low carb diet has been debunked
Replies
-
daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.
That is the way I read it too. So it really didn't debunk anything. After an extended period of time, macro nutrient restrictions don't change the loss as long as CI<CO.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Debunked in full? Eh, not really. And I'm not a low carber. It was a small study, though very well designed. The carbs weren't that low anyway.
You are a low carber, and in this study the "restricted carb" phase involved more carbs than you eat :-)
There was no statistically significant fat loss in women on either diet, as measured by DEXA.
Biggest problem with it is the limited 6 day period during which glycogen reserves continued to provide calories in the restricted carb phase, so it was not a steady state study. Shame they didn't do the run-in on the diet to be tested so the glycogen etc was stable.
Did we ever figure out why this graphic has a larger flame representing a smaller kcal burn?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Trolling? Science don't be up tricking like that. I read it on BBC. Please, look for yourself before you promote this low carb, nonsense.
You post stuff with absolutely no evidence and then say you aren't trolling. It's up to the person making the claims to provide some evidence.
A CICO diet is more effective than any other diet. Ha.0 -
Every couple days, I see something like this. At first, it was informational. Now....It just comedic relief!
0 -
I agree with Stephen Guyenet's assessment. Low carb diet wasn't what was debunked.
"This study was designed to investigate a mechanism, namely that insulin levels are the dominant controller of fat mass. It was sufficiently long to reject that hypothesis. The carb-insulin hypothesis doesn't say anything about insulin not being relevant to adiposity for the first 6 days, then kicking in after that. At least, not any version of it I've encountered. This study was not about which diet leads to better results under real-world conditions. There are many other studies that have addressed that question."
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html0 -
strong_curves wrote: »
This is incredible!0 -
Cute. Degrees. Deans list. Full scholarships. Bye.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Debunked in full? Eh, not really. And I'm not a low carber. It was a small study, though very well designed. The carbs weren't that low anyway.
It did show promise as a study design and as a model for further, longer-term and wider sample-size research.
This.
Also, some people (like Taubes) promote low carb as some kind of way around calories in calories out (or simply claim that you gain weight regardless of calories because carbs), but many sensible low carbers simply say that for them it's an easier way to maintain a deficit. That second reasoning would not be affected by the study at all.
Thank you from a sensible low carber! I know that scientifically all that matters is calories in vs. calories out but sugar and starches seem to trigger food binges for me.... So I avoid them. Meat is good. That is all.0 -
This "isocaloric" word is one I heard here, for the first time, yesterday. "Iso-" means "the same as" or "equal to". Usually, when "iso" is stuck on the front of a word, you know wth it's being compared with or equal to. I'm guessing, from context, that "isocaloric diets" are diets in which the calories are the same, day-to-day...but I read the word used a little differently, too, so I'm really not sure.daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
I'm not sure if it's a dietary term or a fitness one.
0 -
daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
The "isocaloric" bit means diets with same number of calories but different macro ratios.
0 -
"[Debunked]...you use that word alot. I don't think it means what you think it means."0
-
daniwilford wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.
That is the way I read it too. So it really didn't debunk anything. After an extended period of time, macro nutrient restrictions don't change the loss as long as CI<CO.
Right. That seems to be the direction the data is trending. This study was just an investigation that highlighted interesting metabolic changes based on diet type EARLY in the diet, and the researchers themselves aren't trying to draw conclusions about the overall impact of long-term low-fat versus low-carb diets. They're very interested in addressing that question, though.
What she said
And also LOL @ shelSo....curious, if low carb dieting is debunked??? Does anyone who lost weight using low carb have to gain back all the weight they lost, as like a mandatory recall???
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »I agree with Stephen Guyenet's assessment. Low carb diet wasn't what was debunked.
"This study was designed to investigate a mechanism, namely that insulin levels are the dominant controller of fat mass. It was sufficiently long to reject that hypothesis. The carb-insulin hypothesis doesn't say anything about insulin not being relevant to adiposity for the first 6 days, then kicking in after that. At least, not any version of it I've encountered. This study was not about which diet leads to better results under real-world conditions. There are many other studies that have addressed that question."
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
That's what I took from the study too. Good to know I understood it correctly.0 -
I eat carbs (shock horror), protein (Yay protein) and loads of fat (Oh noes not fat) and I've lost plenty of weight. Silly diets. EAT LESS, MOVE MORE.
I love a good diet thread me. Ha ha ha0 -
NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror)
often less than the restricted carb part of this study, FWIW :-)
0 -
Why are you so hung up on that? It got explained why they didn't go lower than that and compared to what they had before, it IS low carb, and FWIW I get more total grams of carbs in a day total (irrelevant without context) and as a higher percentage of my macros (that's more important). There have been discussions on low carb before where multiple low carbers pretty much said "anything lower than SAD is low carb".NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror)
often less than the restricted carb part of this study, FWIW :-)
0 -
I'm not hung up on it, it's just interesting that posters proclaim their carb eating credentials while eating less than the supposedly "low carb" study under discussion. Similar things occur in sugar, where people saying "don't bother logging it" are eating like 45 or 70 grams or less. Hence the FWIW.
I'm clear that Hall's paper was a simple comparison of the effect of an 800 kcal carb restriction vs an 800 kcal fat restriction. It was carbohydrate restriction, not low carb. Feinman's definitions of terms are clear and should be generally adopted, if the ADA recommend 130g minimum then anything over isn't "low" even if it is "less".0 -
The total numbers without anything else aren't exactly relevant though. If a 5' lightweight woman eats 80 grams of protein she's eatng fairly high protein, while a 6' guy with lots of muscle mass eating that much is eating pretty low.
So just saying "often less than the restricted carb part" is kinda misleading when you're comparing obese individuals on 1900 calories (and that's a 800 deficit) to someone who'd maintain at that much eating 1400 (who by the way has 170 g as her standard carb macro, I just checked).0 -
I'm not hung up on it, it's just interesting that posters proclaim their carb eating credentials while eating less than the supposedly "low carb" study under discussion. Similar things occur in sugar, where people saying "don't bother logging it" are eating like 45 or 70 grams or less. Hence the FWIW.
I'm clear that Hall's paper was a simple comparison of the effect of an 800 kcal carb restriction vs an 800 kcal fat restriction. It was carbohydrate restriction, not low carb. Feinman's definitions of terms are clear and should be generally adopted, if the ADA recommend 130g minimum then anything over isn't "low" even if it is "less".
The fact is that, as you noticed, the CR group was consuming already their glucose reserves. If it is aready "low carbing" is a matter of definitions (that aren't written on stone).0 -
the FR group also reduced their glucose reserves somewhat
Calorie deficit per lb of weight loss were 974 and 1974 for RC and RF respectively.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Why are you so hung up on that? It got explained why they didn't go lower than that and compared to what they had before, it IS low carb, and FWIW I get more total grams of carbs in a day total (irrelevant without context) and as a higher percentage of my macros (that's more important). There have been discussions on low carb before where multiple low carbers pretty much said "anything lower than SAD is low carb".NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror)
often less than the restricted carb part of this study, FWIW :-)
Yep, in another thread MrKnight just claimed that under 200 was low carb for him.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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