Grains and Carbs
Replies
-
Yeah, if you're burning body fat you have less calories in your food than you're using - makes sense.
The energy balance as post hoc accountancy, not as a driving force.
Personally I don't know what this "energy" that people talk about is. Some seem to get it from sugar highs, others from ketones. The less hungry is well established, even if calorie accountants hate it.
But his point was that you do this by going reducing carbs (sorry - should have quoted that part for better context) - as in, your body does it better - and I cannot see a way of testing this without controlling calories as, and in line with your point earlier, energy out is the variable (as well as the variable that the poster is trying to assert is improved).
And your point re energy is my issue with his statement - made as a blanket statement and in the vein of a statement of fact - it is just not correct. As you say, people react differently re energy. I do better on higher carbs, so cutting carbs negatively impacts my energy levels, as it does with many people.
I do not necessarily agree with your last point however. It really depends on context and the individual. As I mentioned earlier, I find carbs to be more satiating than fats as do some other people. I am pretty sure that you can point to a study that shows that all people find low carb to be more satiating.
What's interesting re your last point, the current body of literature strongly suggests low carb diets result in spontaneous decrease in energy intake, at least in most dieters. However in the vast majority of those instances the subjects are also increasing protein intake over their baseline diet, it gets more murky when protein is held constant. Although at least according to some posters, you can just totally discount most confounders and say they had zero effect on the outcome (assuming if course the outcome is favorable to lc)0 -
Yeah, if you're burning body fat you have less calories in your food than you're using - makes sense.
The energy balance as post hoc accountancy, not as a driving force.
Personally I don't know what this "energy" that people talk about is. Some seem to get it from sugar highs, others from ketones. The less hungry is well established, even if calorie accountants hate it.
But his point was that you do this by going reducing carbs (sorry - should have quoted that part for better context) - as in, your body does it better - and I cannot see a way of testing this without controlling calories as, and in line with your point earlier, energy out is the variable (as well as the variable that the poster is trying to assert is improved).
And your point re energy is my issue with his statement - made as a blanket statement and in the vein of a statement of fact - it is just not correct. As you say, people react differently re energy. I do better on higher carbs, so cutting carbs negatively impacts my energy levels, as it does with many people.
I do not necessarily agree with your last point however. It really depends on context and the individual. As I mentioned earlier, I find carbs to be more satiating than fats as do some other people. I am pretty sure that you can point to a study that shows that all people find low carb to be more satiating.
What's interesting re your last point, the current body of literature strongly suggests low carb diets result in spontaneous decrease in energy intake, at least in most dieters. However in the vast majority of those instances the subjects are also increasing protein intake over their baseline diet, it gets more murky when protein is held constant. Although at least according to some posters, you can just totally discount most confounders and say they had zero effect on the outcome (assuming if course the outcome is favorable to lc)
And that is what always gets me - decreasing carbs always gets the kudos - poor 'ole protein and the impact of increasing it rarely gets a share of the accolades.0 -
Yeah, if you're burning body fat you have less calories in your food than you're using - makes sense.
The energy balance as post hoc accountancy, not as a driving force.
Personally I don't know what this "energy" that people talk about is. Some seem to get it from sugar highs, others from ketones. The less hungry is well established, even if calorie accountants hate it.
But his point was that you do this by going reducing carbs (sorry - should have quoted that part for better context) - as in, your body does it better - and I cannot see a way of testing this without controlling calories as, and in line with your point earlier, energy out is the variable (as well as the variable that the poster is trying to assert is improved).
And your point re energy is my issue with his statement - made as a blanket statement and in the vein of a statement of fact - it is just not correct. As you say, people react differently re energy. I do better on higher carbs, so cutting carbs negatively impacts my energy levels, as it does with many people.
I do not necessarily agree with your last point however. It really depends on context and the individual. As I mentioned earlier, I find carbs to be more satiating than fats as do some other people. I am pretty sure that you can point to a study that shows that all people find low carb to be more satiating.
