Grains and Carbs
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.
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 -
Agreed. A potato really fills me up but i need 4 to 5 servings of nuts to do the same.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 -
Agreed. A potato really fills me up but i need 4 to 5 servings of nuts to do the same.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.
I'd agree on potatoes specifically, but not starches generally. Corn, for example, doesn't do much to fill me up. And while all fats aren't equal in terms of satiety for me, I find that cheese is amazing.
0 -
I'm going to answer to the originaI post which was asking if anybody had similar stories. I actually like you tried different things and did low carb for a while. My story is a bit different than yours, since I started my weight loss without tracking. I lost 65 pounds in three years, 15 with MFP.
Before MFP I started with chronic cardio and "eating healthier" without tracking anything. Since I was at a BMI of 38 losing the first 30 pounds this way was quite easy.
Then I got tired of the gym and took a break for a while, maintaining my weight loss.
I gave it another go with eating flexitarian, lost maybe 10 pounds this way, by eating a lot of beans. It go boring I got tired I maintained my weight for a while.
Then with a mix of IF, keto and paleo I lost another 10 pounds. With those 50 pounds lost, it became progressively harder to lose weight since my TDEE was much lower than at my highest weight. Keto and paleo were by far the toughest eating pattern to stick to. Being invited somewhere or going to a restaurant made it really tough.
TBH I wish I wouldn't have lost so much time with complicated eating patterns and that I would have gone straight to calorie counting. I finally feel free. I can go out, I can save some calorie and go to the restaurant on Saturday night and eat what I want. I can have Belgium chocolate and beer. And if I would have joined MFP from the get go I would probably be at my goal weight by now.
Sure carbs are easy to overeat on, because they taste absolutely awesome!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?
Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.0 -
I don't particularly care what Taubes thinks, but I don't know why anyone would be opposed to additional research which is independent of the food industry or government - I am more skeptical of government funded studies, given the influence of wheat, corn (high-fructores corn syrup), and soybean lobbies - they have a much greater incentive to validate the energy-balance hypothesis.
Is there anything wrong with seeing where the science takes us?0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?
Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
Eric - do you have a link on the debate? I would be interested to see it.
Thanks0 -
I don't particularly care what Taubes thinks, but I don't know why anyone would be opposed to additional research which is independent of the food industry or government - I am more skeptical of government funded studies, given the influence of wheat, corn (high-fructores corn syrup), and soybean lobbies - they have a much greater incentive to validate the energy-balance hypothesis.
Is there anything wrong with seeing where the science takes us?
Who has indicated that they would be opposed to additional research? No matter who it is funded by.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?
Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
Eric - do you have a link on the debate? I would be interested to see it.
Thanks
You pretty much needed tickets to the Epic Summit event in England. I'd have paid to see the debate on the internet if they ever made it available.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?
Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
Eric - do you have a link on the debate? I would be interested to see it.
Thanks
It hasn't been released to the public. The only thing made public from the debate were a few clips (one of which I was trolled heavily in LOLOLOL) and additionally some quotes were released on facebook.
Alan asked Gary directly if he would change his mind given ample evidence and he basically said no.
From what I understand, Taubes got crushed, he just refuses to believe anything outside of his bias.
I'll see if I can dig up some quotes.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.
--snip--The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
So you would dismiss the results of a carefully controlled study because you don't like Mr. Taubes?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your position. Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.
0 -
Just like Taubes dismisses 27 well controlled studies that prove his hypothesis wrong?MistressPi wrote: »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.
--snip--The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
So you would dismiss the results of a carefully controlled study because you don't like Mr. Taubes?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your position. Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.
0 -
Just like Taubes dismisses 27 well controlled studies that prove his hypothesis wrong?MistressPi wrote: »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.
--snip--The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
So you would dismiss the results of a carefully controlled study because you don't like Mr. Taubes?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your position. Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.
This response seems to be an attempt at misdirection, rather than answering the question. It is another personal attack.
0 -
MistressPi wrote: »
Just like Taubes dismisses 27 well controlled studies that prove his hypothesis wrong?MistressPi wrote: »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.
--snip--The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?Because Taubes entire empire is built upon NEEDING to prove energy balance wrong. Alan Aragon called him out on this at their debate. Taubes basically stated that if NUSI refutes this theory he still won't change his mind.
So you would dismiss the results of a carefully controlled study because you don't like Mr. Taubes?
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your position. Neither does your reliance on an unpublished debate to support your position, as no one can consult the source material to determine whether or not he or she agrees with your interpretation of it.
This response seems to be an attempt at misdirection, rather than answering the question. It is another personal attack.
I see you bought the book LOL and No I wouldn't outright dismiss it, but confirmation bias and having someones entire livelihood based on the results, but zealots gonna zealot0 -
This content has been removed.
-
flyingtanuki wrote: »The real issue for me is: what kind of celebratory cake to order when the study results come out? Chocolate mousse cake? Or my all-time favorite, carrot cake?
Tres leches.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
The 8 week pilot is to prepare the methodologies for the larger study. It is an in-patient study where the subjects are confined in a metabolic ward. If you think that energy balance hypothesis is correct, why would you be dismissive of a carefully controlled study of it?
The whole idea is laughable. How has anyone in the history of ever managed to lose fat before they ever got this study off the ground? The basic composition of my diet has not changed at all, except for the amount I eat. And yet, I've lost 44 pounds. It boggles the mind. So for my purposes, which at the end of the day are all I care about, I'm quite sure about the energy balance theory.
Back to my initial point, which I think you missed... given cases like mine where people control for energy balance and GASP... manage to lose fat... suppose the study comes through with findings that the group that eats in the way explained here loses more/more quickly:For the first four weeks they were fed a typical American diet at precisely the amount of calories necessary for them to maintain a stable body composition. For the next four weeks, they were fed an equivalent amount of calories of a diet that replaces virtually all of the carbohydrate in the diet with fat. The “calorie-is-a-calorie” hypothesis predicts that the subjects would maintain a constant amount of body fat despite this radical change in the macronutrient composition of their diets, and so would expend an equivalent amount of energy on both diets. The alternative hypothesis predicts that the subjects would mobilize fat from their fat cells on the very-low-carbohydrate diet and burn that fat for fuel over and above the calories they were consuming. As a result, they would expend more energy during the second four-week period than the first.
Firstly, I don't see how that disputes the energy hypothesis (CICO), because they outline their hypothesis to claim that the very low carbohydrate diet will cause the subjects to burn fat for fuel causing them to expend more energy. Same calories in, but more calories out. The main difference they're arguing is that the macronutrients have a different means of action in the body (fat burns fat at maintenance is what I believe they're asserting).
Secondly, there's the main issue I raised... the matter of applying this in the real world if some sort of finding IS made: that of compliance. There are loads of people who simply would not be willing to eat that way. They'd much rater simply eat less and move more and lose weight like the rest of us peons who don't mind taking things slowly.
0 -
I have cut out all whites. Flour & sugar. It has helped lots!0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from what Peach posted. Don't see anything there trying to unvalidate anything. See no mention of pizza. Nor do I see a claim of low-carb being weird. Well done.
I admit...I too wondered about the meaning behind the post...I read it 2 or 3 times trying to figure out what she meant. Since I didn't know for sure I just moved on but I do see how some might see it as a message to confine these types of discussions to a group and not on these threads.
Most of the low carbers don't hang out on the main forums. No ill intent. Since she was looking for those with similar experience, I was just pointing her to where she'd find lots of people like her.
I think it is difficult sometimes to know exactly what another poster might mean by their words. It is left to interpretation and often that interpretation is wrong due to the fact that we don't truly know each other. I try...if I am unsure to give the poster the benefit of the doubt.
Yup! And if your niblets are getting ready to be jiggled, simply asking the person for clarification of their intent can be a good choice, too.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions