Low Carb, Paleo. Is this nonsense or science?
Replies
-
Honestly, there just isn't enough evidence to say that definitely Paleolithic people ate a certain way and it resulted in a better life for them (longer, healthier, less arthritis, etc.). According to dig sites, they did eat grains and legumes, though not in the quantities we do today, because they gathered them rather than grew them. They were more resistant to starvation because they could follow their food supply and weren't tied down to crops that needed rain. They had fewer diseases because they didn't live in large groups and could simply pack up and move if camp got too filthy. They were more active, because they moved all the time. There were a lot of reasons why they might have been healthier beyond just their diet.
And there isn't enough evidence to say that humans today would benefit by adopting a Paleolithic diet, though I believe they are beginning some preliminary studies in pigs. At this point, it is all theory and conjecture, though certainly very interesting.0 -
I've been low carb and high fat for almost a year and besides losing over 40 pounds and getting fit from calorie deficits and exercise, my blood tests for Triglycerides, HDL, LDL, etc... have never been better. I'm eating over 50% of calories from fat and trying to keep carbs under 100 grams a day and my doctor is so impressed by the results, he just says to keep doing whatever I'm doing. He's fine with Paleo. He says as long as I keep the carbs down and stay within my burned calories, that eating lots of fat is no problem at all. The body burns fat just fine as a primary fuel source.
A few years back,when I was eating lots of carbs (with a lot of it whole grains) and relatively low fat, my lipid numbers were all at or over the upper target ranges. Now they're way below the low healthy targets. Getting my needed protein, cutting way back on carbs, and eating all the rest as fat has made all the difference in fitness, health, and feeling better than I have in decades. So, these changes I've had aren't just anecdotal. I've got hard numbers to back up the results.
Just try it for a few months. If it doesn't work for you, then you haven't lost much trying. If it does work for you, it'll totally change your life.0 -
I'm always wary of any population that evangelizes and tries to convert people...
OP, the way to learn to read studies is to...read the studies. Note that some only apply to diabetics, or to a subset of the population under specific conditions, etc. Note whether it was well controlled or looked at the facts in a skewed manner. Do they pinpoint one variable over others... ignoring certain diseases in favor of better results in other diseases.
Personal opinion from anecdotes of people I know on paleo. It works strongly on the nocebo effect. People hear on the news all this hubbub about gluten intolerance, lactose intolerance,etc. They try Paleo, and viola, all better.0 -
Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.
I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.
I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.
I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.
What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?
Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
Thanks.
And not a single journal of palaeoanthropology was quoted that day........
what does my head in about the "paleo" diet is the complete, utter, total and absolute lack of any knowledge about palaeoanthropology.
"the paleo diet" = eating what some health guru who's never studied palaeoanthropology thinks that "cavemen" ate, or what they think "neanderthals" ate even though they can't actually pronounce the word "neanderthal" correctly0 -
I've been low carb and high fat for almost a year and besides losing over 40 pounds and getting fit from calorie deficits and exercise, my blood tests for Triglycerides, HDL, LDL, etc... have never been better. I'm eating over 50% of calories from fat and trying to keep carbs under 100 grams a day and my doctor is so impressed by the results, he just says to keep doing whatever I'm doing. He's fine with Paleo. He says as long as I keep the carbs down and stay within my burned calories, that eating lots of fat is no problem at all. The body burns fat just fine as a primary fuel source.
A few years back,when I was eating lots of carbs (with a lot of it whole grains) and relatively low fat, my lipid numbers were all at or over the upper target ranges. Now they're way below the low healthy targets. Getting my needed protein, cutting way back on carbs, and eating all the rest as fat has made all the difference in fitness, health, and feeling better than I have in decades. So, these changes I've had aren't just anecdotal. I've got hard numbers to back up the results.
Just try it for a few months. If it doesn't work for you, then you haven't lost much trying. If it does work for you, it'll totally change your life.
As noted by the A to Z study "It could not be determined whether the benefits were attributable specifically to the low carbohydrate intake vs other aspects of the diet (eg, high protein intake)."0 -
The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.
It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.0 -
I say there's no merit to the site, because the site seems specifically geared toward the paleo/low carb diet. Of course they are going to show supporting studies. Unfortunately, that's called cherry picking. Unbiased science will show studies both supporting paleo, and then other studies supporting the opposite approach (of which there are many.) a real science site will discuss the flaws, and the dissenting points, and potential confounders, and all the things you've asked about. If a site in question doesn't do that, then it isn't an unbiased site, and shouldn't be used for scientific study.Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.
I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.
I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.
I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.
What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?
Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
Thanks.
Real science should always present both sides of the argument before giving the conclusion (which, at its core, is an opinion based on available data.)0 -
The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.
It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.
There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.
- Lyle Mcdonald ProjectExcessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.0 -
You might like this video, it's about an hour.here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.
maybe you should start a private group then...
I don't see how that helps at all. I want varied answers. I'm just trying to be clear that I'm not looking for opinions on Paleo or low carb. I'm specifically asking about the research that is cited. I'm not knowledgable enough to read meta-data studies and see where it is wrong. Others here often seem to be able to view the research and then point out its weaknesses or strengths. I'm seeking people who can confirm or deny, or argue, the legitimacy of the studies I cited. I'm hoping to leave emotion and opinions on the style of dieting out of it, and discuss the research.
The stuff from Alan Aragon was pretty solid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwbY12qZcF4
This video is about a chemist who found a lot of flaws in how people rate the quality of food. He came up with his own method. It's based on nutritional density. His lecture shows that grains have pretty low nutritional density. When grains are raw, they appear to have high nutritional density but we can't eat grains in that state so it's pointless. If I remember correctly, meats with the highest nutritional density are organ meats. Of course vegetables, russet potatoes have more nutrition and sweet potatoes.0 -
The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.
It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.
There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.
- Lyle Mcdonald ProjectExcessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.
I'm talking about empirical numbers. 1 calorie of protein burns 0.2-0.23 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of carbs burns 0.1-0.15 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of fat burns 0.02-0.03 calories for digestion. Start with the standard recommendation of 50 carb, 20 protein, 30 fat, using 2000 calories for a base.
1000 calories of carbs will need about 100-150 calories for digestion (we'll call it 125.)
400 calories of protein will need about 80-92 calories for digestion (again, split the difference, call it 86.)
600 calories of fat will need about 12-18 calories for digestion (so we'll say 15.)
So that's about 301 calories for TEF.
Now, let's go with a low carb, high fat plan. Let's say 20% carbs, 30% protein, 50% fat, still using 2000 calories.
400 calories of carbs will need 40-60 calories for digestion (50.)
600 calories of protein will need 120-138 calories for digestion (129.)
1000 calories of fat will need 20-30 calories for digestion (25.)
So the low carb plan totals about 204 calories for TEF.
Notice something? While the 10% increase in protein boosted calorie burn specifically for protein, overall, the low carb diet actually produced a LOWER over all thermogenic effect.
Like I said, it's insignificant, bordering on irrelevant.
Also, I'm not sure you quite understood the point of the quote you quoted. It's not about protein, it's about why Lyle recommends higher fat with lower carbs. He does it specifically to reduce the thermogenic effect.0 -
The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.
It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.
There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.
- Lyle Mcdonald ProjectExcessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.
I'm talking about empirical numbers. 1 calorie of protein burns 0.2-0.23 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of carbs burns 0.1-0.15 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of fat burns 0.02-0.03 calories for digestion. Start with the standard recommendation of 50 carb, 20 protein, 30 fat, using 2000 calories for a base.
1000 calories of carbs will need about 100-150 calories for digestion (we'll call it 125.)
400 calories of protein will need about 80-92 calories for digestion (again, split the difference, call it 86.)
600 calories of fat will need about 12-18 calories for digestion (so we'll say 15.)
So that's about 301 calories for TEF.
Now, let's go with a low carb, high fat plan. Let's say 20% carbs, 30% protein, 50% fat, still using 2000 calories.
400 calories of carbs will need 40-60 calories for digestion (50.)
600 calories of protein will need 120-138 calories for digestion (129.)
1000 calories of fat will need 20-30 calories for digestion (25.)
So the low carb plan totals about 204 calories for TEF.
Notice something? While the 10% increase in protein boosted calorie burn specifically for protein, overall, the low carb diet actually produced a LOWER over all thermogenic effect.
Like I said, it's insignificant, bordering on irrelevant.
Also, I'm not sure you quite understood the point of the quote you quoted. It's not about protein, it's about why Lyle recommends higher fat with lower carbs. He does it specifically to reduce the thermogenic effect.
Does anyone know if anyone has conducted studies regarding the impact of macros on the human body?
** For Example: (Group A is obvious, but 80% was just arbitrarily thrown in there. Im sure research to help determine at which point maxing out your macro will have less of an effect will help also (unless thats already been done as well?))
Group A) Carbs 33.3% / Protein 33.3% / Fats 33.3%
Group
Carbs 80% / Protein 10% / Fats 10%
Group C) Carbs 10% / Protein 80% / Fats 10%
Group D) Carbs 10% / Protein 10% / Fats 80%
** All calorie amounts should equal maintenance so that no individual should gain or lose a lb.
It would be nice is someone did or started doing them so we could begin addressing the is a "calorie just a calorie", lo carb, high fat etc. etc. ad nauseum.0 -
To answer your question, OP, of course there are problems with the studies. Unless all the subjects were in a completely controlled environment, there could be numerous other possible reasons for the correlations drawn. Do you really want to take apart each and every study?
Personally, those studies were interesting enough to convince me to try Low Carb for myself. I found low carbing to be great for my blood sugar issues, and it cured my DH's (Type2) diabetes.0 -
The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.
It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.
There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.
- Lyle Mcdonald ProjectExcessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.
I'm talking about empirical numbers. 1 calorie of protein burns 0.2-0.23 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of carbs burns 0.1-0.15 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of fat burns 0.02-0.03 calories for digestion. Start with the standard recommendation of 50 carb, 20 protein, 30 fat, using 2000 calories for a base.
1000 calories of carbs will need about 100-150 calories for digestion (we'll call it 125.)
400 calories of protein will need about 80-92 calories for digestion (again, split the difference, call it 86.)
600 calories of fat will need about 12-18 calories for digestion (so we'll say 15.)
So that's about 301 calories for TEF.
Now, let's go with a low carb, high fat plan. Let's say 20% carbs, 30% protein, 50% fat, still using 2000 calories.
400 calories of carbs will need 40-60 calories for digestion (50.)
600 calories of protein will need 120-138 calories for digestion (129.)
1000 calories of fat will need 20-30 calories for digestion (25.)
So the low carb plan totals about 204 calories for TEF.
Notice something? While the 10% increase in protein boosted calorie burn specifically for protein, overall, the low carb diet actually produced a LOWER over all thermogenic effect.
Like I said, it's insignificant, bordering on irrelevant.
Also, I'm not sure you quite understood the point of the quote you quoted. It's not about protein, it's about why Lyle recommends higher fat with lower carbs. He does it specifically to reduce the thermogenic effect.
Yes I am aware of lyle's point. My point in posting that was to show there is a significant thermogenic effect that he actually has to lower it. Using the numbers you provided, I converted them in to percentages.
carbs = 12.5%
Protein = 21.5%
Fat = 2.5%
My diet is 2,300 calories.
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 998 calories (43%)
Fat 667 calories (29%)
Thermogenic effect
carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 215 calories
fat = 17 calories
TEF = 312.6 calories.
I do want to reduce more bodyfat, I plan to increase my protein intake and reduce my fat intake for satiety purposes. I am thinking of dropping fat intake to 20%.
Diet
Carbs 645 calories (28%)
Protein 1196 calories (52%)
Fat 460 calories (20%)
Thermogenic Effect
Carbs = 80.6 calories
Protein = 257 calories
fat = 11.5 calories
TEF = 349 calories
In both cases, 300 calories is a cardio session for some people. I believe this is a significant difference. 20-30minutes doing cardio would produce the same calorie difference.0 -
Dunno. What I *do* know is:
1: It's easier to eat as I plan when I don't eat foods with a lot of added sugars, and when limit foods with a high GL. (including things like starchy carbs, foods with HFCS, including breads and tortillas that have HFCS).
2. I know that I feel better when I don't eat a lot of heavily processed foods (many of which have added sugars, and HFCS.). See #1
YMMV, of course.
Otherwise, don't know. Just know what works for me all these years.
Best of luck to all in figuring out what works for them.
:drinker:0 -
I'm always wary of any population that evangelizes and tries to convert people...
OP, the way to learn to read studies is to...read the studies. Note that some only apply to diabetics, or to a subset of the population under specific conditions, etc. Note whether it was well controlled or looked at the facts in a skewed manner. Do they pinpoint one variable over others... ignoring certain diseases in favor of better results in other diseases.
Personal opinion from anecdotes of people I know on paleo. It works strongly on the nocebo effect. People hear on the news all this hubbub about gluten intolerance, lactose intolerance,etc. They try Paleo, and viola, all better.
:drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :drinker: and this tooo! :blushing:
I'm just so damn glad I've finally figured out how to effect change where there was none before, that I really don't care how it works or what it's called, as long as *something* works...I'm in!!!
0 -
Good question. I don't see the IIFYM crowd posting studies supporting their macro positions....they just say that If it fits your macros it's all good. Granted, no one really offers up what his/her macros are either.
Does anyone know if anyone has conducted studies regarding the impact of macros on the human body?
** For Example: (Group A is obvious, but 80% was just arbitrarily thrown in there. Im sure research to help determine at which point maxing out your macro will have less of an effect will help also (unless thats already been done as well?))
Group A) Carbs 33.3% / Protein 33.3% / Fats 33.3%
Group Carbs 80% / Protein 10% / Fats 10%
Group C) Carbs 10% / Protein 80% / Fats 10%
Group D) Carbs 10% / Protein 10% / Fats 80%
** All calorie amounts should equal maintenance so that no individual should gain or lose a lb.
It would be nice is someone did or started doing them so we could begin addressing the is a "calorie just a calorie", lo carb, high fat etc. etc. ad nauseum.
It would be good to see the results of studies. I know what works best for me.0 -
Good question. I don't see the IIFYM crowd posting studies supporting their macro positions....they just say that If it fits your macros it's all good. Granted, no one really offers up what his/her macros are either.
Does anyone know if anyone has conducted studies regarding the impact of macros on the human body?
** For Example: (Group A is obvious, but 80% was just arbitrarily thrown in there. Im sure research to help determine at which point maxing out your macro will have less of an effect will help also (unless thats already been done as well?))
Group A) Carbs 33.3% / Protein 33.3% / Fats 33.3%
Group Carbs 80% / Protein 10% / Fats 10%
Group C) Carbs 10% / Protein 80% / Fats 10%
Group D) Carbs 10% / Protein 10% / Fats 80%
** All calorie amounts should equal maintenance so that no individual should gain or lose a lb.
It would be nice is someone did or started doing them so we could begin addressing the is a "calorie just a calorie", lo carb, high fat etc. etc. ad nauseum.
It would be good to see the results of studies. I know what works best for me.
To answer the previous question, no there have been no studies like that done. In my previous post, I mentioned they have started doing some preliminary studies on a low carb diet in pigs.
As for macros, I don't understand you point Sabine. You can look at any public diary and see what someone's macros are. I can tell you that mine are 40/30/30. And I am willing to change them at any time if given a compelling reason to do so (not getting the results I want). Physiologically, it has been pretty well worked out what the body does with each component of a macro, though there is always more to learn.
If you know what works for you, kudos. I won't argue it.
0 -
Indeed, if someone's diary is open I can look at them. I was more commenting on the concept often floated here that macros are the key (along with calories). Is IIFYM the best way? Dunno.
Good question. I don't see the IIFYM crowd posting studies supporting their macro positions....they just say that If it fits your macros it's all good. Granted, no one really offers up what his/her macros are either.
Does anyone know if anyone has conducted studies regarding the impact of macros on the human body?
** For Example: (Group A is obvious, but 80% was just arbitrarily thrown in there. Im sure research to help determine at which point maxing out your macro will have less of an effect will help also (unless thats already been done as well?))
Group A) Carbs 33.3% / Protein 33.3% / Fats 33.3%
Group Carbs 80% / Protein 10% / Fats 10%
Group C) Carbs 10% / Protein 80% / Fats 10%
Group D) Carbs 10% / Protein 10% / Fats 80%
** All calorie amounts should equal maintenance so that no individual should gain or lose a lb.
It would be nice is someone did or started doing them so we could begin addressing the is a "calorie just a calorie", lo carb, high fat etc. etc. ad nauseum.
It would be good to see the results of studies. I know what works best for me.
To answer the previous question, no there have been no studies like that done. In my previous post, I mentioned they have started doing some preliminary studies on a low carb diet in pigs.
As for macros, I don't understand you point Sabine. You can look at any public diary and see what someone's macros are. I can tell you that mine are 40/30/30. And I am willing to change them at any time if given a compelling reason to do so (not getting the results I want). Physiologically, it has been pretty well worked out what the body does with each component of a macro, though there is always more to learn.
If you know what works for you, kudos. I won't argue it.
But yes, I'm lucky I found what works for me. cheers0 -
And not a single journal of palaeoanthropology was quoted that day........
what does my head in about the "paleo" diet is the complete, utter, total and absolute lack of any knowledge about palaeoanthropology.
"the paleo diet" = eating what some health guru who's never studied palaeoanthropology thinks that "cavemen" ate, or what they think "neanderthals" ate even though they can't actually pronounce the word "neanderthal" correctly
i pretty much think youre the coolest person around...i could spend hours listening to your thoughts on what early hominids ate0 -
White rice (aka processed rice) was introduced to Asia back in the 50's I think which was when Asians began to acquire type 2diabetes just like Americans.
How do people manage to come up with such obvious nonsense with so much information available with just a few keystrokes?
Extensive use of polished rice in Asia goes back to the 1600s.
i thought it was a little older than the last century0 -
Indeed, if someone's diary is open I can look at them. I was more commenting on the concept often floated here that macros are the key (along with calories). Is IIFYM the best way? Dunno.
Good question. I don't see the IIFYM crowd posting studies supporting their macro positions....they just say that If it fits your macros it's all good. Granted, no one really offers up what his/her macros are either.
Does anyone know if anyone has conducted studies regarding the impact of macros on the human body?
** For Example: (Group A is obvious, but 80% was just arbitrarily thrown in there. Im sure research to help determine at which point maxing out your macro will have less of an effect will help also (unless thats already been done as well?))
Group A) Carbs 33.3% / Protein 33.3% / Fats 33.3%
Group Carbs 80% / Protein 10% / Fats 10%
Group C) Carbs 10% / Protein 80% / Fats 10%
Group D) Carbs 10% / Protein 10% / Fats 80%
** All calorie amounts should equal maintenance so that no individual should gain or lose a lb.
It would be nice is someone did or started doing them so we could begin addressing the is a "calorie just a calorie", lo carb, high fat etc. etc. ad nauseum.
It would be good to see the results of studies. I know what works best for me.
To answer the previous question, no there have been no studies like that done. In my previous post, I mentioned they have started doing some preliminary studies on a low carb diet in pigs.
As for macros, I don't understand you point Sabine. You can look at any public diary and see what someone's macros are. I can tell you that mine are 40/30/30. And I am willing to change them at any time if given a compelling reason to do so (not getting the results I want). Physiologically, it has been pretty well worked out what the body does with each component of a macro, though there is always more to learn.
If you know what works for you, kudos. I won't argue it.
But yes, I'm lucky I found what works for me. cheers
It seems to me that yes, macros are the key to healthy eating. Because we need to make sure we get enough of all three. So by default that means IIFYM is a good way to make sure one does. I don't really understand how there could BE any other way. ?0 -
Just wanted to chip in and let you know that yes, a lot of the science on that site is cherry-picked and selectively presented to give a particular answer. This is the exact same way that a huge % of the food and pharmaceutical industry operates, IE your doctor prescribes medicine based on research that's often just as flawed as this. (Publication bias is the easiest and most often abused)
If this makes you feel uncomfortable, please do not take a closer look at your supplements, economic numbers cited in politics, every opinion poll ever, or any drug that's been introduced in the last 50 years.
I eat very low carb (except around this holiday, woof!) and have seen great effects, but these are MOSTLY due to the much greater control this type of diet gives you over your calorie intake. It's very easy to mindlessly eat 1000 calories of pizza or fried chicken w/ mashers or a burger with fries. It's far, far more difficult to eat that much lean meat and vegetables in a sitting. Thus, fat loss. LCHF eating is a much more deliberate process if you aren't being a moron about it.
Paleo people worked far, far harder for less caloricaly-rich natural food. If you had to run down a Calzone on foot for 3 days to kill it with a spear and eat it you wouldn't be a chub-a-lub either.0 -
The thermogenic effect of protein is so slight it might as well not exist. You're talking about a difference of 0.1 calories per gram difference between protein and carbs, and since fat is increased when protein is increased and carbs are decreased, the tiny thermogenic effect you'd get from the increased protein is more than off set by the decrease in thermogenic effect caused by the increased fat (which is 0.1 calorie per gram LESS than carbs.)The issue with those weight loss studies is that lower carb diets reduce water weight which will lower your total body weight. I don't think weight is a good indicator in these types of studies. I do agree though that protein is most thermogenic . You use more calories to digest protein. It does burn more calories, so very possible and likely you can take advantage of thermogenesis.
It depends on which style of paleo you're using. Are you using mostly protein? (increased thermogensis) or moderate protein higher fat (atkins style). The later would result in a lower thermogenic effect.
There was a point when I thought it was insignificant. Now I changed my mind.
- Lyle Mcdonald ProjectExcessive protein burns off calories for heat, increases protein degrading enzymes (meaning that if you don't take in that much protein all the time, your body breaks it down that much faster). I remember Duchaine suggesting that high carb/high protein was causing the body to burn off calories too well thermogenically that mass gains were inhibited (calories wasted as heat can't go to synthesis of tissues), why he suggested moving to isocaloric ratios: using fat as a metabolic 'damper' (essentially) on top of every other reason to eat more fat.
I'm talking about empirical numbers. 1 calorie of protein burns 0.2-0.23 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of carbs burns 0.1-0.15 calories for digestion. 1 calorie of fat burns 0.02-0.03 calories for digestion. Start with the standard recommendation of 50 carb, 20 protein, 30 fat, using 2000 calories for a base.
1000 calories of carbs will need about 100-150 calories for digestion (we'll call it 125.)
400 calories of protein will need about 80-92 calories for digestion (again, split the difference, call it 86.)
600 calories of fat will need about 12-18 calories for digestion (so we'll say 15.)
So that's about 301 calories for TEF.
Now, let's go with a low carb, high fat plan. Let's say 20% carbs, 30% protein, 50% fat, still using 2000 calories.
400 calories of carbs will need 40-60 calories for digestion (50.)
600 calories of protein will need 120-138 calories for digestion (129.)
1000 calories of fat will need 20-30 calories for digestion (25.)
So the low carb plan totals about 204 calories for TEF.
Notice something? While the 10% increase in protein boosted calorie burn specifically for protein, overall, the low carb diet actually produced a LOWER over all thermogenic effect.
Like I said, it's insignificant, bordering on irrelevant.
Also, I'm not sure you quite understood the point of the quote you quoted. It's not about protein, it's about why Lyle recommends higher fat with lower carbs. He does it specifically to reduce the thermogenic effect.
Does anyone know if anyone has conducted studies regarding the impact of macros on the human body?
** For Example: (Group A is obvious, but 80% was just arbitrarily thrown in there. Im sure research to help determine at which point maxing out your macro will have less of an effect will help also (unless thats already been done as well?))
Group A) Carbs 33.3% / Protein 33.3% / Fats 33.3%
Group Carbs 80% / Protein 10% / Fats 10%
Group C) Carbs 10% / Protein 80% / Fats 10%
Group D) Carbs 10% / Protein 10% / Fats 80%
** All calorie amounts should equal maintenance so that no individual should gain or lose a lb.
It would be nice is someone did or started doing them so we could begin addressing the is a "calorie just a calorie", lo carb, high fat etc. etc. ad nauseum.
I actually seen a study like that a while ago... I don't remember who did it, or here to find it again.(i should start save them). Man I wish I had it.... In terms of fat loss, the high fat group lost the most body fat. Followed by the protein then the carbs. It was actually the exact same ratios you list.0 -
Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.
I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.
I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.
I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.
What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?
Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
Thanks.
My question to people is......................How is eating proteins, fats, vegetables, fruit, raw dairy, nuts and seeds unhealthy in any way?????
Its just food, real food.0 -
Because even paleolithic people ate some grains and legumes. So completely removing a food group, just because our ancestors thousands of years ago ate less than we do, isn't really a compelling argument for total elimination in modern man.
Of course, eat what you want.0 -
Harvesting of wild grains may have begun more than 100,000 years ago.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091217/full/news.2009.1147.html
Research pushes back origins of agriculture in China by 12,000 years
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-agriculture-china-years.html0 -
And when folks do that, jonnythan and company complain that folks start private groups because they don't want to entertain any other info...here is what I will say….they lost weight because they used paleo, low carb, whatever to create a calorie deficit…
Paloe, IF, Low Carb, etc are not magical ways to lose weight..they are just a tool to create a calorie deficit to lose weight..
you can eat high carb/non paleo, and lose weight…
calories in vs calories out...
This isn't about losing weight.
It's not? The link you posted referenced losing weight..
Imho paleontology and low carb is bunk
No. It's about optimum health and proper nutrition.
i don't see how low carb or paleo promote optimum health and proper nutrition...
I mostly was asking about the research, not opinions. I don't mean to sound rude. I just wanted very specific information based upon the website and the research it sites.
maybe you should start a private group then...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't......0 -
There's much more to nutrition than macros. I've seen folks without a fruit or vegetable in the diary for days and days and days who "meet their macros". Ive seen folks whose diary consists of only packaged convenience foods who say they "meet their macros".
Indeed, if someone's diary is open I can look at them. I was more commenting on the concept often floated here that macros are the key (along with calories). Is IIFYM the best way? Dunno.
Good question. I don't see the IIFYM crowd posting studies supporting their macro positions....they just say that If it fits your macros it's all good. Granted, no one really offers up what his/her macros are either.
Does anyone know if anyone has conducted studies regarding the impact of macros on the human body?
** For Example: (Group A is obvious, but 80% was just arbitrarily thrown in there. Im sure research to help determine at which point maxing out your macro will have less of an effect will help also (unless thats already been done as well?))
Group A) Carbs 33.3% / Protein 33.3% / Fats 33.3%
Group Carbs 80% / Protein 10% / Fats 10%
Group C) Carbs 10% / Protein 80% / Fats 10%
Group D) Carbs 10% / Protein 10% / Fats 80%
** All calorie amounts should equal maintenance so that no individual should gain or lose a lb.
It would be nice is someone did or started doing them so we could begin addressing the is a "calorie just a calorie", lo carb, high fat etc. etc. ad nauseum.
It would be good to see the results of studies. I know what works best for me.
To answer the previous question, no there have been no studies like that done. In my previous post, I mentioned they have started doing some preliminary studies on a low carb diet in pigs.
As for macros, I don't understand you point Sabine. You can look at any public diary and see what someone's macros are. I can tell you that mine are 40/30/30. And I am willing to change them at any time if given a compelling reason to do so (not getting the results I want). Physiologically, it has been pretty well worked out what the body does with each component of a macro, though there is always more to learn.
If you know what works for you, kudos. I won't argue it.
But yes, I'm lucky I found what works for me. cheers
It seems to me that yes, macros are the key to healthy eating. Because we need to make sure we get enough of all three. So by default that means IIFYM is a good way to make sure one does. I don't really understand how there could BE any other way. ?
An olive garden burger, fries and cola would use all my days calories, AND fit my macros. lol
And, finally, if it's just "calories in calories out" what do macros matter? 0 -
Someone told me (on here) that it was "dangerous". Apparently we need bread?Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.
I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.
I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.
I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.
What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?
Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
Thanks.
My question to people is......................How is eating proteins, fats, vegetables, fruit, raw dairy, nuts and seeds unhealthy in any way?????
Its just food, real food.0 -
Someone told me (on here) that it was "dangerous". Apparently we need bread?Here's the site: http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
I have my own views, which, for now, I'll keep to myself.
I don't care if you think low carb or Paleo is a good diet plan.
I don't care if you think eating like a caveman is stupid.
I don't care if you think sugar is the angel of God, or Satans right hand of doom.
What I am asking here is, is this research legit and is there merit to this website?
Be open minded. I want a civil and balanced discussion, not a bunch of opinions.
Thanks.
My question to people is......................How is eating proteins, fats, vegetables, fruit, raw dairy, nuts and seeds unhealthy in any way?????
Its just food, real food.
I suppose so................such a shame.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions