cutting carbs
Replies
-
Would you mind pointing out one or two of these studies? I really would like to see them, having done a fair amount of reading on ketogenic diets and never having come across one.
Apparently high carb diets do very little for one's ability to read forum rules of conduct!
I have linked below several studies showing the benefits of lactate and ketones in brain function.
As a poster above has mentioned, studies showing negative brain function on a low carb diet were likely conducted on subjects only just coming away from a medium to high carb diet.
Subjects who have adapted to either a low carb diet or even a ketogenic diet would demonstrate the same optimally fuelled brains on a mixture of mainly ketones, lactate and glucose, as those on a high carb diet fuelling their brains on mainly glucose.
As you have no doubt done exhaustive research into this field, surely you will have studies proving this incorrect! I would of course love to see them.
Again apologies for the spelling mistake, I was very tired when I posted yesterday and I had a few too many carbs!
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-lactate-shuttle-fuel-brain.html
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/20/7477
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14769487
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19664276
There are many other studies out there - I'm sure you've seen them.
My apologies for the snarky comment on spelling. It was inappropriate, whatever the TOS says.
No I haven't seen them, that is why I asked. And I haven't made any assertions; I found your statement curious and wanted to see the research myself.
That said, I have found most studies relating diet to cognitive function - whatever they set out to test - get shot down for methodological weaknesses of one sort or another by those with a different viewpoint. It is fiendishly difficult to design a study of that sort that is large enough, long enough and well controlled enough for it to be otherwise.
What would you conclude from this?
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=11085580 -
I do PALEO...i eat maybe 10 to 15 grams of carbs a day.....
I have lost 55 pounds and blood sugar has come down to normal... I have cut my insulin from 49 units a night to 8 units a night adn soon to be completely off insulin...
blood pressure has gone way below normal...I have completely cut out one of my blood pressure meds and cut the other down....
i feel so good..
i eat lots of veggies adn some fruit if I want to ...I eat lean meats and I eat good healthy fats..
google PALEO or PRIMAL....
yur body does NOT need carbs...this si not something i have just read, its something I have lived...im living proof...
all this amazing stuff has happened since June 2nd....so just around 90 days ..... cant wait for 6 months or even a year....what will it be???
Ugh.0 -
Nice storm here.
Since some people seem to want the 2nd poster (me) to respond, here's a couple links:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rosspomeroy/2013/11/12/do-low-carbohydrate-diets-make-you-dumber/
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20081212/no-carb-diets-may-impair-memory
These are just a couple.
I tend to be a guy who relies on science and evidence. The science and anecdotal evidence point toward impaired cognitive abilities and decreased mood. I'm not the only one who has experienced this first-hand; I've heard and read from a number of people who have experienced the exact same issues when on a low-carb diet. They don't think as clearly, and mood can be affected. Some posters in this thread report the same findings as well. So it's not a myth. It may not be universal, but it's definitely real.
My point is this: Low-carb is not necessary for weight loss, and excluding macros creates an unhealthy relationship with food and can lead to disordered eating behaviors.
So why do it if it's not necessary?
I tell you why: because people want a short-cut. And that is exactly what the diet industry preys upon. They want your money, and they're going to prey upon your insecurity and your desire for a shortcut. That's why paleo was invented. That's why Atkins was invented. That's why diet pills and juicing and cleanses and gluten-free were invented (the only people who have any claim to be gluten-free are celiacs; the rest are bandwagon jumpers looking for a magic bullet). All this nonsense was designed to get your money.
What works, very simply, is reducing your total caloric intake, and exercising to create a modest deficit, and then being consistent with that effort. Form good habits, form a healthy relationship with food, and move forward.
Go ahead and "try" low-carb. But you don't need to do that to lose weight. And you'll be depriving yourself of a valuable macro-nutrient, not to mention some damn find tasting food.
I'm totally against denying yourself food sources. So that's where I come from.0 -
Check out the low carb groups here. LOTS of folks there doing what you're doing and happy about it.
Ah, ok, that makes sense. I sure hope it's sustainable brcause I feel so much better !
I would assume a few folks ended up here on their diet search. Some have tried and failed at low carb, therefore low carb is bad. Folks seem to equate their experience with objective reality. And right now, objective reality is: all whatever you want, "within your calories". Whether or not this reality is the long term depends on the individual.I think we all have to find what works for our bodies. Low carb works for me because I prefer the way I feel with a stable level of energy all day. I have even found I do not need to drink as much coffee or tea during the day. I also prefer low carb to migraines which I get when I eat a lot of carbs. I don't think it's the only way, but its definitely the right way for my body. I am low carb on the advice of several specialists.
I don't understand why so many people seem to be so anti-low carb. Here is another article I found doing a plain google search. This is from Psychology today and it discusses low carb from an evolutionary stand point.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201104/your-brain-ketones
And, because this is a calorie counting site, not a low carber site, the bulk of the members will be pro calorie counting.
I didn't while losing but I know I'm in the minority.
(I've also been told, repeatedly, that my approach is unsustainable.
)
cheers:drinker:0 -
Nice storm here.
Since some people seem to want the 2nd poster (me) to respond, here's a couple links:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rosspomeroy/2013/11/12/do-low-carbohydrate-diets-make-you-dumber/
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20081212/no-carb-diets-may-impair-memory
These are just a couple.
I tend to be a guy who relies on science and evidence. The science and anecdotal evidence point toward impaired cognitive abilities and decreased mood. I'm not the only one who has experienced this first-hand; I've heard and read from a number of people who have experienced the exact same issues when on a low-carb diet. They don't think as clearly, and mood can be affected. Some posters in this thread report the same findings as well. So it's not a myth. It may not be universal, but it's definitely real.
My point is this: Low-carb is not necessary for weight loss, and excluding macros creates an unhealthy relationship with food and can lead to disordered eating behaviors.
So why do it if it's not necessary?
I tell you why: because people want a short-cut. And that is exactly what the diet industry preys upon. They want your money, and they're going to prey upon your insecurity and your desire for a shortcut. That's why paleo was invented. That's why Atkins was invented. That's why diet pills and juicing and cleanses and gluten-free were invented (the only people who have any claim to be gluten-free are celiacs; the rest are bandwagon jumpers looking for a magic bullet). All this nonsense was designed to get your money.
What works, very simply, is reducing your total caloric intake, and exercising to create a modest deficit, and then being consistent with that effort. Form good habits, form a healthy relationship with food, and move forward.
Go ahead and "try" low-carb. But you don't need to do that to lose weight. And you'll be depriving yourself of a valuable macro-nutrient, not to mention some damn find tasting food.
I'm totally against denying yourself food sources. So that's where I come from.
To be balanced here (unlike some others in this thread), your statement was:
"Additionally, studies show that low-carb diets affect mental abilities; you're not as sharp without carbs."
It is a blanket statement that you have now qualified to be anecdotal of what *you* and a couple of people you know feel like.
Your first link is actually is contradicting what you have said:
"In adults, low-carb diets have no adverse cognitive effects in the long-term. A well-executed, year-long study published to the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2009 found no difference in cognitive functioning for subjects consuming either a low-carb weight loss diet or a high-carb weight loss diet. Both actually enjoyed improvements to working memory and speed of processing, a result presumably attributed to weight loss."
The second refers to the same one of the same studies noted in the first article and was only for a few weeks:
"When consuming low-carb diets in the short term, this is certainly true. In a 2008 study, psychologists placed 19 women on either a calorie restricted low-carb diet or a calorie restricted high-carb diet for 28 days. Throughout the study, participants’ memory, reaction time, and vigilance were tested at regular intervals. While those on the low-carb diet enjoyed a slight boost in vigilance, they suffered impaired reaction time and reduced visuospatial memory."
Full text of what I believe is the long term study noted in the first article:
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=11085580 -
I actually have to read the study before I reply. Which I will do.0
-
So after reading what everyone has to say about carbs or no carbs or low carb plans it goes to show that it is different strokes for different folks! Everybody has different needs. What works for one doesn't for someone else. You just have to try and see what works best for yourself.0
-
Nice storm here.
Since some people seem to want the 2nd poster (me) to respond, here's a couple links:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rosspomeroy/2013/11/12/do-low-carbohydrate-diets-make-you-dumber/
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20081212/no-carb-diets-may-impair-memory
These are just a couple.
I tend to be a guy who relies on science and evidence. The science and anecdotal evidence point toward impaired cognitive abilities and decreased mood. I'm not the only one who has experienced this first-hand; I've heard and read from a number of people who have experienced the exact same issues when on a low-carb diet. They don't think as clearly, and mood can be affected. Some posters in this thread report the same findings as well. So it's not a myth. It may not be universal, but it's definitely real.
My point is this: Low-carb is not necessary for weight loss, and excluding macros creates an unhealthy relationship with food and can lead to disordered eating behaviors.
So why do it if it's not necessary?
I tell you why: because people want a short-cut. And that is exactly what the diet industry preys upon. They want your money, and they're going to prey upon your insecurity and your desire for a shortcut. That's why paleo was invented. That's why Atkins was invented. That's why diet pills and juicing and cleanses and gluten-free were invented (the only people who have any claim to be gluten-free are celiacs; the rest are bandwagon jumpers looking for a magic bullet). All this nonsense was designed to get your money.
What works, very simply, is reducing your total caloric intake, and exercising to create a modest deficit, and then being consistent with that effort. Form good habits, form a healthy relationship with food, and move forward.
Go ahead and "try" low-carb. But you don't need to do that to lose weight. And you'll be depriving yourself of a valuable macro-nutrient, not to mention some damn find tasting food.
I'm totally against denying yourself food sources. So that's where I come from.
I'm a science guy he says, then cites to forbes and webmd with a side of anecdotal evidence, rather than the numerous studies already referenced in this thread. Moreover, your own articles talk about short term effects and concede there do not appear to be any long-term effects. And transitory effects that last for a few weeks are a fair criticism, but don't misrepresent it and suggest that these effects last forever. Yes, you might see some effects for the first few weeks, but that's akin to me saying "never lift weights because you will be sore and it will be difficult to move your arms," based on the severe DOMS many people experience over the first 1-3 weeks of beginning a weightlifting program. That's absolute nonsense though because DOMS is largely transitory in nature, and the same goes for the mental impairment you're talking about with respect to a low carb diet. If you're going to claim to be a "science guy" at least do it right. As is, you're giving science a bad name.I tell you why: because people want a short-cut. And that is exactly what the diet industry preys upon. They want your money, and they're going to prey upon your insecurity and your desire for a shortcut. That's why paleo was invented. That's why Atkins was invented. That's why diet pills and juicing and cleanses and gluten-free were invented (the only people who have any claim to be gluten-free are celiacs; the rest are bandwagon jumpers looking for a magic bullet). All this nonsense was designed to get your money.
What works, very simply, is reducing your total caloric intake, and exercising to create a modest deficit, and then being consistent with that effort. Form good habits, form a healthy relationship with food, and move forward.
Go ahead and "try" low-carb. But you don't need to do that to lose weight. And you'll be depriving yourself of a valuable macro-nutrient, not to mention some damn find tasting food.
Again you're demonstrating a misunderstanding of these diets. Satiation is a major factor and that's why many people are able to lose weight (at least for a while) on low carb diets even without tracking calories. I personally think it's a good idea to track everything and develop those habits and you'll likely never hit single digit body fat just relying on satiation, but I know plenty of people that choose these diets because they dislike feeling hungry and these diets are incredibly satiating. Your energy levels on low carb diets are also largely decoupled from your diet, particularly when it comes to endurance work. There are plenty of positive aspects to these diets and they aren't simply a "shortcut." For that matter, where's the shortcut when it comes to fat loss? That doesn't even make sense, unless you're saying it's a shortcut because they make it easier for some people to create a caloric deficit.
If you want to criticize low carb diets, how about doing it on the merits. They tend to be very restrictive and that alone makes them a poor choice for most people. Anaerobic activity on these diets may struggle unless you take additional steps aimed at mitigating this. But they aren't some gain robbing, brainpower killing shortcut put out by the diet industry to prey upon the ignorant. Hell, for that matter, who in the diet industry is getting my money if I choose to restrict carbs? Is there some evil meat organization out there pushing low carb diets in order to boost their sales? And if so, who cares... steak is delicious.0 -
Nice storm here.
Since some people seem to want the 2nd poster (me) to respond, here's a couple links:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rosspomeroy/2013/11/12/do-low-carbohydrate-diets-make-you-dumber/
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20081212/no-carb-diets-may-impair-memory
These are just a couple.
I tend to be a guy who relies on science and evidence. The science and anecdotal evidence point toward impaired cognitive abilities and decreased mood. I'm not the only one who has experienced this first-hand; I've heard and read from a number of people who have experienced the exact same issues when on a low-carb diet. They don't think as clearly, and mood can be affected. Some posters in this thread report the same findings as well. So it's not a myth. It may not be universal, but it's definitely real.
My point is this: Low-carb is not necessary for weight loss, and excluding macros creates an unhealthy relationship with food and can lead to disordered eating behaviors.
So why do it if it's not necessary?
I tell you why: because people want a short-cut. And that is exactly what the diet industry preys upon. They want your money, and they're going to prey upon your insecurity and your desire for a shortcut. That's why paleo was invented. That's why Atkins was invented. That's why diet pills and juicing and cleanses and gluten-free were invented (the only people who have any claim to be gluten-free are celiacs; the rest are bandwagon jumpers looking for a magic bullet). All this nonsense was designed to get your money.
What works, very simply, is reducing your total caloric intake, and exercising to create a modest deficit, and then being consistent with that effort. Form good habits, form a healthy relationship with food, and move forward.
Go ahead and "try" low-carb. But you don't need to do that to lose weight. And you'll be depriving yourself of a valuable macro-nutrient, not to mention some damn find tasting food.
I'm totally against denying yourself food sources. So that's where I come from.
I'm a science guy he says, then cites to forbes and webmd with a side of anecdotal evidence, rather than the numerous studies already referenced in this thread. Moreover, your own articles talk about short term effects and concede there do not appear to be any long-term effects. And transitory effects that last for a few weeks are a fair criticism, but don't misrepresent it and suggest that these effects last forever. Yes, you might see some effects for the first few weeks, but that's akin to me saying "never lift weights because you will be sore and it will be difficult to move your arms," based on the severe DOMS many people experience over the first 1-3 weeks of beginning a weightlifting program. That's absolute nonsense though because DOMS is largely transitory in nature, and the same goes for the mental impairment you're talking about with respect to a low carb diet. If you're going to claim to be a "science guy" at least do it right. As is, you're giving science a bad name.I tell you why: because people want a short-cut. And that is exactly what the diet industry preys upon. They want your money, and they're going to prey upon your insecurity and your desire for a shortcut. That's why paleo was invented. That's why Atkins was invented. That's why diet pills and juicing and cleanses and gluten-free were invented (the only people who have any claim to be gluten-free are celiacs; the rest are bandwagon jumpers looking for a magic bullet). All this nonsense was designed to get your money.
What works, very simply, is reducing your total caloric intake, and exercising to create a modest deficit, and then being consistent with that effort. Form good habits, form a healthy relationship with food, and move forward.
Go ahead and "try" low-carb. But you don't need to do that to lose weight. And you'll be depriving yourself of a valuable macro-nutrient, not to mention some damn find tasting food.
Again you're demonstrating a misunderstanding of these diets. Satiation is a major factor and that's why many people are able to lose weight (at least for a while) on low carb diets even without tracking calories. I personally think it's a good idea to track everything and develop those habits and you'll likely never hit single digit body fat just relying on satiation, but I know plenty of people that choose these diets because they dislike feeling hungry and these diets are incredibly satiating. Your energy levels on low carb diets are also largely decoupled from your diet, particularly when it comes to endurance work. There are plenty of positive aspects to these diets and they aren't simply a "shortcut." For that matter, where's the shortcut when it comes to fat loss? That doesn't even make sense, unless you're saying it's a shortcut because they make it easier for some people to create a caloric deficit.
If you want to criticize low carb diets, how about doing it on the merits. They tend to be very restrictive and that alone makes them a poor choice for most people. Anaerobic activity on these diets may struggle unless you take additional steps aimed at mitigating this. But they aren't some gain robbing, brainpower killing shortcut put out by the diet industry to prey upon the ignorant. Hell, for that matter, who in the diet industry is getting my money if I choose to restrict carbs? Is there some evil meat organization out there pushing low carb diets in order to boost their sales? And if so, who cares... steak is delicious.
To put it out..for the 3rd time...no one is looking down on low carb diets/eating preferences. What was being questioned/argued about was the claim that it was optimal for brain function.0 -
Satiation is a major factor and that's why many people are able to lose weight (at least for a while) on low carb diets even without tracking calories.
Most, however, are unable to do that.
Just as with all other diets.
If someone is happier eating low carb (or low fat or whatever) it's all good - but let's not assign magical properties to these diets. The human body evolved to be multi-fuel, for what I would hope are obvious reasons. Inside that envelope, some of us shade towards a a preference for one or more macro groups, while others don't. Again, for what should be obvious reasons.
There is no one answer in any of this, other than total energy intake needs to be lower than energy expenditure if someone wants to lose weight.0 -
I just want to point out that all of this back and forth started because someone claimed that brain function would be impaired and people would be unable to work on low carb diets. I think that this is something that many people keep forgetting. A lot of us answered with studies and many of us said, "just because it is right for us doesn't mean it's right for everyone."Satiation is a major factor and that's why many people are able to lose weight (at least for a while) on low carb diets even without tracking calories.
Most, however, are unable to do that.
Just as with all other diets.
If someone is happier eating low carb (or low fat or whatever) it's all good - but let's not assign magical properties to these diets. The human body evolved to be multi-fuel, for what I would hope are obvious reasons. Inside that envelope, some of us shade towards a a preference for one or more macro groups, while others don't. Again, for what should be obvious reasons.
There is no one answer in any of this, other than total energy intake needs to be lower than energy expenditure if someone wants to lose weight.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Watch and observe how many time he actually tries to do that, change what he's arguing to a different point when he doesn't have a way out. Pretty damn funny.Let's go look at some of the actual research on cognition and low fat or low carb diets....
Short term
http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/spacelab/pubs/Atkins_Appetite_inpress.pdf
Apparently leads to memory impairment but less confusion and faster attention response with low carbing.To examine how a low-carbohydrate diet affects cognitive performance, women participated in one of two weight-loss diet regimens. Participants self-selected a low-carbohydrate (n=9) or a reduced-calorie balanced diet similar to that recommended by the American Dietetic Association (ADA diet) (n=10). Seventy-two hours before beginning their diets and then 48 h, 1, 2, and 3 weeks after starting, participants completed a battery of cognitive tasks assessing visuospatial memory, vigilance attention, memory span, a food-related paired-associates a food Stroop, and the Profile of Moods Scale (POMS) to assess subjective mood. Results showed that during complete withdrawal of dietary carbohydrate, low-carbohydrate dieters performed worse on memory-based tasks than ADA dieters. These impairments were ameliorated after reintroduction of carbohydrates. Low-carbohydrate dieters reported less confusion (POMS) and responded faster during an attention vigilance task (CPT) than ADA dieters. Hunger ratings did not differ between the two diet conditions. The present data show memory impairments during low-carbohydrate diets at a point when available glycogen stores would be at their lowest. A commonly held explanation based on preoccupation with food would not account for these findings. The results also suggest better vigilance attention and reduced self-reported confusion while on the low-carbohydrate diet, although not tied to a specific time point during the diet. Taken together the results suggest that weight-loss diet regimens differentially impact cognitive behavior.
Long term
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108558
No difference - actually losing weight helps cognitive function independent of low fat or low carb.Background Very low-carbohydrate (LC) diets are often used to promote weight loss, but the long-term effects on psychological function remain unknown.
Methods A total of 106 overweight and obese participants (mean [SE] age, 50.0 [0.8] years; mean [SE] body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], 33.7 [0.4]) were randomly assigned either to an energy-restricted (approximately 1433-1672 kcal [to convert to kilojoules, multiply by 4.186]), planned isocaloric, very low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LC) diet or to a high-carbohydrate, low-fat (LF) diet for 1 year. Changes in body weight, psychological mood and well-being (Profile of Mood States, Beck Depression Inventory, and Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory scores), and cognitive functioning (working memory and speed of processing) were assessed.
Results By 1 year, the overall mean (SE) weight loss was 13.7 (1.8) kg, with no significant difference between groups (P = .26). Over the course of the study, there were significant time × diet interactions for Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and Profile of Mood States scores for total mood disturbance, anger-hostility, confusion-bewilderment, and depression-dejection (P < .05) as a result of greater improvements in these psychological mood states for the LF diet compared with the LC diet. Working memory improved by 1 year (P < .001 for time), but speed of processing remained largely unchanged, with no effect of diet composition on either cognitive domain.
Conclusions Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF diet compared with an isocaloric LC diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing.
So far, the hypothesis that the brain "functions optimally on ketones" ie a low carb diet - can be tossed out from this research.
My other reading does suggest that low carb diets do have some possible value in certain disease states but that's not really the subject here.
There is also some evidence that low carb diets are a bad idea during brain development and for rats ...take that as you will.
Detrimental Effects of the Ketogenic Diet on Cognitive Function in Rats http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v55/n3/full/pr200478a.html
I would not claim from that that low carbing is bad - but it does point out that when people tend to take religious positions around diet - low carb good anything else bad - fail to consider context.
I think for yourself and other argumentative members of MFP my stance has been clear from my first post.
A brain fuelled by ketones, lactate and glucose operates just as optimal as a brain fuelled mainly or solely on glucose.
Additionally ketones are beneficial for helping slow the onset of certain brain deterioration diseases
If you are unable to provide any studies which show that subjects who are ketone adapted do not have brain function to the same optimal ability then that shall remain my stance.
Your moving the goal post.
You stated "low carb diet the brain works at an optimal level!"
Optimal means best or most favorable versus other options. "Just as optimal as" is nonsense. You inferenced that low carb was better for brain function. It's not. Short term it's possibly worse depending which factor you want to focus on. Long term there is no significant cognitive difference. I'm not claiming it's worse for cognitive function - why would I?
As to the AC1202 study it shows that the patients generally got worse - independent of diet, less worse on the drug but this has nothing to do with a low carb diet. It was a drug induced process. It might be worth doing with a diet induced ketosis but it's non conclusive. Just like the study I posted that shows low carb diets are bad for brain development, non conclusive in humans. And certainly not evidence that supports the diet in someone that doesn't have the disease. Low carb might be disease preventive but the links you've provided don't show that.
There might be research out there on the carbohydrate role and preventive nature of one type or another type of diet but frankly everything I've read to date suggests that losing weight and remaining physically active are more important in this disease, even that evidence is uncertain. Again context and big picture.
Watch and observe how many times you bully people!0 -
Satiation is a major factor and that's why many people are able to lose weight (at least for a while) on low carb diets even without tracking calories.
Most, however, are unable to do that.
Just as with all other diets.
If someone is happier eating low carb (or low fat or whatever) it's all good - but let's not assign magical properties to these diets. The human body evolved to be multi-fuel, for what I would hope are obvious reasons. Inside that envelope, some of us shade towards a a preference for one or more macro groups, while others don't. Again, for what should be obvious reasons.
There is no one answer in any of this, other than total energy intake needs to be lower than energy expenditure if someone wants to lose weight.
Please find where I've ever said these diets have magical properties. For that matter, I think more often than not I say they're a poor choice for most people, and said as much earlier in this thread. If I thought the diet was magical, I probably wouldn't go around saying it's a poor choice for most people.
I'm not trying to promote the diet or its "magical properties" so much as I am trying to point out that the typical criticisms levied against the diet are for the most part nonsense. Case in point, this thread and the poster who didn't even bother to read his own citations carefully before conclusively stating that low carb diets impair your mental function and your ability to do your desk job. I just don't see the need to go around making up criticisms for the diet when it's a helpful tool for some people and, even if you want to make the case against it, plenty of valid criticisms already exist.0 -
Watch and observe how many time he actually tries to do that, change what he's arguing to a different point when he doesn't have a way out. Pretty damn funny.Let's go look at some of the actual research on cognition and low fat or low carb diets....
Short term
http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/spacelab/pubs/Atkins_Appetite_inpress.pdf
Apparently leads to memory impairment but less confusion and faster attention response with low carbing.To examine how a low-carbohydrate diet affects cognitive performance, women participated in one of two weight-loss diet regimens. Participants self-selected a low-carbohydrate (n=9) or a reduced-calorie balanced diet similar to that recommended by the American Dietetic Association (ADA diet) (n=10). Seventy-two hours before beginning their diets and then 48 h, 1, 2, and 3 weeks after starting, participants completed a battery of cognitive tasks assessing visuospatial memory, vigilance attention, memory span, a food-related paired-associates a food Stroop, and the Profile of Moods Scale (POMS) to assess subjective mood. Results showed that during complete withdrawal of dietary carbohydrate, low-carbohydrate dieters performed worse on memory-based tasks than ADA dieters. These impairments were ameliorated after reintroduction of carbohydrates. Low-carbohydrate dieters reported less confusion (POMS) and responded faster during an attention vigilance task (CPT) than ADA dieters. Hunger ratings did not differ between the two diet conditions. The present data show memory impairments during low-carbohydrate diets at a point when available glycogen stores would be at their lowest. A commonly held explanation based on preoccupation with food would not account for these findings. The results also suggest better vigilance attention and reduced self-reported confusion while on the low-carbohydrate diet, although not tied to a specific time point during the diet. Taken together the results suggest that weight-loss diet regimens differentially impact cognitive behavior.
Long term
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108558
No difference - actually losing weight helps cognitive function independent of low fat or low carb.Background Very low-carbohydrate (LC) diets are often used to promote weight loss, but the long-term effects on psychological function remain unknown.
Methods A total of 106 overweight and obese participants (mean [SE] age, 50.0 [0.8] years; mean [SE] body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], 33.7 [0.4]) were randomly assigned either to an energy-restricted (approximately 1433-1672 kcal [to convert to kilojoules, multiply by 4.186]), planned isocaloric, very low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LC) diet or to a high-carbohydrate, low-fat (LF) diet for 1 year. Changes in body weight, psychological mood and well-being (Profile of Mood States, Beck Depression Inventory, and Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory scores), and cognitive functioning (working memory and speed of processing) were assessed.
Results By 1 year, the overall mean (SE) weight loss was 13.7 (1.8) kg, with no significant difference between groups (P = .26). Over the course of the study, there were significant time × diet interactions for Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and Profile of Mood States scores for total mood disturbance, anger-hostility, confusion-bewilderment, and depression-dejection (P < .05) as a result of greater improvements in these psychological mood states for the LF diet compared with the LC diet. Working memory improved by 1 year (P < .001 for time), but speed of processing remained largely unchanged, with no effect of diet composition on either cognitive domain.
Conclusions Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF diet compared with an isocaloric LC diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing.
So far, the hypothesis that the brain "functions optimally on ketones" ie a low carb diet - can be tossed out from this research.
My other reading does suggest that low carb diets do have some possible value in certain disease states but that's not really the subject here.
There is also some evidence that low carb diets are a bad idea during brain development and for rats ...take that as you will.
Detrimental Effects of the Ketogenic Diet on Cognitive Function in Rats http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v55/n3/full/pr200478a.html
I would not claim from that that low carbing is bad - but it does point out that when people tend to take religious positions around diet - low carb good anything else bad - fail to consider context.
I think for yourself and other argumentative members of MFP my stance has been clear from my first post.
A brain fuelled by ketones, lactate and glucose operates just as optimal as a brain fuelled mainly or solely on glucose.
Additionally ketones are beneficial for helping slow the onset of certain brain deterioration diseases
If you are unable to provide any studies which show that subjects who are ketone adapted do not have brain function to the same optimal ability then that shall remain my stance.
Your moving the goal post.
You stated "low carb diet the brain works at an optimal level!"
Optimal means best or most favorable versus other options. "Just as optimal as" is nonsense. You inferenced that low carb was better for brain function. It's not. Short term it's possibly worse depending which factor you want to focus on. Long term there is no significant cognitive difference. I'm not claiming it's worse for cognitive function - why would I?
As to the AC1202 study it shows that the patients generally got worse - independent of diet, less worse on the drug but this has nothing to do with a low carb diet. It was a drug induced process. It might be worth doing with a diet induced ketosis but it's non conclusive. Just like the study I posted that shows low carb diets are bad for brain development, non conclusive in humans. And certainly not evidence that supports the diet in someone that doesn't have the disease. Low carb might be disease preventive but the links you've provided don't show that.
There might be research out there on the carbohydrate role and preventive nature of one type or another type of diet but frankly everything I've read to date suggests that losing weight and remaining physically active are more important in this disease, even that evidence is uncertain. Again context and big picture.
Watch and observe how many times you bully people!
You know, throwing that word around is pretty demeaning to people that actually got bullied.0 -
Hell, for that matter, who in the diet industry is getting my money if I choose to restrict carbs? Is there some evil meat organization out there pushing low carb diets in order to boost their sales?
They may not be getting your money, but all those folks selling books and diet plans are going to get someone's money. You might not buy a book to learn how to do low-carb, but thousands will. It's all part of the giant billion-dollar industry.
Anyway, it's pretty clear that low-carb has reached Cult Level: Paleo. Adios.0 -
Please find where I've ever said these diets have magical properties.
Please find where I said you did.
Settle down, Beavis....0 -
Stay away from bread and French fries? Why exactly?Carbs are important, but what are your carbs? Choose oatmeal, sweet potatoes, low GI carbs, stay away from white bread, eat whole grains. Stay away from French fries, have a baked potato instead, with no added fats.
I have found very low carb diets hard to stay on, and difficult to maintain for a lasting change.
You realize that once you add protein or fat to a carb it completely changes the GI scale? How often do you eat just a sweet potato?
Also, what's wrong with fats?
Yeah, so today I had rye toast with my eggs and cheese for breakfast, and for dinner I had Wendy's new Gouda chicken sandwich AND a medium french fry, but a diet Dr Pepper. I worked out for an hour and am full but still 500 calories under my goal for the day...The only thing I thing I wonder is 300 carbs a day seems high, I only had 150 grams of carbs today, and I wouldn't say I ate "low carb" at all. If I ate the 300 MFP gave me, I would't get near enough protein....but there is really no reason to go low carb for weight loss. And it's much better for your sanity to eat some of all food groups. Good luck OP! :smooched: 0 -
Watch and observe how many time he actually tries to do that, change what he's arguing to a different point when he doesn't have a way out. Pretty damn funny.Let's go look at some of the actual research on cognition and low fat or low carb diets....
Short term
http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/spacelab/pubs/Atkins_Appetite_inpress.pdf
Apparently leads to memory impairment but less confusion and faster attention response with low carbing.To examine how a low-carbohydrate diet affects cognitive performance, women participated in one of two weight-loss diet regimens. Participants self-selected a low-carbohydrate (n=9) or a reduced-calorie balanced diet similar to that recommended by the American Dietetic Association (ADA diet) (n=10). Seventy-two hours before beginning their diets and then 48 h, 1, 2, and 3 weeks after starting, participants completed a battery of cognitive tasks assessing visuospatial memory, vigilance attention, memory span, a food-related paired-associates a food Stroop, and the Profile of Moods Scale (POMS) to assess subjective mood. Results showed that during complete withdrawal of dietary carbohydrate, low-carbohydrate dieters performed worse on memory-based tasks than ADA dieters. These impairments were ameliorated after reintroduction of carbohydrates. Low-carbohydrate dieters reported less confusion (POMS) and responded faster during an attention vigilance task (CPT) than ADA dieters. Hunger ratings did not differ between the two diet conditions. The present data show memory impairments during low-carbohydrate diets at a point when available glycogen stores would be at their lowest. A commonly held explanation based on preoccupation with food would not account for these findings. The results also suggest better vigilance attention and reduced self-reported confusion while on the low-carbohydrate diet, although not tied to a specific time point during the diet. Taken together the results suggest that weight-loss diet regimens differentially impact cognitive behavior.
Long term
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108558
No difference - actually losing weight helps cognitive function independent of low fat or low carb.Background Very low-carbohydrate (LC) diets are often used to promote weight loss, but the long-term effects on psychological function remain unknown.
Methods A total of 106 overweight and obese participants (mean [SE] age, 50.0 [0.8] years; mean [SE] body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], 33.7 [0.4]) were randomly assigned either to an energy-restricted (approximately 1433-1672 kcal [to convert to kilojoules, multiply by 4.186]), planned isocaloric, very low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LC) diet or to a high-carbohydrate, low-fat (LF) diet for 1 year. Changes in body weight, psychological mood and well-being (Profile of Mood States, Beck Depression Inventory, and Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory scores), and cognitive functioning (working memory and speed of processing) were assessed.
Results By 1 year, the overall mean (SE) weight loss was 13.7 (1.8) kg, with no significant difference between groups (P = .26). Over the course of the study, there were significant time × diet interactions for Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and Profile of Mood States scores for total mood disturbance, anger-hostility, confusion-bewilderment, and depression-dejection (P < .05) as a result of greater improvements in these psychological mood states for the LF diet compared with the LC diet. Working memory improved by 1 year (P < .001 for time), but speed of processing remained largely unchanged, with no effect of diet composition on either cognitive domain.
Conclusions Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF diet compared with an isocaloric LC diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing.
So far, the hypothesis that the brain "functions optimally on ketones" ie a low carb diet - can be tossed out from this research.
My other reading does suggest that low carb diets do have some possible value in certain disease states but that's not really the subject here.
There is also some evidence that low carb diets are a bad idea during brain development and for rats ...take that as you will.
Detrimental Effects of the Ketogenic Diet on Cognitive Function in Rats http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v55/n3/full/pr200478a.html
I would not claim from that that low carbing is bad - but it does point out that when people tend to take religious positions around diet - low carb good anything else bad - fail to consider context.
I think for yourself and other argumentative members of MFP my stance has been clear from my first post.
A brain fuelled by ketones, lactate and glucose operates just as optimal as a brain fuelled mainly or solely on glucose.
Additionally ketones are beneficial for helping slow the onset of certain brain deterioration diseases
If you are unable to provide any studies which show that subjects who are ketone adapted do not have brain function to the same optimal ability then that shall remain my stance.
Your moving the goal post.
You stated "low carb diet the brain works at an optimal level!"
Optimal means best or most favorable versus other options. "Just as optimal as" is nonsense. You inferenced that low carb was better for brain function. It's not. Short term it's possibly worse depending which factor you want to focus on. Long term there is no significant cognitive difference. I'm not claiming it's worse for cognitive function - why would I?
As to the AC1202 study it shows that the patients generally got worse - independent of diet, less worse on the drug but this has nothing to do with a low carb diet. It was a drug induced process. It might be worth doing with a diet induced ketosis but it's non conclusive. Just like the study I posted that shows low carb diets are bad for brain development, non conclusive in humans. And certainly not evidence that supports the diet in someone that doesn't have the disease. Low carb might be disease preventive but the links you've provided don't show that.
There might be research out there on the carbohydrate role and preventive nature of one type or another type of diet but frankly everything I've read to date suggests that losing weight and remaining physically active are more important in this disease, even that evidence is uncertain. Again context and big picture.
Watch and observe how many times you bully people!
So calling out people on their bull**** is "bullying" now?0 -
Please find where I've ever said these diets have magical properties.
Please find where I said you did.
Settle down, Beavis....
Seems to be the implication when you quote me and say let's not assign magical properties to this diet. But if you were just making a general statement (albeit in a misleading fashion), then sure I agree people shouldn't believe diets are magical. It'd almost be easier if people would just believe in magic though, given the number of misinterpreted studies and articles in this thread.0 -
Let's go look at some of the actual research on cognition and low fat or low carb diets....
Short term
http://ase.tufts.edu/psychology/spacelab/pubs/Atkins_Appetite_inpress.pdf
Apparently leads to memory impairment but less confusion and faster attention response with low carbing.To examine how a low-carbohydrate diet affects cognitive performance, women participated in one of two weight-loss diet regimens. Participants self-selected a low-carbohydrate (n=9) or a reduced-calorie balanced diet similar to that recommended by the American Dietetic Association (ADA diet) (n=10). Seventy-two hours before beginning their diets and then 48 h, 1, 2, and 3 weeks after starting, participants completed a battery of cognitive tasks assessing visuospatial memory, vigilance attention, memory span, a food-related paired-associates a food Stroop, and the Profile of Moods Scale (POMS) to assess subjective mood. Results showed that during complete withdrawal of dietary carbohydrate, low-carbohydrate dieters performed worse on memory-based tasks than ADA dieters. These impairments were ameliorated after reintroduction of carbohydrates. Low-carbohydrate dieters reported less confusion (POMS) and responded faster during an attention vigilance task (CPT) than ADA dieters. Hunger ratings did not differ between the two diet conditions. The present data show memory impairments during low-carbohydrate diets at a point when available glycogen stores would be at their lowest. A commonly held explanation based on preoccupation with food would not account for these findings. The results also suggest better vigilance attention and reduced self-reported confusion while on the low-carbohydrate diet, although not tied to a specific time point during the diet. Taken together the results suggest that weight-loss diet regimens differentially impact cognitive behavior.
Long term
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108558
No difference - actually losing weight helps cognitive function independent of low fat or low carb.Background Very low-carbohydrate (LC) diets are often used to promote weight loss, but the long-term effects on psychological function remain unknown.
Methods A total of 106 overweight and obese participants (mean [SE] age, 50.0 [0.8] years; mean [SE] body mass index [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], 33.7 [0.4]) were randomly assigned either to an energy-restricted (approximately 1433-1672 kcal [to convert to kilojoules, multiply by 4.186]), planned isocaloric, very low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LC) diet or to a high-carbohydrate, low-fat (LF) diet for 1 year. Changes in body weight, psychological mood and well-being (Profile of Mood States, Beck Depression Inventory, and Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory scores), and cognitive functioning (working memory and speed of processing) were assessed.
Results By 1 year, the overall mean (SE) weight loss was 13.7 (1.8) kg, with no significant difference between groups (P = .26). Over the course of the study, there were significant time × diet interactions for Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory, and Profile of Mood States scores for total mood disturbance, anger-hostility, confusion-bewilderment, and depression-dejection (P < .05) as a result of greater improvements in these psychological mood states for the LF diet compared with the LC diet. Working memory improved by 1 year (P < .001 for time), but speed of processing remained largely unchanged, with no effect of diet composition on either cognitive domain.
Conclusions Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF diet compared with an isocaloric LC diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing.
So far, the hypothesis that the brain "functions optimally on ketones" ie a low carb diet - can be tossed out from this research.
My other reading does suggest that low carb diets do have some possible value in certain disease states but that's not really the subject here.
There is also some evidence that low carb diets are a bad idea during brain development and for rats ...take that as you will.
Detrimental Effects of the Ketogenic Diet on Cognitive Function in Rats http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v55/n3/full/pr200478a.html
I would not claim from that that low carbing is bad - but it does point out that when people tend to take religious positions around diet - low carb good anything else bad - fail to consider context.
No, the research can’t be tossed out. More research needs to be done on the subject. It was an outpatient program, the tests where done in the morning when the high carb group is more likely closer to a ketogenic state.
There is this archeological site, it’s pretty deep, and it shows humans through history. The deeper they are the farther in time they are. What they realized is that we became the species we are be consuming energy from animal sources. It is believed that the diet in high fat helped develop the brain. I know people with ADD on a keto based diet, it has helped them. I also know people who have ADHD, and it appears the symptoms get worse when they consume processed carbohydrates. You can’t deny that as glucose concentration drops, performance drops. This is well emphasized in performance. This will also impair cognitive function. People who are keto adapted don’t go through these fluctuations of glucose concentration as much if any at all.0 -
People who are keto adapted don’t go through these fluctuations of glucose concentration as much if any at all.
That's not particularly a positive, as it is precisely "fluctuations" that allow for high intensity activities by allowing higher energy peaks. There is a reason there are no elite ketogenic athletes in the vast majority sports.
Also, I have one of those ADHD kids, and saw first hand the complete lack of improvement from either ketogenic or gluten-free diets.
Stop looking for a magic bullet....the "right" diet depends on who you are and what you do...0 -
People who are keto adapted don’t go through these fluctuations of glucose concentration as much if any at all.
That's not particularly a positive, as it is precisely "fluctuations" that allow for high intensity activities by allowing higher energy peaks. There is a reason there are no elite ketogenic athletes in the vast majority sports.
Also, I have one of those ADHD kids, and saw first hand the complete lack of improvement from either ketogenic or gluten-free diets.
Stop looking for a magic bullet....the "right" diet depends on who you are and what you do...
Nowhere did I say everyone should follow a ketogenic. I believe in genetics, some can tolerate carbs better than others. I pointed out some of the positive effects of keto for people who do well on those types of diets. That study posted, needs more research. Probably one of the greatests runners in the world is low carb. Stu Mittleman ran from San Diego to New York in 56 days I believe. Last time I checked he also has the world record for running from San Fransico to San Diego, averaging 3 marathons a day. His diet?
• Stu’s diet consists primarily of water, salads, oils, low-temperature cooked vegetables, vegetable soups, certain lower-starch grains, seeds, nuts, and fish. He used to be a vegetarian but believes fish is very healthy.
• Regarding supplements, Stu thinks it would be preferable to get our greens through whole foods, but because of the stresses of modern life, he considers greens supplements to be an “alkaline seatbelt on the acidic highway of life.”
• I asked Stu after his talk about what he consumes during a long run, and he said he eats mostly things like almonds or pureed vegetables, not sugar. Certainly not commercial sports drinks, and not even something like a banana!
As you should know, long distance endurance events are that, endurance. This requires fat oxidation, they run at the top of the “aerobic”(fat oxidation) zone, if they went above that, they wouldn’t make it.0 -
1) Do you have any health issues? Personally, I have one kidney so I must take that in consideration before jumping on any "fad diet" bandwagon.
2) Do you have any concerns about developing long term health issues? I don't want to get into any of the bickering matches that are going on with this post but I would do some research on the side effects of low carb diets.
My suggestion? Check in with your doctor, share your concerns, and, if they are a good doctor, they should be able to point you in the right direction. Heck! When discussing my blood work, my doctor usually makes dietary suggestions.
Best of luck! Just know that you can break through this plateau. My motto used to be "Nothing tastes as good as being thin feels."0 -
Holy crap! I wish I'd never opened this thread. Reading it has given me a headache.
Here's the bottom line...if low carbing messes up your brain, who cares? You'll be thin and we all know pretty people don't need to be smart to get ahead in this world.
You're welcome!0 -
Shallow googling is not going to help your cause. Mittelman was sponsored by Gatorade during his competitive years, you might want to double-check the order of events around this guy....Probably one of the greatests runners in the world is low carb. Stu Mittleman ran from San Diego to New York in 56 days I believe. Last time I checked he also has the world record for running from San Fransico to San Diego, averaging 3 marathons a day.
And you might also want to consider what "low carb" means in the context of burning thousands of calories a day, because the dude is not racing (or training to race) in a state of ketosis or anything close to a state of ketosis.
And you might also want to consider the difference between running very slow for a long time versus and, say, playing basketball.
Here's an actual quote from him, from his glory days of 1986...."..it`s imperative that I learn how to eat properly, to train properly, before one of these runs. You have to have a diet that eliminates stress on the digestive system. That means complex carbohydrates, high fiber foods, and low saturated fats. And most important, fluids.0 -
And there is this appropriately timed article...Cut those carbs and eat that fat!!!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=00 -
And there is this appropriately timed article...Cut those carbs and eat that fat!!!!!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?_r=0
Yeah Nah.
Correlation =/= causation.
I thought we had already worked out that calorie deficit matters. Low carb vs low fat is personal preference depending on health and activity levels.
I did low carb yesterday, trained and was literally falling asleep between sets. The week earlier I was still making pbs on 5/3/1. Anaerobic activity and low carb is ****. (for me)0 -
Shallow googling searching isn’t going to help your cause. Try reading his book, he talks in great depth about the subject. Also old “quotes” don’t help your cause either. In his book he did specifically say what you quoted, then he realized his performance was much better on a low carb diet.
Shallow googling is not going to help your cause. Mittelman was sponsored by Gatorade during his competitive years, you might want to double-check the order of events around this guy....Probably one of the greatests runners in the world is low carb. Stu Mittleman ran from San Diego to New York in 56 days I believe. Last time I checked he also has the world record for running from San Fransico to San Diego, averaging 3 marathons a day.
And you might also want to consider what "low carb" means in the context of burning thousands of calories a day, because the dude is not racing (or training to race) in a state of ketosis or anything close to a state of ketosis.
And you might also want to consider the difference between running very slow for a long time versus and, say, playing basketball.
Here's an actual quote from him, from his glory days of 1986...."..it`s imperative that I learn how to eat properly, to train properly, before one of these runs. You have to have a diet that eliminates stress on the digestive system. That means complex carbohydrates, high fiber foods, and low saturated fats. And most important, fluids.
What makes you think he’s not close to ketosis? In his book, his dietary recommendations are pretty low in carb, not saying he is ketogenic, but he’s closer to being ketogenic then most performance athletes. Btw here is his video of 12 marathons in 12 days, in 2010.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kVU_yCZE-o&list=UUU-8Gh-e27Z1d-zLHAODb3w
Which is 10 years after he ran across the united states, highly doubt he was still sponsored by Gatorade.0 -
Ketogenic Diet has much more benefits than just weight loss:
• Reduction on Triglycerides
• Improved HDL
• Decrease Saturated Fat (in your body)
• Improved insulin sensitivity (glucose, insulin, HbA1C)
• Decrease Blood Pressure
• Decrease inflammation
• Improved atherogenic dyslipidemia
Please watch Dr. Jeff Volek's lecture (1hr) on "The Many Facets of Keto-Adaptation: Health, Performance, and Beyond"
http://youtu.be/GC1vMBRFiwE 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions