A Historical Digression on the Fattening Carbohydrate
jonski1968
Posts: 4,490 Member
Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, 1825
“Oh Heavens!” all you readers of both sexes will cry out, “oh Heavens above!
But what a wretch the Professor is! Here in a single word he forbids us everything
we most love, those little white rolls … and those cookies … and a hundred other
things made with flour and butter, with flour and sugar, with flour and sugar and
eggs! He doesn’t even leave us potatoes, or macaroni! Who would have thought
this of a lover of good food who seemed so pleasant?”
“What’s this I hear?” I exclaim, putting on my severest face, which I do perhaps
once a year. “Very well then; eat! Get fat! Become ugly, and thick, and asthmatic,
and finally die in your own melted grease: I shall be there to watch it.”
Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin was born in 1755. He became first a lawyer and then a
politician. His passion, though, was always food and drink, or what he called the
“pleasures of the table.” He began writing down his thoughts on the subject in the
1790s; Brillat-Savarin published them in a book, The Physiology of Taste, in December
1825. He died of pneumonia two months later, but The Physiology of Taste has
remained in print ever since. “Tell me what you eat,” Brillat-Savarin memorably wrote,
“and I shall tell you what you are.”
Among the thirty chapters, or “meditations,” in The Physiology of Taste, Brillat-Savarin
included two on obesity — one on cause and one on prevention.
Over the course of thirty years, he wrote, he had held more than five hundred conversations with dinner
companions who were “threatened or afflicted with obesity,” one “fat man” after another,
declaring their devotion to bread, rice, pasta, and potatoes.
This led Brillat-Savarin to conclude that the roots of obesity were obvious. The first was a natural predisposition to
fatten. “Some people,” he wrote, “in whom the digestive forces manufacture, all things
being equal, a greater supply of fat are, as it were, destined to be obese.” The second
was “the starches and flours which man uses as the base of his daily nourishment,” and
he added that “starch produces this effect more quickly and surely when it is used with
sugar.”
This, of course, made the cure obvious as well. “An anti-fat diet,” Brillat-Savarin
wrote, “is based on the commonest and most active cause of obesity, since, as it has
already been clearly shown, it is only because of grains and starches that fatty
congestion can occur, as much in man as in the animals.…
It can be deduced, as an exact consequence, that a more or less rigid abstinence from everything that is starchy
or floury will lead to the lessening of weight.”
“Oh Heavens!” all you readers of both sexes will cry out, “oh Heavens above!
But what a wretch the Professor is! Here in a single word he forbids us everything
we most love, those little white rolls … and those cookies … and a hundred other
things made with flour and butter, with flour and sugar, with flour and sugar and
eggs! He doesn’t even leave us potatoes, or macaroni! Who would have thought
this of a lover of good food who seemed so pleasant?”
“What’s this I hear?” I exclaim, putting on my severest face, which I do perhaps
once a year. “Very well then; eat! Get fat! Become ugly, and thick, and asthmatic,
and finally die in your own melted grease: I shall be there to watch it.”
Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin was born in 1755. He became first a lawyer and then a
politician. His passion, though, was always food and drink, or what he called the
“pleasures of the table.” He began writing down his thoughts on the subject in the
1790s; Brillat-Savarin published them in a book, The Physiology of Taste, in December
1825. He died of pneumonia two months later, but The Physiology of Taste has
remained in print ever since. “Tell me what you eat,” Brillat-Savarin memorably wrote,
“and I shall tell you what you are.”
Among the thirty chapters, or “meditations,” in The Physiology of Taste, Brillat-Savarin
included two on obesity — one on cause and one on prevention.
Over the course of thirty years, he wrote, he had held more than five hundred conversations with dinner
companions who were “threatened or afflicted with obesity,” one “fat man” after another,
declaring their devotion to bread, rice, pasta, and potatoes.
This led Brillat-Savarin to conclude that the roots of obesity were obvious. The first was a natural predisposition to
fatten. “Some people,” he wrote, “in whom the digestive forces manufacture, all things
being equal, a greater supply of fat are, as it were, destined to be obese.” The second
was “the starches and flours which man uses as the base of his daily nourishment,” and
he added that “starch produces this effect more quickly and surely when it is used with
sugar.”
This, of course, made the cure obvious as well. “An anti-fat diet,” Brillat-Savarin
wrote, “is based on the commonest and most active cause of obesity, since, as it has
already been clearly shown, it is only because of grains and starches that fatty
congestion can occur, as much in man as in the animals.…
It can be deduced, as an exact consequence, that a more or less rigid abstinence from everything that is starchy
or floury will lead to the lessening of weight.”
0
Replies
-
Between 1943 and 1952, physicians from the Stanford University School of
Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago, and from
Cornell Medical School and New York Hospital independently published their diets for
treating obese patients. All four are effectively identical.
Here are the “General Rules” of
the Chicago version:
1. Do not use sugar, honey, syrup, jam, jelly or candy.
2. Do not use fruits canned with sugar.
3. Do not use cake, cookies, pie, puddings, ice cream or ices.
4. Do not use foods which have cornstarch or flour added such as gravy or cream sauce.
5. Do not use potatoes (sweet or Irish), macaroni, spaghetti, noodles, dried beans or peas.
6. Do not use fried foods prepared with butter, lard, oil or butter substitutes.
7. Do not use drinks such as Coca-Cola, ginger ale, pop or root beer.
8. Do not use any foods not allowed on the diet and only as much as the diet allows.
And here’s the obesity diet published in the 1951 textbook The Practice of
Endocrinology, co-edited by seven prominent British physicians led by Raymond
Greene, probably the most influential twentieth-century British endocrinologist (and
brother of the novelist Graham Greene)
Foods to be avoided:
1. Bread, and everything else made with flour …
2. Cereals, including breakfast cereals and milk puddings
3. Potatoes and all other white root vegetables
4. Foods containing much sugar
5. All sweets …
You can eat as much as you like of the following foods:
1. Meat, fish, birds
2. All green vegetables
3. Eggs, dried or fresh
4. Cheese
5. Fruit, if unsweetened or sweetened with saccharin, except bananas and grapes.
In 1946, when the very first edition of Dr. Spock’s child-rearing bible, Baby and Child
Care, was published, it counseled, “The amount of plain, starchy foods (cereals, breads,
potatoes) taken is what determines, in the case of most people, how much [weight] they
gain or lose.” And that sentence remained in every edition — five more, constituting in
total some fifty million copies — for the next fifty years.
In 1963, when Sir Stanley Davidson and Reginald Passmore published Human
Nutrition and Dietetics, considered the definitive source of dietary wisdom for a
generation of British medical practitioners, they wrote, “All popular ‘slimming regimes’
involve a restriction in dietary carbohydrate,” and advised, “The intake of foods rich in
carbohydrate should be drastically reduced since over-indulgence in such foods is the
most common cause of obesity.” The same year, Passmore co-authored an article in the
British Journal of Nutrition that began with this declaration: “Every woman knows that
carbohydrate is fattening: this is a piece of common knowledge, which few nutritionists
would dispute.”0 -
great posts.
0 -
And these would be great, if not for the pesky problem of the human body being able to store both dietary fat AND protein eaten in excess of need as fat. In Brillat-Savarin's time they also believed in blood-letting and that eating spices like mustard and pepper led people to digestive troubles and lust.
Isn't it great that we have the capacity to learn?0 -
Fair enough...It was a long time ago....But something a little more recent below:
This is how such diets have been treated ever since. The belief that dietary fat causes
heart disease — saturated fat, particularly — led directly to the idea that carbohydrates
prevent it. By the early 1980s, Jane Brody of the Times, the single most influential
journalist on the nutrition beat for the last forty years, was telling us “we need to eat
more carbohydrates” and advocating starches and bread as diet foods. “Not only is
eating pasta at the height of fashion,” she wrote, “it can help you lose weight.” In 1983,
when British authorities compiled their “Proposals for Nutritional Guidelines for Health
Education in Britain,” they had to explain that “the previous nutritional advice in the UK
to limit the intake of all carbohydrates as a means of weight control now runs counter to
current thinking.”
This logic may have reached the pinnacle of absurdity in 1995 (at least I hope it
did), when the American Heart Association published a pamphlet suggesting that
we can eat virtually anything with impunity — even candy and sugar — as long as
it’s low in fat: “To control the amount and kind of fat, saturated fatty acids and dietary
cholesterol you eat,” the AHA counseled, “choose snacks from other food groups such
as … low-fat cookies, low-fat crackers … unsalted pretzels, hard candy, gum drops,
sugar, syrup, honey, jam, jelly, marmalade (as spreads).”0 -
Low fat is wrong. Low carb is also wrong. Eat a healthy mix of all macro nutrients. It's not hard.0
-
Of course, 60 year old nutrition advice is the most reliable. :drinker:0
-
Ok...60 is old...Below something more recent, ie from 2012.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/response-to-nytimes-the-fat-trap0 -
We can go back even further to William Banting's Letter of Corpulence. He is the father of low carb and dates back to 1869.
http://www.lowcarb.ca/corpulence/corpulence_1.html0 -
A great read...Thanks. One funny thing...Although i agree with the above poster that we can`t use information that is so old..Strange how the height/weight charts are the same that are hung up in my Doctors office.
And 99% of height/weight charts are still the same in whatever publication you read.0 -
Of course, 60 year old nutrition advice is the most reliable. :drinker:
2011 - http://www.aacr.org/home/public--media/aacr-press-releases.aspx?d=2649
SAN ANTONIO — An intermittent, low-carbohydrate diet was superior to a standard, daily calorie-restricted diet for reducing weight and lowering blood levels of insulin, a cancer-promoting hormone, according to recent findings.
2010 - http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(10)00120-4/abstract
Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents
Forty-six subjects (24 High Protein Low Carb, 22 in low fat) initiated and 33 subjects completed the intervention; follow-up data were available on approximately half of the subjects. Significant reduction in (BMI-Z) was achieved in both groups during intervention and was significantly greater for the HPLC group (P = .03)
Conclusions
The HPLC diet is a safe and effective option for medically supervised weight loss in severely obese adolescents.
2008 - http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/36
Forty-nine (58.3%) participants completed the study. Both interventions led to improvements in hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and weight loss. The Low Carb Ketogenic Diet group had greater improvements in hemoglobin A1c (-1.5% vs. -0.5%, p = 0.03), body weight (-11.1 kg vs. -6.9 kg, p = 0.008), and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (+5.6 mg/dL vs. 0 mg/dL, p < 0.001) compared to the Low-Glycemic Reduced Calorie Diet group. Diabetes medications were reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of LCKD vs. 62% of LGID participants (p < 0.01).
2008 - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet
Results
The rate of adherence to a study diet was 95.4% at 1 year and 84.6% at 2 years. The Mediterranean-diet group consumed the largest amounts of dietary fiber and had the highest ratio of monounsaturated to saturated fat (P<0.05 for all comparisons among treatment groups). The low-carbohydrate group consumed the smallest amount of carbohydrates and the largest amounts of fat, protein, and cholesterol and had the highest percentage of participants with detectable urinary ketones (P<0.05 for all comparisons among treatment groups). The mean weight loss was 2.9 kg for the low-fat group, 4.4 kg for the Mediterranean-diet group, and 4.7 kg for the low-carbohydrate group
2007 - http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.long
Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women
Objective To compare 4 weight-loss diets representing a spectrum of low to high carbohydrate intake for effects on weight loss and related metabolic variables.
Conclusions In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets.
Oh and...
http://aacrnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/starch-intake-may-influence-risk-for-breast-cancer-recurrence/
2011 - SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have linked increased starch intake to a greater risk for breast cancer recurrence, according to results presented at the 2011 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, held Dec. 6-10, 2011.
I have more....quite a few more....0 -
A great read...Thanks. One funny thing...Although i agree with the above poster that we can`t use information that is so old..Strange how the height/weight charts are the same that are hung up in my Doctors office.
And 99% of height/weight charts are still the same in whatever publication you read.
I think I read somewhere that they come from the turn of the last century.0 -
Great up to date stats...Thanks Isolt..0
-
Insulin is a cancer causing hormone? And you seriously call that a credible source?Of course, 60 year old nutrition advice is the most reliable. :drinker:
2011 - http://www.aacr.org/home/public--media/aacr-press-releases.aspx?d=2649
SAN ANTONIO — An intermittent, low-carbohydrate diet was superior to a standard, daily calorie-restricted diet for reducing weight and lowering blood levels of insulin, a cancer-promoting hormone, according to recent findings.
2010 - http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(10)00120-4/abstract
Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents
Forty-six subjects (24 High Protein Low Carb, 22 in low fat) initiated and 33 subjects completed the intervention; follow-up data were available on approximately half of the subjects. Significant reduction in (BMI-Z) was achieved in both groups during intervention and was significantly greater for the HPLC group (P = .03)
Conclusions
The HPLC diet is a safe and effective option for medically supervised weight loss in severely obese adolescents.
2008 - http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/36
Forty-nine (58.3%) participants completed the study. Both interventions led to improvements in hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and weight loss. The Low Carb Ketogenic Diet group had greater improvements in hemoglobin A1c (-1.5% vs. -0.5%, p = 0.03), body weight (-11.1 kg vs. -6.9 kg, p = 0.008), and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (+5.6 mg/dL vs. 0 mg/dL, p < 0.001) compared to the Low-Glycemic Reduced Calorie Diet group. Diabetes medications were reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of LCKD vs. 62% of LGID participants (p < 0.01).
2008 - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet
Results
The rate of adherence to a study diet was 95.4% at 1 year and 84.6% at 2 years. The Mediterranean-diet group consumed the largest amounts of dietary fiber and had the highest ratio of monounsaturated to saturated fat (P<0.05 for all comparisons among treatment groups). The low-carbohydrate group consumed the smallest amount of carbohydrates and the largest amounts of fat, protein, and cholesterol and had the highest percentage of participants with detectable urinary ketones (P<0.05 for all comparisons among treatment groups). The mean weight loss was 2.9 kg for the low-fat group, 4.4 kg for the Mediterranean-diet group, and 4.7 kg for the low-carbohydrate group
2007 - http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.long
Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women
Objective To compare 4 weight-loss diets representing a spectrum of low to high carbohydrate intake for effects on weight loss and related metabolic variables.
Conclusions In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets.
Oh and...
http://aacrnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/starch-intake-may-influence-risk-for-breast-cancer-recurrence/
2011 - SAN ANTONIO — Researchers have linked increased starch intake to a greater risk for breast cancer recurrence, according to results presented at the 2011 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, held Dec. 6-10, 2011.
I have more....quite a few more....
Do you have any studies that actually control for protein, or are they all high protein and low carb vs low protein and high carb? Without controlling for protein intake, you can't make any serious conclusions, and most studies I've been directed to that control for protein show absolutely no difference between low carb or higher carb.
You're also quoting studies that used diabetics for subjects. You can't compare diabetics to healthy individuals. Kind of a little dishonest, don't you think?0 -
My Dad was a type 2 diabetic...All his life he ate rice by the bucket load, bread...Potatoes...Starchy crap...His weight was up to 20 stone..
After me hounding him for over 5 years to give up refined carbs he was finally advised by a new dietician to cut out all refined starchy carbs...which he did...18 months later he`s a lot healthier looking 15 st 9lbs. He`s been given a new lease of life as far as he and i are concerned. So i don`t feel dishonesty is the issue..Its fact, it worked.
My Mother wouldn`t let him change his diet on my say so as the original docs had told him he MUST eat potatoes and rice and thats all he`d ever eaten.
My weight was 18 st 10lbs at my heaviest..I cut out all the crap in my diet starting with all bread, then took other things from my diet...I'm now under 14 st for the first time in 18 years. I am proof this lifestyle does work, and it works very very well.0 -
I also think that your forgetting the topic...`A HISTORICAL DIGRESSION`0
-
Insulin is a cancer causing hormone? And you seriously call that a credible source?
Did you actually bother reading the study? Hardly a case of one person spouting on their blog:
“Weight loss and reduced insulin levels are required for breast cancer prevention, but [these levels] are difficult to achieve and maintain with conventional dietary approaches,” said Michelle Harvie, Ph.D., SRD, a research dietician at the Genesis Prevention Center, who presented the findings at the 2011 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, held Dec. 6-10, 2011.Do you have any studies that actually control for protein, or are they all high protein and low carb vs low protein and high carb? Without controlling for protein intake, you can't make any serious conclusions, and most studies I've been directed to that control for protein show absolutely no difference between low carb or higher carb.
There could be some - go and look if you fell you have some point to prove; I don't see 'Google' stamped on my forehead....do you?
You're also quoting studies that used diabetics for subjects. You can't compare diabetics to healthy individuals. Kind of a little dishonest, don't you think?
Dishonest? Utter bollocks, though it does certainly show that you actually didn't bother to read all the summaries, let alone the studies. ONE was purely about the effect of different diets on insulin levels, THREE were purely about weight loss, one was about weight loss *and* insulin and the final one I threw in at the end mentioned that restricting carbohydrates may increase the risk of breast cancer reoccurance.
Here you go...here's a few more you can fail to read and dismiss as hockum:
2003 - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity
Methods
We randomly assigned 132 severely obese subjects (including 77 blacks and 23 women) with a mean body-mass index of 43 and a high prevalence of diabetes (39 percent) or the metabolic syndrome (43 percent) to a carbohydrate-restricted (low-carbohydrate) diet or a calorie- and fat-restricted (low-fat) diet.
Results
Seventy-nine subjects completed the six-month study. An analysis including all subjects, with the last observation carried forward for those who dropped out, showed that subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet (mean [±SD], –5.8±8.6 kg vs. –1.9±4.2 kg; P=0.002) and had greater decreases in triglyceride levels (mean, –20±43 percent vs. –4±31 percent; P=0.001), irrespective of the use or nonuse of hypoglycemic or lipid-lowering medications
2000 - http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract
Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents
Objectives To compare the effects of a low-carbohydrate (LC) diet with those of a low-fat (LF) diet on weight loss and serum lipids in overweight adolescents
Results The LC group lost more weight (mean, 9.9 ± 9.3 kg vs 4.1 ± 4.9 kg, P < .05) and had improvement in non-HDL cholesterol levels (P < .05). There was improvement in LDL cholesterol levels (P < .05) in the LF group but not in the LC group. There were no adverse effects on the lipid profiles of participants in either group. Conclusions The LC diet appears to be an effective method for short-term weight loss in overweight adolescents and does not harm the lipid profile.
2004 - http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/19/2141
The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat
Background In the United States, obesity is a major clinical and public health problem causing diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as increasing cardiovascular and total mortality. Dietary restrictions of calories and saturated fat are beneficial. However, it remains unclear whether replacement of saturated fat with carbohydrates (as in the US National Cholesterol Education Program [NCEP] diet) or protein and monounsaturated fat (as in our isocaloric modified low-carbohydrate [MLC] diet, which is lower in total carbohydrates but higher in protein, monounsaturated fat, and complex carbohydrates) is optimal.
Results Weight loss was significantly greater in the MLC (13.6 lb) than in the NCEP group (7.5 lb), a difference of 6.1 lb (P = .02). There were no significant differences between the groups for total, low density, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, or the proportion of small, dense low-density lipoprotein particles. There were significantly favorable changes in all lipid levels within the MLC but not within the NCEP group.
2004 - http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women
Objective
To compare the effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate ketogenic (VLCK) and low-fat (LF) diets on weight loss, body composition, trunk fat mass, and resting energy expenditure (REE) in overweight/obese men and women.
Results
Actual nutrient intakes from food records during the VLCK (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = ~9:63:28%) and the LF (~58:22:20%) were significantly different. Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men. Both between and within group comparisons revealed a distinct advantage of a VLCK over a LF diet for weight loss, total fat loss, and trunk fat loss for men (despite significantly greater energy intake). The majority of women also responded more favorably to the VLCK diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. The greater reduction in trunk fat was not merely due to the greater total fat loss, because the ratio of trunk fat/total fat was also significantly reduced during the VLCK diet in men and women. Absolute REE (kcal/day) was decreased with both diets as expected, but REE expressed relative to body mass (kcal/kg), was better maintained on the VLCK diet for men only. Individual responses clearly show the majority of men and women experience greater weight and fat loss on a VLCK than a LF diet.
So that's another 4 and to save you the bother of reading them, in every single one the diet that restricted carbohydrates produced greater weight loss.0 -
Again, subjects were diabetic, which is irrelevant to people without diabetes. Of course a diabetic, who has issues metabolizing glucose, will lose more fat when carbs are restricted. It's a biased study, cherry picked to show the desired result.Insulin is a cancer causing hormone? And you seriously call that a credible source?
Did you actually bother reading the study? Hardly a case of one person spouting on their blog:
“Weight loss and reduced insulin levels are required for breast cancer prevention, but [these levels] are difficult to achieve and maintain with conventional dietary approaches,” said Michelle Harvie, Ph.D., SRD, a research dietician at the Genesis Prevention Center, who presented the findings at the 2011 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, held Dec. 6-10, 2011.Do you have any studies that actually control for protein, or are they all high protein and low carb vs low protein and high carb? Without controlling for protein intake, you can't make any serious conclusions, and most studies I've been directed to that control for protein show absolutely no difference between low carb or higher carb.
There could be some - go and look if you fell you have some point to prove; I don't see 'Google' stamped on my forehead....do you?You're also quoting studies that used diabetics for subjects. You can't compare diabetics to healthy individuals. Kind of a little dishonest, don't you think?
Dishonest? Utter bollocks, though it does certainly show that you actually didn't bother to read all the summaries, let alone the studies. ONE was purely about the effect of different diets on insulin levels, THREE were purely about weight loss, one was about weight loss *and* insulin and the final one I threw in at the end mentioned that restricting carbohydrates may increase the risk of breast cancer reoccurance.
Here you go...here's a few more you can fail to read and dismiss as hockum:
2003 - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity
Methods
We randomly assigned 132 severely obese subjects (including 77 blacks and 23 women) with a mean body-mass index of 43 and a high prevalence of diabetes (39 percent) or the metabolic syndrome (43 percent) to a carbohydrate-restricted (low-carbohydrate) diet or a calorie- and fat-restricted (low-fat) diet.
Results
Seventy-nine subjects completed the six-month study. An analysis including all subjects, with the last observation carried forward for those who dropped out, showed that subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet (mean [±SD], –5.8±8.6 kg vs. –1.9±4.2 kg; P=0.002) and had greater decreases in triglyceride levels (mean, –20±43 percent vs. –4±31 percent; P=0.001), irrespective of the use or nonuse of hypoglycemic or lipid-lowering medications
This study was on children, which is also irrelevant to adults. Not to mention, the study didn't control for calories or protein. How can you compare if you don't control for calories and protein? Plus it's only a 12 week trial.2000 - http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(02)40206-5/abstract
Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents
Objectives To compare the effects of a low-carbohydrate (LC) diet with those of a low-fat (LF) diet on weight loss and serum lipids in overweight adolescents
Results The LC group lost more weight (mean, 9.9 ± 9.3 kg vs 4.1 ± 4.9 kg, P < .05) and had improvement in non-HDL cholesterol levels (P < .05). There was improvement in LDL cholesterol levels (P < .05) in the LF group but not in the LC group. There were no adverse effects on the lipid profiles of participants in either group. Conclusions The LC diet appears to be an effective method for short-term weight loss in overweight adolescents and does not harm the lipid profile.
Low protein vs High protein. Is it the reduced carbs that led to better results, or the higher protein that led to better results? Also, again, only a 12 week trial.2004 - http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/164/19/2141
The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat
Background In the United States, obesity is a major clinical and public health problem causing diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as increasing cardiovascular and total mortality. Dietary restrictions of calories and saturated fat are beneficial. However, it remains unclear whether replacement of saturated fat with carbohydrates (as in the US National Cholesterol Education Program [NCEP] diet) or protein and monounsaturated fat (as in our isocaloric modified low-carbohydrate [MLC] diet, which is lower in total carbohydrates but higher in protein, monounsaturated fat, and complex carbohydrates) is optimal.
Results Weight loss was significantly greater in the MLC (13.6 lb) than in the NCEP group (7.5 lb), a difference of 6.1 lb (P = .02). There were no significant differences between the groups for total, low density, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, or the proportion of small, dense low-density lipoprotein particles. There were significantly favorable changes in all lipid levels within the MLC but not within the NCEP group.
Again, low protein vs higher protein, how can you attribute the loss to carbs, and not an increase in protein? Also, I noticed you left out a lot of the results section, where it stated the ratio of trunk fat/total fat loss was not significant.2004 - http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women
Objective
To compare the effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate ketogenic (VLCK) and low-fat (LF) diets on weight loss, body composition, trunk fat mass, and resting energy expenditure (REE) in overweight/obese men and women.
Results
Actual nutrient intakes from food records during the VLCK (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = ~9:63:28%) and the LF (~58:22:20%) were significantly different. Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men. Both between and within group comparisons revealed a distinct advantage of a VLCK over a LF diet for weight loss, total fat loss, and trunk fat loss for men (despite significantly greater energy intake). The majority of women also responded more favorably to the VLCK diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. The greater reduction in trunk fat was not merely due to the greater total fat loss, because the ratio of trunk fat/total fat was also significantly reduced during the VLCK diet in men and women. Absolute REE (kcal/day) was decreased with both diets as expected, but REE expressed relative to body mass (kcal/kg), was better maintained on the VLCK diet for men only. Individual responses clearly show the majority of men and women experience greater weight and fat loss on a VLCK than a LF diet.
I will say, these studies all shared one result in common, and they all made the same statement: Low carb diets "are more efficient for short-term weight loss." None of them were long enough to do a full comparison, because once you go out for a year, there's no difference in weight loss between them. Short term low carb always wins, because when you reduce carbs, you significantly reduce glycogen stores, which can lead to 8-10 pounds of water weight loss right away.
I also noticed that, other than the diabetics, there were no health benefits shown in any off the low carb diets, compared to the other diets.0 -
Is that you, Mr. Taubes?0
-
I am sure there is a type of particularly yummy cake called a Brillat-Saverin0
-
1. Do not use sugar, honey, syrup, jam, jelly or candy.
2. Do not use fruits canned with sugar.
3. Do not use cake, cookies, pie, puddings, ice cream or ices.
4. Do not use foods which have cornstarch or flour added such as gravy or cream sauce.
5. Do not use potatoes (sweet or Irish), macaroni, spaghetti, noodles, dried beans or peas.
6. Do not use fried foods prepared with butter, lard, oil or butter substitutes.
7. Do not use drinks such as Coca-Cola, ginger ale, pop or root beer.
8. Do not use any foods not allowed on the diet and only as much as the diet allows.
Do not eat anything you enjoy or get any pleasure from0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions