Do you believe in strictly Calories In - Calories Out?
Replies
-
What do you think would happen to those values if the Atwater factors for carbs shifted to say 4,1 or 4.4?
the insulin sensitivity and blood values ? I don't think they would be affected at all.
If CICO uses the "wrong" factors for CI then if the value you propose were the only thing to change then the calorie deficits would be different from what the study set out to do, if it were only carbs the error would clearly be bigger in the higher carb case.
If the factors are in doubt that would be another reason to say "no" to the original question. I can't believe in strictly anything if you're telling me the factors are uncertain.
Edit to add - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649/T2.expansion.html shows some difficulty in deciding how much carbohydrate is present, let alone its energy value.0 -
Calories In/Calories Out ALWAYS works one way - if you eat more calories than you expend, you're going to gain weight, no question about it. However, suppose your body doesn't like carbs for genetic reasons. You could eat 1000 calories, and your body might decide to convert 200 of those into fat right away and only allow you 800 calories of energy. What then?
There's a reason we're told not to eat fewer than 1200 calories each day - the body really can (and does) get picky about how it works with those calories.
Your body uses it's fat stores for energy then.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.0 -
Calories In/Calories Out ALWAYS works one way - if you eat more calories than you expend, you're going to gain weight, no question about it. However, suppose your body doesn't like carbs for genetic reasons. You could eat 1000 calories, and your body might decide to convert 200 of those into fat right away and only allow you 800 calories of energy. What then?
There's a reason we're told not to eat fewer than 1200 calories each day - the body really can (and does) get picky about how it works with those calories.
Your body uses it's fat stores for energy then.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.
Your energy levels may go down - but your body uses fat (and sometimes muscle) for energy if it does not have other reserves - otherwise you would be dead.0 -
Calories In/Calories Out ALWAYS works one way - if you eat more calories than you expend, you're going to gain weight, no question about it. However, suppose your body doesn't like carbs for genetic reasons. You could eat 1000 calories, and your body might decide to convert 200 of those into fat right away and only allow you 800 calories of energy. What then?
There's a reason we're told not to eat fewer than 1200 calories each day - the body really can (and does) get picky about how it works with those calories.
Your body uses it's fat stores for energy then.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.
Your energy levels may go down - but your body uses fat (and sometimes muscle) for energy if it does not have other reserves - otherwise you would be dead.
Sure, absolutely. But people want to lose fat, not muscle, as a general rule. And if you've got a set up that makes that more difficult because of wonky glucose metabolism, it's a really uphill battle.
If you're never experienced insulin resistance, it's really hard. It's the equivalent often of feeling like you've eaten a lot less calories than you really have -- like you're on a starvation diet, when you're not because the glucose isn't getting into the cells like it should. It feels like you have low blood sugar when you don't -- so you get hungry like a person with low blood sugar does. Then, if you eat, more of that glucose is stored as fat because the dump of insulin forces the cells to take up the energy and more gets stored since you really didn't need it in the first place. It takes a lot more "willpower" than is normally needed in a regular weight loss regime because of this issue. So, people correct to some degree with lowering carbs and medication sometimes.
It's similar to hypothyroid issues. The answer isn't just to keep reducing your calories until you're at bad levels -- like less than 1000/day. People with untreated hypothyroid are often plagued with terrible fatigue. The answer isn't to say, "hey, your CO is really low, so just eat less to compensate." The answer is to try and figure out your issues to bring your levels within "normal" range.0 -
Calories In/Calories Out ALWAYS works one way - if you eat more calories than you expend, you're going to gain weight, no question about it. However, suppose your body doesn't like carbs for genetic reasons. You could eat 1000 calories, and your body might decide to convert 200 of those into fat right away and only allow you 800 calories of energy. What then?
There's a reason we're told not to eat fewer than 1200 calories each day - the body really can (and does) get picky about how it works with those calories.
Your body uses it's fat stores for energy then.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.
Your energy levels may go down - but your body uses fat (and sometimes muscle) for energy if it does not have other reserves - otherwise you would be dead.
Sure, absolutely. But people want to lose fat, not muscle, as a general rule. And if you've got a set up that makes that more difficult because of wonky glucose metabolism, it's a really uphill battle.
If you're never experienced insulin resistance, it's really hard. It's the equivalent often of feeling like you've eaten a lot less calories than you really have -- like you're on a starvation diet, when you're not. It takes a lot more "willpower" than is normally needed in a regular weight loss regime because of this issue. So, people correct to some degree with lowering carbs and medication sometimes.
It's similar to hypothyroid issues. The answer isn't just to keep reducing your calories until you're at bad levels -- like less than 1000/day. People with untreated hypothyroid are often plagued with terrible fatigue. The answer isn't to say, "hey, your CO is really low, so just eat less to compensate." The answer is to try and figure out your issues to bring your levels within "normal" range.
Of course it is, nobody is saying that that isn't the optimal solution. But it still doesn't invalidate that CICO is the single most important factor related to losing weight.0 -
Calories In/Calories Out ALWAYS works one way - if you eat more calories than you expend, you're going to gain weight, no question about it. However, suppose your body doesn't like carbs for genetic reasons. You could eat 1000 calories, and your body might decide to convert 200 of those into fat right away and only allow you 800 calories of energy. What then?
There's a reason we're told not to eat fewer than 1200 calories each day - the body really can (and does) get picky about how it works with those calories.
Your body uses it's fat stores for energy then.
Except that it sometimes doesn't work quite that linearly. Sometimes, you just feel terrible -- super tired because the energy isn't there. And hungry. And, so you either grin and bear it and feel terrible or you eat more -- which is why insulin resistance makes losing weight so difficult.
Your energy levels may go down - but your body uses fat (and sometimes muscle) for energy if it does not have other reserves - otherwise you would be dead.
Sure, absolutely. But people want to lose fat, not muscle, as a general rule. And if you've got a set up that makes that more difficult because of wonky glucose metabolism, it's a really uphill battle.
If you're never experienced insulin resistance, it's really hard. It's the equivalent often of feeling like you've eaten a lot less calories than you really have -- like you're on a starvation diet, when you're not because the glucose isn't getting into the cells like it should. It feels like you have low blood sugar when you don't -- so you get hungry like a person with low blood sugar does. Then, if you eat, more of that glucose is stored as fat because the dump of insulin forces the cells to take up the energy and more gets stored since you really didn't need it in the first place. It takes a lot more "willpower" than is normally needed in a regular weight loss regime because of this issue. So, people correct to some degree with lowering carbs and medication sometimes.
It's similar to hypothyroid issues. The answer isn't just to keep reducing your calories until you're at bad levels -- like less than 1000/day. People with untreated hypothyroid are often plagued with terrible fatigue. The answer isn't to say, "hey, your CO is really low, so just eat less to compensate." The answer is to try and figure out your issues to bring your levels within "normal" range.
I realize that most people want to lose only fat - I am not sure what further point you are making here, other than that you have made. I was responding to the person who made the post - and I am not sure what your response to my comment has to do with that.0 -
Ugh, I got to page 14 or something and wanted to quote and respond and now I can't! Damn roll! :mad:
Anyway, way back several pages ago Lindsay? posted a study "Insulin Sensitivity Determines the Effectiveness of Dietary Macronutrient Composition on Weight Loss in Obese Women" as evidence against CICO in these situations.
I would like to comment on this study. The groups were very small at only n=4. Apart from 3 day food diaries and food provided, there was no other way to monitor intake. I don't believe that the result has been replicated since. There are other studies that report no difference in weight loss under similar circumstances. eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17023708
Fifty-seven randomly assigned, insulin-resistant, obese persons completed a 16-wk calorie-restricted diet with 15% of energy as protein and either 60% and 25% or 40% and 45% of energy as carbohydrate and fat, respectively. Weight loss with 60% or 40% of energy as carbohydrate (5.7 +/- 0.7 or 6.9 +/- 0.7 kg, respectively) did not differ significantly, and improvement in insulin sensitivity correlated with the amount of weight lost (r = 0.50, P < 0.001).
To cite the first study as evidence against CICO is a stretch IMO.
That's it.
I'm probably late to the party and it's moved on by now...sorry :laugh:
I'm not familiar with the study you quoted, but it appears from what you stated, that there were significant differences. 5.7 versus 6.9 kgs (or 12.56 vs. 15.21 lbs) is a 21% difference. Sure, it's not a 80-100% difference like was shown in the other study. But, to say that's not significant, I completely disagree with that. I'd also like to see the difference in amount of insulin resistance (sorry, didn't read study, so perhaps it addresses) as the greater the insulin resistance, the greater the difference in carbs is likely going to make.
And, for anecdotal evidence, go check out an insulin resistance board, like the PCOS board -- you'll find a lot of people will say that they had to lower carbs to see results, or better results.
Nope, it's statistically not significant whether you disagree or not. Have a look at the error bars. The groups overlap. 5.7 +/- 0.7 = 5-6.4 and 6.9 +/- 0.7 = 6.2-7.6
"Weight loss with 60% or 40% of energy as carbohydrate (5.7 +/- 0.7 or 6.9 +/- 0.7 kg, respectively) did not differ significantly." There is no statistically significant difference.0 -
A p value <0.05 would generally be considered statistically significant.I'm not familiar with the study you quoted, but it appears from what you stated, that there were significant differents. 5.7 versus 6.9 kgs (or 12.56 vs. 15.21 lbs) is a 21% difference. Sure, it's not a 80-100% difference like was shown in the other study. But, to say that's not significant, I completely disagree with that. I'd also like to see the difference in amount of insulin resistance (sorry, didn't read study, so perhaps it addresses) as the greater the insulin resistance, the greater the difference in carbs is likely going to make
The "significance" is a statistical one, P=0.26 between groups, it would be personally / clinically significant I guess.
The next bit after the original quote includes " improvement in insulin sensitivity correlated with the amount of weight lost (r = 0.50, P < 0.001). Subjects following the diet with 40% of energy as carbohydrate had greater reductions in daylong insulin and triacylglycerol (P < 0.05) and fasting triacylglycerol (0.53 mmol/L; P = 0.04) concentrations, greater increases in HDL-cholesterol concentrations (0.12 mmol/L; P < 0.01) and LDL particle size (1.82 s; P < 0.05), and a greater decrease in plasma E-selectin (5.6 ng/L; P = 0.02) than did subjects following the diet with 60% of energy as carbohydrate." - so several statistically significant improvements on the reduced carb arm, even at 40% carbs.
Those on the lower carb diet definitely had several improved markers, but my point was that weight loss didn't differ.0 -
Ugh, I got to page 14 or something and wanted to quote and respond and now I can't! Damn roll! :mad:
Anyway, way back several pages ago Lindsay? posted a study "Insulin Sensitivity Determines the Effectiveness of Dietary Macronutrient Composition on Weight Loss in Obese Women" as evidence against CICO in these situations.
I would like to comment on this study. The groups were very small at only n=4. Apart from 3 day food diaries and food provided, there was no other way to monitor intake. I don't believe that the result has been replicated since. There are other studies that report no difference in weight loss under similar circumstances. eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17023708
Fifty-seven randomly assigned, insulin-resistant, obese persons completed a 16-wk calorie-restricted diet with 15% of energy as protein and either 60% and 25% or 40% and 45% of energy as carbohydrate and fat, respectively. Weight loss with 60% or 40% of energy as carbohydrate (5.7 +/- 0.7 or 6.9 +/- 0.7 kg, respectively) did not differ significantly, and improvement in insulin sensitivity correlated with the amount of weight lost (r = 0.50, P < 0.001).
To cite the first study as evidence against CICO is a stretch IMO.
That's it.
I'm probably late to the party and it's moved on by now...sorry :laugh:
I'm not familiar with the study you quoted, but it appears from what you stated, that there were significant differences. 5.7 versus 6.9 kgs (or 12.56 vs. 15.21 lbs) is a 21% difference. Sure, it's not a 80-100% difference like was shown in the other study. But, to say that's not significant, I completely disagree with that. I'd also like to see the difference in amount of insulin resistance (sorry, didn't read study, so perhaps it addresses) as the greater the insulin resistance, the greater the difference in carbs is likely going to make.
And, for anecdotal evidence, go check out an insulin resistance board, like the PCOS board -- you'll find a lot of people will say that they had to lower carbs to see results, or better results.
Nope, it's statistically not significant whether you disagree or not. Have a look at the error bars. The groups overlap. 5.7 +/- 0.7 = 5-6.4 and 6.9 +/- 0.7 = 6.2-7.6
"Weight loss with 60% or 40% of energy as carbohydrate (5.7 +/- 0.7 or 6.9 +/- 0.7 kg, respectively) did not differ significantly." There is no statistically significant difference.
Is that how you determine statistical significance? Because it's my understanding that isn't the case. Going the other way, it could also be 5.0 and 7.6.0 -
Dude, that is pretty snarky.
If it isn't, why is it that all the huge success stories on these forums believe that? For the most part the only people I see agreeing with ginal59 are not where I want to be in one year. I don't mean to be snarky but I am going to listen and follow the people that are where I want to be.
I may find ginal59 to be incorrect and miss out on what CICO means but the above attitude is crappy.
I read that again and you are right it is snarky, but after I thought about it, I am not going to back out of the statement or apologize. If you want to be financially independent, you do not take advice from someone who isn't. So I want to lose more weight and become a fitter me. I am going to listen to those that have been successful.
So if a scientist isn't physically fit to your standards, you won't listen to his/her expertise in his chosen field? Same with doctors?
Not exactly a very good analogy.
Have been following this thread without commenting for a while.
Debunk what someone is saying, debate their point of view, even comment on their use of the forum (eg whether they can use quotes properly)
But don't make personal comments - that crosses a line and is very poor form.
0 -
In the example I gave what actually occurs (my assumption here) is that there is no energy cost to move lipids into fat cells and back out on demand and triglycerides remain available in free form for higher direct use. The energy reduction is due to less lipid transport. For this individual the Atwater values would be wrong, CICO would be influenced and yet COE (the physical law) remains true.
My very unclear example being that COE of subsystems can hold but give different CICO results (total energy for metabolism not being conserved) therefore one shouldn't use COE to validate CICO.
Overall CoE and CoE of any defined subsystem holds, it's all about definition and measurement. Energy is a variable of state unconcerned with how you got there - bit like multiplication doesn't care about the order but addition and multiplication together does.
Futile cycling of fats from lipolysis back into adipose tissue is certainly a mechanism in play -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/1/40.short shows how caffeine (no calories in) increases energy expenditure (more calories out) and increases lipolysis.
And the available energy for metabolism doesn't hold constant (therefore not due to COE). And yes, it's about definitions, selected variables and measurement.
Just to be clear CoE is still true because it is true for all systems, it just isn't relevant to calculating how much "work" you get out of a given amount of energy (ie useful energy) which is what we actually care about when we are thinking about what a calorie means to our body and what CICO is about.
There is no such thing as conservation of work, I'd agree with that....but conservation of energy technically applies to all systems including the human body. In this case it would be just that some of the energy is not converted to a utilizable form and remains in bonds.0 -
I DO think that CI and CO of CICO can be hard to determine and can be personalized. Meaning 100 calories on a nutrition label might, for one person, result in 80 calories of usable energy due to their metabolic efficiency while it results in 60 calories for another person. That, however, is not a refutation of CICO...that just means that the CI component isn't necessarily what is written on the side of a box and has to be self-determined through rigorous logging, trend determination an time.
Same with CO...CO is going to be based on population averages but CO for any individual probably varies from that norm. I have my doubts that it varies hugely but it definitely does vary.
What that means is if someone blindly follows the nutrition labels and the online calculators one might get the impression that CICO is a faliure, but that isn't because CICO is a faliure its because those labels and those calculators haven't correctly pinned down the CI and CO for that person and it is up to them to determine it for themselves. CICO still applies.0 -
Dude, that is pretty snarky.
If it isn't, why is it that all the huge success stories on these forums believe that? For the most part the only people I see agreeing with ginal59 are not where I want to be in one year. I don't mean to be snarky but I am going to listen and follow the people that are where I want to be.
I may find ginal59 to be incorrect and miss out on what CICO means but the above attitude is crappy.
I read that again and you are right it is snarky, but after I thought about it, I am not going to back out of the statement or apologize. If you want to be financially independent, you do not take advice from someone who isn't. So I want to lose more weight and become a fitter me. I am going to listen to those that have been successful.
So if a scientist isn't physically fit to your standards, you won't listen to his/her expertise in his chosen field? Same with doctors?
Not exactly a very good analogy.
Have been following this thread without commenting for a while.
Debunk what someone is saying, debate their point of view, even comment on their use of the forum (eg whether they can use quotes properly)
But don't make personal comments - that crosses a line and is very poor form.
To be fair that person didn't make a negative personal comment towards someone else, they just made a comment about themselves and how they operate. They said they wouldn't trust someone to advise them if they did X Y and Z. That isn't a personal attack on anyone, that is a statement about what they think. You might not like their viewpoint...but it isn't a personal attack.0 -
Allright, got to reply to this in order to get some sleep tonight.
Just a few personal experiences which may shine some light on things.
I have hypothyroidism. For 13 years, until I found my current doctor, it wasn't treated with the right medication. During this time I tried Atkins, and had great success with it, -for about a month and a half, when all the cravings got the better of me. (Well done to anyone who's successful at staying below 20 grams of carbs a day. I cannot. It's not sustainable in the long run for me, and that's what I want, and have found, here. )
I am now on the correct medication, and I have been logging everything for about 6 months. And, looking back at my short lived success on Atkins, and disregarding the hypothyroidism, and how it may be affected by carbohydrates and so on, I am now pretty sure that I was eating VERY few calories while I was on Atkins. There is simply a limit to the amount of meat and eggs I can eat.
In my opinion low carb equals low calories. It's just another way of doing it.
I have tried to read through all pages of this thread, and get the feeling most people agree that there are certain conditions which can complicate things, hypothyroidism certainly being one of them. BUT saying it's all about the quality of what you eat doesn't explain things for me. It may just be easier to eat at a deficit while avoiding carbohydrates.0 -
yes cico - macro ratios don't matter other than to say some macros i.e protein and fat are more satiating than carbs.
Low carb will lead to initial fast weight loss but in the long term the results on a calorie deficit diet are the same0 -
One thing I want to say is this though. The calories on a nutrition label represent the amount of calories that are potentially extractable from that food. Meaning if it says 100 calories 100 calories is the most you can ever get with 100% efficiency. There might be someone who gets 90 calories from it of usable energy and someone who gets 50 calories from it of usable energy but no one is going to get 120 calories from it. The idea that you can eat a tiny amount and yet maintain your weight because you somehow have a reduced metabolism or somehow get more calorically out of food than there is in the food I am very very skeptical of.
There is going to be a minimum caloric requirement though based on just physical law. Your body, no matter what your disorder, has to maintain a certain body temperature. That temperature is at odds with the environmental temperature and there is a certain amount of energy that needs to be expended to keep i there. Your heart, no matter what your disorder, will still have to keep beating...maybe it beats slower...maybe faster...but it still beats, that takes a certain amount of energy. Your brain...same thing.
Sure, I can believe hyperthyroid your heart beats faster, your body temp is elevated and so your CO is raised by some percentage (not a huge percentage, just some). Sure, I can believe that hypothyroid your heart beats slower, your body temp maybe a bit cooler and you are more lethargic leading to your CO being lowered by some percentage (not a huge percentage, just some). All this means though is that your CO is not going to be the CO spit out by an online calculator because that is based on a population average for which you are an outlier. That, however, has no bearing on the validity of CICO...it just means that the online calc doesn't give an accurate value for your CO.
Using a thyroid condition or any medical condition as a reason CICO is invalid is like using a watch that runs slow to argue that it is impossible to accurately measure the speed of a car. No, it is still possible...your watch is just slow.0 -
Your energy levels may go down - but your body uses fat (and sometimes muscle) for energy if it does not have other reserves - otherwise you would be dead.
Sometimes? I have dunk tank data that shows that over the course of losing 40lb I lost 50% lean tissue and 50% fat.
0 -
One thing I want to say is this though. The calories on a nutrition label represent the amount of calories that are potentially extractable from that food. Meaning if it says 100 calories 100 calories is the most you can ever get with 100% efficiency. There might be someone who gets 90 calories from it of usable energy and someone who gets 50 calories from it of usable energy but no one is going to get 120 calories from it. The idea that you can eat a tiny amount and yet maintain your weight because you somehow have a reduced metabolism or somehow get more calorically out of food than there is in the food I am very very skeptical of.
There is going to be a minimum caloric requirement though based on just physical law. Your body, no matter what your disorder, has to maintain a certain body temperature. That temperature is at odds with the environmental temperature and there is a certain amount of energy that needs to be expended to keep i there. Your heart, no matter what your disorder, will still have to keep beating...maybe it beats slower...maybe faster...but it still beats, that takes a certain amount of energy. Your brain...same thing.
Sure, I can believe hyperthyroid your heart beats faster, your body temp is elevated and so your CO is raised by some percentage (not a huge percentage, just some). Sure, I can believe that hypothyroid your heart beats slower, your body temp maybe a bit cooler and you are more lethargic leading to your CO being lowered by some percentage (not a huge percentage, just some). All this means though is that your CO is not going to be the CO spit out by an online calculator because that is based on a population average for which you are an outlier. That, however, has no bearing on the validity of CICO...it just means that the online calc doesn't give an accurate value for your CO.
Using a thyroid condition or any medical condition as a reason CICO is invalid is like using a watch that runs slow to argue that it is impossible to accurately measure the speed of a car. No, it is still possible...your watch is just slow.
I thought I saw someone mentioning the commercial label could be off by up to 20%? Could be "100 calories" actually "120"?0 -
I DO think that CI and CO of CICO can be hard to determine and can be personalized. Meaning 100 calories on a nutrition label might, for one person, result in 80 calories of usable energy due to their metabolic efficiency while it results in 60 calories for another person. That, however, is not a refutation of CICO...that just means that the CI component isn't necessarily what is written on the side of a box and has to be self-determined through rigorous logging, trend determination an time.
Also, metabolic pathways. I.e from what I've read the metabolic pathway for protein is about 70% efficient. So eating 100 calories of pure protein would net you 70 calories of usable energy.Same with CO...CO is going to be based on population averages but CO for any individual probably varies from that norm. I have my doubts that it varies hugely but it definitely does vary.
I think the effect of CI on CO is not well understood. The body can and will adapt to changes. I know that dieting can cause your BMR to drop, for example.0 -
Ugh, I got to page 14 or something and wanted to quote and respond and now I can't! Damn roll! :mad:
Anyway, way back several pages ago Lindsay? posted a study "Insulin Sensitivity Determines the Effectiveness of Dietary Macronutrient Composition on Weight Loss in Obese Women" as evidence against CICO in these situations.
I would like to comment on this study. The groups were very small at only n=4. Apart from 3 day food diaries and food provided, there was no other way to monitor intake. I don't believe that the result has been replicated since. There are other studies that report no difference in weight loss under similar circumstances. eg. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17023708
Fifty-seven randomly assigned, insulin-resistant, obese persons completed a 16-wk calorie-restricted diet with 15% of energy as protein and either 60% and 25% or 40% and 45% of energy as carbohydrate and fat, respectively. Weight loss with 60% or 40% of energy as carbohydrate (5.7 +/- 0.7 or 6.9 +/- 0.7 kg, respectively) did not differ significantly, and improvement in insulin sensitivity correlated with the amount of weight lost (r = 0.50, P < 0.001).
To cite the first study as evidence against CICO is a stretch IMO.
That's it.
I'm probably late to the party and it's moved on by now...sorry :laugh:
I'm not familiar with the study you quoted, but it appears from what you stated, that there were significant differences. 5.7 versus 6.9 kgs (or 12.56 vs. 15.21 lbs) is a 21% difference. Sure, it's not a 80-100% difference like was shown in the other study. But, to say that's not significant, I completely disagree with that. I'd also like to see the difference in amount of insulin resistance (sorry, didn't read study, so perhaps it addresses) as the greater the insulin resistance, the greater the difference in carbs is likely going to make.
And, for anecdotal evidence, go check out an insulin resistance board, like the PCOS board -- you'll find a lot of people will say that they had to lower carbs to see results, or better results.
Nope, it's statistically not significant whether you disagree or not. Have a look at the error bars. The groups overlap. 5.7 +/- 0.7 = 5-6.4 and 6.9 +/- 0.7 = 6.2-7.6
"Weight loss with 60% or 40% of energy as carbohydrate (5.7 +/- 0.7 or 6.9 +/- 0.7 kg, respectively) did not differ significantly." There is no statistically significant difference.
Is that how you determine statistical significance? Because it's my understanding that isn't the case. Going the other way, it could also be 5.0 and 7.6.
Well yes. The point of standard errors is to demonstrate the variability of the mean of a group, a minimum to maximum range. Even without the p-value, seeing that the range overlaps, it's clearly non-significant. They also reported it as not significant.
**I'm not trying to argue with your ideas for the sake of it, I just like to see reasonable evidence.0 -
Oh dear!0
-
Please explain how you believe these links are relevant to the discussion.0 -
If they kept the men and women separate in the analysis the variability would be reduced and the chances of finding a significant difference increased.
It is a somehow arbitrary decision that says P<0.05 is "significant" and anything greater is "not significant" - as the value increases the evidence is less convincing but one cannot say "there is no effect" on this basis - http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_12/12_4_2_p_values_and_statistical_significance.htm
If I said there was a 25% chance that the extra 20% weight loss of the reduced carbohydrate arm was pure chance would you go for it ? or does it need to be less than 5% chance :-)0 -
-
There are a million subtle differences that determine how much energy a body can get from food, use, and store on a given day. Genetics, age, muscle mass, digestive ability, activity levels, number of fat cells, etc. How much energy is wasted in digestion for a specific kind of food is another issue.
If you follow a formula and check weight on a regular basis, you can get an accurate picture of how many calories your body uses on an average day.
Calories in / out for weight loss is less important than the amount of muscle and fat a person has at a healthy weight. A man eating 2500 calories per day can look soft and round, or like Thor, depending on how much lean tissue they have.0 -
In because everyone else is doing it!0
-
Well, I would say that the p-value for this, off the top of my head would be quite a bit greater than 0.05, looking at the figures and standard errors. Perhaps the full-text has it, but I'm away from work and can't access full-text for a couple of weeks and by then this thread with be long forgotten. :laugh:If they kept the men and women separate in the analysis the variability would be reduced and the chances of finding a significant difference increased.
It is a somehow arbitrary decision that says P<0.05 is "significant" and anything greater is "not significant" - as the value increases the evidence is less convincing but one cannot say "there is no effect" on this basis - http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_12/12_4_2_p_values_and_statistical_significance.htm
If I said there was a 25% chance that the extra 20% weight loss of the reduced carbohydrate arm was pure chance would you go for it ? or does it need to be less than 5% chance :-)0 -
You've already linked that one.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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