N=1 Chiming in here. Low carbing? Not satiating. Certainly was not satiating enough to have the effect of natural appetite suppression kick in. Now while my carb intake is lower than SAD, I cannot cut my carbs low enough to be considered truly low carb or to enter ketosis. I have medical conditions that induce fatigue, and managing my carb intake helps manage my energy levels.
0 -
Yeah, if you're burning body fat you have less calories in your food than you're using - makes sense.
The energy balance as post hoc accountancy, not as a driving force.
Personally I don't know what this "energy" that people talk about is. Some seem to get it from sugar highs, others from ketones. The less hungry is well established, even if calorie accountants hate it.
But his point was that you do this by going reducing carbs (sorry - should have quoted that part for better context) - as in, your body does it better - and I cannot see a way of testing this without controlling calories as, and in line with your point earlier, energy out is the variable (as well as the variable that the poster is trying to assert is improved).
And your point re energy is my issue with his statement - made as a blanket statement and in the vein of a statement of fact - it is just not correct. As you say, people react differently re energy. I do better on higher carbs, so cutting carbs negatively impacts my energy levels, as it does with many people.
I do not necessarily agree with your last point however. It really depends on context and the individual. As I mentioned earlier, I find carbs to be more satiating than fats as do some other people. I am pretty sure that you can point to a study that shows that all people find low carb to be more satiating.
What's interesting re your last point, the current body of literature strongly suggests low carb diets result in spontaneous decrease in energy intake, at least in most dieters. However in the vast majority of those instances the subjects are also increasing protein intake over their baseline diet, it gets more murky when protein is held constant. Although at least according to some posters, you can just totally discount most confounders and say they had zero effect on the outcome (assuming if course the outcome is favorable to lc)
And that is what always gets me - decreasing carbs always gets the kudos - poor 'ole protein and the impact of increasing it rarely gets a share of the accolades.
Low carb and very low calorie diets both have an appetite suppressing effect that's documented. I don't think high protein is the mechanism since VLCD are often low protein. If anything, ketosis seems to be the common denominator between the two.
Personally I increased protein, fiber and water as is commonly recommended on MFP at least six months prior to switching to a LCHF diet. My protein didn't change -- if anything it went down in the beginning because I switched to fattier cuts of meat -- but there was a marked decrease in my appetite nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if others experience the same thing (i.e. it's not the protein for them) which might explain the lack of accolades.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Yeah, if you're burning body fat you have less calories in your food than you're using - makes sense.
The energy balance as post hoc accountancy, not as a driving force.
Personally I don't know what this "energy" that people talk about is. Some seem to get it from sugar highs, others from ketones. The less hungry is well established, even if calorie accountants hate it.
But his point was that you do this by going reducing carbs (sorry - should have quoted that part for better context) - as in, your body does it better - and I cannot see a way of testing this without controlling calories as, and in line with your point earlier, energy out is the variable (as well as the variable that the poster is trying to assert is improved).
And your point re energy is my issue with his statement - made as a blanket statement and in the vein of a statement of fact - it is just not correct. As you say, people react differently re energy. I do better on higher carbs, so cutting carbs negatively impacts my energy levels, as it does with many people.
I do not necessarily agree with your last point however. It really depends on context and the individual. As I mentioned earlier, I find carbs to be more satiating than fats as do some other people. I am pretty sure that you can point to a study that shows that all people find low carb to be more satiating.
What's interesting re your last point, the current body of literature strongly suggests low carb diets result in spontaneous decrease in energy intake, at least in most dieters. However in the vast majority of those instances the subjects are also increasing protein intake over their baseline diet, it gets more murky when protein is held constant. Although at least according to some posters, you can just totally discount most confounders and say they had zero effect on the outcome (assuming if course the outcome is favorable to lc)
And that is what always gets me - decreasing carbs always gets the kudos - poor 'ole protein and the impact of increasing it rarely gets a share of the accolades.
Low carb and very low calorie diets both have an appetite suppressing effect that's documented. I don't think high protein is the mechanism since VLCD are often low protein. If anything, ketosis seems to be the common denominator between the two.
Personally I increased protein, fiber and water as is commonly recommended on MFP at least six months prior to switching to a LCHF diet. My protein didn't change -- if anything it went down in the beginning because I switched to fattier cuts of meat -- but there was a marked decrease in my appetite nonetheless. I wouldn't be surprised if others experience the same thing (i.e. it's not the protein for them) which might explain the lack of accolades.
As I am not familiar with the documentation of low carb being an appetite suppressant rather than protein I did some google-fu'ing for studies/scholarly articles that showed this (search parameters were 'satiety low carb'). The conclusion that its low carb and not high protein does not seem to be supported. I am sure I am missing a bunch, so I would welcome studies that show that it is. The following studies (which I am pasting in order of the search findings to try to avoid conformational bias or allegations of cherry picking as much as possible) actually indicate that it is the high protein and not low carb (although, for most you can probably make the mirror argument to the point that I am trying to make - but we are talking about 'kudos' here).
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8724362&fileId=S0007114512002589 - refers to the satiety of high protein (no mention of low carb in the abstract)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938412002806 - refers to the satiety of high protein (no mention of low carb in the abstract)
http://www.ccjm.org/fileadmin/content_pdf/ccjm/content_69_849.pdf (even Volek does not give low carb all the credit and also refers to fats and protein - plus he compared to keto - which is not the same as low carb).
The 4th one on the search was an e-book called The Healthy Obsession Program: Smart Weight Loss Instead of Low-Carb Lunacy - so not linking, but the title would imply that it does not give kudos to low carb!
http://journals.lww.com/tnpj/Abstract/2002/04000/Should_you_recommend_a_low_carb,_high_protein.11.aspx - abstract does not even give a conclusion or pretty much any detail at all
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=196341 - no conclusion/abstract (without signing in), just the first page of an article - not a study
Stopped here as the search seemed to start to go off track with what was being searched for. I then used the search parameters "satiety high protein'
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2004.10719381
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/2228407
http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US8731369
The rest on the page were basically all the same - high protein v high carbs - high protein 'won out' - but that goes back to the 'issue' - who gets the 'kudos'
Next up - "Satiety high fat"
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/pdfs/discussionEssay/thermogenesisSatiety/WesterterpThermoSatiety1999.pdf - this one shows high protein/high carbs to be more satiating than high fat
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/8395476 - this one showed higher caloric intake on high fat meals when hungry and no significant difference in satiety between high fat and high carb means
Skipped the 3rd study in the search as it was an acute on on rats
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/8839929 - notes that high fat has a weak effect on satiety.
Note: I have not gone into the full studies so I am sure there are some confounding factors - but the point was looking for what is documented in studies (vs the theme of low carbs and not the high protein being satiating you see on here - which is what I was actually referring to).
I actually did a search rather than asking you to link them (and please feel free to though) as I was interested in what was shown. That being said - it's just academic - the efficacy of a diet, including how satiating it is on an individual, will be a very individual thing - as some of the comments in this thread have indicated. Personally, I keep my protein high all the time - and I find carbs more satiating than fats if you compare isocaloric amounts (which interestingly is in line with what I found in the studies with my 'quick and dirty' search).0 -
I think if you search for things like suppressed hunger and appetite suppression instead of satiety you'll find more of the studies I remember reading when I was still curious about why my diet worked. Here were a couple that popped up that I thought might interest you (in the very small amount of time I'm willing to spend of this). I did cherry pick.
"In the short term, high-protein, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets reduce hunger and lower food intake significantly more than do high-protein, medium-carbohydrate nonketogenic diets." -Effects of a high-protein ketogenic diet on hunger, appetite, and weight loss in obese men feeding ad libitum.
"When participants were ketotic, the weight loss induced increase in ghrelin was suppressed. Glucose and NEFA were higher, and amylin, leptin and subjective ratings of appetite were lower at week 8 than after refeeding." --Ketosis and appetite-mediating nutrients and hormones after weight loss0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I think if you search for things like suppressed hunger and appetite suppression instead of satiety you'll find more of the studies I remember reading when I was still curious about why my diet worked. Here were a couple that popped up that I thought might interest you (in the very small amount of time I'm willing to spend of this). I did cherry pick.
"In the short term, high-protein, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets reduce hunger and lower food intake significantly more than do high-protein, medium-carbohydrate nonketogenic diets." -Effects of a high-protein ketogenic diet on hunger, appetite, and weight loss in obese men feeding ad libitum.
"When participants were ketotic, the weight loss induced increase in ghrelin was suppressed. Glucose and NEFA were higher, and amylin, leptin and subjective ratings of appetite were lower at week 8 than after refeeding." --Ketosis and appetite-mediating nutrients and hormones after weight loss
Thanks for the honesty re cherry picking (and not unexpected as it did kind of lead you to having to when I said I could not find any using with my quick search) and thank you for the links. Your links are re keto - the conversation was originally about low carb (not very low carb/keto). I will have a look though. I would be interested in longer term studies and the success rate of adhering to it (I know some people adhere well but many others do not). Then again, I am not sure if I, like you, am willing to spend much more time at the moment looking into it - but I am not dismissing it as a viable option for some. IMO, it goes back to individual aspects, many of which are hormonal, and as we know, we are impacted by hormones (or possibly said a better way, out hormones react to variables) differently.0 -
As I am not familiar with the documentation of low carb being an appetite suppressant rather than protein
It is fairly typical for ad lib studies to find low carb eaters eating a lot less than they "should be" - this has shown up over 40 years. In the one I quoted above about insulin resistance the low carb people at less on ad lib and even ate less when prescribed 2000 calories. I think that was isoprotein from memory.
My simple explanation of this is that carobhydrate restriction mimics starvation in many regards, and hunger is suppressed in starvation.
See Table 1 of Yudkins study at http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/23/7/948.full.pdf+html for example shows a 1/3 calorie reduction ad lib with the same protein intake.
0 -
And your point re energy is my issue with his statement - made as a blanket statement and in the vein of a statement of fact - it is just not correct. As you say, people react differently re energy. I do better on higher carbs, so cutting carbs negatively impacts my energy levels, as it does with many people.
If you are used to high blood sugars and are adapted to that then you'll do better on it. If you wanted to test the alternative scenario you would a) need to be carrying enough fat to supply your acute needs b) take time to transition and adapt to a different set of body fuelling c) keep carbs and protein low enough to give good ketone levels to optimise brain fuel supply.
I suspect many that try low carb quit to early, or sit in a no mans land with depressed blood sugar and inadequate ketones, both resulting in constrained fuel supply.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »N=1 Chiming in here. Low carbing? Not satiating. Certainly was not satiating enough to have the effect of natural appetite suppression kick in. Now while my carb intake is lower than SAD, I cannot cut my carbs low enough to be considered truly low carb or to enter ketosis.
You aren't ketogenic but at <130g/day of carbs you are restricting carbohydrates below ADA minimums and fit Feinman's definition of "Low Carb" :
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »N=1 Chiming in here. Low carbing? Not satiating. Certainly was not satiating enough to have the effect of natural appetite suppression kick in. Now while my carb intake is lower than SAD, I cannot cut my carbs low enough to be considered truly low carb or to enter ketosis.
You aren't ketogenic but at <130g/day of carbs you are restricting carbohydrates below ADA minimums and fit Feinman's definition of "Low Carb" :
Interesting. I've always thought of my intake as moderate (150-250) but according to this chart it appears my consumption would be considered high. I never thought of myself as a high carbing person. This is eye opening since I never bothered to look at my carb charts. Appears I consume anywhere between 45% and 70% of my food as carbs. That answers a previous question of a poster who asked had I been eating a high carb diet would I have improved my health markers and lost weight just the same? It appears the answer is yes.0 -
And your point re energy is my issue with his statement - made as a blanket statement and in the vein of a statement of fact - it is just not correct. As you say, people react differently re energy. I do better on higher carbs, so cutting carbs negatively impacts my energy levels, as it does with many people.
If you are used to high blood sugars and are adapted to that then you'll do better on it. If you wanted to test the alternative scenario you would a) need to be carrying enough fat to supply your acute needs b) take time to transition and adapt to a different set of body fuelling c) keep carbs and protein low enough to give good ketone levels to optimise brain fuel supply.
I suspect many that try low carb quit to early, or sit in a no mans land with depressed blood sugar and inadequate ketones, both resulting in constrained fuel supply.
I think that there is a lot of truth to that. I think the other issue is that it is very restrictive and many people just cannot do it and fit it into their lifestyle.
For me, there just is no point in me trying. I have no issue maintaining/losing weight on a higher carb/high protein/moderate fat diet. That being said, carbs are the first thing to be dropped when I cut - difference is, I can cut easily (and relatively aggressively) on 150g carbs, which to me is low lol. Lifting performance is very important to me. Plus, I already restrict my food choices being a vegetarian.0 -
As I am not familiar with the documentation of low carb being an appetite suppressant rather than protein
It is fairly typical for ad lib studies to find low carb eaters eating a lot less than they "should be" - this has shown up over 40 years. In the one I quoted above about insulin resistance the low carb people at less on ad lib and even ate less when prescribed 2000 calories. I think that was isoprotein from memory.
My simple explanation of this is that carobhydrate restriction mimics starvation in many regards, and hunger is suppressed in starvation.
See Table 1 of Yudkins study at http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/23/7/948.full.pdf+html for example shows a 1/3 calorie reduction ad lib with the same protein intake.
Fats were down a reasonable amount also (but not nearly as much as CHO, as they were not told to restrict that). I was kind of surprised at how high the fats were (and CHO in the 'normal' diet was really not that high).
Where would you say 67g carbs falls into re keto? They were only on it for weeks (plus the sample size is very small) - not saying its not a valid study to throw into the mix - all studies have limitations, but I wonder if the short nature of it did not allow people to find a way of eating that was low carb (they went above the threshold which was 50g) without restricting due to food choices. It takes us a while to play around with food choices to hit a certain macro - and often that is limiting food in general. It may be why fats were also down (conjecture on my part). It would be interesting to see if they had a satiation index (I think I am using the wrong terminology here). Maybe I missed it but most of the discussion was re nutrient deficiency (or the lack thereof).
When looking at low carb (as opposed to keto) I just did not see that in ad lib eating they were eating lower cals than those that did higher carbs. Maybe I just missed those as I did a quick and dirty search.
0 -
spirit7125 wrote: »Hi all,
I had been struggling with no weight loss for months, despite hitting it hard at the gym and tracking on MFP..until I cut out bread and most grain-based foods. I don't feel hungry ever, even though I usually eat a lower calorie intake than before and I am losing weight despite eating a higher percentage of fat. Most of my carbs now come from vegetables and berries. I feel less bloaty too...anyone else out there with similar stories? Oh, and I have lost 5# since starting this 3 weeks ago.
A great way to create a calorie deficit by cutting out the some of the less beneficial foods.
I limit my carbs through reducing bread, pasta and rice. I focus mainly on fat and protein.
Well done on your initial success.0 -
Confirmation bias, surely arguing from authority will combat the problem.MistressPi wrote: »MistressPi wrote: »
Just like Taubes dismisses 27 well controlled studies that prove his hypothesis wrong?MistressPi wrote: »This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
--snip--The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
So you would dismiss the results of a carefully controlled study because you don't like Mr. Taubes?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your position. Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.
This response seems to be an attempt at misdirection, rather than answering the question. It is another personal attack.
I see you bought the book LOL and No I wouldn't outright dismiss it, but confirmation bias and having someones entire livelihood based on the results, but zealots gonna zealot
...and now a personal attack on me.
I don't understand what you mean. Do you contend that all 13 scientists (most of whom have either Ph.D.s or M.D.s or both, and are all highly accomplished in their respective fields, plus the entire External Advisory Board of the University of California, San Francisco, are suffering from confirmation bias? Mr. Taubes, while a co-founder of NuSI, is not one of the people conducting the study.
It’s as much a mistake to say I’m “appealing to authority” as it is to say that all the researchers involved in the NuSI study suffer from confirmation bias. There are no study results to either defend or refute. The study has not yet been concluded. It is no error to claim that these individuals are authorities and experts in their respective fields. They are qualified to conduct the study.
0 -
You brought the credentials and numbers of researchers up like it is going to have an impact on how whether they're biased or not. That was your defense of it, but now you're putting out a red herring by saying the results aren't out yet.MistressPi wrote: »
Confirmation bias, surely arguing from authority will combat the problem.MistressPi wrote: »MistressPi wrote: »
Just like Taubes dismisses 27 well controlled studies that prove his hypothesis wrong?MistressPi wrote: »This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
--snip--The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
So you would dismiss the results of a carefully controlled study because you don't like Mr. Taubes?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your position. Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.
This response seems to be an attempt at misdirection, rather than answering the question. It is another personal attack.
I see you bought the book LOL and No I wouldn't outright dismiss it, but confirmation bias and having someones entire livelihood based on the results, but zealots gonna zealot
...and now a personal attack on me.
I don't understand what you mean. Do you contend that all 13 scientists (most of whom have either Ph.D.s or M.D.s or both, and are all highly accomplished in their respective fields, plus the entire External Advisory Board of the University of California, San Francisco, are suffering from confirmation bias? Mr. Taubes, while a co-founder of NuSI, is not one of the people conducting the study.
It’s as much a mistake to say I’m “appealing to authority” as it is to say that all the researchers involved in the NuSI study suffer from confirmation bias. There are no study results to either defend or refute. The study has not yet been concluded. It is no error to claim that these individuals are authorities and experts in their respective fields. They are qualified to conduct the study.0 -
Where would you say 67g carbs falls into re keto? They were only on it for weeks (plus the sample size is very small) - not saying its not a valid study to throw into the mix - all studies have limitations, but I wonder if the short nature of it did not allow people to find a way of eating that was low carb (they went above the threshold which was 50g) without restricting due to food choices. It takes us a while to play around with food choices to hit a certain macro - and often that is limiting food in general. It may be why fats were also down (conjecture on my part). It would be interesting to see if they had a satiation index (I think I am using the wrong terminology here). Maybe I missed it but most of the discussion was re nutrient deficiency (or the lack thereof).
Barely ketogenic I suspect. The objective was indeed to demonstrate that the low carb diet, which was the prevailing weight loss approach of the day was nutritionally complete. The subjects didn't eat as much as they should have. The author said the carb intake and ratios were sufficent to "comfortably prevent ketosis" on p5 lower left.
Shai's DIRECT study is longer term and shows the unrestricted calorie "low" carb group taking about 500 calories less than baseline throughout the 2 years. Granted it wasn't very restricted carbs, but that was the key difference and the behaviour of eating less sustained itself for whatever reason.0 -
You brought the credentials and numbers of researchers up like it is going to have an impact on how whether they're biased or not. That was your defense of it, but now you're putting out a red herring by saying the results aren't out yet.MistressPi wrote: »
Confirmation bias, surely arguing from authority will combat the problem.MistressPi wrote: »MistressPi wrote: »
Just like Taubes dismisses 27 well controlled studies that prove his hypothesis wrong?MistressPi wrote: »This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
--snip--The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
So you would dismiss the results of a carefully controlled study because you don't like Mr. Taubes?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your position. Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.
This response seems to be an attempt at misdirection, rather than answering the question. It is another personal attack.
I see you bought the book LOL and No I wouldn't outright dismiss it, but confirmation bias and having someones entire livelihood based on the results, but zealots gonna zealot
...and now a personal attack on me.
I don't understand what you mean. Do you contend that all 13 scientists (most of whom have either Ph.D.s or M.D.s or both, and are all highly accomplished in their respective fields, plus the entire External Advisory Board of the University of California, San Francisco, are suffering from confirmation bias? Mr. Taubes, while a co-founder of NuSI, is not one of the people conducting the study.
It’s as much a mistake to say I’m “appealing to authority” as it is to say that all the researchers involved in the NuSI study suffer from confirmation bias. There are no study results to either defend or refute. The study has not yet been concluded. It is no error to claim that these individuals are authorities and experts in their respective fields. They are qualified to conduct the study.
The number of researchers does have an impact on bias. While it's possible that all of them are prejudiced, the odds are against it, and to call them such in this way is prejudice itself, and an attack on their professional standings and reputations. To point this out is a defense of the individuals conducting the experiment, not the study, which, as yet, can neither be defended nor refuted.
0 -
Reducing bias by a larger sample size is true for random samples. People doing a research study together are very far from a random sample. People ideologically opposed to each other are hardly likely to perform a study together, but I'd pay good money to read a meta-analysis written by Alan Aragon and Gary Taubes.MistressPi wrote: »
You brought the credentials and numbers of researchers up like it is going to have an impact on how whether they're biased or not. That was your defense of it, but now you're putting out a red herring by saying the results aren't out yet.MistressPi wrote: »
Confirmation bias, surely arguing from authority will combat the problem.MistressPi wrote: »MistressPi wrote: »
Just like Taubes dismisses 27 well controlled studies that prove his hypothesis wrong?MistressPi wrote: »This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
--snip--The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
So you would dismiss the results of a carefully controlled study because you don't like Mr. Taubes?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your position. Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.
This response seems to be an attempt at misdirection, rather than answering the question. It is another personal attack.
I see you bought the book LOL and No I wouldn't outright dismiss it, but confirmation bias and having someones entire livelihood based on the results, but zealots gonna zealot
...and now a personal attack on me.
I don't understand what you mean. Do you contend that all 13 scientists (most of whom have either Ph.D.s or M.D.s or both, and are all highly accomplished in their respective fields, plus the entire External Advisory Board of the University of California, San Francisco, are suffering from confirmation bias? Mr. Taubes, while a co-founder of NuSI, is not one of the people conducting the study.
It’s as much a mistake to say I’m “appealing to authority” as it is to say that all the researchers involved in the NuSI study suffer from confirmation bias. There are no study results to either defend or refute. The study has not yet been concluded. It is no error to claim that these individuals are authorities and experts in their respective fields. They are qualified to conduct the study.
The number of researchers does have an impact on bias. While it's possible that all of them are prejudiced, the odds are against it, and to call them such in this way is prejudice itself, and an attack on their professional standings and reputations. To point this out is a defense of the individuals conducting the experiment, not the study, which, as yet, can neither be defended nor refuted.0 -
Reducing bias by a larger sample size is true for random samples. People doing a research study together are very far from a random sample. People ideologically opposed to each other are hardly likely to perform a study together, but I'd pay good money to read a meta-analysis written by Alan Aragon and Gary Taubes.MistressPi wrote: »
You brought the credentials and numbers of researchers up like it is going to have an impact on how whether they're biased or not. That was your defense of it, but now you're putting out a red herring by saying the results aren't out yet.MistressPi wrote: »
Confirmation bias, surely arguing from authority will combat the problem.MistressPi wrote: »MistressPi wrote: »
Just like Taubes dismisses 27 well controlled studies that prove his hypothesis wrong?MistressPi wrote: »This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
--snip--The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
So you would dismiss the results of a carefully controlled study because you don't like Mr. Taubes?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your position. Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.
This response seems to be an attempt at misdirection, rather than answering the question. It is another personal attack.
I see you bought the book LOL and No I wouldn't outright dismiss it, but confirmation bias and having someones entire livelihood based on the results, but zealots gonna zealot
...and now a personal attack on me.
I don't understand what you mean. Do you contend that all 13 scientists (most of whom have either Ph.D.s or M.D.s or both, and are all highly accomplished in their respective fields, plus the entire External Advisory Board of the University of California, San Francisco, are suffering from confirmation bias? Mr. Taubes, while a co-founder of NuSI, is not one of the people conducting the study.
It’s as much a mistake to say I’m “appealing to authority” as it is to say that all the researchers involved in the NuSI study suffer from confirmation bias. There are no study results to either defend or refute. The study has not yet been concluded. It is no error to claim that these individuals are authorities and experts in their respective fields. They are qualified to conduct the study.
The number of researchers does have an impact on bias. While it's possible that all of them are prejudiced, the odds are against it, and to call them such in this way is prejudice itself, and an attack on their professional standings and reputations. To point this out is a defense of the individuals conducting the experiment, not the study, which, as yet, can neither be defended nor refuted.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions