Review finds low-carb eating benefits health markers

Options
2

Replies

  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    1. A body low in cabrs will naturally want to store the ones it does get simply because it depleted the stores already. This will not effect fat.

    2. A low calorie diet (with enough protein) will result in the need for utilization of fat stores.

    3. Every study has not kept their constants actually constant and have checked multiple variables AT THE SAME TIME (absolutely bad science).

    The main reason low carb works for some people for weight loss is the increased protein.

    The reason why low carbers tend to use more energy per day than those of the same weight are two fold. The first being the low carbers have more protein where as the other groups typically do not have enough (most studies place them at 10 to 20% and low-carbers at 30%). And secondly, the non-low-carbers are actually smaller in reality (lean body mass). The low carbers have an artificially lower weight due to significantly less water weight. Larger lean body mass means larger caloric expenditure.

    Lowering one thing AND raising another, then only saying "lower this" is ridiculous in its very nature.

    And... "Free-living".... really...

    Dana, if the research can't say that lower carbs is responsible for the increased weight loss you can't use the same research to claim the results are from an increase in protein. I'd also like to point out that not all low carb diets increase protein, most that I know of are low carb, high fat, and adequate protein.

    Exactly. I eat high fat, moderate protein and lower carbs.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Options
    Can you a) define this and b) provide supporting evidence to your usual high standards ?

    http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf

    Worth noting, as I have before, that playing with the suggested intakes (Which is a RANGE), you can achieve a semi-low-carb diet (One that I'd support in this range).

    This is a Document published by the Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services written by 15 highly qualified individuals (Masters and Doctorates in the related field) and reviewed by another 11 official in the field as well.

    I really enjoy this sort of stuff more so than some guy's blog or random internet forum posts by mysterious men.

    I do not believe anything that comes from a .gov website that employs and supports Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and other GMO creating companies.

    The USDA, FDA and other government agencies are not trying to tell people how to eat healthy. If they were, they would not be recommending such a high grain intake per day. That is ridiculous!

    All they are worried about is the grain industry.
  • onikonor
    onikonor Posts: 473 Member
    Options
    I just found this, interesting. Note that all the people who ate moderate amount of carbs ~100 still lost weight, just a different pace than low carbers. Please note, protein in all groups was the same at 115g.

    It's also safe to say that ~100 carb diet will be more sustainable in the long run than 30 carb.

    "The perception that “a calorie is a calorie” was refuted by
    Young et al in 1971 (5). They compared 3 diets that contained the
    same amount of calories (1800 kcal/d) and protein (115 g/d) but
    that differed in carbohydrate content (3). After 9 wk on the 30-g,
    60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8,
    and 11.9 kg and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the
    weight loss, respectively."

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/6/1442.full.pdf+html
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    I do not believe anything that comes from a .gov website that employs and supports Monsanto, Cargill, ADM and other GMO creating companies.

    The USDA, FDA and other government agencies are not trying to tell people how to eat healthy. If they were, they would not be recommending such a high grain intake per day. That is ridiculous!

    All they are worried about is the grain industry.

    Oh dear god one of those people... I used to think similarly, then I realized the government can barely do what it is designed to do, let alone operate some sort of conspiracy.
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    I just found this, interesting. Note that all the people who ate moderate amount of carbs ~100 still lost weight, just a different pace than low carbers.

    It's also safe to say that ~100 carb diet will be more sustainable in the long run than 30 carb.

    "The perception that “a calorie is a calorie” was refuted by
    Young et al in 1971 (5). They compared 3 diets that contained the
    same amount of calories (1800 kcal/d) and protein (115 g/d) but
    that differed in carbohydrate content (3). After 9 wk on the 30-g,
    60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8,
    and 11.9 kg and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the
    weight loss, respectively."

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/6/1442.full.pdf+html

    The low carbers had 30% protein compared to 20% protein in the other two diets compared at the same calories. Meaning, the low-carbers had more overall protein than the other two. Protein has been shown to encourage weight loss and is recommended for any weight loss plan.

    Fewer carbs also mean less water weight. Water weight differences will result in people weighing the same but having different lean body masses, which will also affect caloric expenditure on a day, making it seem one person of two people of equal weight is spending more calories a day (true, but they aren't same lean body mass).
  • cjc166
    cjc166 Posts: 222
    Options
    Recent study showing low carb linked to increased risk of heart disease.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/low-carbohydrate-high-protein-diets-increase-cardiovascular-disease/story?id=16655359
  • onikonor
    onikonor Posts: 473 Member
    Options
    I just found this, interesting. Note that all the people who ate moderate amount of carbs ~100 still lost weight, just a different pace than low carbers.

    It's also safe to say that ~100 carb diet will be more sustainable in the long run than 30 carb.

    "The perception that “a calorie is a calorie” was refuted by
    Young et al in 1971 (5). They compared 3 diets that contained the
    same amount of calories (1800 kcal/d) and protein (115 g/d) but
    that differed in carbohydrate content (3). After 9 wk on the 30-g,
    60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8,
    and 11.9 kg and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the
    weight loss, respectively."

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/6/1442.full.pdf+html

    The low carbers had 30% protein compared to 20% protein in the other two diets compared at the same calories. Meaning, the low-carbers had more overall protein than the other two. Protein has been shown to encourage weight loss and is recommended for any weight loss plan.

    Fewer carbs also mean less water weight. Water weight differences will result in people weighing the same but having different lean body masses, which will also affect caloric expenditure on a day, making it seem one person of two people of equal weight is spending more calories a day (true, but they aren't same lean body mass).

    But they both ate 115 grams of protein is is 26%.
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    But they both ate 115 grams of protein?

    Oh hey I totally thought this was a different article. Hold on a while, Im gonna go read it in full! (Very similar article recently came out, I confused it with that one, my bad.)
  • onikonor
    onikonor Posts: 473 Member
    Options
    But they both ate 115 grams of protein?

    Oh hey I totally thought this was a different article. Hold on a while, Im gonna go read it in full! (Very similar article recently came out, I confused it with that one, my bad.)

    No probs. This is one holds protein steady so the only variables are fat and carbs.
  • onikonor
    onikonor Posts: 473 Member
    Options
    Recent study showing low carb linked to increased risk of heart disease.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/low-carbohydrate-high-protein-diets-increase-cardiovascular-disease/story?id=16655359

    Hmm... this study says the cause for cardiovascular problems was resulting from increase in protein. I wonder how it would change if you increased fat intake instead of protein? Is there a study with that?
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    No probs. This is one holds protein steady so the only variables are fat and carbs.

    Nice find by the way.

    Without more details on the type of carbohydrates it is difficult to really say. Namely, the article continues on talking about insulin levels. This would indicate that glycemic index of foods would be of more importance (Fats and meats have incredibly low glycemic index obviously).

    The "healthy" carbohydrates also have very low glycemic indexes as well. Having a high glycemic index meal results in an elevated blood sugar which then results in more insulin in the blood stream. The insulin is responsible for storing sugars as fats. But remember, storing some fat is fine so long as it is burned within the day or reasonable amount of time (this is how we can survive without eating constantly).

    With higher carbohydrate diets, it becomes easier to achiever higher glycemic index meals, usually done through poor carbohydrate choices.

    I would LOVE to see a study just like this but adding in alternate carbohydrate choices or controlling for glycemic index load!
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    Recent study showing low carb linked to increased risk of heart disease.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/low-carbohydrate-high-protein-diets-increase-cardiovascular-disease/story?id=16655359

    Hmm... this study says the cause for cardiovascular problems was resulting from increase in protein. I wonder how it would change if you increased fat intake instead of protein? Is there a study with that?

    Issue I have with that is again, changing two variables. Not to mention little to no mention of lifestyle... heart health depends on EVERYTHING almost. Especially exercise!
  • Lina4Lina
    Lina4Lina Posts: 712 Member
    Options
    popcorn.gif

    lol What? I just thought low-carbers could use a little pick me up after all the misinformation and insults from the 101 Reasons thread.

    What misinformation? That there are benefits to carbs and even low carbers eat carbs?
  • llstacy
    llstacy Posts: 91 Member
    Options
    Bump to read later. I already know about the health benefits from the first blog but the seconds look cool. And the U.S. food recommendations aren't based on good science at all and I feel bad for anyone who follows those guidelines. Read this: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/02/04/the-new-usda-dietary-guideline/
  • lrkidd
    lrkidd Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    Mu doctor had me go home and watch the following link. It was a very interesting study, more so because it was done by a "die hard" vegitarian who had to admit that low carb was the most effective way to lose weight.

    If the link doesn't work you can also search on you tube for.....THE BATTLE OF THE DIETS BY CHRISTOPHER GARDNER


    http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/battle-of-the-diets
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    I just found this, interesting. Note that all the people who ate moderate amount of carbs ~100 still lost weight, just a different pace than low carbers. Please note, protein in all groups was the same at 115g.

    It's also safe to say that ~100 carb diet will be more sustainable in the long run than 30 carb.

    "The perception that “a calorie is a calorie” was refuted by
    Young et al in 1971 (5). They compared 3 diets that contained the
    same amount of calories (1800 kcal/d) and protein (115 g/d) but
    that differed in carbohydrate content (3). After 9 wk on the 30-g,
    60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8,
    and 11.9 kg and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the
    weight loss, respectively."

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/6/1442.full.pdf+html

    i like how the author talks about the meta analysis by Kreiger et al. Has he read Kreiger's current stance on the meta analysis he did?

    Scroll down to the section "A Note About Scientific Integrity"

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285
  • ninastlouis
    ninastlouis Posts: 1
    Options
    Been on every type of plan in the world and am 100% convinced that a low carb (carbs from VEGGIES, mainly), potien, and moderate fat content diet is the WAY TO GO. My hunger is controlable, my blood sugar doesn't spike, I feel less bloated, and THE WEIGHT IS COMING OFF. 6 months as of today, 53.5 pounds lost, NO problems with what foods to eat, not too many restrictions.

    Low fat, low cal dieters - check this one out:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Been on every type of plan in the world and am 100% convinced that a low carb (carbs from VEGGIES, mainly), potien, and moderate fat content diet is the WAY TO GO. My hunger is controlable, my blood sugar doesn't spike, I feel less bloated, and THE WEIGHT IS COMING OFF. 6 months as of today, 53.5 pounds lost, NO problems with what foods to eat, not too many restrictions.

    Low fat, low cal dieters - check this one out:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

    LolTaubes

    http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake
  • onikonor
    onikonor Posts: 473 Member
    Options

    i like how the author talks about the meta analysis by Kreiger et al. Has he read Kreiger's current stance on the meta analysis he did?

    Scroll down to the section "A Note About Scientific Integrity"

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

    Good one.

    I see what he says about the faults in the study.
    I don't understand this statement "I treated protein and carbohydrate as independent variables in my analysis. However, because low carbohydrate diets are usually high in protein, the two are not truly independent" since during the 2004 study he kept it flat at 115 so therefore increasing protein more in low carb should give a bigger benefit?

    The biggest downfall I see in the study is self reporting of calories consumed. I think this is key.

    "The bottom line is that there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate intake that is independent of a high protein intake. There is a metabolic advantage to a high protein diet, which will increase the calories you burn by 80-100 calories per day. There is also a dramatic satiety advantage to a high protein intake"
  • llstacy
    llstacy Posts: 91 Member
    Options
    popcorn.gif

    lol What? I just thought low-carbers could use a little pick me up after all the misinformation and insults from the 101 Reasons thread.

    What misinformation? That there are benefits to carbs and even low carbers eat carbs?
    I didn't post in that thread but people were saying all kinds of stupid stuff about low carb diets that weren't at all true and talking trash about "low-carbers".

Categories