Carb-Loaded Documentary Film

Basilin

dbmata wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

Alisha_countrymama wrote: »

I'm just saying for those of you reading this, who are struggling, like I did. Who are restricting calories, (eating low fat and or processed crap) and exercising, you think you are eating "healthy" but still having health issues, or not losing weight. There are other options. [None of which are valid obviously according to all you fine folks, that there could be possibly, other reasons why people are over weight, besides that we just eat to much and don't move around enough.] The body is a complex thing. And there is no one size fits all diet.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts nor to deride the established science as you so wontonly do. You are getting the criticisms you are asking for.

Someone said wontons.

Do want.

Wonton soup?

The_Enginerd

Basilin wrote: »

This is a pretty cool study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

They found insulin sensitivity affected how women lost weight on diets with different macro composition.

I looked at that study. It had small sample sizes, the food was provided, but they were at home and free to get other food, and the results were opposite between the two different groups. LC/HF was better for the insulin resistant group, but HF/LC was better for the insulin sensitive group. There also did not appear to be any data taken on actual fat loss versus weight loss, and in a short 16 week study water weight losses attributed to different macro intakes could have a significant impact. The conclusions on this study are very iffy.

I don't know if anyone has a link to some of the better done studies, but from what I recall, studies that looked at the weight loss rates for those on diets with different macro mixes did not find any significant differences. Now adherence and mental issues are a whole different ballgame, and I can agree that a LCHF diet works well for some.

Basilin

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Basilin wrote: »

This is a pretty cool study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

They found insulin sensitivity affected how women lost weight on diets with different macro composition.

I looked at that study. It had small sample sizes, the food was provided, but they were at home and free to get other food, and the results were opposite between the two different groups. LC/HF was better for the insulin resistant group, but HF/LC was better for the insulin sensitive group. There also did not appear to be any data taken on actual fat loss versus weight loss, and in a short 16 week study water weight losses attributed to different macro intakes could have a significant impact. The conclusions on this study are very iffy.

I don't know if anyone has a link to some of the better done studies, but from what I recall, studies that looked at the weight loss rates for those on diets with different macro mixes did not find any significant differences. Now adherence and mental issues are a whole different ballgame, and I can agree that a LCHF diet works well for some.

Yeah, I read those studies, too. They have the same problems with sample size/measurements/tracking. And pretty much every study on nutrition I've read is "iffy" with lots of studies that have opposite conclusions. I thought this one was particularly well written.

But logically, it does follow that insulin resistant groups would store more glucose in the diet as fat/glycogen since it's not absorbed by cells as readily.

deansdad101

Basilin wrote: »

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Basilin wrote: »

This is a pretty cool study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

They found insulin sensitivity affected how women lost weight on diets with different macro composition.

I looked at that study. It had small sample sizes, the food was provided, but they were at home and free to get other food, and the results were opposite between the two different groups. LC/HF was better for the insulin resistant group, but HF/LC was better for the insulin sensitive group. There also did not appear to be any data taken on actual fat loss versus weight loss, and in a short 16 week study water weight losses attributed to different macro intakes could have a significant impact. The conclusions on this study are very iffy.

I don't know if anyone has a link to some of the better done studies, but from what I recall, studies that looked at the weight loss rates for those on diets with different macro mixes did not find any significant differences. Now adherence and mental issues are a whole different ballgame, and I can agree that a LCHF diet works well for some.

Yeah, I read those studies, too. They have the same problems with sample size/measurements/tracking. And pretty much every study on nutrition I've read is "iffy" with lots of studies that have opposite conclusions. I thought this one was particularly well written.

But logically, it does follow that insulin resistant groups would store more glucose in the diet as fat/glycogen since it's not absorbed by cells as readily.

Bas & Engi;

"Looking at..." a study and cherry picking individual stats, while it may win debating points, really isn't contributing much to the knowledge base past fueling the fires of those unwilling (or more likely, incapable of) thinking beyond the "crowd speak".

Dismissing clinical results out of hand by finding fault with any number of "issues" in the study design that don't comport with one's definition of that which "should have been" included (i.e. sample size, free living environment, etc), is easy, but similarly non-productive.

This is not to say that either of your comments are not relevant to the discussion - they are, and out of the 5 pages of infantile jibberish spouted by the intellectual midgets incapable of considering any point of view other than that they know won't bring them scorn and ridicule for having the temerity to question the group speak - they are a bright light exception.

Fact is though, I seriously doubt that either of you have actually "read" the entire studies and are instead basing conclusions on "summaries" which are not only cherry picked themselves (often to support conclusions the researchers may have been pre-disposed to "hope" the results would support), but frequently pander to the biases of the reader.

Not your faults as most of us are not actually privy to the "full" study documentation (at least not without paying for it), and are therefore limited to the synopsis and bullet point "conclusions".

Sadly, so too are those in the media who are so quick to jump on those bullet points which when taken out of context and plastered across the nightly news become "conventional wisdom" but may, in fact, have meaning diametrically opposed to the headline (previous references to sat fats, cholesterol, heart disease, e.g.)

The "devil" is always in the details.

For example, this study defines LC/HF as 40% fat. While 40% might accurately be "highER fat" than the SAD - it most certainly is NOT "HIGH fat" by the standards of current LCHF advocates and researchers who would consider ratios in the range of 70-80% the minimal entry point.

Finally, one must take into account the definition of "statistically significant" as it is used by the scientific community - it is NOT what most lay people ASSUME it is.

The study commentary on the 2003 study reported in PubMed which was designed to compare long(er) term (12 month) results of "LF" v. "HF" diets,

http://tinyurl.com/kuyx9ff

states:
"CONCLUSION - The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year."

"not significant" meaning not "STATISTICALLY significant" - which is true.

It also states:
"Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [+/-SD], -6.8+/-5.0 vs. -2.7+/-3.7 percent of body weight; P=0.001) and 6 months (-7.0+/-6.5 vs. -3.2+/-5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), but the difference at 12 months was not significant (-4.4+/-6.7 vs. -2.5+/-6.3 percent of body weight, P=0.26)"

That, "The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year."

IS "significant" at 4% (6 months), but is NOT "significant" at ~2% (because P=0.26) is true, BUT,
one could just as accurately state that:
1- the 2% IS certainly "significant" (in common parlance) to the individuals in the "HF" cohort and still "better than" the "LF" group "statistically significant or not, and,
2 - -4.4 is 175% "better" than -2.5

Wheelhouse15

@Deansdad101 except for the ad hominem (can we not have a debate without invoking such fallicious arguments?) I can agree with most of your post. However, why would you talk about 175% or common "significance" when the null hypothesis has not been defeated and thus the authors must conclude this to be of no import i.e. more likely than not to be random result. Also, on the basis of raw numbers I doubt people are much happier with -4.4 rather than -2.5 no matter what the percentage difference is simply because people don't think in those terms when looking at the scale.

Of course, I did enjoy seeing yours and the pervious two but you seem to be looking for an academic debate on a general board. There are many with substantial education here, including PhDs and MD so let's try to rise above the name calling if you want to make a point that others are banal -- seems like hypocracy in that vien.

deansdad101

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

@Deansdad101 except for the ad hominem (can we not have a debate without invoking such fallicious arguments?) I can agree with most of your post. However, why would you talk about 175% or common "significance" when the null hypothesis has not been defeated and thus the authors must conclude this to be of no import i.e. more likely than not to be random result. Also, on the basis of raw numbers I doubt people are much happier with -4.4 rather than -2.5 no matter what the percentage difference is simply because people don't think in those terms when looking at the scale.

Of course, I did enjoy seeing yours and the pervious two but you seem to be looking for an academic debate on a general board. There are many with substantial education here, including PhDs and MD so let's try to rise above the name calling if you want to make a point that others are banal -- seems like hypocracy in that vien.

WH;

You are correct of course on both counts (bolded) and the 175% was an intentional, hyperbolic example to make the point.

"hypocrisy " and "fallacious" yes, but your points would have more validity had they previously been made to the countless prior examples of "name calling", "intimidation", and "banality".

Should have worded my comments in a more "appropriate" fashion and avoided the ad hominem , but,

"When in Rome........"

Wheelhouse15

deansdad101 wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

@Deansdad101 except for the ad hominem (can we not have a debate without invoking such fallicious arguments?) I can agree with most of your post. However, why would you talk about 175% or common "significance" when the null hypothesis has not been defeated and thus the authors must conclude this to be of no import i.e. more likely than not to be random result. Also, on the basis of raw numbers I doubt people are much happier with -4.4 rather than -2.5 no matter what the percentage difference is simply because people don't think in those terms when looking at the scale.

Of course, I did enjoy seeing yours and the pervious two but you seem to be looking for an academic debate on a general board. There are many with substantial education here, including PhDs and MD so let's try to rise above the name calling if you want to make a point that others are banal -- seems like hypocracy in that vien.

WH;

You are correct of course on both counts (bolded) and the 175% was an intentional, hyperbolic example to make the point.

"hypocritical" and "fallacious" yes, but your points would have more validity had they previously been made to the countless prior examples of "name calling", "intimidation", and "banality".

Should have worded my comments in a more "appropriate" fashion and avoided the ad hominem , but,

"When in Rome........"

Well, I cannot fault you too much, I think I have held a gladius from time to time. I just thought it took down one of the best posts I've seen when it didn't have to.


Cheers!

The_Enginerd

Basilin wrote: »

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Basilin wrote: »

This is a pretty cool study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

They found insulin sensitivity affected how women lost weight on diets with different macro composition.

I looked at that study. It had small sample sizes, the food was provided, but they were at home and free to get other food, and the results were opposite between the two different groups. LC/HF was better for the insulin resistant group, but HF/LC was better for the insulin sensitive group. There also did not appear to be any data taken on actual fat loss versus weight loss, and in a short 16 week study water weight losses attributed to different macro intakes could have a significant impact. The conclusions on this study are very iffy.

I don't know if anyone has a link to some of the better done studies, but from what I recall, studies that looked at the weight loss rates for those on diets with different macro mixes did not find any significant differences. Now adherence and mental issues are a whole different ballgame, and I can agree that a LCHF diet works well for some.

Yeah, I read those studies, too. They have the same problems with sample size/measurements/tracking. And pretty much every study on nutrition I've read is "iffy" with lots of studies that have opposite conclusions. I thought this one was particularly well written.

But logically, it does follow that insulin resistant groups would store more glucose in the diet as fat/glycogen since it's not absorbed by cells as readily.

Very true, and many nutrition studies seem to have that problem. This study provides a good data point, but I would not draw any conclusions unless other studies can corroborate these findings.

And maybe... glucose may not be as readily absorbed, but what effect will that have in the overall energy balance over the long term and weight/fat loss? Sometimes, things which seem to logically follow don't end holding true, e.g. recommendations for low fat diets.

deansdad101

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

deansdad101 wrote: »

Well, I cannot fault you too much, I think I have held a gladius from time to time. I just thought it took down one of the best posts I've seen when it didn't have to.


Cheers!

WH;

And "cheers" right back at'cha (except we pronounce it - "salute" <g>)
-
15 carbs, 74% fat, 18% fat (not including the candy corn or vino but hey...it's Halloween)

Wheelhouse15

deansdad101 wrote: »

Wheelhouse15 wrote: »

deansdad101 wrote: »

Well, I cannot fault you too much, I think I have held a gladius from time to time. I just thought it took down one of the best posts I've seen when it didn't have to.


Cheers!

WH;

And "cheers" right back at'cha (except we pronounce it - "salute" <g>)
-
15 carbs, 74% fat, 18% fat (not including the candy corn or vino but hey...it's Halloween)

Very nice meal, enjoy!