Low Carb, Paleo. Is this nonsense or science?

ndj1979

here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…

Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..

you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…

calories in vs calories out...

This isn't about losing weight.

It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..

Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk

ndj1979

here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…

Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..

you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…

calories in vs calories out...

This isn't about losing weight.

It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..

Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk

No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.

i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...

ndj1979

here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…

Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..

you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…

calories in vs calories out...

This isn't about losing weight.

It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..

Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk

No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.

i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...

I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.

maybe you should start a private group then...

toddis

I'd say there are 16 articles linked on that page, read the summaries from them. Of course,they are probably hen picked to prove a point. You could always do a pubmed or google scholar search for terms like LCHF or paleo and see what the evidence shows.

The part about low fat being debunked I think is pretty solid at this point. Also it seems to me it points out the fallacy of demonizing any specific part of the diet and glorifying other parts.

Sabine_Stroehm

here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…

Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..

you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…

calories in vs calories out...

This isn't about losing weight.

It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..

Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk

No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.

i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...

I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.

maybe you should start a private group then...

And when folks do that, jonnythan and company complain that folks start private groups because they don't want to entertain any other info...

KayNowayJose

I apologize, I'm on a Keto diet, so that's what my resources are on. I have looked at a few Paleo books in some book stores before but they didn't fit my needs so I didn't get them, although many of sources on link one do define themselves as just "low carb". As to what I've read into so far, I have found The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable: by Dr. Jeff Volek, and Dr. Stephen Phinney to be the most helpful.

http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/resources.html

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/4/901S.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23632752

http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/ketosis.html

http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

Mr_Knight

White rice (aka processed rice) was introduced to Asia back in the 50's I think which was when Asians began to acquire type 2diabetes just like Americans.

How do people manage to come up with such obvious nonsense with so much information available with just a few keystrokes?

Extensive use of polished rice in Asia goes back to the 1600s.

QuietBloom

Honestly, there just isn't enough evidence to say that definitely Paleolithic people ate a certain way and it resulted in a better life for them (longer, healthier, less arthritis, etc.). According to dig sites, they did eat grains and legumes, though not in the quantities we do today, because they gathered them rather than grew them. They were more resistant to starvation because they could follow their food supply and weren't tied down to crops that needed rain. They had fewer diseases because they didn't live in large groups and could simply pack up and move if camp got too filthy. They were more active, because they moved all the time. There were a lot of reasons why they might have been healthier beyond just their diet.

And there isn't enough evidence to say that humans today would benefit by adopting a Paleolithic diet, though I believe they are beginning some preliminary studies in pigs. At this point, it is all theory and conjecture, though certainly very interesting.

mike_ny

I've been low carb and high fat for almost a year and besides losing over 40 pounds and getting fit from calorie deficits and exercise, my blood tests for Triglycerides, HDL, LDL, etc... have never been better. I'm eating over 50% of calories from fat and trying to keep carbs under 100 grams a day and my doctor is so impressed by the results, he just says to keep doing whatever I'm doing. He's fine with Paleo. He says as long as I keep the carbs down and stay within my burned calories, that eating lots of fat is no problem at all. The body burns fat just fine as a primary fuel source.

A few years back,when I was eating lots of carbs (with a lot of it whole grains) and relatively low fat, my lipid numbers were all at or over the upper target ranges. Now they're way below the low healthy targets. Getting my needed protein, cutting way back on carbs, and eating all the rest as fat has made all the difference in fitness, health, and feeling better than I have in decades. So, these changes I've had aren't just anecdotal. I've got hard numbers to back up the results.

Just try it for a few months. If it doesn't work for you, then you haven't lost much trying. If it does work for you, it'll totally change your life.

toddis

I'm always wary of any population that evangelizes and tries to convert people...

OP, the way to learn to read studies is to...read the studies. Note that some only apply to diabetics, or to a subset of the population under specific conditions, etc. Note whether it was well controlled or looked at the facts in a skewed manner. Do they pinpoint one variable over others... ignoring certain diseases in favor of better results in other diseases.

Personal opinion from anecdotes of people I know on paleo. It works strongly on the nocebo effect. People hear on the news all this hubbub about gluten intolerance, lactose intolerance,etc. They try Paleo, and viola, all better.

neandermagnon

Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.

I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.

I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.

I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.

What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?

Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.

Thanks.

And not a single journal of palaeoanthropology was quoted that day........


what does my head in about the "paleo" diet is the complete, utter, total and absolute lack of any knowledge about palaeoanthropology.

"the paleo diet" = eating what some health guru who's never studied palaeoanthropology thinks that "cavemen" ate, or what they think "neanderthals" ate even though they can't actually pronounce the word "neanderthal" correctly

toddis

I've been low carb and high fat for almost a year and besides losing over 40 pounds and getting fit from calorie deficits and exercise, my blood tests for Triglycerides, HDL, LDL, etc... have never been better. I'm eating over 50% of calories from fat and trying to keep carbs under 100 grams a day and my doctor is so impressed by the results, he just says to keep doing whatever I'm doing. He's fine with Paleo. He says as long as I keep the carbs down and stay within my burned calories, that eating lots of fat is no problem at all. The body burns fat just fine as a primary fuel source.

A few years back,when I was eating lots of carbs (with a lot of it whole grains) and relatively low fat, my lipid numbers were all at or over the upper target ranges. Now they're way below the low healthy targets. Getting my needed protein, cutting way back on carbs, and eating all the rest as fat has made all the difference in fitness, health, and feeling better than I have in decades. So, these changes I've had aren't just anecdotal. I've got hard numbers to back up the results.

Just try it for a few months. If it doesn't work for you, then you haven't lost much trying. If it does work for you, it'll totally change your life.

As noted by the A to Z study "It could not be determined whether the benefits were attributable specifically to the low carbohydrate intake vs other aspects of the diet (eg, high protein intake)."

tigersword

The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.

It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.

The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)

tigersword

Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science

I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.

I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.

I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.

I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.

What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?

Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.

Thanks.

I say there's no merit to the site, because the site seems specifically geared toward the paleo/low carb diet. Of course they are going to show supporting studies. Unfortunately, that's called cherry picking. Unbiased science will show studies both supporting paleo, and then other studies supporting the opposite approach (of which there are many.) a real science site will discuss the flaws, and the dissenting points, and potential confounders, and all the things you've asked about. If a site in question doesn't do that, then it isn't an unbiased site, and shouldn't be used for scientific study.

Real science should always present both sides of the argument before giving the conclusion (which, at its core, is an opinion based on available data.)

EmSainz

The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.

It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.

The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)

There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.

Excessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.

- Lyle Mcdonald Project

EmSainz

here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…

Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..

you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…

calories in vs calories out...

This isn't about losing weight.

It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..

Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk

No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.

i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...

I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.

maybe you should start a private group then...

I don't see how that helps at all. I want varied answers. I'm just trying to be clear that I'm not looking for opinions on Paleo or low carb. I'm specifically asking about the research that is cited. I'm not knowledgable enough to read meta-data studies and see where it is wrong. Others here often seem to be able to view the research and then point out its weaknesses or strengths. I'm seeking people who can confirm or deny, or argue, the legitimacy of the studies I cited. I'm hoping to leave emotion and opinions on the style of dieting out of it, and discuss the research.

The stuff from Alan Aragon was pretty solid.

You might like this video, it's about an hour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwbY12qZcF4

This video is about a chemist who found a lot of flaws in how people rate the quality of food. He came up with his own method. It's based on nutritional density. His lecture shows that grains have pretty low nutritional density. When grains are raw, they appear to have high nutritional density but we can't eat grains in that state so it's pointless. If I remember correctly, meats with the highest nutritional density are organ meats. Of course vegetables, russet potatoes have more nutrition and sweet potatoes.

tigersword

The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.

It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.

The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)

There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.

Excessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.

- Lyle Mcdonald Project

I'm talking about empirical numbers. 1 calorie of protein burns 0.2-0.23 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of carbs burns 0.1-0.15 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of fat burns 0.02-0.03 calories for digestion. Start with the standard recommendation of 50 carb, 20 protein, 30 fat, using 2000 calories for a base.

1000 calories of carbs will need about 100-150 calories for digestion (we'll call it 125.)

400 calories of protein will need about 80-92 calories for digestion (again, split the difference, call it 86.)

600 calories of fat will need about 12-18 calories for digestion (so we'll say 15.)

So that's about 301 calories for TEF.

Now, let's go with a low carb, high fat plan. Let's say 20% carbs, 30% protein, 50% fat, still using 2000 calories.

400 calories of carbs will need 40-60 calories for digestion (50.)

600 calories of protein will need 120-138 calories for digestion (129.)

1000 calories of fat will need 20-30 calories for digestion (25.)

So the low carb plan totals about 204 calories for TEF.

Notice something? While the 10% increase in protein boosted calorie burn specifically for protein, overall, the low carb diet actually produced a LOWER over all thermogenic effect.

Like I said, it's insignificant, bordering on irrelevant.

Also, I'm not sure you quite understood the point of the quote you quoted. It's not about protein, it's about why Lyle recommends higher fat with lower carbs. He does it specifically to reduce the thermogenic effect.