low carb or not?
Replies
-
I don't remember what the rationale was for the US News thing was, but I think it was "a panel of experts" who ranked them. I don't recall any actual science at play there.
Again, I don't dispute that caloric balance determines weight loss, but the advantage I think that low-carb diets have for many is that they allow for more natural reductions in calories when eating naturally (not in a clinical setting, not tracking every bite that is eaten). I have no idea whether they give a metabolic advantage to metabolically-healthy individuals or even metabolically-deranged individuals. What I would like to see is a long-term study comparing weight gain, instead of loss, on those eating ad libitum low carb/high fat versus those eating high carb/low fat.
i believe there is a study tracking weight changes on low carb vs other diets, i have to find the citation for it. And you may be right that in ad libitum settings it's easier to restrict cals low carbing, and that is most likely because you're cutting out or severely limiting an entire macronutrient, but i believe also studies show that keto/low carb diets have some of the worst adherence rates (i think that is what made US News rank paleo the worst of like 30 diets, low adherence, i know it as ranked last but forget their rationale).
Also i know there is another observational study that showed atkins showed greater weight loss then 2 or 3 other diets at 3 and 6 months but no difference in weight loss at 1 yr, i have to find the citation for that one as well
Here's an interesting study about ad libitum intake on low carb vs low fat:
Johnstone, et al., Effects of a high-protein ketogenic diet on hunger, appetite, and weight loss in obese men feeding ad libitum, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 87, No. 1, 44-55, January 2008
But again, Taubes was not really prescribing a weight loss plan or examining how people lose weight--especially not weight in a controlled clinical trial. He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb?
I think we have observations from tribal populations eating a high percentage of whole-food, non-grain or refined-sugar-based carbohydrates (Kitavans, Tarahumara) who stay quite slim and healthy, so I do think population-wide obesity is about more than macronutrients. But I also think Taubes is right in saying that we might be concentrating on energy balance as the be all and end all of stopping weight gain is not helpful. Yes, caloric restriction results in weight loss but that advice, on a population level, IS NOT WORKING. So maybe it is time to give different advice? Concentrate on food quality and nutrient density instead of calories?0 -
I'm not one for ranting but I will say this: my body, my diet, my problem - not yours. I don't think it's right at all to criticize someone for doing a diet "wrong" on a site dedicated to weight loss - especially since (I'm assuming - sorry for the assumption if you are!) you're not a registered dietician. I'm not either - hence why I contributed my two cents to the OP on my experiences not on doing a diet "right." Good luck with doing your diet your way - I'll keep doing mine, mine. Hope we both get where we are going.Here's my two-cents: years ago, I lost about 20 pounds a month doing no card. It was easy and pretty darn yummy. The weight (and then some!) all came back. When I went mostly vegan last summer, my diet became very carb-based but GOOD carbs (fruit, carb-based veggies like corn, and a whole lot of whole grains) and I lost 20 pounds the first month and another 50 since then. This time it is staying off. No matter what the "diet" you take (calorie counting, low carb, high protein, etc.), you can lose weight on it. There isn't some magic diet formula that works so perfect for everyone - if there was, don't you think we'd be in the US without a lot of the weight troubles we have as a nation? It's all about finding what works for you, your body, your lifestyle and your future. If you love carbs but are trying low carb to lose weight, it probably isn't going to stay off because you'll go right back to the same habits when the diet is "over." Focus on trying to eat healthier long-term to keep the weight off and your body healthy. Good luck!
Then you really did it wrong when you did low-carb. First, anytime you go on a short-term diet and go back to your old eating habits, you will gain back the weight no matter what type of program it is. Any kind of weight loss eating plan should be a lifestyle change. Second, low-carb means eating lots of vegetables if you're doing it properly. It isn't all bacon (not even mostly bacon).
While I love carbs, carbs don't love me. If I eat more than about 60 grams of carb in a day (yeah, even if they're whole grain or other whole foods like beans), not only does my blood sugar spike but I get severe heartburn. Yeah, bread gives me heartburn, go figure. And I retain water like crazy, no matter how much water I'm drinking to try to flush it out, making me ache all over and my shoes hurt.
Too much fruit does the same thing. I can eat maybe half of a small apple at a time but I must have protein with it (usually peanut butter). If I eat too much fruit, yup, heartburn.
If you're doing Atkins (I'm not), you are supposed to do induction level for about 2 weeks (20 grams carb/day) and then go into the second stage where you gradually add 5 carbs/day until you get to a level where you can't eat anymore carbs a day without having problems. These problems can be any of the ones I've mentioned above that happen to me or it could simply be getting to a level of carb intake where you are no longer losing weight. Some people can only get up to about 30-40 grams/day, some 100 or more, as we all vary. Then once you find the level at which you continue to lose 1-2 pounds per week, you stay there until you get to maintenance at which time you add a few more carbs back in until you get to the level where you maintain your weight in a healthy manner eating a variety of protein, carbs and fats.
It just really bugs when people do low-carb wrong and then blame the eating plan. Sorry for the mini rant.0 -
The only way it works is if you stick to it forever. You can eat better lower carbs. I only eat lower carb breads, whole wheat pasta, sweet potatoes. I like carbs too much to cut them out all together but it was easy to cut portion size and choose healthier carbs.
When I did the weight came right off. I have been maintaining for months and now know I can do this forever with little effort.0 -
I will let Taubes himself respond to your criticism stating essentially what I stated earlier. The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO.
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=2471&pid=58168#pid58168
Taubes himself argues his book was an attempt to review the prevailing wisdom on the cause of obesity and then to propose a new alternative *hypothesis* which should be then tested. I believe that underlying his statement on eating as much protein as you want is the implication that eating protein is self-limiting when you do it in the absence of carbohydrate.
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat
"The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO. "
in identical isocaloric amounts, what produces the lowest insulin response? White pasta, Brown pasta, Mature Cheddar cheese, Top round beef fillets or steamed Ling fish fillets?
"He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb? "
not really since how could you drill all the way down to that higher CHO intake was the cause of the weight gain. if you want to show that CHO is mainly responsible for weight gain and that low CHO diets are best for weight loss, then it should show up in controlled metabolic ward studies.
"But I also think Taubes is right in saying that we might be concentrating on energy balance as the be all and end all of stopping weight gain is not helpful. Yes, caloric restriction results in weight loss but that advice, on a population level, IS NOT WORKING. So maybe it is time to give different advice? Concentrate on food quality and nutrient density instead of calories?"
i don't disagree that food quality and nutrient dense foods should be stressed, but to single out a macronutrient as the cause of obesity is silly0 -
Okay, but is Taubes really claiming that eating a precisely calculated amount of calories of primarily CHO in a controlled metabolic ward will make you fatter than the same precisely calculated amount of calories of primarily fat in a metabolic ward? Or is he hypothesizing that eating a large amount of carbohydrates ad libitum will, over time, cause your body to "crave" more, so you eat more, etc.?"He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb? "
not really since how could you drill all the way down to that higher CHO intake was the cause of the weight gain. if you want to show that CHO is mainly responsible for weight gain and that low CHO diets are best for weight loss, then it should show up in controlled metabolic ward studies.
I don't see how controlled intake studies in metabolic wards tell us anything since I didn't think Taubes was denying the laws of thermodynamics.
Or am I completely mistaken? It's been a long time.0 -
i don't disagree that food quality and nutrient dense foods should be stressed, but to single out a macronutrient as the cause of obesity is silly
Amen!0 -
Okay, but is Taubes really claiming that eating a precisely calculated amount of calories of primarily CHO in a controlled metabolic ward will make you fatter than the same precisely calculated amount of calories of primarily fat in a metabolic ward? Or is he hypothesizing that eating a large amount of carbohydrates ad libitum will, over time, cause your body to "crave" more, so you eat more, etc.?
I don't see how controlled intake studies in metabolic wards tell us anything since I didn't think Taubes was denying the laws of thermodynamics.
Or am I completely mistaken? It's been a long time.
he states mult times that only CHO is responsible for people getting fat and that both Pro and Fat have no impact on fat accumulation, yet that is only true in his fantasy world.
he also makes the ridiculous claim that the energy balance equation doesn't hold because the obese eat the same as or less then the lean, without first issuing the caveat that all that is based on self reported data and the obese in particular have been found to massively understate caloric intake
if he just wanted to push eat less processed junk and concentrate on more nutrient dense whole foods, that's one thing, it's another thing to demonize a single macronutrient as the cause of various ills0 -
Okay, but is Taubes really claiming that eating a precisely calculated amount of calories of primarily CHO in a controlled metabolic ward will make you fatter than the same precisely calculated amount of calories of primarily fat in a metabolic ward? Or is he hypothesizing that eating a large amount of carbohydrates ad libitum will, over time, cause your body to "crave" more, so you eat more, etc.?
I don't see how controlled intake studies in metabolic wards tell us anything since I didn't think Taubes was denying the laws of thermodynamics.
Or am I completely mistaken? It's been a long time.
It's been a while since I read his book too, but Taubes explicitly states that the obese eat the same amount of calories as the non-obese....and this is based on a relatively old study using data based on self-reporting. He ignores subsequent studies that repeatedly demonstrate how obese people consistenly underreport calories and overreport activity. And this is the foundation upon which he bases his hypothesis that total calories are suboordinate to insulinogenic factors when it comes to weight gain/loss.0 -
just my personal experience - I was no carb for YEARS and I eventually got sick of all the restricted eating (this is good food, this is bad food etc). it was doing my head in .
so i went back to eating carbs. Now I have half a cup of oatmeal at breakfast with my protein shake, and I frequently have a cup of brown rice at lunch. At dinner tonight I had (horror!) 1 cup of potato.
And you know what? The word did not cave in!!!! I felt better and healthier than I had in a long time!
And I started losing weight better.
It really just about calories. Clean eating is better because you get to eat more. You can cut carbs out but really all you are doing is making it easier to reduce calories without counting them.0 -
Ding ding ding! That is primarily what I, for one, am looking for.You can cut carbs out but really all you are doing is making it easier to reduce calories without counting them.
I would also say that reducing starchy carbohydrates and opting for whole, non-industrialized sources of fats and grass-fed/pastured/wild-caught protein sources will increase nutrient density.0 -
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdfI will let Taubes himself respond to your criticism stating essentially what I stated earlier. The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO.
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=2471&pid=58168#pid58168
Taubes himself argues his book was an attempt to review the prevailing wisdom on the cause of obesity and then to propose a new alternative *hypothesis* which should be then tested. I believe that underlying his statement on eating as much protein as you want is the implication that eating protein is self-limiting when you do it in the absence of carbohydrate.
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat
"The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO. "
in identical isocaloric amounts, what produces the lowest insulin response? White pasta, Brown pasta, Mature Cheddar cheese, Top round beef fillets or steamed Ling fish fillets?
"He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb? "
not really since how could you drill all the way down to that higher CHO intake was the cause of the weight gain. if you want to show that CHO is mainly responsible for weight gain and that low CHO diets are best for weight loss, then it should show up in controlled metabolic ward studies.
"But I also think Taubes is right in saying that we might be concentrating on energy balance as the be all and end all of stopping weight gain is not helpful. Yes, caloric restriction results in weight loss but that advice, on a population level, IS NOT WORKING. So maybe it is time to give different advice? Concentrate on food quality and nutrient density instead of calories?"
i don't disagree that food quality and nutrient dense foods should be stressed, but to single out a macronutrient as the cause of obesity is silly
page 1269
Hmm, which group am I going to eat and which to avoid if I want to control insulin? (relative insulin response % shown)
White bread 100
potatoes 121
baked beans 120
yogurt 115
mars bar 122
jellybeans 160
ice cream 89
cookies 90
crackers 87
grapes 82
eggs 31
cheese, 45
beef 41
fish 59
peanuts 200 -
I say no-ish. I eat carbs, but not lots of potato or white bread carbs. I eat fruit, sandwich thins or other low cal bread and sometimes pasta or brown rice. I have lost 90 pounds since January of this year, so it has obviously not held me back.
What works for you may not work for someone else. As someone stated above, people who are insulin resistant usually need to be far more careful with the amount of carbs they eat in order to lose weight. I know that about 80-90 carbs max a day is all my body can handle. Above that amount, and I won't lose a pound no matter how low I keep my calories because I will have too much insulin, the fat-holding hormone, raging through my system. I also get very sluggish, groggy, and retain water to the point where my feet hurt and shoes are tight if I eat more than that many carbs in a day. I actually do best around 40-60 carbs/day.
Of course, this isn't true for someone without insulin issues and you may be one of those lucky people.
Well that is why I said no-ish. I know that everyone will be different. But I also know that I think on some level so many people are automatically "scared" of carbs, and it doesn't have to be that way.0 -
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdfI will let Taubes himself respond to your criticism stating essentially what I stated earlier. The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO.
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=2471&pid=58168#pid58168
Taubes himself argues his book was an attempt to review the prevailing wisdom on the cause of obesity and then to propose a new alternative *hypothesis* which should be then tested. I believe that underlying his statement on eating as much protein as you want is the implication that eating protein is self-limiting when you do it in the absence of carbohydrate.
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat
"The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO. "
in identical isocaloric amounts, what produces the lowest insulin response? White pasta, Brown pasta, Mature Cheddar cheese, Top round beef fillets or steamed Ling fish fillets?
"He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb? "
not really since how could you drill all the way down to that higher CHO intake was the cause of the weight gain. if you want to show that CHO is mainly responsible for weight gain and that low CHO diets are best for weight loss, then it should show up in controlled metabolic ward studies.
"But I also think Taubes is right in saying that we might be concentrating on energy balance as the be all and end all of stopping weight gain is not helpful. Yes, caloric restriction results in weight loss but that advice, on a population level, IS NOT WORKING. So maybe it is time to give different advice? Concentrate on food quality and nutrient density instead of calories?"
i don't disagree that food quality and nutrient dense foods should be stressed, but to single out a macronutrient as the cause of obesity is silly
page 1269
Hmm, which group am I going to eat and which to avoid if I want to control insulin? (relative insulin response % shown)
White bread 100
potatoes 121
baked beans 120
yogurt 115
mars bar 122
jellybeans 160
ice cream 89
cookies 90
crackers 87
grapes 82
eggs 31
cheese, 45
beef 41
fish 59
peanuts 20
??? Um, the link provided only has 13 pages. And what are those numbers supposed to represent?0 -
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdfI will let Taubes himself respond to your criticism stating essentially what I stated earlier. The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO.
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=2471&pid=58168#pid58168
Taubes himself argues his book was an attempt to review the prevailing wisdom on the cause of obesity and then to propose a new alternative *hypothesis* which should be then tested. I believe that underlying his statement on eating as much protein as you want is the implication that eating protein is self-limiting when you do it in the absence of carbohydrate.
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat
"The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO. "
in identical isocaloric amounts, what produces the lowest insulin response? White pasta, Brown pasta, Mature Cheddar cheese, Top round beef fillets or steamed Ling fish fillets?
"He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb? "
not really since how could you drill all the way down to that higher CHO intake was the cause of the weight gain. if you want to show that CHO is mainly responsible for weight gain and that low CHO diets are best for weight loss, then it should show up in controlled metabolic ward studies.
"But I also think Taubes is right in saying that we might be concentrating on energy balance as the be all and end all of stopping weight gain is not helpful. Yes, caloric restriction results in weight loss but that advice, on a population level, IS NOT WORKING. So maybe it is time to give different advice? Concentrate on food quality and nutrient density instead of calories?"
i don't disagree that food quality and nutrient dense foods should be stressed, but to single out a macronutrient as the cause of obesity is silly
page 1269
Hmm, which group am I going to eat and which to avoid if I want to control insulin? (relative insulin response % shown)
White bread 100
potatoes 121
baked beans 120
yogurt 115
mars bar 122
jellybeans 160
ice cream 89
cookies 90
crackers 87
grapes 82
eggs 31
cheese, 45
beef 41
fish 59
peanuts 20
??? Um, the link provided only has 13 pages. And what are those numbers supposed to represent?
? 1269 is the page number with the results chart on it. The first page in the paper is 1264.
The numbers are the author's calculated insulin score %, which is the relative insulin impact of the food with white bread the reference food at 100%. If you like bar charts there is a nice comparative one of just the insulin score % on page 1271.
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to systematically compare postprandial insulin responses to isoenergetic 1000-kj
(240-kcal) portions of several common foods. Correlations with nutrient content were determined. Thirty-eight foods separated into six food categories (fruit, bakery products, snacks, carbohydrate rich foods, protein-rich foods, and breakfast cereals) were fed to groups of 11-13healthy subjects. Finger-prick blood samples were obtained every 15 mm over 120 mm. An insulin score was calculated from the area under the insulin response curve for each food with use of white bread as the reference food (score = 100%). Significant differences in insulin score were found both within and among the food categories and also among foods containing a similar amount of carbohydrate. Overall, glucose and insulin scores were highly correlated (r = 0.70, P < 0.001, n = 38). However, protein-rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrate) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses. Total carbohydrate (r = 0.39, P < 0.05, n = 36) and sugar (r = 0.36, P < 0.05, n = 36) contents were positively related to the mean insulin scores, whereas fat (r =-0.2N7S, NS, n =36) and protein (r =-0.24, NS, n = 38) contents were negatively related. Consideration of insulin scores may be relevant to the dietary management and pathogenesis of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia and may help increase the accuracy of estimating preprandial insulin requirements. Am J Clin Nutr l997;66:l264-76.
EDITED to try and clean up the abstract copy/paste defects.0 -
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdfI will let Taubes himself respond to your criticism stating essentially what I stated earlier. The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO.
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=2471&pid=58168#pid58168
Taubes himself argues his book was an attempt to review the prevailing wisdom on the cause of obesity and then to propose a new alternative *hypothesis* which should be then tested. I believe that underlying his statement on eating as much protein as you want is the implication that eating protein is self-limiting when you do it in the absence of carbohydrate.
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat
"The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO. "
in identical isocaloric amounts, what produces the lowest insulin response? White pasta, Brown pasta, Mature Cheddar cheese, Top round beef fillets or steamed Ling fish fillets?
"He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb? "
not really since how could you drill all the way down to that higher CHO intake was the cause of the weight gain. if you want to show that CHO is mainly responsible for weight gain and that low CHO diets are best for weight loss, then it should show up in controlled metabolic ward studies.
"But I also think Taubes is right in saying that we might be concentrating on energy balance as the be all and end all of stopping weight gain is not helpful. Yes, caloric restriction results in weight loss but that advice, on a population level, IS NOT WORKING. So maybe it is time to give different advice? Concentrate on food quality and nutrient density instead of calories?"
i don't disagree that food quality and nutrient dense foods should be stressed, but to single out a macronutrient as the cause of obesity is silly
page 1269
Hmm, which group am I going to eat and which to avoid if I want to control insulin? (relative insulin response % shown)
White bread 100
potatoes 121
baked beans 120
yogurt 115
mars bar 122
jellybeans 160
ice cream 89
cookies 90
crackers 87
grapes 82
eggs 31
cheese, 45
beef 41
fish 59
peanuts 20
??? Um, the link provided only has 13 pages. And what are those numbers supposed to represent?
? 1269 is the page number with the results chart on it. The first page in the paper is 1264.
The numbers are the author's calculated insulin score %, which is the relative insulin impact of the food with white bread the reference food at 100%. If you like bar charts there is a nice comparative one of just the insulin score % on page 1271.
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to systematically compare postprandial insulin responses to isoenergetic 1000-kj
(240-kcal) portions of several common foods. Correlations with nutrient content were determined. Thirty-eight foods separated into six food categories (fruit, bakery products, snacks, carbohydrate rich foods, protein-rich foods, and breakfast cereals) were fed to groups of 11-13healthy subjects. Finger-prick blood samples were obtained every 15 mm over 120 mm. An insulin score was calculated from the area under the insulin response curve for each food with use of white bread as the reference food (score = 100%). Significant differences in insulin score were found both within and among the food categories and also among foods containing a similar amount of carbohydrate. Overall, glucose and insulin scores were highly correlated (r = 0.70, P < 0.001, n = 38). However, protein-rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrate) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses. Total carbohydrate (r = 0.39, P < 0.05, n = 36) and sugar (r = 0.36, P < 0.05, n = 36) contents were positively related to the mean insulin scores, whereas fat (r =-0.2N7S, NS, n =36) and protein (r =-0.24, NS, n = 38) contents were negatively related. Consideration of insulin scores may be relevant to the dietary management and pathogenesis of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia and may help increase the accuracy of estimating preprandial insulin requirements. Am J Clin Nutr l997;66:l264-76.
EDITED to try and clean up the abstract copy/paste defects.
I see. Were there any whole grains on the chart, or was it more dramatic to only include processed white grains, which pretty much everyone agrees is bad?0 -
Are you asking a question? Grain bread is 56%.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdfI will let Taubes himself respond to your criticism stating essentially what I stated earlier. The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO.
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=2471&pid=58168#pid58168
Taubes himself argues his book was an attempt to review the prevailing wisdom on the cause of obesity and then to propose a new alternative *hypothesis* which should be then tested. I believe that underlying his statement on eating as much protein as you want is the implication that eating protein is self-limiting when you do it in the absence of carbohydrate.
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat
"The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO. "
in identical isocaloric amounts, what produces the lowest insulin response? White pasta, Brown pasta, Mature Cheddar cheese, Top round beef fillets or steamed Ling fish fillets?
"He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb? "
not really since how could you drill all the way down to that higher CHO intake was the cause of the weight gain. if you want to show that CHO is mainly responsible for weight gain and that low CHO diets are best for weight loss, then it should show up in controlled metabolic ward studies.
"But I also think Taubes is right in saying that we might be concentrating on energy balance as the be all and end all of stopping weight gain is not helpful. Yes, caloric restriction results in weight loss but that advice, on a population level, IS NOT WORKING. So maybe it is time to give different advice? Concentrate on food quality and nutrient density instead of calories?"
i don't disagree that food quality and nutrient dense foods should be stressed, but to single out a macronutrient as the cause of obesity is silly
page 1269
Hmm, which group am I going to eat and which to avoid if I want to control insulin? (relative insulin response % shown)
White bread 100
potatoes 121
baked beans 120
yogurt 115
mars bar 122
jellybeans 160
ice cream 89
cookies 90
crackers 87
grapes 82
eggs 31
cheese, 45
beef 41
fish 59
peanuts 20
??? Um, the link provided only has 13 pages. And what are those numbers supposed to represent?
? 1269 is the page number with the results chart on it. The first page in the paper is 1264.
The numbers are the author's calculated insulin score %, which is the relative insulin impact of the food with white bread the reference food at 100%. If you like bar charts there is a nice comparative one of just the insulin score % on page 1271.
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to systematically compare postprandial insulin responses to isoenergetic 1000-kj
(240-kcal) portions of several common foods. Correlations with nutrient content were determined. Thirty-eight foods separated into six food categories (fruit, bakery products, snacks, carbohydrate rich foods, protein-rich foods, and breakfast cereals) were fed to groups of 11-13healthy subjects. Finger-prick blood samples were obtained every 15 mm over 120 mm. An insulin score was calculated from the area under the insulin response curve for each food with use of white bread as the reference food (score = 100%). Significant differences in insulin score were found both within and among the food categories and also among foods containing a similar amount of carbohydrate. Overall, glucose and insulin scores were highly correlated (r = 0.70, P < 0.001, n = 38). However, protein-rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrate) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses. Total carbohydrate (r = 0.39, P < 0.05, n = 36) and sugar (r = 0.36, P < 0.05, n = 36) contents were positively related to the mean insulin scores, whereas fat (r =-0.2N7S, NS, n =36) and protein (r =-0.24, NS, n = 38) contents were negatively related. Consideration of insulin scores may be relevant to the dietary management and pathogenesis of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia and may help increase the accuracy of estimating preprandial insulin requirements. Am J Clin Nutr l997;66:l264-76.
EDITED to try and clean up the abstract copy/paste defects.
I see. Were there any whole grains on the chart, or was it more dramatic to only include processed white grains, which pretty much everyone agrees is bad?0 -
Hmm. I just pulled Why We Get Fat off the shelf. I haven't done a thorough re-read, but right on the second page of the introduction (emphasis mine):Okay, but is Taubes really claiming that eating a precisely calculated amount of calories of primarily CHO in a controlled metabolic ward will make you fatter than the same precisely calculated amount of calories of primarily fat in a metabolic ward? Or is he hypothesizing that eating a large amount of carbohydrates ad libitum will, over time, cause your body to "crave" more, so you eat more, etc.?
I don't see how controlled intake studies in metabolic wards tell us anything since I didn't think Taubes was denying the laws of thermodynamics.
Or am I completely mistaken? It's been a long time.
It's been a while since I read his book too, but Taubes explicitly states that the obese eat the same amount of calories as the non-obese....and this is based on a relatively old study using data based on self-reporting. He ignores subsequent studies that repeatedly demonstrate how obese people consistenly underreport calories and overreport activity. And this is the foundation upon which he bases his hypothesis that total calories are suboordinate to insulinogenic factors when it comes to weight gain/loss.After a year of arriving in New York, Bruch established a clinic at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons to treat obese children. In 1939, she published the first series of reports on her exhaustive studies of the many obese children she had treated, although almost invariably without success. From interviews with her patients and her families, she learned that these obese children DID INDEED EAT EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOOD--no matter how much either they or their parents might initially deny it.
Also on page 35:
I'm assuming by "in the real world" he is talking about individuals who are not meticulously weighing and measuring food and entering it into MFP but just trying to "eat less."Yes, it's true: If you are stranded on a desert island and starved for months on end, you will waste away, whether you're fat or thin to begin with. Even if you are just semi-starved, your fat will melt away, as will a good share of your muscle. Try the same prescription in the real world, though, and try to keep it up indefinitely--try to maintain the weight loss--and it works rarely indeed, if at all.
And I guess I feel like obese people underreporting their food intakes might provide evidence for the idea that carbohydrates make our bodies crave more and eat more. Obese people ARE eating more, but not feeling satiated. At some level they feel hungry all the time so they underreport how much they are eating.
Again, I'd like to see a study showing people getting obese on a long-term, ad libitum ketogenic (or at least very low carb) diet. Does such a thing exist?0 -
And also, from Why We Get Fat (p. 74), emphasis my own.Health experts think that the first law (of thermodynamics) is relevant to why we get fat because they say to themselves and then to us, as the New York Times did, "Those who consume more calories than they expend in energy will gain weight." This is true. It has to be. To get fatter and heavier, we have to overeat. We have to consume more calories than we expend. That's a given. But thermodynamics tells us nothing about WHY THIS HAPPENS, why we consume more calories than we expend. It only says that if we do, we will get heavier, and if we get heavier, then we did.0
-
So I've been watching what I eat since the middle of May. First, I did Medifast for two months. It was REALLY expensive and I was only eating around 800-1000 calories a day. I did lose a lot of weight though. Since then, I've been following a Medifast type plan that I've made on my own and lof here in mfp. I eat 6 meals a day. Four of them are Atkins bars or shakes and two of them are a protein and a vegetable. I've also started running. I'm still losing weight. I've lost 58 pounds since May. (I know, a lot to lose so quickly.)
My problem now is I am really sick of the blah of my diet. Plain chicken and salad get old day after day. Over the weekend, I went off my food plan and ate pizza and raisin bread. Nothing disastrous, just extra calories and carbs. I decided yesterday that I need to do something or I will get so sick of this diet that I give up altogether, and that is not an option. So I added some carbs in yesterday in the form of an apple and some All-Bran. And I gained a stinking pound.
I know if I stay with low carb, I will continue to lose. Do I stay with low carb and remind myself that it's temporary? Or do I try to add some more carbs back in and go for slower weight loss?
I would love to hear your opinions.0 -
lol well that post didt work! ^^^ ok u said 4 bars a day? i would continue with low carb, it is what works for my body...but add more "mini meals" and ditch all the bars. also. i went on youtube and there are alot of recipes for low carb meals that are quick and simple
gave me alot more options..... 0 -
lol well that post didt work! ^^^ ok u said 4 bars a day? i would continue with low carb, it is what works for my body...but add more "mini meals" and ditch all the bars. also. i went on youtube and there are alot of recipes for low carb meals that are quick and simple gave me alot more options..... 0
-
Are you asking a question? Grain bread is 56%.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdfI will let Taubes himself respond to your criticism stating essentially what I stated earlier. The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO.
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=2471&pid=58168#pid58168
Taubes himself argues his book was an attempt to review the prevailing wisdom on the cause of obesity and then to propose a new alternative *hypothesis* which should be then tested. I believe that underlying his statement on eating as much protein as you want is the implication that eating protein is self-limiting when you do it in the absence of carbohydrate.
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat
"The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO. "
in identical isocaloric amounts, what produces the lowest insulin response? White pasta, Brown pasta, Mature Cheddar cheese, Top round beef fillets or steamed Ling fish fillets?
"He was interested in why we have gotten as fat as we have living "in the wild" (i.e. not weighing and measuring every bite on MFP). So to give the hypothesis a fair shake, doesn't it seem like we would really need a long-term, ad libitum study comparing how much weight people end up gaining eating high carb vs. low carb? "
not really since how could you drill all the way down to that higher CHO intake was the cause of the weight gain. if you want to show that CHO is mainly responsible for weight gain and that low CHO diets are best for weight loss, then it should show up in controlled metabolic ward studies.
"But I also think Taubes is right in saying that we might be concentrating on energy balance as the be all and end all of stopping weight gain is not helpful. Yes, caloric restriction results in weight loss but that advice, on a population level, IS NOT WORKING. So maybe it is time to give different advice? Concentrate on food quality and nutrient density instead of calories?"
i don't disagree that food quality and nutrient dense foods should be stressed, but to single out a macronutrient as the cause of obesity is silly
page 1269
Hmm, which group am I going to eat and which to avoid if I want to control insulin? (relative insulin response % shown)
White bread 100
potatoes 121
baked beans 120
yogurt 115
mars bar 122
jellybeans 160
ice cream 89
cookies 90
crackers 87
grapes 82
eggs 31
cheese, 45
beef 41
fish 59
peanuts 20
??? Um, the link provided only has 13 pages. And what are those numbers supposed to represent?
? 1269 is the page number with the results chart on it. The first page in the paper is 1264.
The numbers are the author's calculated insulin score %, which is the relative insulin impact of the food with white bread the reference food at 100%. If you like bar charts there is a nice comparative one of just the insulin score % on page 1271.
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to systematically compare postprandial insulin responses to isoenergetic 1000-kj
(240-kcal) portions of several common foods. Correlations with nutrient content were determined. Thirty-eight foods separated into six food categories (fruit, bakery products, snacks, carbohydrate rich foods, protein-rich foods, and breakfast cereals) were fed to groups of 11-13healthy subjects. Finger-prick blood samples were obtained every 15 mm over 120 mm. An insulin score was calculated from the area under the insulin response curve for each food with use of white bread as the reference food (score = 100%). Significant differences in insulin score were found both within and among the food categories and also among foods containing a similar amount of carbohydrate. Overall, glucose and insulin scores were highly correlated (r = 0.70, P < 0.001, n = 38). However, protein-rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrate) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses. Total carbohydrate (r = 0.39, P < 0.05, n = 36) and sugar (r = 0.36, P < 0.05, n = 36) contents were positively related to the mean insulin scores, whereas fat (r =-0.2N7S, NS, n =36) and protein (r =-0.24, NS, n = 38) contents were negatively related. Consideration of insulin scores may be relevant to the dietary management and pathogenesis of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia and may help increase the accuracy of estimating preprandial insulin requirements. Am J Clin Nutr l997;66:l264-76.
EDITED to try and clean up the abstract copy/paste defects.
I see. Were there any whole grains on the chart, or was it more dramatic to only include processed white grains, which pretty much everyone agrees is bad?
I was asking a question. Why use sugary foods in the comparison? I think everyone agrees those are bad. But fish is 59% and Grain bread is 56%. Non-ground whole grains would likely be even lower. That would suggest that whole grain carbs are no worse than a lot of things you used as "good" examples. I'm not saying that you should eat grains. That's your decision. I just don't see the point in the comparison of junk food as an agrument for going low carb. That's an argument for going low junk food.0 -
Both protein and carbohydrates raise insulin but, for me, the question is why have both when my body can use moderate amounts of protein to rebuild and maintain itself but it doesn't need carbohydrates? I believe we run best on fat as a fuel source and the lower we can keep our blood sugar levels the better in terms of preventing modern diseases.I was asking a question. Why use sugary foods in the comparison? I think everyone agrees those are bad. But fish is 59% and Grain bread is 56%. Non-ground whole grains would likely be even lower. That would suggest that whole grain carbs are no worse than a lot of things you used as "good" examples. I'm not saying that you should eat grains. That's your decision. I just don't see the point in the comparison of junk food as an agrument for going low carb. That's an argument for going low junk food.0 -
Both protein and carbohydrates raise insulin but, for me, the question is why have both when my body can use moderate amounts of protein to rebuild and maintain itself but it doesn't need carbohydrates? I believe we run best on fat as a fuel source and the lower we can keep our blood sugar levels the better in terms of preventing modern diseases.I was asking a question. Why use sugary foods in the comparison? I think everyone agrees those are bad. But fish is 59% and Grain bread is 56%. Non-ground whole grains would likely be even lower. That would suggest that whole grain carbs are no worse than a lot of things you used as "good" examples. I'm not saying that you should eat grains. That's your decision. I just don't see the point in the comparison of junk food as an agrument for going low carb. That's an argument for going low junk food.
I've eaten whole grains for nearly 30 years and never had a high blood sugar reading. Nor have I ever been obese. I wasn't even overweight until last year. So, I see no reason to think my body would run better if I stopped eating them. I don't eat a "high carb" diet though. I'm usually 100 or so g under what MFP thinks I should be, but that still anywhere from 100 - 200 g eaten (depending on my workout). I just eat healthy carbs. I like grains. Brown rice is delicious. Spaghetti is my favorite meal ever. I don't "need" to give these foods that I love up to be healthy and fit so why would I? I can have a plate of spaghetti w a glass or two of red wine and be healthy, so that's what I do. I like to live well.0 -
I never said that eating carbohydrates means that you'll have HIGH blood sugar, but that you rely on blood sugar as your primary source of fuel as opposed to fat (ketones) and I think fat is the body's preferred source of fuel. I'm not telling anyone to give up foods they love if they don't want to.
Both protein and carbohydrates raise insulin but, for me, the question is why have both when my body can use moderate amounts of protein to rebuild and maintain itself but it doesn't need carbohydrates? I believe we run best on fat as a fuel source and the lower we can keep our blood sugar levels the better in terms of preventing modern diseases.I was asking a question. Why use sugary foods in the comparison? I think everyone agrees those are bad. But fish is 59% and Grain bread is 56%. Non-ground whole grains would likely be even lower. That would suggest that whole grain carbs are no worse than a lot of things you used as "good" examples. I'm not saying that you should eat grains. That's your decision. I just don't see the point in the comparison of junk food as an agrument for going low carb. That's an argument for going low junk food.
I've eaten whole grains for nearly 30 years and never had a high blood sugar reading. Nor have I ever been obese. I wasn't even overweight until last year. So, I see no reason to think my body would run better if I stopped eating them. I don't eat a "high carb" diet though. I'm usually 100 or so g under what MFP thinks I should be, but that still anywhere from 100 - 200 g eaten (depending on my workout). I just eat healthy carbs. I like grains. Brown rice is delicious. Spaghetti is my favorite meal ever. I don't "need" to give these foods that I love up to be healthy and fit so why would I? I can have a plate of spaghetti w a glass or two of red wine and be healthy, so that's what I do. I like to live well.0 -
And also, from Why We Get Fat (p. 74), emphasis my own.Health experts think that the first law (of thermodynamics) is relevant to why we get fat because they say to themselves and then to us, as the New York Times did, "Those who consume more calories than they expend in energy will gain weight." This is true. It has to be. To get fatter and heavier, we have to overeat. We have to consume more calories than we expend. That's a given. But thermodynamics tells us nothing about WHY THIS HAPPENS, why we consume more calories than we expend. It only says that if we do, we will get heavier, and if we get heavier, then we did.
ah, but he also goes on to say that overeating is a symptom of obesity and not the cause of obesity, assuming that is true how did said people get obese?0 -
That's the rub. If it is a vicious cycle, then what is the trigger? Taubes would say chronically elevated insulin levels. Others (Dr. Kessler and Stephan Guyenet) point to extreme palatability and reward mechanisms. Most everyone else would say, essentially, gluttony and sloth. I have a hard time with the "laziness and sloth" reasoning simply because I find it hard to accuse a 6-month-old of being a glutton and a sloth and yet we have a growing rate of obese infants. It seems as though they are formula fed, though, and not breast fed. So is it something about the formula that drives them to take in more calories than they need to grow at a normal rate?And also, from Why We Get Fat (p. 74), emphasis my own.Health experts think that the first law (of thermodynamics) is relevant to why we get fat because they say to themselves and then to us, as the New York Times did, "Those who consume more calories than they expend in energy will gain weight." This is true. It has to be. To get fatter and heavier, we have to overeat. We have to consume more calories than we expend. That's a given. But thermodynamics tells us nothing about WHY THIS HAPPENS, why we consume more calories than we expend. It only says that if we do, we will get heavier, and if we get heavier, then we did.
ah, but he also goes on to say that overeating is a symptom of obesity and not the cause of obesity, assuming that is true how did said people get obese?
I'm not saying Taubes is right but I'm just saying that I think it is somewhat more complicated than "laziness and sloth."0 -
I'm not saying Taubes is right but I'm just saying that I think it is somewhat more complicated than "laziness and sloth."
I don't know of anyone that CHOOSES to be overweight.
Again, this is a "Seeing the forest for the trees". We shouldn't focus on the law of thermodynamics as the issue. Yes, it's a fundamental part of the equation, but there has to be a reason WHY people are eating more than their bodies need.
There are no animals in the wild that eat more than they need to so that they can go and do sprints on the plain. They eat when they're hungry, and stop when they're full. When they're not hunting/foraging, they don't waste energy so they can stay lean (aside from playing). It shouldn't be different for humans.0 -
It sounds like you have a good food plan, but I could not deal with just 50 carbs a day. The doctor told me that it was ideal for me to eat no more than 60 per meal and between 15 and 30 for snacks. This process does mean that the weight will not come off as fast, but it will also not come back. It is not so drastic that I give up on the diet over time, or go back to bad eating habbits once I hit my goal. As most of us know and I'm sure you do too, if you do low carb like atkins the weight comes back if you jump off the diet.
Good luch on your adventure to your goal weight. 0 -
Very true, but this is true for all weight-loss plans, including caloric restriction. Atkins is just another form of caloric restriction (with the addition of making people fat-adapted instead of sugar-adapted). If you start taking in more calories than you are expending, you gain, no matter how you lose the weight.As most of us know and I'm sure you do too, if you do low carb like atkins the weight comes back if you jump off the diet.0
This discussion has been closed.
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