Grains and Carbs
Options
Replies
-
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 Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.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.
0 -
Eric - do you have a link on the debate? I would be interested to see it.
Thanks
"the hilarious joke of Gary Taubes presenting an argument before CICO roid bros at the EPIC summit" as one writer described it or a fanboy review but haven't seen the whole thing.
That itsthewoo writer seems just gross.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't know, as a fat nearly diabetic woman my takeaway from the studies was that I wanted a long term solution since it was my health on the line. Finding out that I did not have to force something I was unlikely to stick to in order to get the benefits I was looking for was a relief. What use is increased insulin sensitivity after two weeks if the person can't maintain the benefits? That's how a person who is truly concerned about their insulin resistance usually thinks. For those who find low carbing easy and desirable it's a good choice, for those who don't it's not. No need to split hairs when adherence is ultimately the most important deciding factor, especially when long term results from both are very comparable.
You are discussing your dietary preferences and behaviour rather than the evidence I presented ? So we've gone from me just relying on one study to evidence a position to some apocryphal tales about adherence and food preference.
Eat what you like. I really don't care. Don't feel threatened because some study did something different and it worked. Enjoy your fruit.
By all means produce studies (presumably several, mustn't rely on one after all) that show simple calorie restriction to be better at reducing insulin resistance than carbohydrate restriction, if that's the case. Information is always good. I just read one showing how magnesium supplementation improved insulin resistance in Type 2 diabetes, no diet required, and another showing how aerobic exercise didn't improve insulin sensitivity but combined with resistance training it did.
Very low calorie diets increase insulin sensitivity more than do moderate restriction diets. Does that make them a good standard for everyone, especially when after a certain point further increase in insulin sensitivity ceases to be linear or relevant? That's just a fact in a vacuum, as most studies are. I'm not discussing my own preferences, what I'm discussing is that people have preferences and that should be the deciding factor, not dry and cut numbers from a study that are often challenged in terms of generalizing rules for a population due to other factors being at play. Do low carb diets improve insulin resistance more than higher carb diets? They do. Is it a meaningful difference long term? I doubt it. As for producing studies, I won't bother. It's a known consensus among the scientific community that obesity is closely correlated with insulin resistance and that weight loss is closely correlated with increase in insulin sensitivity to the point of diabetes reversal in some of the newly diagnosed.
"Diet and exercise correlate with reversal in newly diagnosed"
Exactly what I was told by my Dr.
We went at it hard with both.
5.4 A1C and dropping every 6 months for a year and a half.
It works for some people. He even said it works for some and give it a full 100% shot and see.
Even my own Dr made no guarantees.
Internet forum warriors can't either.
But if we can maybe help each other find a path that works.... Some of the debate may actually be useful instead of just kicking up dust.
It can work.
You know what really stands up better than peer reviewed articles?
Going to the same gym for a year and a half, dropping 125 lbs and adding muscle.
I get asked almost daily how I did it. No requests for sources! And no arguments telling me my plan won't work. The Internet and real world are so far apart.
Ha!
Have a great weekend.
0 -
What i would like to see is a variety of diets test for prolonged periods of time (6/12/24 month follow ups) to test effacacy. Its potential that lc provides the most benefit in short periods, but how would it compare to 80/10/10 in a longer state, essentially deminishing gains. While anecdotal, every person i know has improved all numbers across the board when weight loss occurred.0
-
professionalHobbyist wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't know, as a fat nearly diabetic woman my takeaway from the studies was that I wanted a long term solution since it was my health on the line. Finding out that I did not have to force something I was unlikely to stick to in order to get the benefits I was looking for was a relief. What use is increased insulin sensitivity after two weeks if the person can't maintain the benefits? That's how a person who is truly concerned about their insulin resistance usually thinks. For those who find low carbing easy and desirable it's a good choice, for those who don't it's not. No need to split hairs when adherence is ultimately the most important deciding factor, especially when long term results from both are very comparable.
You are discussing your dietary preferences and behaviour rather than the evidence I presented ? So we've gone from me just relying on one study to evidence a position to some apocryphal tales about adherence and food preference.
Eat what you like. I really don't care. Don't feel threatened because some study did something different and it worked. Enjoy your fruit.
By all means produce studies (presumably several, mustn't rely on one after all) that show simple calorie restriction to be better at reducing insulin resistance than carbohydrate restriction, if that's the case. Information is always good. I just read one showing how magnesium supplementation improved insulin resistance in Type 2 diabetes, no diet required, and another showing how aerobic exercise didn't improve insulin sensitivity but combined with resistance training it did.
Very low calorie diets increase insulin sensitivity more than do moderate restriction diets. Does that make them a good standard for everyone, especially when after a certain point further increase in insulin sensitivity ceases to be linear or relevant? That's just a fact in a vacuum, as most studies are. I'm not discussing my own preferences, what I'm discussing is that people have preferences and that should be the deciding factor, not dry and cut numbers from a study that are often challenged in terms of generalizing rules for a population due to other factors being at play. Do low carb diets improve insulin resistance more than higher carb diets? They do. Is it a meaningful difference long term? I doubt it. As for producing studies, I won't bother. It's a known consensus among the scientific community that obesity is closely correlated with insulin resistance and that weight loss is closely correlated with increase in insulin sensitivity to the point of diabetes reversal in some of the newly diagnosed.
"Diet and exercise correlate with reversal in newly diagnosed"
Exactly what I was told by my Dr.
We went at it hard with both.
5.4 A1C and dropping every 6 months for a year and a half.
It works for some people. He even said it works for some and give it a full 100% shot and see.
Even my own Dr made no guarantees.
Internet forum warriors can't either.
But if we can maybe help each other find a path that works.... Some of the debate may actually be useful instead of just kicking up dust.
It can work.
You know what really stands up better than peer reviewed articles?
Going to the same gym for a year and a half, dropping 125 lbs and adding muscle.
I get asked almost daily how I did it. No requests for sources! And no arguments telling me my plan won't work. The Internet and real world are so far apart.
Ha!
Have a great weekend.
Agreed. In some it works (note I said some - diabetes is complicated disease). I personally managed it with weight loss alone no carb restriction, and with not as much exercise as I would have liked (chronic pain issues). My blood sugar is now considered normal, and not at the high end of normal either.0 -
To put more control over the constant calorie intake, you would look to setting up a control period and compare.
Yes, but that can be tricky if you want to compare two diets. Many studies do a run-in period on a standard diet to establish maintenance, then split the group into two with both having a change in diet to some extent - so straight away you have an issue in that maintenance on the run-in Diet A has not been demonstrated to be maintenance on either of Diets B and C. On a short study the error introduced can be substantial, whereas on long studies compliance becomes the problem and as you say the best diet is the one that the subject can adhere to.
I do not disagree that there are confounding issues that make for less than ideal variations - however, back to the original point that was made - in order to test what the poster was asserting (at the acute level) - you would need to keep calories constant - which that posted did not agree with. You started out challenging the need to do so but now seem to be agreeing with it (at least in principal) so it appears to me that we have come full circle but ended up on the 'other side of the fence' so to speak.0 -
I do not disagree that there are confounding issues that make for less than ideal variations - however, back to the original point that was made - in order to test what the poster was asserting (at the acute level) - you would need to keep calories constant .
Which "calories" ? Controlling calories *in* does not control the " deficit "0 -
I do not disagree that there are confounding issues that make for less than ideal variations - however, back to the original point that was made - in order to test what the poster was asserting (at the acute level) - you would need to keep calories constant .
Which "calories" ? Controlling calories *in* does not control the " deficit "
I did not say it did.
To clarify - the poster claimed this:
"So when people say 'you are losing body fat because you are in a calorie-deficit', they are confusing cause and effect. I would phrase it as 'you are in a calorie-deficit because your metabolism is burning body fat'. Reducing the carbs is causing your metabolism to burn body fat and as a result you are less hungry and have more energy (which results in the calorie-deficit)."
The claim was challenged by referring to studies that did not show a significant difference in fat loss when calories are held constant.
I am not sure how not holding calories constant can support the claim.
I am not sure how the posted got to the 'less hungry and more energy' logic either in his cause/effect conclusion.
That is what was being challenged by me.
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.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.
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)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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions