Grains and Carbs
Options
Replies
-
This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.0 -
This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
Lol nusi. Can you tell me why well controlled overfeeding trials are being discounted?0 -
This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
I won't hold my breath ….0 -
Despite what you may think, that is not correct. Holding calories and protein constant, fat loss isn't significantly different between low carb or higher carb diets, at least in ward trials, save for kekwick and one of the rabst studies and one other that I can't think of off the top of my head.
Where on earth did you come up with the logic for the 3rd paragraph?
Who said to hold calories constant? I'm saying that for many people who restrict carbs, they will burn more body fat which will result in a calorie deficit. For many people who are sensitive to carbs, eating a lot of carbs will cause them to store body fat, which will result in either more eating or decreased energy expenditure (calorie surplus).
How can you look at the efficacy if you do not hold calories constant?
Edited to try to fix messed up quotes.
You can compare weight loss with the deficit measured, you don't have to fix the deficit and fixing intake doesn't fix it in any case.
kg/week lost per kcal/day deficit would be one such statistic, or kcal/day deficit to produce 1 kg/week or whatever of loss.
In theory, I do not disagree - (but that is not what the poster was implying..at least from my interpretation of his disjointed posts). Could you clarify what you mean by 'fixing intake doesn't fix it in any case"? I get the concept you are using - sort of reverse engineer into the number - but that part confused me.0 -
Except your statement was thst LC works better than energy restriction alone, not that it was better than MC at reducing IR and from the study you posted you cannot conclude that from the data provided.
This isn't terribly hard to understand, you are drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data. Just because you don't see the difference in energy restriction as having a significant effect, it doesn't mean that it didn't, you can't tell from the study you posted.
In the study the restricted carbohydrate diet reduced insulin resistance and the other diet with a similar but slightly higher energy intake did not reduce insulin resistance.
The restricted carbohydrate diet was served on different colour plates and had different foods in it.
I can't tell from the study if the colour of the plates or the specific foods were responsible for the reduction in insulin, glucose and insulin resistance in the LC case.
Biochemistry 101 suggests that a reduced carbohydrate intake will lead to a reduced blood sugar level, which in turn will reduce insulin levels and so on. Or it could be the colour of the plates, the types of food or a small energy difference.
It appears the authors anticipated this sort of derp and ran a smaller isocaloric trial, for the benefit of those who believe the only variable in human metabolism and biochemistry is a unit of energy. The smaller group again did a crossover between two diets with 2000 kcal/day of intake. Once again they couldn't help but undereat on the low carb diet by 66 calories so the blew the experiment up. But again on the LC diet they achieved a statistically significant reduction in glucose and insulin and a 63% reduction in insulin resistance on the low carb arm, but not on the higher carb. Obviously the 66 calories they didn't eat caused this whole effect.
0 -
In theory, I do not disagree - (but that is not what the poster was implying..at least from my interpretation of his disjointed posts). Could you clarify what you mean by 'fixing intake doesn't fix it in any case"? I get the concept you are using - sort of reverse engineer into the number - but that part confused me.
You can't "fix a deficit" easily, if at all. You can fix an input but if the system responds with a change in output the deficit will be different to what you intended.
I don't think I've seen a study that controlled a deficit, most measure maintenance intake or expenditure at the outset and set a target deficit from that.
0 -
In theory, I do not disagree - (but that is not what the poster was implying..at least from my interpretation of his disjointed posts). Could you clarify what you mean by 'fixing intake doesn't fix it in any case"? I get the concept you are using - sort of reverse engineer into the number - but that part confused me.
You can't "fix a deficit" easily, if at all. You can fix an input but if the system responds with a change in output the deficit will be different to what you intended.
I don't think I've seen a study that controlled a deficit, most measure maintenance intake or expenditure at the outset and set a target deficit from that.
OK - I get your comment now - got confused with the context of the word 'fix'. However, is that not making the argument that in order to test the efficacy of a specific macro mix diet, calories would need to be held constant?0 -
OK - I get your comment now - got confused with the context of the word 'fix'. However, is that not making the argument that in order to test the efficacy of a specific macro mix diet, calories would need to be held constant?
Depends what you're testing. If you want to know the best macro mix to choose at a constant calorie intake you would do that, assuming you have a controlled environment to lock up your subjects. They would all have different deficits though at the start and these would drift with time.
The above would be ideal for a shed full of farm animals to find the most cost effective fattening ration, or to establish a scientific principle . For free living humans you might prefer something involving choice and self regulation to reflect the real world they're living and eating in.
0 -
Except your statement was thst LC works better than energy restriction alone, not that it was better than MC at reducing IR and from the study you posted you cannot conclude that from the data provided.
This isn't terribly hard to understand, you are drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data. Just because you don't see the difference in energy restriction as having a significant effect, it doesn't mean that it didn't, you can't tell from the study you posted.
In the study the restricted carbohydrate diet reduced insulin resistance and the other diet with a similar but slightly higher energy intake did not reduce insulin resistance.
The restricted carbohydrate diet was served on different colour plates and had different foods in it.
I can't tell from the study if the colour of the plates or the specific foods were responsible for the reduction in insulin, glucose and insulin resistance in the LC case.
Biochemistry 101 suggests that a reduced carbohydrate intake will lead to a reduced blood sugar level, which in turn will reduce insulin levels and so on. Or it could be the colour of the plates, the types of food or a small energy difference.
It appears the authors anticipated this sort of derp and ran a smaller isocaloric trial, for the benefit of those who believe the only variable in human metabolism and biochemistry is a unit of energy. The smaller group again did a crossover between two diets with 2000 kcal/day of intake. Once again they couldn't help but undereat on the low carb diet by 66 calories so the blew the experiment up. But again on the LC diet they achieved a statistically significant reduction in glucose and insulin and a 63% reduction in insulin resistance on the low carb arm, but not on the higher carb. Obviously the 66 calories they didn't eat caused this whole effect.
You just quoted the authors who said energy intake was significantly lower with the low carb group, now you're saying the LC intake was similar. Was it similar or significantly different?
How much did the difference in energy intake contribute to the result?
That is the point that seems to be going over your head. I don't even nesscarily disagree with your statement, and I've seen studies that would support it, however the one you posted, does not support your claim. Not sure why you continue to argue the point that it does.0 -
This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
I won't hold my breath ….
The take away I got from that? If it comes down to what's deemed to be (in 4 week trials... lol) the "best" cure for obesity ended up being to eat and all fat diet? Doesn't there come a point where compliance gets factored into the equation?
I'd rather take my time and consume my carbs and watch my calories, thankyouverymuch. Energy balance WORKS, yo.
0 -
Ethics is an easy out. I work for an IRB; we have lots of discussions about studies. And when compared to a study in which subjects are having bone marrow harvests and heart biopsies and won't receive any benefit (to maintain the blind), yeah there would be a discussion about it, but maybe not as big as you think. Especially if it were well justified and the consent form was very clear.0 -
My experience has been the exact opposite. When I consider which foods keep me full the longest I find grains to be at the top of the list. Oatmeal, barly, buckwheat, wheat (in that order, only outplayed by potatoes) are what fills me up the most. On days I eat grains I find myself consuming less calories overall. Strange thing is that apart from tomatoes, nonstarchy vegetables don't tend to fill me up dispite the fiber unless paired with something starchy like white rice or potatoes. My personal feel full list goes like this:
1. Potatoes
2. Grains and rice
3. Legumes and seeds
4. Apples, tomatoes and carrots
5. Dairy
6. Fruits
7. Meat
8. non-starchy vegetables
9. Sweets that aren't rich (rich sweets tend to REALLY fill me up, but the calorie content makes it irrelevant)
10. juices and shakes
What made me fat? Two words: olive oil. I used to consume it in large amounts and put it in everything.
TL;DNR: who cares what the studies are saying when "fullness" is multi-factorial and subjective, making personal experience with something more relevent and effective. It's one of those things that don't work well with forming generalized rules.0 -
This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
Lol nusi. Can you tell me why well controlled overfeeding trials are being discounted?
Actual study is in the 2nd or 3rd page I think
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/551531/what-will-make-you-fatter/p1
# of times that study is referenced by Taubes or his ilk? Studies that directly disagree with his quack hypothesis seems to get ignored0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »My experience has been the exact opposite. When I consider which foods keep me full the longest I find grains to be at the top of the list. Oatmeal, barly, buckwheat, wheat (in that order, only outplayed by potatoes) are what fills me up the most. On days I eat grains I find myself consuming less calories overall. Strange thing is that apart from tomatoes, nonstarchy vegetables don't tend to fill me up dispite the fiber unless paired with something starchy like white rice or potatoes. My personal feel full list goes like this:
1. Potatoes
2. Grains and rice
3. Legumes and seeds
4. Apples, tomatoes and carrots
5. Dairy
6. Fruits
7. Meat
8. non-starchy vegetables
9. Sweets that aren't rich (rich sweets tend to REALLY fill me up, but the calorie content makes it irrelevant)
10. juices and shakes
What made me fat? Two words: olive oil. I used to consume it in large amounts and put it in everything.
TL;DNR: who cares what the studies are saying when "fullness" is multi-factorial and subjective, making personal experience with something more relevent and effective. It's one of those things that don't work well with forming generalized rules.
Agreed.0 -
How much did the difference in energy intake contribute to the result?
That is the point that seems to be going over your head.
The energy difference made no difference. It is not going over my head.
One can deduce this from the fact that in both studies calorie and carbohydrate restriction combined improved insulin resistance, calorie restriction alone did not. I'm sure statistics would bear this out, it was probably too obvious a conclusion to merit the analysis.
Calorie restriction from 3014 to 1996 with high carbs, no IR improvement. Restrict to 1930 calories and restrict carbohydrate to 4% of calories - IR improvement. The 66 calorie difference may be statistically significant but is not biochemically or physiologically significant, nothing happens below say 1950 calories that doesn't happen above it or vice versa.
Also the first study showed the Insulin Resistance level not improving with high carbs at a level of calorie intake 30 below that of the second study's Low carb arm. Were calories that important to IR the lower dose of calories in the former would have delivered a benefit, but it did not.
Hence carbohydrate restriction is more effective in the reduction of insulin resistance than energy restriction alone.
0 -
How much did the difference in energy intake contribute to the result?
That is the point that seems to be going over your head.
The energy difference made no difference. It is not going over my head.
One can deduce this from the fact that in both studies calorie and carbohydrate restriction combined improved insulin resistance, calorie restriction alone did not. I'm sure statistics would bear this out, it was probably too obvious a conclusion to merit the analysis.
Calorie restriction from 3014 to 1996 with high carbs, no IR improvement. Restrict to 1930 calories and restrict carbohydrate to 4% of calories - IR improvement. The 66 calorie difference may be statistically significant but is not biochemically or physiologically significant, nothing happens below say 1950 calories that doesn't happen above it or vice versa.
Also the first study showed the Insulin Resistance level not improving with high carbs at a level of calorie intake 30 below that of the second study's Low carb arm. Were calories that important to IR the lower dose of calories in the former would have delivered a benefit, but it did not.
Hence carbohydrate restriction is more effective in the reduction of insulin resistance than energy restriction alone.
We aren't talking about a 66 cal difference but a 294 cal difference. We are talking about the original study you posted.
Baby Steps: HOMA IR changed significantly in the favor of the LC arm. What variables changed?
Macronutrient composition, Caloric intake and due to the differences in those 2 weight/FFM/Water weight also changed.
According to you, but not supported by the study, 100% of the improvement was from macronutrient composition changes, nothing else had any effect at all0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »TL;DNR: who cares what the studies are saying when "fullness" is multi-factorial and subjective, making personal experience with something more relevent and effective. It's one of those things that don't work well with forming generalized rules.
I read the whole thing, but I think this is an excellent way of putting it.0 -
OK - I get your comment now - got confused with the context of the word 'fix'. However, is that not making the argument that in order to test the efficacy of a specific macro mix diet, calories would need to be held constant?
Depends what you're testing. If you want to know the best macro mix to choose at a constant calorie intake you would do that, assuming you have a controlled environment to lock up your subjects. They would all have different deficits though at the start and these would drift with time.
The above would be ideal for a shed full of farm animals to find the most cost effective fattening ration, or to establish a scientific principle . For free living humans you might prefer something involving choice and self regulation to reflect the real world they're living and eating in.
To put more control over the constant calorie intake, you would look to setting up a control period and compare. After all, is that not what the poster was going on about - how CI affects CO? [And yes, I acknowledge that self reporting is a variable we know is not accurate and is used in most studies]
Actually, I agree with the last sentence to a degree (as in when you are comparing to ad lib eating, which people are generally not doing on here) - but then the 'conclusions' should factor those in, rather than the blanket statements made by the poster who sparked the initial conversation in the vein of carbs making you fat. It's been shown in studies, and I would argue anecdotally, that the most successful way to maintain/lose weight is to use a 'method' you can stick to - which basically brings us back to the OP.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »My experience has been the exact opposite. When I consider which foods keep me full the longest I find grains to be at the top of the list. Oatmeal, barly, buckwheat, wheat (in that order, only outplayed by potatoes) are what fills me up the most. On days I eat grains I find myself consuming less calories overall. Strange thing is that apart from tomatoes, nonstarchy vegetables don't tend to fill me up dispite the fiber unless paired with something starchy like white rice or potatoes. My personal feel full list goes like this:
1. Potatoes
2. Grains and rice
3. Legumes and seeds
4. Apples, tomatoes and carrots
5. Dairy
6. Fruits
7. Meat
8. non-starchy vegetables
9. Sweets that aren't rich (rich sweets tend to REALLY fill me up, but the calorie content makes it irrelevant)
10. juices and shakes
What made me fat? Two words: olive oil. I used to consume it in large amounts and put it in everything.
TL;DNR: who cares what the studies are saying when "fullness" is multi-factorial and subjective, making personal experience with something more relevent and effective. It's one of those things that don't work well with forming generalized rules.
I find carbs, especially starchy ones are more satiating (per calorie especially) than fats in the main also.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions