Low Carb, Paleo. Is this nonsense or science?

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.

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.

Well, shoot, opinions are pretty darned important because they are often based on personal knowledge or other research on the same subject.

Nope. Not true. Too many people here on MFP are anti low carb and anti Paleo. I was attempting to not get into that side of it by asking people to just stick to the research. Very few people did, but some did, and helped me gain some knowledge. The problem with people's opinions is that I don't know how true they are. If you say you ate Paleo for 6 months and dropped 12 lbs and 3% body fat. Ok. But, that's a sample of one. It's meaningless. There are too many other factors. In a controlled study, they would look at the diets of a group of people. There would be separate groups, one eating Paleo, one eating normal, and then maybe another eating low fat or something. Then you compare the groups and come up with your findings. As I'm hearing this, there is no conclusive research on this specific topic with controlled groups. But, they may have started some testing on pigs, as I understand it. So, I guess it's too early.

If as an individual, you find that eating a certain way provides benefits over eating other ways, then have at it. But, this thread was really not intended to be about people's bias or opinion, but rather I was specifically asking about the research I cited in my original post. Or, if there's other research that specifies the benefits of low carb or Paleo eating. Apparently, what I am hearing, is this does not exist right now.

Oh for goodness sake. I just don't know what to say to this.

Good. Then I made my point. I didn't post here for opinions. From your post count, it looks like you post a bit, but I've never seen you here. I'm here a lot. This isn't a low carb debate. I'm asking specific question of the research, not people's opinion on if low carb works. Is that difficult? I'm trying to stave off all the anti low carb patriots here. This isn't about what anyone thinks or feels. It's about what the research suggests. I'm asking to discuss the research. Not how a bowl of rice makes your belly swell.

Jerry,
You've missed my point. You are adamant you are that opinion on the research in the link that you provided is not part of a good discussion. Why so closed minded?.

I thought it was quite clear he was interested in the scientific research (if any) that has been done and opinions on that. How that leads to being close minded, I admit I'm baffled.

That makes 2 of us. His question was clear as a bell from the opening post. It seems that some have some kind of perceptual handicap in that they have to answer with what they think instead of evidence based on research. That would explain a lot of the nonsense on these boards.

Um, I wasn't going to reply to your nonsense, but he said in his original post he said he didn't want a bunch of opinions. Go figure, that's exactly what he's getting.

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.

wha? no, that's not the issue. yeah, the short term loss is water weight on the keto diet but that doesn't really figure into anything. The keto diet changes the way your body burns energy from glucose to ketones (Fat) it's still about calorie deficit. the studies show that over all people on low carb diets lose weight and lose less muscle they also reduce hunger cravings.

some people do very well on keto diets and it's too restrictive for others. Sweden now recommends this kind of diet above all others. it also is shown to reduce cholesterol and insulin resistance.

Completely 100% agree with you. I had great benefits from it. I noted them above. But you are absolutely right about ketosis.

"Ketosis for weight loss If the body can switch from being a carb-burning machine to a fat-burning one, it loses weight.

We store our fat, sometimes in undesirable places, such as our hips, buttocks, tops of thighs and our tummy. Carbohydrates cannot be stored like fat can.

If our body is in carb-burning mode, we eat when carbohydrate levels drop in order to get our energy.

To reach ketosis, the body must be on a high fat/protein and low carbohydrate diet. According to some organizations and experts, such as Dr. Atkins, with proper monitoring (urine dip stick, for example), levels of ketosis can be kept within safe limits and the dieter can reach his/her ideal body weight without suffering unbearable hunger." ----Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without the permission of Medical News Today.

Completely 100% agree with you. I had great benefits from it. I noted them above. But you are absolutely right about ketosis.

"Ketosis for weight loss If the body can switch from being a carb-burning machine to a fat-burning one, it loses weight.

We store our fat, sometimes in undesirable places, such as our hips, buttocks, tops of thighs and our tummy. Carbohydrates cannot be stored like fat can.

If our body is in carb-burning mode, we eat when carbohydrate levels drop in order to get our energy.

To reach ketosis, the body must be on a high fat/protein and low carbohydrate diet. According to some organizations and experts, such as Dr. Atkins, with proper monitoring (urine dip stick, for example), levels of ketosis can be kept within safe limits and the dieter can reach his/her ideal body weight without suffering unbearable hunger." ----Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without the permission of Medical News Today.

Well, this thread continues to deliver the lolz.

Yes, the 2 you showed and the Taubes/ Attia post are pretty funny. Does anyone believe in real research instead of what they read in articles and books that have a commercial agenda??

They haven't been educated about the difference IMO. The problem is, when you try and educate them as to the difference, it almost immediately devolves into an 'all toys out of the pram' type response.

well I jumped back into this one and see that the derp is still strong in this thread…

I also see a lot of "opinions"…you all are now banned from this thread ..!! bahahahahaha

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.

Some grains and legumes is not like today where they try and tell you to eat the majority of your food from those type of products.....

Plus, ancient people would have had to grind it up for themselves, soak it and do other preparation to make it edible, so much work went into the process of making it edible.............unlike today.

And I have had many Doctors tell me that these things we eat today are no where near what the ancient grains were. The stuff grown today is pretty much toxic to all living creatures.

Paleolithic era man actually ate a majority of their calories from grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables. Roughly 50% of their calories were carbs. They actually ate very similarly to today, which is one reason why we still eat that way today.

This is largely false for paleolithic people that inhabited the higher latitudes.

Menus varied so much that it's impossible to pinpoint a specific 'paleo' diet. Paleoithic people in the topics and mid latitudes would have eaten more carbohydrate. Paleo isn't synonymous for 'low-carb'.

But that doesn't change the fact that they were not agricultural. Those are Neolithic peoples. Grains and pulses consumed by paleolithic peoples were still different than today.

As are the meats, fruits, vegetables, water, shelters, technology, and humans. Saying we shouldn't eat it because it's different now than it was then is a laughably false argument to make, as that would mean we shouldn't eat any food available, or drink any fluid available, as all of it is different now.

Using that logic, we should all just starve to death or die of dehydration. Seems legit.

Thank you QuietBloom and zerryz

There are some interesting studies going on with Ketogenic diets and it's affect on advanced tumors. Who knows our experience at Mayo may help someone in the future.