The #1 Cause of Obesity: Insulin
Replies
-
Another point. If insulin causes obesity, and diabetes is caused by chronic insulin resistance (type 2,) then why is unusual weight loss a symptom of Diabetes? Weight loss is a symptom of both Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes, if insulin was really the culprit, shouldn't the symptoms of Type 2 Diabetes be weight gain instead?
Weight gain (fat gain) is actually one of the causes of Type 2 Diabetes, not a symptom. That's part of the "lifestyle" aspect of the lifestyle + genetics for Diabetes risk factors.0 -
tigersword, thanks for breaking down these studies so I can understand them and get a jist of what the summaries are saying. I can appreciate that you (and a lot of others) don't see anything in the research that shows a LCHF or Paleo type diets have anything to recommend them beyond personal preference because of the studies you listed.
But when the very studies that were linked to to disprove that these diets have any advantage have statements saying the diets are shown to be more effective and further research needs to be done to understand why. Then you add to that the seventeen studies I listed earlier AND my own personal experience these last few weeks on a lower carb diet I just can't reconcile what you're saying the science proves with the growing success people seem to be having with these diets.
I absolutely believe calories in/calories out on any diet works but I really can't understand the unwillingness to entertain the idea that there's something more driving the obesity epidemic other than laziy people eating too much. Hopefully time and more well conducted studies will tell.Some people still claim that weight loss studies do not show any advantage for low carb diets. Unbelievably enough, that is what many so called experts still believe.
It’s either ignorance or science denial.
There are at least seventeen modern scientific studies of the highest quality (RCT) that show significantly better weight loss with low carb diets:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb
Listen to ACG. He's looking better than ever.
And he knows from whence he speaks!
Exactly, he clearly practices what he preaches.0 -
Since the low carb crew loves to use observational data on why carbs are evil (Ah! Obesity has risen since 1980 and we started eating more carbs, herp derp)
Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: Two cohort Studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/?tool=pubmed
Mediterranean and carbohydrate-restricted diets and mortality among elderly men: a cohort study in Sweden
http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/4/967.full0 -
Those studies are absolutely terrible and should never be used as a rational for diet or drug recommendations. It was those types of studies that we used to recommend low fat diets on and hormone replacement therapy for women and look how that turned out?
Use them as a starting point for a hypothesis to test or see if they fall in line with what clinical trials show but for the love of your life do not base any health decisions on them. They are absolutely meaningless on their own.0 -
Just some stray thoughts here, and I don't want to get into the fight over low carb vs high protein vs high fat diets. I am eating what I would call a fairly balanced calorie controlled diet (maybe a little low on the carbs - but that's because I have a weakness for them) and have been losing weight steadily. My spouse is on a very low carb, high protein diet and doesn't count calories but has also lost about 40 pounds over the last year. Prior to dieting he had high blood pressure, and was a type 2 diabetic. He has always had very high cholesterol levels (525) (if untreated - thank goodness for lipitor and niacin), and had a quad bypass after an MI about 18 years ago. Since going on his 'diet' his BP has dropped to near normal as has his blood sugar levels (unless he cheats and eats a bag of candy or a pint of ice cream.) .
I choose my diet because it fits me - I tried the low carb diet but I just didn't feel good on it so couldn't stick with it. Now my husband loves it, he's a meat eater, but is also a candy and a milk drinker/binger, while he's never saw a vegetable or even most carbs that he really likes. He's lost weight and is still obese according to the scales, but at least 2 of his risk factors (BP and insulin) are under control due to his diet.
I think that ultimately what works for you will depend on your individual genetics and/or your psychological/social factors. I add genetics in here because a least one 'good' study I found linked a genetic factor to weight gain, the A risk allele of rs9939609 of the fat mass- and obesity-associated gene (FTO), and this defect may even impact what types of diets work best for individuals with this defect. As for me, I think my problem is purely psychological and social. I do mainly computer work, don't have time for a social life, don't sleep enough, don't exercise enough and live far from any family support system.. So, I get stressed, I eat, and I love carbs but don't really like most proteins.
My personal beliefs about the need for individually designed diets and the importance of social support systems seems to be upheld by a recent study that compared three diets - high protein, high fat and moderation. It did find differences in the amount of weight lost between the diets. But, more importantly (I think), It found that "attendance (to group sessions) had a strong association with weight loss, and the association was similar across diet groups." This study (and others) suggest that motivation and/or social supports appear to be the strongest measure of (long term) success no matter what diet approach you use. The authors also suggest that designing a diet that fits the needs of the individual is important (1). In every study I've seen, no matter what diet was being tested, weight loss was central to decreased insulin levels.
Going back to the original question/topic of this discussion- insulin, I do want to make a comment about insulin - type 2 diabetics are insulin resistant, so even as their insulin levels increase to compensate for resistance it doesn't help much. That's why they use the drugs to kick their production into overdrive. My family has a history of both type 1 and 2 diabetes so I've taken bioavailable cinnamon for years (my advice is don't take regular cinnamon that you would use for a spice). The research suggests that cinnamon helps overcome insulin resistance and thus reducing the systemic inflammation that can result from insulin problems, The inflammation can damage the pancreas, the heart, arteries etc. and set you up for heart attacks and strokes (among other things). Yes, almost all type 2 diabetes are overweight - whether the cart came before the horse I don't know. (2) (3) I do know that even though I have been over 100 pounds heavier than I should be, have a first degree family history of diabetes 1 and 2, had gestational diabetes, was hypoglycemia when I was a teen (glucose levels would drop to 40) and am obese so am at a very high risk for developing diabetes 1 and; when tested my blood sugar levels are always in the normal range. So maybe the cinnamon is helping protect me, or maybe not, as a researcher I never put a lot of stock in individual cases, even my own. As a by the by, my reactive C protein (indicates inflammatory processes are occurring in the body) was very high a couple of years ago, while my vitamin D levels were almost nonexistent. Low vitamin D levels are common among folks who are overweight and D is an anti-inflammatory agent among other things. As my dad died a 45 and my one brother died in his 30's due to massive heart attacks the C reactive number concerned my doc a bit. She gave me some IM injections of D and I starting taking relatively high doses of D3 as well as some other anti-inflammatory substances. After about 2 months my D levels had improved to low normal, while my reactive C levels dropped to within the normal range.
If you are interested in knowing more about diabetes, its assessment and treatment etc the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011 might be of interest (4). Sorry this ended up being so long.. sometimes when I get started its hard to stop...
(1) If you want to read the whole article comparing the 3 diets its located at: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748#t=articleResults
(2) Full article on cinnamon and its effects is located here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901047/?tool=pubmed
(3) A consensus statement by a group of nutrition/diabetes experts http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3206399/?tool=pmcentrez
(4) Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3006050/pdf/zdcS11.pdf?tool=pmcentrez0 -
Arguing about this is as pointless as arguing about religion. Neither side's mind is going to be changed.
I just wanna say one thing.
Tiger, earlier you said that insulin doesn't decrease lipolysis. Guess what? Wrong.
0 -
Those studies are absolutely terrible and should never be used as a rational for diet or drug recommendations. It was those types of studies that we used to recommend low fat diets on and hormone replacement therapy for women and look how that turned out?
Use them as a starting point for a hypothesis to test or see if they fall in line with what clinical trials show but for the love of your life do not base any health decisions on them. They are absolutely meaningless on their own.
I never said I put any faith in them, however they are as useful as posts and comments like these;They don't work the same way--in just a few weeks I can tell you that. My appetite has decreased which causes me to eat less, of course, but that doesn't explain the why of it.Of course it was ditched because that was the height of the low fat push and sugar was added to everything.........
Where has that gotten us? Fat, sick and very unhealthy.0 -
Thank you for posting, dr_roe. Like I mentioned earlier, the impetus to lower my carbs was for health concerns so I really appreciate your thoughtful post and the links you provided to diabetes research--I'll be sure to read them.0
-
I never said I put any faith in them, however they are as useful as posts and comments like these;
Then we agree.
ETA:
Although, I do think sharing your experience and observations with others is useful and appropriate for a discussion forum and I appreciate it when others take the time to do so--it's why I come here.0 -
Actually, I never said it didn't decrease lipolysis, I said it didn't PREVENT lipolysis. Here's the actual quote, in case you'd like to read it again:Arguing about this is as pointless as arguing about religion. Neither side's mind is going to be changed.
I just wanna say one thing.
Tiger, earlier you said that insulin doesn't decrease lipolysis. Guess what? Wrong.
Notice the part in bold?Does insulin prevent lipolysis? No. Does it reduce lipolysis? Of course it does, you've just eaten.0 -
tigersword, thanks for breaking down these studies so I can understand them and get a jist of what the summaries are saying. I can appreciate that you (and a lot of others) don't see anything in the research that shows a LCHF or Paleo type diets have anything to recommend them beyond personal preference because of the studies you listed.
But when the very studies that were linked to to disprove that these diets have any advantage have statements saying the diets are shown to be more effective and further research needs to be done to understand why. Then you add to that the seventeen studies I listed earlier AND my own personal experience these last few weeks on a lower carb diet I just can't reconcile what you're saying the science proves with the growing success people seem to be having with these diets.
I absolutely believe calories in/calories out on any diet works but I really can't understand the unwillingness to entertain the idea that there's something more driving the obesity epidemic other than laziy people eating too much. Hopefully time and more well conducted studies will tell.Some people still claim that weight loss studies do not show any advantage for low carb diets. Unbelievably enough, that is what many so called experts still believe.
It’s either ignorance or science denial.
There are at least seventeen modern scientific studies of the highest quality (RCT) that show significantly better weight loss with low carb diets:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb
Listen to ACG. He's looking better than ever.
And he knows from whence he speaks!
I'm a fan.0 -
Did I hear someone say Lustig?
I'll start with this. http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Ok, now that that's out of the way. Insulin has pretty much nothing to do with obesity.
Does insulin prevent lipolysis? No. Does it reduce lipolysis? Of course it does, you've just eaten. When you eat food, your body uses the food for energy first, and only goes back to relying on lipolysis after the food has been fully digested and utilized. Leptin (the hormone that signals satiety) has also been shown to limit lipolysis. As has every other hormone that has to do with satiety.
Does insulin shuttle glucose directly to fat storage? NO. Absolutely not. Glucose is almost NEVER stored as fat. Insulin's primary job is to transport glucose to muscle cells and vital organs for normal body function. 87% of the fat in an adipose cell comes from lipids, not triglycerides.
Insulin is a key hormone in muscle building and maintenance. It has well over 100 functions in the human body, fat storage is nowhere near the top of the list.
And how do you care to explain protein eliciting high insulin responses? Protein and carbohydrates both spike insulin to similar levels when you eat. If insulin is what makes us fat, then protein must be just as bad as carbs.
The entire argument is based on fear, and a hope that the person they are trying to convince has a lack of understanding of human biology. The insulin hypothesis just doesn't stand up to actual facts.
As for low carb vs higher carb. They both cause weight loss due to a calorie deficit. Protein should always be constant, regardless of carb level. And then "weight loss" is a misleading term. Low carb diets lead to much higher losses of water weight, due to the reduction of stored glycogen in the muscles. Fat loss is identical, regardless of carb level.This is correct. The number one cause of obesity is eating more calories than you burn. The only way to reverse obesity is to eat fewer calories than you burn. There may be things that influence the number of calories you burn at rest,(i.e. thyroid issues) but the bottom line is that caloric excess is the major contributing factor. Eating a healthy, balanced diet of mostly unprocessed foods at a moderate deficit will do more for fat loss and insulin regulation than any deprivation or loading of certain macros.
Thank you, guys.0 -
...I understand why low carbohydrate (low processed carb, anyway) eating is so important-- and so useful-- for me. When my insulin levels hang between a cozy 70 and 100, my appetite stabilizes. I never, ever, EVER feel ravenous. My body tells me when I'm hungry. When it does, I eat whole foods as much as possible. Lots of fat, moderate protein and low carb. I get lots of veggies and berries as well-- even Greek yogurt when I want it. It's the fact that my blood sugar never spikes that leaves me in control of my food and in turn, in control of myself.
...The real beauty of it, though, is that it makes weight loss TOLERABLE. It makes you not want to eat all the time. It is a real gift for the obese, although the first few days of it are absolute hell.
This. All I do is keep my simple carbs in check and my hunger seems a lot more "normal." I can even eat a couple of ding dongs, as long as I eat them with something else to smooth out the insulin spike and subsequent sensation of STARVING hunger. I ate very low carb in 2007 when I was losing weight and getting in shape for the police academy, and was hardly ever really hungry. One day I ate 1/4 of a bakery-made apple turnover. About an hour later I was painfully, starvingly hungry. That sure learned me.
Unfortunately, I also eat from boredom and especially depression/stress. So, I gained back, plus some, because I hadn't also learned to be accountable for what I eat and how I exercise. (calories in/calories out)
This time, I'm taking that lesson and eating fairly low-carb, and adding in counting calories (thank the gods for MFP and my Android app...) and now intermittent fasting. THAT has taught me to reset what hunger FEELS like even when I'm not eating a lot of carbs. (Plus it helps with weekly calorie numbers, of course.) IF is also incredibly liberating. I don't feel like a slave to the clock and food. If I miss a meal, SO WHAT? That makes me happy, happy, happy.
So, is insulin the bad guy? Not directly. Does low-carb work better than low-fat? For me, absolutely. Am I a zealot about it? Nope. It just works better for me FOR WEIGHT LOSS and HUNGER CONTROL. What I'm a zealot about is doing the math. I keep my metabolism up with good, mixed cardio and some resistance exercise along with interval training, and I LOG EVERYTHING.
Accountable. Accountable. Accountable. But it is so much easier without the confounding factor of bouncing insulin/blood sugar levels.0 -
Did I hear someone say Lustig?
I'll start with this. http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
Ok, now that that's out of the way. Insulin has pretty much nothing to do with obesity.
Does insulin prevent lipolysis? No. Does it reduce lipolysis? Of course it does, you've just eaten. When you eat food, your body uses the food for energy first, and only goes back to relying on lipolysis after the food has been fully digested and utilized. Leptin (the hormone that signals satiety) has also been shown to limit lipolysis. As has every other hormone that has to do with satiety.
Does insulin shuttle glucose directly to fat storage? NO. Absolutely not. Glucose is almost NEVER stored as fat. Insulin's primary job is to transport glucose to muscle cells and vital organs for normal body function. 87% of the fat in an adipose cell comes from lipids, not triglycerides.
Insulin is a key hormone in muscle building and maintenance. It has well over 100 functions in the human body, fat storage is nowhere near the top of the list.
And how do you care to explain protein eliciting high insulin responses? Protein and carbohydrates both spike insulin to similar levels when you eat. If insulin is what makes us fat, then protein must be just as bad as carbs.
The entire argument is based on fear, and a hope that the person they are trying to convince has a lack of understanding of human biology. The insulin hypothesis just doesn't stand up to actual facts.
As for low carb vs higher carb. They both cause weight loss due to a calorie deficit. Protein should always be constant, regardless of carb level. And then "weight loss" is a misleading term. Low carb diets lead to much higher losses of water weight, due to the reduction of stored glycogen in the muscles. Fat loss is identical, regardless of carb level.
I'm pretty sick of people quoting this guy like he's the ultimate authority on nutrition and all of its components.0 -
tigersword, thanks for breaking down these studies so I can understand them and get a jist of what the summaries are saying. I can appreciate that you (and a lot of others) don't see anything in the research that shows a LCHF or Paleo type diets have anything to recommend them beyond personal preference because of the studies you listed.
But when the very studies that were linked to to disprove that these diets have any advantage have statements saying the diets are shown to be more effective and further research needs to be done to understand why. Then you add to that the seventeen studies I listed earlier AND my own personal experience these last few weeks on a lower carb diet I just can't reconcile what you're saying the science proves with the growing success people seem to be having with these diets.
I absolutely believe calories in/calories out on any diet works but I really can't understand the unwillingness to entertain the idea that there's something more driving the obesity epidemic other than laziy people eating too much. Hopefully time and more well conducted studies will tell.Some people still claim that weight loss studies do not show any advantage for low carb diets. Unbelievably enough, that is what many so called experts still believe.
It’s either ignorance or science denial.
There are at least seventeen modern scientific studies of the highest quality (RCT) that show significantly better weight loss with low carb diets:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb
Listen to ACG. He's looking better than ever.
Wow, you are really on his jock.0 -
Thanks for the reply, I feel the same way. Different carb calories impact me differently. I know that for me a calorie is not a calorie.0
-
A friend linked me to Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt's website 45 days ago, which is exactly how long I have been following his "diet" for, to a T. So far I have lost 13lbs. There are a few foods on his lists which I take extra care with, especially tomato, as I know that is quite carby.0
-
(That said I also count calories alongside LCHF. Peep my diet diary as it is public if you want to see an example)0
-
Actually, my focus is on the health benefits of a low carb diet since cancer, diabetes and heart disease are in my family. That's what convinced me to try what I considered a fad diet for the last twenty years.Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb
What I didn't expect was how I would feel after a few short weeks of lowering my carbs even though I'd been eating what I thought was a healthy diet of lean meat, nuts, low fat dairy, whole grains and plenty of fruits and vegetables for the last six months and losing weight just fine. So I guess the only thing further to add to that is I hope I'm part of the group who experience greater fat loss and that the research into low carb diets continues so we can find out more--and that someone else found the links I posted in the beginning helpful.
great post!
Awesome Post:) Thanks for sharing!!:) Also...theres a great documentary on Hulu called Fathead thats excellent also!:)
Heres the link: http://www.hulu.com/watch/1968790 -
Actually, my focus is on the health benefits of a low carb diet since cancer, diabetes and heart disease are in my family. That's what convinced me to try what I considered a fad diet for the last twenty years.Why focus on weight loss instead of fat loss? Low carb diets initially have greater weight loss due to water/glycogen losses, but fat loss is not significantly different between the two. There's only like 2 or 3 tightly controlled studies that I know of off hand that show a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, the vast majority do not. Then if you were to look at all the ad lib studies and you still only have about 50% that show greater fat loss with low carb
What I didn't expect was how I would feel after a few short weeks of lowering my carbs even though I'd been eating what I thought was a healthy diet of lean meat, nuts, low fat dairy, whole grains and plenty of fruits and vegetables for the last six months and losing weight just fine. So I guess the only thing further to add to that is I hope I'm part of the group who experience greater fat loss and that the research into low carb diets continues so we can find out more--and that someone else found the links I posted in the beginning helpful.
great post!
Awesome Post:) Thanks for sharing!!:) Also...theres a great documentary on Hulu called Fathead thats excellent also!:)
Heres the link: http://www.hulu.com/watch/196879
If by great and excellent, you mean, fills your head with nonsense, then I'd agree with you.0 -
It took me years-- YEARS-- to understand why low carb diets work for me. In 2006, I lost 70 lbs. by eating bacon, eggs and steak. I didn't eat very healthily-- I ate tons of fat and lost. That's not a balanced diet by any means. Did it work? Yes. Did it make me cry when I looked at cupcakes? Yes. To be completely honest, all it did was make my relationship with food worse. In the longterm, I gained the weight back. Surprise.
Now, six years later, I understand why low carbohydrate (low processed carb, anyway) eating is so important-- and so useful-- for me. When my insulin levels hang between a cozy 70 and 100, my appetite stabilizes. I never, ever, EVER feel ravenous. My body tells me when I'm hungry. When it does, I eat whole foods as much as possible. Lots of fat, moderate protein and low carb. I get lots of veggies and berries as well-- even Greek yogurt when I want it. It's the fact that my blood sugar never spikes that leaves me in control of my food and in turn, in control of myself.
It's not about gorging on lard and cheese. It's about finding extremely slow burning carbs in small amounts that will never raise your blood sugar much above 100 to begin with. I'm never famished. I'm actually able to turn away a half-eaten plate of food because I'm just not hungry anymore.
Is it about calories too? Absolutely. But seriously, eating a 50carb/25 protein/25 fat ratio in my diet leaves me feeling hungry ALL the time. Those carbs-- and even proteins-- send insulin levels up and down and up and down over and over. When they are relatively stable to begin with, I'm golden. At that point, weight loss becomes effortless.
That's not to say that my addiction of carbs and sugar doesn't occasionally scream at me and make it hard to say no to a donut. It does. But let me tell you, when my blood sugar is 80 and has been there all day without going up and down much, it's a LOT easier for me to say no. Low carb, high nutrient (and high fat, saturated or not) is a win-win. Does it promote weight loss? Sure. The real beauty of it, though, is that it makes weight loss TOLERABLE. It makes you not want to eat all the time. It is a real gift for the obese, although the first few days of it are absolute hell.
^^^This is how I feel...thank you for putting it so succinctly :flowerforyou:0 -
I looked at each of the studies you provided to disprove that and the only thing that stands out to me is "greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets" and "Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate."Show us a list of studies that meet your standards and show that low carb diets are worse please ? Seems to me they either come out better or the same,
Admittedly, I don't understand a lot of what I'm reading but your studies seem to confirm that low carb diets ARE more effective.
Greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets (<90 g/day) compared with traditional low-fat (<25% of energy), hypocaloric diets, implying a 233 kcal/day greater energy deficit. It has therefore been suggested that a low-carbohydrate diet may provide a metabolic advantage (an increase in energy expenditure), resulting in a positive effect on weight loss and maintenance. However, a review of studies in which 24-hour energy expenditure was measured did not provide evidence to support a metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets and showed little evidence of a metabolic advantage of high-protein (>25% of energy) diets. Nonetheless, diets high in protein, but either low or modest in carbohydrate, have resulted in greater weight losses than traditional low-fat diets.28. Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter? J Am Diet Assoc. 2005 May;105(5 Suppl 1):S24-8. [Medline]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15867892
Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.29. Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC. Is a calorie a calorie? Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S. [Medline]
http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/5/899S.full
To determine the influence of age on the ability to adjust macronutrient oxidation to changes in diet composition. Our hypothesis was that the ability to adjust macronutrient oxidation to changes in diet composition would be impaired with age. I didn't understand what that was saying but here's the link:30. Davy KP, et al. Regulation of macronutrient balance in healthy young and older men. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Oct;25(10):1497-502. [Medline]
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/11673772/Regulation_of_macronutrient_balance_in_healthy_young_and_older_men_
The resoults from this study show that in healthy young men, fuel oxidation shifts both actuely and chromically to apporximate the macronutrient composition of the diet. There were no differences in any aspect of substrate balance in AT athletes, WT athletes, or NA men by group Again, I didn't understand it but I'm not sure that a study on three healthly, athletic men can tell us anything about what's happening is the obese.31. Roy HJ, et al. Substrate oxidation and energy expenditure in athletes and nonathletes consuming isoenergetic high- and low- fat diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Mar;67(3):405-11. [Medline]
http://www.ajcn.org/content/67/3/405.full.pdf
To study the influence of diet composition on regulation of body weight, we fed 21 weight-stable subjects (11 lean, 10 obese) high-carbohydrate (HC) and high-fat (HF) diets for 1 wk each. Although diet composition was fixed, total energy intake was unrestricted. Subjects had a higher energy intake on the HF (11,039 +/- 2700 kJ/d) than on the HC (10,672 +/- 2617 kJ/d) diet (P less than 0.05), but energy expenditure was not different between diets. On day 7 of the HC diet, carbohydrate (CHO) oxidation was significantly related to CHO intake with the slope of the regression line 0.99, suggesting that overall CHO balance was near zero. However, the slope of the regression line was greater for obese than for lean subjects. On day 7 of the HF diet, fat oxidation was significantly related to fat intake but the slope of the line was 0.50, suggesting that overall fat balance was positive. However, this relationship was due entirely to lean subjects, with obese subjects showing no relationship between fat intake and oxidation. I'm not sure what the first part is really saying but is the last line saying that lean and obese subjects responded completely different?32. Thomas CD, et al. Nutrient balance and energy expenditure during ad libitum feeding of high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets in humans. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 May;55(5):934-42. [Medline]
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/1570800/Nutrient_balance_and_energy_expenditure_during_ad_libitum_feeding_of_high_fat_and_high_carbohydrate_diets_in_humans_
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of alterations in diet composition on energy expenditure and nutrient balance in humans. Eight adults (three men, five women) ate a high-carbohydrate (60% of calories from carbohydrate) and a high-fat (60% of calories from fat) diet for 7 d each according to a randomized, crossover design. Six subjects were studied for an additional week on a mixed diet (45% of calories from fat). For each subject, total caloric intake was identical on all diets and was intended to provide the subject's maintenance energy requirements. All subjects spent days 3 and 7 of each week in a whole-room indirect calorimeter. Diet composition did not affect total daily energy expenditure but did affect daily nutrient oxidation by rapidly shifting substrate oxidation to more closely reflect the composition of the diet. These results show that diet composition can affect substrate oxidation without producing measurable effects on total energy expenditure. What's substrate oxidation?33. Hill JO, et al. Nutrient balance in humans: effects of diet composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Jul;54(1):10-7. [Medline]
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/2058571/Nutrient_balance_in_humans:_effects_of_diet_composition_
I couldn't find it.34. Rumpler WV, et al. Energy-intake restriction and diet- composition effects on energy expenditure in men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991 Feb;53(2):430-6. [Medline]
Twenty-four hour whole body indirect calorimetry has been used to study the effects of feeding, during a sedentary test day, isoenergetic diets which varied in fat (3 or 40 per cent of total energy) and carbohydrate (82 or 45 per cent) content. Three groups of women were studied: lean, obese and 'post-obese' after slimming. Diets weren't compared at all.35. Lean ME, James WP. Metabolic effects of isoenergetic nutrient exchange over 24 hours in relation to obesity in women. Int J Obes. 1988;12(1):15-27. [Medline]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3360561
A high-dietary fat intake may be an important environmental factor leading to obesity in some people. The mechanism could be either a decrease in energy expenditure and/or an increase in caloric intake. To determine the relative importance of these mechanisms we measured 24-h energy expenditure in a whole body calorimeter in 14 nondiabetic subjects and in six subjects with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, eating isocaloric, weight-maintenance, high-fat, and high-carbohydrate diets. All subjects were Pima Indians. In nondiabetics, the mean total 24-h energy expenditure was similar (2,436 +/- 103 vs. 2,359 +/- 82 kcal/day) on high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets, respectively. The means for sleeping and resting metabolic rates, thermic effect of food, and spontaneous physical activity were unchanged. Similar results were obtained in the diabetic subjects. In summary, using a whole body calorimeter, we found no evidence of a decrease in 24-h energy expenditure on a high-fat diet compared with a high-carbohydrate diet.36. Abbott WG, et al. Energy expenditure in humans: effects of dietary fat and carbohydrate. Am J Physiol. 1990 Feb;258(2 Pt 1):E347-51. [Medline]
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/2305878/Energy_expenditure_in_humans:_effects_of_dietary_fat_and_carbohydrate_
Short-term effects of low-fat (10% fat energy), mixed (30% fat energy), and high-fat (50% fat energy) diets on 24-h energy expenditure, and on its components sleeping metabolic rate, diet induced thermogenesis and energy expenditure for physical activity were studied for 3 days using a respiration chamber in twelve normal-weight female volunteers classified as restrained or unrestrained eaters. There were no significant differences in any of the four measures between the restrained and unrestrained eating subjects on any of the diets. Within the group of restrained eaters, 24-h energy expenditure was significantly decreased during consumption of the mixed diet (8.21 +/- 0.21 MJ/d; p < 0.01) and tended to be decreased on the high-fat diet (8.22 +/- 0.25 MJ/d; p = 0.055), relative to the low-fat diet (8.58 +/- 0.21 MJ/d). Diet composition had no effect on 24-h energy expenditure in the women with unrestrained eating. The results suggest that a low-fat diet would be beneficial in the treatment of obesity, especially if subjects have a restrained type of eating behaviour. Where are the carbs?37. Yerboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR. Effects of dietary fat and carbohydrate exchange on human energy metabolism. Appetite. 1996 Jun;26(3):287-300. [Medline]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800484
Decreasing the dietary fat content increased 24-h EE in the postobese women (P = 0.02), whereas it was unaffected in the control group. Independent of energy balance, an increase in dietary fat content to 50% fat energy results in preferential fat storage, impaired suppression of carbohydrate oxidation, and reduction of 24-h EE in postobese women. Is that why low carb diets work so well--obese people have impaired carb oxidation?38. Astrup A, et al. Failure to increase lipid oxidation in response to increasing dietary fat content in formerly obese women. Am J Physiol. 1994 Apr;266(4 Pt 1):E592-9. [Medline]
http://www.unboundmedicine.com/evidence/ub/citation/8178980/Failure_to_increase_lipid_oxidation_in_response_to_increasing_dietary_fat_content_in_formerly_obese_women_
CONCLUSIONS:39. Whitehead JM, McNeill G, Smith JS. The effect of protein intake on 24-h energy expenditure during energy restriction. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Aug;20(8):727-32. [Medline]
Maintaining protein intake reduces the decrease in energy expenditure during energy restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8856395
Notice where it said weight loss was higher, but no metabolic advantage was found, even though they expected one? That's because the extra weight lost on a low carb diet is water, not fat. When you extend studies out to a year, rather than 12 weeks, weight loss is equal, because the loss in water weight catches up in the higher carb group.
Also, your comment on study 38. That study wasn't done on obese women, it was done on healthy weight women, who were obese. Women who gained weight and then lost it. It showed they were more likely to store fat while eating a high fat diet.
Your comment on 35. Did you miss the part of the abstract that said they used 2 different diets, one that was 3% fat, 82% carb, and the other that was 40% fat, 45% carb, (both diets being 15% protein?) And you only posted part of the abstract, so you left out this line: There were no large differences in energy expenditure between the two diets or between the groups but the thermogenic effect of the high carbohydrate diet was significantly greater than that of the high fat diet (5.8 vs 3.5 per cent of energy expenditure: P less than 0.01).
No significant differences in energy expenditure with either diet. I'd say diets were compared.
For your comment on 37, do the math. Protein and calories are constants, when fat is increased or decreased, carbs are changed to compensate.
For study 32, that study essentially says that people on high fat diets eat more, and gain more fat, because humans are much more efficient at oxidizing carbohydrates for energy than fat, so higher fat intake, along with higher calorie intake, leads to more fat storage. From the actual study (you can download it from pubmed:) Our results suggest that HF diets are more obesity producing than are HC diets. This is because there was a greater total energy intake on HF than on HC diets and because humans have a lesser ability to increase fat oxidation in response to increased fat intake than to increase carbohydrate oxidation in response to increased carbohydrate intake.
Also, substrate oxidation is a catchall term for protein, fat, and carbohydrate oxidation. "Burning calories" is oxidation. You burn fat by oxidizing it, same with burning carbs or protein. So saying that "varying substrate oxidation had no effect on total energy expenditure" means that it doesn't matter what combinations of carb, protein, and fat you eat, you will expend the same amount of energy either way.
You are correct in that in the first 1 or 2 weeks you loose alot of water, but after that its all fat. If for whatever reason you quit and go back to eating the same amount of carbs you used to ALONG with staying within your nutritional goals and exercise, you will only gain back the water you lost in the beginning, NOT all the fat. I guess by what your saying is that all the weight that person lost in 12 wks was all water weight and not real fat?? Most people on low carb, depending on how low they go, can lose around 2 lbs a week so you mean to tell me that a person will gain back 24 pounds of water weight?? I think not :flowerforyou:0 -
thanks for the post.0
-
So now people are too stupid to think for ourselves as well as lazy with no self control? Gothcha', thanks for sharing.If by great and excellent, you mean, fills your head with nonsense, then I'd agree with you.0 -
So now people are too stupid to think for ourselves as well as lazy with no self control? Gothcha', thanks for sharing.If by great and excellent, you mean, fills your head with nonsense, then I'd agree with you.
Reading comprehension FTL.0 -
So now people are too stupid to think for ourselves as well as lazy with no self control? Gothcha', thanks for sharing.If by great and excellent, you mean, fills your head with nonsense, then I'd agree with you.
What would you say to someone that recommend they read this great book on nutrition called the the China Study? or watch this great movie called Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead? or watch this awesome guy on youtube Durianrider?
Fathead is not much different then any of the above0 -
I'd trust that they weren't idiots.0
-
I'd trust that they weren't idiots.
Are you saying the person recommending it and calling it excellent and great, would therefore be an idiot?0 -
bump0
-
No, I'm saying that everyone on this site is capable of following a link and making up their own mind.
I absolutely welcome opposing points of view along with any information you feel is important so people can make educated decisions but all of the LOLs and insults aren't needed or appreciated.0
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
- 426 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