avoiding carbs makes you lose weight

pyro13g

You're proving the stereotype of drummers.

mapexdrummer69

You're proving the stereotype of drummers.

A very low tolerance for dietary and nutritional myths? ;-)

robertf57

I'm saying that this is a real world active control trial of the diets. (the A to Z trial educated the participants in each arm according to the tenents of the diet in it's published form i.e. Atkin, Zone,etc.) This was a test of what real people did trying to follow the diets they were assigned in their own homes. They were also followed for a full year, not some 6 week fat camp study. It also dovetails quite nicely with the DIOgenes European weight maintenance study looking at the value of increased protein and decreased glycemic index (the other study I posted) in long term weight maintenance.

I am an empiricist. I could make anyone lose weight if I stuck them in a ward someplace and controlled their diet at a low calorie level and made them exercise. The important question is what happens with "free range" people in the real world. That is what should influence us.-out

pyro13g

You're proving the stereotype of drummers.

A very low tolerance for dietary and nutritional myths? ;-)

Like your Insulin and fat comment?

penmillion

*bump* What an interesting thread. Now I want to know how many copies of the potato-eating gene I have. (from the link way back on page 1)

pyro13g

:laugh: tsop puD. yrroS!

sweet_lotus

If you know a study which shows greater loss weight loss on low carb diets, calorie for calorie, please share. Maybe there is some type of metabolic effect, I don't know.

Actually, look no further than the A to Z study published March 7, 2007 in JAMA (297:269) There were no significant difference in caloric consumption between the 4 diet groups at any time point in the study and only at the two month follow-up was the Low carb group even the lowest mean consumer of calories. Now we don't know what happened to each individual ( which would be more interpretable), but we do know that the low-carb group as a whole had the greatest weight loss at 12 months and the best metabolic profile of the 4 diet.

You mean this study?

http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969.full

It's important to look at the data tables when you evaluate a study, not just the abstract or conclusion.

After 12 months, the group that lost the most weight out of women averaging 189 pounds at start lost...10 pounds? (Atkins.) That's less than 1 pound a month. Further, if you look at the data table that tracked weight, ALL groups regained some weight:

http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969/F2.expansion.html

The Atkins group did lose the most by the 2 month mark. But if you calculate what they should be losing based on their average weights (86kg/189 pounds) and average calorie intake (1381), they lose exactly what they should be from plain old calorie restriction - about 10 pounds in two months (at that weight they would need about 1950 cal/day to maintain at sedentary activity levels, at a caloric deficit of 569/day, that's 34,140 calorie deficit or about 9.75 pounds.) Not sure what happened to the other groups. It's possible that Aktins was easier to adhere to, at least initially.

But, in the later part of the study - they all gained! Even if you adjusted for their modest weight loss, each group should have continued to lose slowly on their reported caloric intake, rather than gain. The women in the Aktins group purportedly put on weight while eating 50g/carb a day AND reduced calories in the Atkins "continued weight loss phase" of their plan, and gained the most back out of all the groups. Not good.

This is indicative of problems with reported data. It's disappointing that it wasn't addressed.

If carbs were an factor, then you would expect the ZONE group which restricted carbs to 40% to out-lose the LEARN group who ate a whopping 55-60% carbs. They didn't, at any point.

Weight loss tends to correlate with metabolic profile so that's not unusual that the group that lost the most had the best profile.

I still think it's possible that there is some benefit to carb restriction independent of calorie restriction, but, I wouldn't hang my hat on this one. The only thing that you could conclude is that all of the diets failed by 12 months.

Got anything else?

icerose137

So much wrong there it makes me sad. You can't be an omnivore. They haven't found a term to classify a modern humans digestive system yet. You can't build the best muscle possible heading towards the vegan side of things. Unless of course you want to supplement from the non vegan side of things. You CANNOT get a complete protein profile from that strategy and you CANNOT get B12, which humans need, from that kind of diet with out supplements.

Huh? Omnivore at this point simply means eats both animal and plant based food. Real simple, herbavores eat plant stuff only. Carnivores eat meat only, omnivores eat both animal and plant based food. I am an omnivore. I am not talking about my digestive system I am talking about what I eat. I never said I was vegan, I said I was an unrepentant omnivore meaning again, I eat animal products along with the plant products. And yeah, I wasn't talking about B12, and no animals are not the only source of B12 you can actually get it from Miso which is a fermented soy product. But again, not a vegan. I may someday veer toward vegetarian but I would never completely become a vegetarian hence the "unrepentant" comment.

And yeah you actually can get complete proteins through plant sources. For example peanuts are a dicot protein while grains such as wheat, oats, corn ect are monocot proteins. To get a complete protein you can do a simple PB&J and tada you have a complete protein. Just because plant sources aren't complete in and of themselves, does not mean you can't complete them by pairing. You can actually do that just fine.

pyro13g

The only thing that you could conclude is that all of the diets failed by 12 months.

Diets always fail. Life changes tend to stick. good or bad. I often think people are chasing the fountain of youth via the weight loss body image pursuit. I hope they know age will happen. You will get old, you will wrinkle, you will die of something you're trying to prevent purely of age. And I hope they have vaults of money stashed somewhere to live to a very old age. I'm just trying to put the odds in my favor to enjoy a few years of retirement before the $$ runs dry.

LisaKyle11

bump!

pyro13g

So much wrong there it makes me sad. You can't be an omnivore. They haven't found a term to classify a modern humans digestive system yet. You can't build the best muscle possible heading towards the vegan side of things. Unless of course you want to supplement from the non vegan side of things. You CANNOT get a complete protein profile from that strategy and you CANNOT get B12, which humans need, from that kind of diet with out supplements.

Huh? Omnivore at this point simply means eats both animal and plant based food. Real simple, herbavores eat plant stuff only. Carnivores eat meat only, omnivores eat both animal and plant based food. I am an omnivore. I am not talking about my digestive system I am talking about what I eat. I never said I was vegan, I said I was an unrepentant omnivore meaning again, I eat animal products along with the plant products. And yeah, I wasn't talking about B12, and no animals are not the only source of B12 you can actually get it from Miso which is a fermented soy product. But again, not a vegan. I may someday veer toward vegetarian but I would never completely become a vegetarian hence the "unrepentant" comment.

And yeah you actually can get complete proteins through plant sources. For example peanuts are a dicot protein while grains such as wheat, oats, corn ect are monocot proteins. To get a complete protein you can do a simple PB&J and tada you have a complete protein. Just because plant sources aren't complete in and of themselves, does not mean you can't complete them by pairing. You can actually do that just fine.

What you eat does not classify you as an herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, etc.. your digestive system and biochemical needs do. Humans do not fit any of them.

NikkisNewStart

I think she's coo coo for Co Co Puffs.

mapexdrummer69

You're proving the stereotype of drummers.

A very low tolerance for dietary and nutritional myths? ;-)

Like your Insulin and fat comment?

Please quote the comment and point out any errors.

mapexdrummer69

Very nice review!


Just to add...


The initial higher weight loss shown by the group implementing the Atkins is easily explained by the fact that carbohydrates are water binding, so an extreme restriction in the "induction phase" would result in a large loss of muscle and liver glycogen, along with overall body water weight.

You mean this study?

http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969.full

It's important to look at the data tables when you evaluate a study, not just the abstract or conclusion.

After 12 months, the group that lost the most weight out of women averaging 189 pounds at start lost...10 pounds? (Atkins.) That's less than 1 pound a month. Further, if you look at the data table that tracked weight, ALL groups regained some weight:

http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969/F2.expansion.html

The Atkins group did lose the most by the 2 month mark. But if you calculate what they should be losing based on their average weights (86kg/189 pounds) and average calorie intake (1381), they lose exactly what they should be from plain old calorie restriction - about 10 pounds in two months (at that weight they would need about 1950 cal/day to maintain at sedentary activity levels, at a caloric deficit of 569/day, that's 34,140 calorie deficit or about 9.75 pounds.) Not sure what happened to the other groups. It's possible that Aktins was easier to adhere to, at least initially.

But, in the later part of the study - they all gained! Even if you adjusted for their modest weight loss, each group should have continued to lose slowly on their reported caloric intake, rather than gain. The women in the Aktins group purportedly put on weight while eating 50g/carb a day AND reduced calories in the Atkins "continued weight loss phase" of their plan, and gained the most back out of all the groups. Not good.

This is indicative of problems with reported data. It's disappointing that it wasn't addressed.

If carbs were an factor, then you would expect the ZONE group which restricted carbs to 40% to out-lose the LEARN group who ate a whopping 55-60% carbs. They didn't, at any point.

Weight loss tends to correlate with metabolic profile so that's not unusual that the group that lost the most had the best profile.

I still think it's possible that there is some benefit to carb restriction independent of calorie restriction, but, I wouldn't hang my hat on this one. The only thing that you could conclude is that all of the diets failed by 12 months.

Got anything else?

evonday

"Our bodies were not designed to eat carbs and can do very well without them."

That right there made me completely disregard the legitimacy of your guru. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. But there's a reason carbs are the biggest part of the food triangle. Our body needs them.

Your body stores carbs in muscles. Carbs are necessary for your Retinas to work, your central nervous system, your immune system and your muscles, it goes on. You need carbs.

The reason people lose weight by keeping out carbs is that your body will cannibalize your muscle to get the carbs needed for other systems. It cannot make them with other things, unlike proteins. Muscle weighs more then fat, so you'll lose weight, and fast, but when you're done your metabolism will be lower then when you started.

Moderation is the key. Limit your carbs, but don't completely cut them out.

mapexdrummer69

Your body doesn't "need" carbs, it all comes down to preference. I personally find that I function better while ingesting carbs, BUT, if you choose to limit your carbohydrates, your body will adapt just fine.

bcattoes

Humans really aren't a true anything in terms of digestive system. More like a garbage disposal. Some need to understand how insulin results in fat. Saying it doesn't is flat out ridiculous. That's it's job when glycogen stores are full.

Any food, including protein, can result in fat if you eat more than you burn off.

mapexdrummer69

Humans really aren't a true anything in terms of digestive system. More like a garbage disposal. Some need to understand how insulin results in fat. Saying it doesn't is flat out ridiculous. That's it's job when glycogen stores are full.

Any food, including protein, can result in fat if you eat more than you burn off.

Yeppers.

icerose137

What you eat does not classify you as an herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, etc.. your digestive system and biochemical needs do. Humans do not fit any of them.

The term "real simple" must simply escape you or you're trying to be difficult on purpose. Until they find the proper term for our digestive system I'm going with what fits us the closest and that would be omnivore. Thank you very much.

bcattoes

What you eat does not classify you as an herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, etc.. your digestive system and biochemical needs do. Humans do not fit any of them.

The term "real simple" must simply escape you or you're trying to be difficult on purpose. Until they find the proper term for our digestive system I'm going with what fits us the closest and that would be omnivore. Thank you very much.

Really? I've read that the human digestive tract most closely resembles animals that are herbivorous.