Grains and Carbs
Replies
-
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 Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.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 -
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.0 -
We aren't talking about a 66 cal difference but a 294 cal difference. We are talking about the original study you posted.
You are nitpicking and playing word games, I am defending my statement that carbohydrate restriction improved insulin resistance when calorie restriction did not.
Enjoy your game. I'm out.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.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »The whole idea is laughable. How has anyone in the history of ever managed to lose fat before they ever got this study off the ground? The basic composition of my diet has not changed at all, except for the amount I eat. And yet, I've lost 44 pounds.
So you always ate double the average protein before adopting your 1200 calorie low carb high protein approach ?
(100g of carbs being less than the ADA minimum is probably low carb).
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »The whole idea is laughable. How has anyone in the history of ever managed to lose fat before they ever got this study off the ground? The basic composition of my diet has not changed at all, except for the amount I eat. And yet, I've lost 44 pounds.
So you always ate double the average protein before adopting your 1200 calorie low carb high protein approach ?
(100g of carbs being less than the ADA minimum is probably low carb).
Not always, but in the past 5 years or so since becoming a vegetarian? Yup. I love how I get called low carb. I'm low lately because I'm not eating beans. Check next week. I just made lentil loaf. My carb intake is what I'd call moderate. When I have a busy week I tend to turn to eggs because they're quick. I cook different meals for me and my picky husband/kids.
My downfall was that I ate massive quantities of the food I ate. Particularly almond butter and Greek yogurt.
Remember that I'm the person who gained weight low carbing ;-)
0 -
We aren't talking about a 66 cal difference but a 294 cal difference. We are talking about the original study you posted.
You are nitpicking and playing word games, I am defending my statement that carbohydrate restriction improved insulin resistance when calorie restriction did not.
Enjoy your game. I'm out.
Are you seriously basing all of your beliefs on a single (very short) study when there is a whole body of research supporting that weight loss, regardless of macros, improves insulin resistance? I'm personally a living breathing n=1 of this phenomena. I eat a moderate carb moderate protein diet (150-250 g carbs and 40-90 g protein) and I managed to lose more than 90 pounds on an average of 1500 calories a day and my fasting blood sugar went down from an average of 116 (nearly diabetic) to an average of 75 (smack in the middle of normal).
Basing assumptions on one study is not a very scientific practice.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »We aren't talking about a 66 cal difference but a 294 cal difference. We are talking about the original study you posted.
You are nitpicking and playing word games, I am defending my statement that carbohydrate restriction improved insulin resistance when calorie restriction did not.
Enjoy your game. I'm out.
Are you seriously basing all of your beliefs on a single (very short) study when there is a whole body of research supporting that weight loss, regardless of macros, improves insulin resistance? I'm personally a living breathing n=1 of this phenomena. I eat a moderate carb moderate protein diet (150-250 g carbs and 40-90 g protein) and I managed to lose more than 90 pounds on an average of 1500 calories a day and my fasting blood sugar went down from an average of 116 (nearly diabetic) to an average of 75 (smack in the middle of normal).
Basing assumptions on one study is not a very scientific practice.
In these forums there aren't many truly "high carber". The question is: would your result have been different adopting a high carb approach? (just wondering, I don't have the answer).
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »We aren't talking about a 66 cal difference but a 294 cal difference. We are talking about the original study you posted.
You are nitpicking and playing word games, I am defending my statement that carbohydrate restriction improved insulin resistance when calorie restriction did not.
Enjoy your game. I'm out.
Are you seriously basing all of your beliefs on a single (very short) study when there is a whole body of research supporting that weight loss, regardless of macros, improves insulin resistance? I'm personally a living breathing n=1 of this phenomena. I eat a moderate carb moderate protein diet (150-250 g carbs and 40-90 g protein) and I managed to lose more than 90 pounds on an average of 1500 calories a day and my fasting blood sugar went down from an average of 116 (nearly diabetic) to an average of 75 (smack in the middle of normal).
Basing assumptions on one study is not a very scientific practice.
In these forums there aren't many truly "high carber". The question is: would your result have been different adopting a high carb approach? (just wondering, I don't have the answer).
I doubt they would have. In the past during the protein and fat phobia eras people still managed to lose weight and reduce insulin resistance living on high carb low fat "diet" foods. You may also find plenty of people nowadays who follow the 80/10/10 very high carb vegan approach and manage to lose weight and reduce insulin resistance. There is plenty of research on all kinds of macronutrient intakes reducing insulin resistance with weight loss.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Are you seriously basing all of your beliefs on a single (very short) study when there is a whole body of research supporting that weight loss, regardless of macros, improves insulin resistance?
I have read several studies, thank you for your concern. I learned that carbohydrate restriction and indeed intermittent calorie restriction was more effective at reducing insulin resistance than the straight constant calorie restriction compared in the same studies. Especially as it works in a "very short" study and doesn't rely on some prolonged attempt at weight loss with likely lack of success. Fast results vs no results, now let me think.
As a fat middle aged man myself I would have taken away from the study that one diet improved fasting glucose, insulin and insulin sensitivity, and the other did not. I like my feet and eyesight so that's good enough for me.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »The whole idea is laughable. How has anyone in the history of ever managed to lose fat before they ever got this study off the ground? The basic composition of my diet has not changed at all, except for the amount I eat. And yet, I've lost 44 pounds.
So you always ate double the average protein before adopting your 1200 calorie low carb high protein approach ?
(100g of carbs being less than the ADA minimum is probably low carb).
Not always, but in the past 5 years or so since becoming a vegetarian? Yup. I love how I get called low carb. I'm low lately because I'm not eating beans. Check next week. I just made lentil loaf. My carb intake is what I'd call moderate. When I have a busy week I tend to turn to eggs because they're quick. I cook different meals for me and my picky husband/kids.
My downfall was that I ate massive quantities of the food I ate. Particularly almond butter and Greek yogurt.
Remember that I'm the person who gained weight low carbing ;-)
You gained weight over eating
I was able to gain weight on every diet!
Naming diets is just scapegoating.
I am losing weight on a diet of nutrient dense food and personal responsibility.
0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »The whole idea is laughable. How has anyone in the history of ever managed to lose fat before they ever got this study off the ground? The basic composition of my diet has not changed at all, except for the amount I eat. And yet, I've lost 44 pounds.
So you always ate double the average protein before adopting your 1200 calorie low carb high protein approach ?
(100g of carbs being less than the ADA minimum is probably low carb).
Not always, but in the past 5 years or so since becoming a vegetarian? Yup. I love how I get called low carb. I'm low lately because I'm not eating beans. Check next week. I just made lentil loaf. My carb intake is what I'd call moderate. When I have a busy week I tend to turn to eggs because they're quick. I cook different meals for me and my picky husband/kids.
My downfall was that I ate massive quantities of the food I ate. Particularly almond butter and Greek yogurt.
Remember that I'm the person who gained weight low carbing ;-)
You gained weight over eating
I was able to gain weight on every diet!
Naming diets is just scapegoating.
I am losing weight on a diet of nutrient dense food and personal responsibility.
I'm confused. I never claimed otherwise. What's your point? I wasn't making any point to the contrary. The point WAS that I overate.
I think my diet's plenty nutrient dense right now, thank you. My diary is public, have a look if you wish.
0 -
You are welcome, I guess?
There is lots of diet blaming on here
It appears people can make a variety of diets or nutrition plans work.
Sticking to it seems to be the real issue.
I tried low fat
I tried low carb
I tried low calorie
and so many stories start with a try, and end with a reason why some diet won't work.
At least you said you over ate, but blamed low carb like it was the villain.
CICO was the reason. Naming the diet plan you mismanaged seems like more like shifting the blame.
Almost any diet can work.
Or not.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Are you seriously basing all of your beliefs on a single (very short) study when there is a whole body of research supporting that weight loss, regardless of macros, improves insulin resistance?
I have read several studies, thank you for your concern. I learned that carbohydrate restriction and indeed intermittent calorie restriction was more effective at reducing insulin resistance than the straight constant calorie restriction compared in the same studies. Especially as it works in a "very short" study and doesn't rely on some prolonged attempt at weight loss with likely lack of success. Fast results vs no results, now let me think.
As a fat middle aged man myself I would have taken away from the study that one diet improved fasting glucose, insulin and insulin sensitivity, and the other did not. I like my feet and eyesight so that's good enough for me.
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.0 -
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.0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »You are welcome, I guess?
There is lots of diet blaming on here
It appears people can make a variety of diets or nutrition plans work.
Sticking to it seems to be the real issue.
I tried low fat
I tried low carb
I tried low calorie
and so many stories start with a try, and end with a reason why some diet won't work.
At least you said you over ate, but blamed low carb like it was the villain.
CICO was the reason. Naming the diet plan you mismanaged seems like more like shifting the blame.
Almost any diet can work.
Or not.
You misunderstood me.
I wasn't "blaming" low carb at all. That wasn't my intention.
I fully take responsibility for having been an emotional eater who overate. Quite simple.
I, quite simply, had broken hunger signals.
They work much better now.
That's why all diets failed in the past for me. ME. Not the way of eating.
0 -
You are welcome, I guess?
There is lots of diet blaming on here
It appears people can make a variety of dietsamusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Are you seriously basing all of your beliefs on a single (very short) study when there is a whole body of research supporting that weight loss, regardless of macros, improves insulin resistance?
I have read several studies, thank you for your concern. I learned that carbohydrate restriction and indeed intermittent calorie restriction was more effective at reducing insulin resistance than the straight constant calorie restriction compared in the same studies. Especially as it works in a "very short" study and doesn't rely on some prolonged attempt at weight loss with likely lack of success. Fast results vs no results, now let me think.
As a fat middle aged man myself I would have taken away from the study that one diet improved fasting glucose, insulin and insulin sensitivity, and the other did not. I like my feet and eyesight so that's good enough for me.
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 just mentioned some of what my dr and I talked about a couple years ago
Adherence
There were two schools of thought on T2D treatment we discussed. Treat it much like type 1 with drugs and high sugar food reduction, same stuff we hear all the time
Or for people relatively new to the T2D diagnosis, go for reversal. Eat low carb, exercise hard, metformin, CICO driven fat loss. Use higher intensity cardio to burn off blood sugar, and create calorie deficit.
I had a Dr of the first persuasion for a while and fired him. Got a Dr of the second school of thought and followed instructions and worked hard.
And it worked for me. I feel lucky too.
As you pointed out, adherence was key. It was the first diet I ever actually stuck to. I can't say a high carb diet wouldn't have been good for me when I was younger and not fat. If I would have stuck to and not got fat it probably would have been fine. Water under the bridge though.
Best wishes on your fitness and health goals.
0 -
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.
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.
You're really linking to itsthewoo, next you'll link to Fred Hahn, he has as much credibility.0 -
We aren't talking about a 66 cal difference but a 294 cal difference. We are talking about the original study you posted.
You are nitpicking and playing word games, I am defending my statement that carbohydrate restriction improved insulin resistance when calorie restriction did not.
Enjoy your game. I'm out.
You never answered this, guess it's nitpicking and playing word games, not that you have no idea what you're talking about and can't even be consistent in your statements.
"You just quoted the authors who said energy intake was significantly lower with the low carb group, now you're saying the LC intake was similar. Was it similar or significantly different?"
You have been unable to defend your statement and have just dug your heels into the ground. It is your personal belief that a significantly lower energy intake and the corresponding greater weight/fat loss had zero effect on the outcome, yet have been unable to actually show that. The authors nor you quantified how much the difference in intake and other variables correlated to the improvement in IR. So until that is done you have done nothing to defend your statement and instead like many have made a baseless claim in the context that the only support offered up does not support your claim.
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.
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions