

Morpurgo-Hofman Research Laboratory on Aging, Udine, Italy.

Increasing evidence in both experimental and clinical studies suggests
that there is a close link between hyperglycemia, oxidative stress and
diabetic complications. High blood glucose level determines
overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) by the mitochondria
electron transport chain. High reactivity of ROS determines chemical
changes in virtually all cellular components, leading to DNA and
protein modification and lipid peroxidation. Measurement of biomarkers
such 8-hydroxy-2'deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), isoprostanes,
malondialdehyde (MDA) and nitrotyrosine is a useful tool to assess the
oxidative stress of the organism. Knowledge of the mechanisms of ROS
damage of is the first step for development of new therapeutic
molecules and for rationalizing the use of existing drugs.

Now I understand everyone is not diabetic, but many, including Dr. Ron
Rosedale, Dr. Serrano, even Charles Poliquin treats everyone like they
are prediabetic, and gets most athletes insulin levels under control.
It seems a combined low carb diet, w/ some veggies and supplemented
antioxidants is going to be a superior method for all but extreme
athletes.

pete wrote:

I think it's pretty clear that there is sufficient evidence
that the overwhelming majority of people fare better on a
low carb diet, for health and body composition reasons.

I wonder.

Now I understand everyone is not diabetic, but many,
including Dr. Ron Rosedale, Dr. Serrano, even Charles
Poliquin treats everyone like they are prediabetic, and gets
most athletes insulin levels under control. It seems a
combined low carb diet, w/ some veggies and supplemented
antioxidants is going to be a superior method for all but
extreme athletes.

Superior method of what? What's an extreme athlete?

--
-Wayne

rosie wrote:

If you walk 30 minutes and average 15 mph

walking?

Walking *very* briskly.

VERY briskly. Much like sprinting.

Pastorio

pete wrote:

Lyle McDonald wrote in message .. .
Lyle McDonald wrote:

still don't have it handy. It was one of those things that I saw
referenced in a review paper (probably on insulin sensitivity) and never
bothered to actually look up.

Amazingly, I managed to track it down on Pubmed.

Lyle

***
Diabetes. 1990 Jul;39(7):775-81.

Metabolic effects of reducing rate of glucose ingestion by single bolus versus
continuous sipping.

Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Ocana AM, Vuksan V, Cunnane SC, Jenkins M, Wong GS,
Singer W, Bloom SR, Blendis LM, et al.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.

Modifying the rate of absorption has been proposed as a therapeutic
principle of
specific relevance to diabetes. To demonstrate clearly the metabolic benefits
that might result from reducing the rate of nutrient delivery, nine healthy
volunteers took 50 g glucose in 700 ml water on two occasions: over 5-10 min
(bolus) and at a constant rate over 3.5 h (sipping). Despite similar 4-h blood
glucose areas, large reductions were seen in serum insulin (54 +/- 10%,
P less
than 0.001) and C-peptide (47 +/- 12%, P less than 0.01) areas after sipping,
together with lower gastric inhibitory polypeptide and enteroglucagon
levels and
urinary catecholamine output. There was also prolonged suppression of plasma
glucagon, growth hormone, and free-fatty acid (FFA) levels after sipping,
whereas these levels rose 3-4 h after the glucose bolus. An intravenous glucose
tolerance test at 4 h demonstrated a 48 +/- 10% (P less than 0.01) more rapid
decline in blood glucose (Kg) after sipping than after the bolus. Furthermore,
FFA and total branched-chain amino acid levels as additional markers of insulin
action were lower over this period despite similar absolute levels of insulin
and C-peptide. These findings indicate that prolonging the rate of glucose
absorption enhances insulin economy and glucose disposal.

I think it's pretty clear that there is sufficient evidence that the
overwhelming majority of people fare better on a low carb diet,

define majority and better.
For obese/insulin resistant folks, no doubt that lowering carbs is
beneficial from a number of standpoints. If that the majority at this
point? Maybe, maybe not.

A question is how low carbs have to go (i.e. you need to define
low-carb). I doubt a complete removal of all carbs is necessary.
MOderation would work fine in *most* cases IMO.

Now I understand everyone is not diabetic, but many, including Dr. Ron
Rosedale, Dr. Serrano, even Charles Poliquin treats everyone like they
are prediabetic, and gets most athletes insulin levels under control.
It seems a combined low carb diet, w/ some veggies and supplemented
antioxidants is going to be a superior method for all but extreme
athletes.

With the exception of endurance athletes, carb needs for most are vastly
overstated. yeah, a cyclist doing hours on bike every day nees a
****pile of carbs. So does a runner or rower or what have you. Even
the mid distance athletes, who are doing a lot of work near or above
lactate threshold probably need a lot.

a strength athlete is not burning a ton of carbs, neither is a
bodybuilder unless his volume is really, really high. I did the math in
my first book, for every 2 sets (assuming about 45 second set length),
you need a whopping 5 grams of carbs to replenish glycogen. So a 24 set
workout means you need all of 60 grams to replenish the glycogen you used.

Add to that ~100 to avoid ketosis (if such is your goal) and you end up
with a whopping 160 grams of carbs per day to sustain basic function and
exercise. Maybe 1 g/lb or a little bit less.

To suggest 4-5 g/lb (8-10 g/kg) as for endurance athletes is retarded.

Lyle

"Wayne S. Hill" wrote:

pete wrote:

I think it's pretty clear that there is sufficient evidence
that the overwhelming majority of people fare better on a
low carb diet, for health and body composition reasons.

I wonder.

Now I understand everyone is not diabetic, but many,
including Dr. Ron Rosedale, Dr. Serrano, even Charles
Poliquin treats everyone like they are prediabetic, and gets
most athletes insulin levels under control. It seems a
combined low carb diet, w/ some veggies and supplemented
antioxidants is going to be a superior method for all but
extreme athletes.

Superior method of what? What's an extreme athlete?

Tony Hawk, Mat Hofman, Travis Pastrana.

They are xxx-treme with 3 x's.

Lyle

I went to fitday.com after not going for 2 months or so, and was pleased to
find my weight had moved from the severly overweight to the moderate! only
19 more lbs to go yipeeeeeeee! I guess I haven't done that site enough
to feel fast in noting all the food for the day, etc find it alot of
work, do you ? Does it keep taps on the foods from day to day? I look
up everything , everyday, thats time consuming

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:

"Lyle McDonald" wrote in message
...
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
\
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!

So are you suggesting that, via nutrient partitioning, a maintenance
calories (i.e. not restricted in calories) low-carb diet will somehow
cause something to occur wrt: body fat?

Well - I read your previous posts on the matter, along with about 30
studies
(some posted in another thread), that nutrient partitioning (via
differntial
response of metabolic parameters such as insulin and leptin etc.) will
cause
loss of bf and maint of lean body mass.

Only when you are looking at increasing protein from subadequate to
adequate levels in fat people. Of course, since protein is less
energetically efficient (in terms of providing ATP to the body),
switching out carbs/fat to protein results in a technically lower
calorie diet.

A little over 50% of the aminos from dietary protein are available for
ATP production so for every 200 calories of carbs you replace with 200
calories of protein, you're getting ~100 calories less dietary energy.
So at 2000 ostensible calories, a higher protein diet is technically NOT
providing 2000 calories of useable energy.


I will also add that ~50% should change the further over dietary
requirements you go. If your eating your entire days calories from protein,
then you will be oxidising a large proportion of this for energy.

IMNSHO

reference:

Fingers ME. Protein intake, how the **** do you eat your entire days intake
from protien alone and still beable to take a dump. J Dump Hardess
2001;33:666-9

----
Aaron

The weight-loss issue is not what I am aiming at here, but bf loss vs
lean
muscle maint.

No ****.


What has your more-involved research shown?

That once you meet protein and EFA requirements, and as long as you
don't take calories too low (which tends to cause LBM loss), switching
out carbs and fat within a controlled caloric environment does little to
nothing (you might see a slight loss of visceral fat but that's only in
some studies) outside of improving a dieter's ability to control
calories. Of course, the protein issue is really the key one.

As I said before, most of the studies that folks trot out to try and
prove the point you're making are comparing low to high protein intakes.
And by low I mean RDA levels. Well, no ****, a higher protein intake
is going to win out under dieting conditions. You'll see better LBM
retention which means more fat loss. AHA, you say, partitioning. Bunk,
I say, it's a function of retarded vs. non-retarded diets.

Bodybuilders have only been saying this for 30 years but many diet
studies still use a paltry 12% protein or whatever. The Layman study
you cited compared 0.8 g/kg (about the RDA) to 1.6 g/kg (a little less
than the standard 1 g/lb bodybuilders use). Even then, the actual
differnce in LBM vs. fat loss were small. No **** the 1.6 g/kg did
better but I consider a diet with .8 g/kg to be protein deficient. And
correcting a deficiency ALWAYS yields better results.

An unfortunate confound in many of the recent studies comparing low-carb
to low-fat is that they are allowing ad-lib intakes of everything.
Usually the low-carb folks end up eating more protein. It happened in
Volek's study (folks went from 113 g/day grams of protein to 176 g/day)
and it happened in Brehm's 6 month study (protein intake went from 16 to
28% per day, it was about 80 vs. 50 g/day in absolute amounts). I bet
if I bothered to look at the other recent studies, the same thing
happened. I'm surprised you didn't track down this one to throw at me.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entre...db=PubMed&list
_uids=10375057&dopt=Abstract

But look at the protein intakes: 25% vs. 12%. No **** the 25% did better.

When you consider many of the metabolic effects of protein (thermogenic,
in terms of appetite supression, and in terms of LBM sparing), it's no
shock that low-carb is doing better. But it's not the lack of carbs per
se, it's the increase in dietary protein. Now, this can be used to make
an argument for low-carb diets in that many dieters (I suspect) on
high-carb plans probably not getting sufficient protein. If nothing
else, a lowcarb diet will tend to ensure adequate protein. But this is
a false argument, you just need to make the point that people need to
eat enough protein on a diet, no matter what the rest of the composition
is. And once you get protein sufficient, shuffling other nutrients w/in
a calorically controlled environment does little to nothing.

See Golay A Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. Am
J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8. for example which was done within a
hospital setting and where caloric intake was controlled meticulously
(protein intake was kept constant and carbs and fats were varied). And
this study is a real problem for the model you're trying to argue
because it has to be able to explain this data point. The question
being this: if low-carb diets are causing such greater results in
relatively uncontrolled conditions, why aren't they having the same
effect in strictly controlled conditions?

One researcher (Westerterp-Plantenga MS. The significance of protein in
food intake and body weight regulation Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metabolic
Care. (2003) 6:635-638) has opined that the beneficial results in the
low carb diet trials is from the increased protein intake.

You also find that the primary determinent of nutrient partitioning is
bodyfat percentage. It explains something like 75-80% of the variance
in what is lost during dieting or gained during overfeeding. There's a
reason for that. Frankly, most of it is under genetic control.

Lyle

"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message ws.com...
"Elzinator" wrote in message
om...

most of the mechanistic stuff has to do with determining the details of
those 4 steps.

Which has more relavence for pathophysiologies and age-related issues
than the general populace. I agree that mechanistic knowledge is not
as important for the general populace, and, as you mention later in
your post, it is easy to attain weight loss (and maintain it) by
adjusting the two components: diet and exericse. However, age-related
changes in gene expression and metabolism alter the effects of both
diet and exericse. Pathophysiologies are often associated with genetic
mutations and resulting congenital or acquired phenotypes in which the
effects of diet and exercise may be dissimilar with normal
individuals.

After the symposium that I attended today on lipodystrophy, the
multifactorial nature of these pathophysiologies was very apparent;
not one treatment or therapy will result in equal response in all
individuals.

This is very similar to the issues facing cancer researchers.
Three very different mechanisms/theories using separate processes all
interacting to produce the endpoint.

Biological systems are more complex than most realize: feedback loops,
negative and positive regulators, redundant and overlapping pathways,
etc. If you look at some of the signaling models (e.g. on Science
Signaling Knowledge Gateway website), they look like a street map of
NYC. I would like to see interactive models on the website (SKG is
attempting to do that).

However, they are only as good as our existing technology and data.
More is continually added, and the models change. As one visiting
scientist commented, models only allow us to predict responses. The
same can be said for a generalized response to dietary interventions.


. Therefore, the major objectives of this review are
1) to amalgamate the presently known information, parts of which have
been separately developed from previous investigators
(5, 12-16, 21, 39, 40), that support the above notion of
an evolutionarily derived need for undertaking regular physical
activity to maintain normality of specific metabolic functions,
and 2) to present a hypothesis that the combination of continuous
food abundance and a sedentary lifestyle results in metabolic
derangements because of the stalling of the evolutionarily

Deranged - now that's somethin I can identify with...

You and me both. Outliers, I say!