Please explain low carbs and it's magical proprieties

Mr_Knight

The poster was asking a question about HOW the diet worked.

I had assumed OP was asking about how the diet worked for healthy individuals without a specific medical condition.



Oh, MFP...

...a nice variation on "SURPRISE MEDICAL CONDITION!"

:laugh:

Some folks are going to find a way to pick a fight, no matter what.

:drinker:

Sarahnade42x

Excellent background.
I am not sure if I have crossed swords with you before- maybe on that ridiculous glycogen hydration thread.
You should take a look a Hagan's pilot study as he reports it in "Breakfast is the least important meal of the day". Its the kindle version, but the first ten pages are free.
Basically, he found great benefits to the fasting state produced by skipping breakfast, even though people had no eating restriction for the ten hour period following that started at noon.
People's perception of hunger changed, they felt less stress, slept better. And they lost weight.
Even more intriguing, a weight-lifter found his was GAINING strength, with an improved recovery time.
As you know, in the fasting, or stress reaction, state, you not only get cortisol and epinephrine, but growth hormone and glucogon as well.
I think the daily growth hormone burst explains a lot of the benefits.
As well as simple learned behavior.
For anyone pursuing a higher degree in those fields, I think it would make the basis of a great study- a study that would actually MEAN something in the grand scheme of things.

Hi Steve, I usually stay away from the "science" threads on MFP, but I guess I got pulled into this one. That Hagan study sounds interesting, but I wonder whether or not the benefits were specific to skipping breakfast (i.e. does the time of fasting matter?). There are many many many fascinating studies about intermittent fasting & caloric restriction out there. In fact, I took a year-long course on the biology of aging and learned that dietary restriction is considered the *only scientifically proven method to slow aging (edit#2: technically this should be "increase lifespan")* in addition to having several other health benefits. (If anyone wants to argue with me about that, I have lots and LOTS of literature to share...). The resulting stress response via SOD/sir2/IGF pathways is profound, and worth reading about if you have a biochem background and are interested in this sort of topic!

(edit:typo)

wheird

I started college full time at 15 and am a month from 20, so yes. I'm taking an extra year for a genetics degree as well. I have extensive organic/biochemistry lab experience and worked in a phys research lab (heavily biochem/biotech based) for two years before joining my current lab. My age isn't that relevant, but thanks for noticing :glasses:

How on earth did you start college full time at 15? (I'm not suggesting that your age supports or detracts from your positions, I'm just very surprised.)

Mr_Knight

In fact, I took a year-long course on the biology of aging and learned that dietary restriction is considered the *only scientifically proven method to slow aging (edit#2: technically this should be "increase lifespan")* in addition to having several other health benefits. (If anyone wants to argue with me about that, I have lots and LOTS of literature to share...).

I don't want to argue with you but I would certainly appreciate seeing some of the non-glossy-magazine literature on the topic.

Sarahnade42x

I started college full time at 15 and am a month from 20, so yes. I'm taking an extra year for a genetics degree as well. I have extensive organic/biochemistry lab experience and worked in a phys research lab (heavily biochem/biotech based) for two years before joining my current lab. My age isn't that relevant, but thanks for noticing :glasses:

How on earth did you start college full time at 15? (I'm not suggesting that your age supports or detracts from your positions, I'm just very surprised.)

I got lucky -- MN is one of very few states that allows a small number of high school students to go to college full time beginning their junior year. I'm a fairly ambitious person and wanted the challenge (and the two years of free tuition, fees and textbooks ^.^).

supaflyrobby

College at 15? I must say, I am impressed. Not that I thought you sucked beforehand Sarah

I took a couple of college classes as a senior in HS, but I can't imagine being a full time undergrad student at 15. I would of probably been found dead in a ditch somewhere with a beer bong super glued to my lips had I of attempted it.

Hell, it took me 5 years to finish my undergrad, and another 2 and a half for my graduate degree (my masters thesis was a bit of a stumbling block). I was a CIS student (mathematics minor) as an undergrad, and studied back end programming logic (CSS, PHP) as a grad student.

KayNowayJose

The poster was asking a question about HOW the diet worked.

I had assumed OP was asking about how the diet worked for healthy individuals without a specific medical condition.



Oh, MFP...

...a nice variation on "SURPRISE MEDICAL CONDITION!"

:laugh:

Some folks are going to find a way to pick a fight, no matter what.

:drinker:

Considering you will not stop, I see so.

I had posted a link quoting another topic, giving credit to the OP, on how it works beforehand.

I was not aware that this site only had one purpose.

Quote myfitnesspal on facebook

"MyFitnessPal is a free and easy nutrition and fitness system that helps anyone achieve good health. Our powerful tools get you fit...and keep you there."

Note "Good health"....and "anyone"

"Good health" is what lead me to respond to her, the two of us have come to a conclusion. I hope we can do the same :-)

Yanicka1

Thank you to those who took the time to answer my question

jkleon86

My sister lost a lot of weight on the Atkins diet and has kept it off for 3 years now and pretty much eats anything she want now just not in large amounts. The fats does curb your apatite and a study was done and they found that if you eat til your satisfied and not stuffed you will eat less calories on Atkins, my understanding of eating all the pork chops or bacon you wanted and still lose was just that. I ended up eating to many calories instead of just enough to satisfy my hunger. then I got tired of it and failed. This time I have a better understanding of what not to do.......................I hope, so far so good. 37 lb in 7 weeks

wheird

I started college full time at 15 and am a month from 20, so yes. I'm taking an extra year for a genetics degree as well. I have extensive organic/biochemistry lab experience and worked in a phys research lab (heavily biochem/biotech based) for two years before joining my current lab. My age isn't that relevant, but thanks for noticing :glasses:

How on earth did you start college full time at 15? (I'm not suggesting that your age supports or detracts from your positions, I'm just very surprised.)

I got lucky -- MN is one of very few states that allows a small number of high school students to go to college full time beginning their junior year. I'm a fairly ambitious person and wanted the challenge (and the two years of free tuition, fees and textbooks ^.^).

I'm more than a little impressed.

Sarahnade42x

In fact, I took a year-long course on the biology of aging and learned that dietary restriction is considered the *only scientifically proven method to slow aging (edit#2: technically this should be "increase lifespan")* in addition to having several other health benefits. (If anyone wants to argue with me about that, I have lots and LOTS of literature to share...).

I don't want to argue with you but I would certainly appreciate seeing some of the non-glossy-magazine literature on the topic.

Of course! It's been awhile since I've read through them thoroughly, but I'll try and post the best ones. Note that many of these are studies using reliable animal models instead of people, because it's generally not practical or ethical to make already healthy, lean humans restrict caloric intake for long periods of time (Okinawa and Biosphere 2 are the best human examples to look up if you'd like). Also note that caloric restriction is NOT the same as starvation or undernutrition - all nutritional needs are met, but the total caloric intake is decreased by 30-40% from ad libitum conditions. I've also read quite a bit about rapamycin and resveratrol as potential lifespan-extenders. This is a really, really interesting topic -- if anyone wants more articles or discussion, let me know

Guarente & Sinclair (2006). Unlocking the Secrets of Longevity Genes.
Okay, this one is a little bit glossy (Scientific American), but it's written by the Harvard researchers behind a lot of the sir2 pathway studies and is a really good, easy but in-depth read: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/labor/aging/rsi/rsi_papers/2008/sinclair3.pdf
A great excerpt that pretty much sums up everything: http://snapplr.com/x7da (Also, the end of that paragraph says that an apparent tradeoff is fertility; that's true in a lot of studies, but at the same time, recombination studies in Drosophila show that increased lifespan + reduced fertility are NOT a result of antagonistic pleiotropy and are separable)

Results from Sohal (1996): "(i) Overexpression of antioxidative enzymes retards the age-related accrual of oxidative damage and extends the maximum life-span of transgenic Drosophila melanogaster. (ii) Variations in longevity among different species inversely correlate with the rates of mitochondrial generation of the superoxide anion radical (O2) and hydrogen peroxide. (iii) Restriction of caloric intake lowers steady-state levels of oxidative stress and damage, retards age-associated changes, and extends the maximum life-span in mammals."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8658196

Results from Kwan et al 2008:"Using bacterial food deprivation as a means of DR in C. elegans, we show that transient DR confers long-term benefits including stress resistance and increased longevity. Consistent with studies in the fruit fly and in mice, we demonstrate that DR also enhances survival when initiated late in life."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18457595

Mattison et al 2012: (For the skeptics who don't like Drosophila or C elegans studies...this was a Rhesus monkey study published in Nature last year). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22932268
Abstract: "Calorie restriction (CR), a reduction of 10–40% in intake of a nutritious diet, is often reported as the most robust non-genetic mechanism to extend lifespan and healthspan. CR is frequently used as a tool to understand mechanisms behind ageing and age-associated diseases. In addition to and independently of increasing lifespan, CR has been reported to delay or prevent the occurrence of many chronic diseases in a variety of animals. Beneficial effects of CR on outcomes such as immune function, motor coordination and resistance to sarcopenia in rhesus monkeys have recently been reported. We report here that a CR regimen implemented in young and older age rhesus monkeys at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) has not improved survival outcomes. Our findings contrast with an ongoing study at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC), which reported improved survival associated with 30% CR initiated in adult rhesus monkeys (7–14 years) and a preliminary report with a small number of CR monkeys. Over the years, both NIA and WNPRC have extensively documented beneficial health effects of CR in these two apparently parallel studies. The implications of the WNPRC findings were important as they extended CR findings beyond the laboratory rodent and to a long-lived primate. Our study suggests a separation between health effects, morbidity and mortality, and similar to what has been shown in rodents, study design, husbandry and diet composition may strongly affect the life-prolonging effect of CR in a long-lived nonhuman primate."

KayNowayJose

Thanks for posting that....many years from now, if my fiance and I do decide to have children, I've considered genetic testing beforehand, the first piece I'll probably add to my health file to reference at some point, even if only as a small medium.

Sarahnade42x

Excellent background.
I am not sure if I have crossed swords with you before- maybe on that ridiculous glycogen hydration thread.
You should take a look a Hagan's pilot study as he reports it in "Breakfast is the least important meal of the day". Its the kindle version, but the first ten pages are free.
Basically, he found great benefits to the fasting state produced by skipping breakfast, even though people had no eating restriction for the ten hour period following that started at noon.
People's perception of hunger changed, they felt less stress, slept better. And they lost weight.
Even more intriguing, a weight-lifter found his was GAINING strength, with an improved recovery time.
As you know, in the fasting, or stress reaction, state, you not only get cortisol and epinephrine, but growth hormone and glucogon as well.
I think the daily growth hormone burst explains a lot of the benefits.
As well as simple learned behavior.
For anyone pursuing a higher degree in those fields, I think it would make the basis of a great study- a study that would actually MEAN something in the grand scheme of things.

Hi Steve, I usually stay away from the "science" threads on MFP, but I guess I got pulled into this one. That Hagan study sounds interesting, but I wonder whether or not the benefits were specific to skipping breakfast (i.e. does the time of fasting matter?). There are many many many fascinating studies about intermittent fasting & caloric restriction out there. In fact, I took a year-long course on the biology of aging and learned that dietary restriction is considered the *only scientifically proven method to slow aging (edit#2: technically this should be "increase lifespan")* in addition to having several other health benefits. (If anyone wants to argue with me about that, I have lots and LOTS of literature to share...). The resulting stress response via SOD/sir2/IGF pathways is profound, and worth reading about if you have a biochem background and are interested in this sort of topic!

(edit:typo)

According to Hagan, it really has to be breakfast, for several reasons.

-the fat-burning process is not interrupted, assuming that it begins about 8 hours after the last meal at evening. Eating in the morning would shift the dominant process back to burning carbs, and maybe making fat, hagan didn;t want that.

-there is the physiological factor of compliance...you get up, shower up, and go to work, and don;t eat until noon. If it is tough, fantasize about what you WILL eat once the noon bell sounds.

-the purpose of the approach is to build a routine that people can use for the rest of their lives. Hagan found in his small number of people that even though the weight loss was slow, people kept on skipping breakfast because they liked how they felt otherwise. And, of course, weight loss should be slow... that is the best kind.

-Hagan found that even though there were no limits on the "eat" period, people reported that they could not eat as much as before, even though the period of enforced fasting was during the morning. Their report of hunger pangs and urges were similar to those who fast completely- i.e. the hunger pangs go away after a few days. So there is real change in the stomach due to this daily fast.

These are hardly surprising results, given that eating a hearty breakfast is almost totally an invention of modern western civilization.

Throughout recorded history, health and longevity is associated with those who eat lightly or fast.

Ascetics in all civilizations, while maybe not stating it directly, feel that eating is a corruption.

One group in Egypt only ate at night and not during the day. They did not want God to see them eat!

So check out Hagan, and if you are someone out to make your mark, clinical research along these lines could prove to be very fruitful.

be forewarned that the breakfast food companies, and all the diet food and exercise folks will be lined up against you, as they probably are for hagan!!!

-

Interesting. I'll look into his pilot study when I get the chance (I'm assuming it's not published anywhere but in his book?). I don't know how convinced I'll be, but any research that has the potential to affect big businesses is worth looking into more critically. It's a shame how frequently good solid science is being pushed aside for that reason (the Seralini affair/Monsanto comes to mind).
I'm curious, is there a reason why you're so interested in Hagan and this topic in particular? Have you tried following his recommendations?

Ideabaker

If you can, go watch the documentary "The Perfect Human Diet"--it'll give you a better idea of how our bodies use our food, particularly how it deals with sugars (& carbohydrates which convert into sugars) FIRST in its energy breakdown process because it is a much easier chemically to break down than proteins and fats. When you get all of your energy from the breakdown of sugar, the fats and protein are stored for later use. The basic premise of eating low carb is that you're depriving your body of the "easy" energy source and making it work harder by breaking down more complex chemical compounds. (This is why low carb diets such as Atkins allow limited "complex carbohydrates" as they take much longer to break down.)

The documentary delves into blood sugar/insulin spikes and how that makes us hungry more often, too, but it's been a while since I've watched it so I'm not going to reiterate science that I can't fully remember.

All that said... Some people can eat low carb and not have to watch their calories & still lose weight. That is NOT the case for me. I have to keep a close eye on my calorie intake and still maintain a deficit. I enjoy eating low carb because I feel a lot more energetic and healthy since it curbs my hypoglycemia. It's not "magic" by any means, just another path you can take on your weightloss journey

Thanks for a helpful reply. I'm going to seek out that documentary as I don't understand the whole 'low carb advantage' either...

fruttibiscotti

Interesting. I'll look into his pilot study when I get the chance (I'm assuming it's not published anywhere but in his book?). I don't know how convinced I'll be, but any research that has the potential to affect big businesses is worth looking into more critically. It's a shame how frequently good solid science is being pushed aside for that reason (the Seralini affair/Monsanto comes to mind).
I'm curious, is there a reason why you're so interested in Hagan and this topic in particular? Have you tried following his recommendations?

Seralini has published, but the paper has been disputed and is facing retraction. News release came out recently:

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/

There's a thread blog on MFP relating to this and the sloppy research that went into this paper that got it pulled.

Sarahnade42x

Seralini has published, but the paper has been disputed and is facing retraction. News release came out recently:

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/

There's a thread blog on MFP relating to this and the sloppy research that went into this paper that got it pulled.

Oh I know, I've been following the whole process closely. I work with GMOs on a regular basis and the outcome of the affair could mean a lot for the entire field -- in a way, I have some incentive to support the article being retracted, but I have mixed feelings about whether that would be the right thing to do.
I've read Seralini's original research a few times and agree that some aspects are not the best, but I also think that much, much sloppier research has been published and not retracted. Usually when that happens, the study's flaws are noted but it's still allowed to act as a starting point for future, improved studies. Seralini's study definitely has its merits and would have at least served as an introduction to the possibility that GMOs are not safe for consumption. The fact that it's being retracted for its relatively minor flaws makes me think that there are probably some serious business moves happening that are more about money than science, and that's really disappointing.

fruttibiscotti

Seralini has published, but the paper has been disputed and is facing retraction. News release came out recently:

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/

There's a thread blog on MFP relating to this and the sloppy research that went into this paper that got it pulled.

Oh I know, I've been following the whole process closely. I work with GMOs on a regular basis and the outcome of the affair could mean a lot for the entire field -- in a way, I have some incentive to support the article being retracted, but I have mixed feelings about whether that would be the right thing to do.
I've read Seralini's original research a few times and agree that some aspects are not the best, but I also think that much, much sloppier research has been published and not retracted. Usually when that happens, the study's flaws are noted but it's still allowed to act as a starting point for future, improved studies. Seralini's study definitely has its merits and would have at least served as an introduction to the possibility that GMOs are not safe for consumption. The fact that it's being retracted for its relatively minor flaws makes me think that there are probably some serious business moves happening that are more about money than science, and that's really disappointing.

I'm sad about the case too, don't want to see GMO continuing to pick up the pace. But, Seralini really screwed it up. Had rats feeding on tested substrates ad libidum, not well tracked, and test subjects euthanized to comply with ethics regulations, which screwed up the mortality data. I'm disappointed about this, a lot of time was spent, and a poorly designed pilot fell apart.

Mr_Knight

IMO the reasons Seralini is being retracted are anything but minor, and his published results border on the deceitful.

But that's a discussion for another thread.

jofjltncb6

(I am nominating Sarahnade42x for "MFP's most reasonable, intelligent, and well-spoken member" in the 19 and under category. My hope for humanity's future has been slightly restored tonight.

Anyhow, sorry for the interruption. Carry on.)

servilia

Bump