Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Nutrition, Products & Supplements Info => Topic started by: Sculpter on December 29, 2005, 03:04:55 PM
-
For the life of me why do so many ppl. here on Get Big rave so much about Muscular Development magazine?Granted its a good size mag but does it have anything in it thats new?I saw a thread here & thought i'd check the magazine out since I last did & well besides getting rid of page after page of half nude women its basically the same old.Flex Wheeler writes very well but does he have to inject himself into every report he does?Pages given to Valentino are just a waste of space for a pedophile that likes to brag about how big a s&^t he has planned for the day.The columns w/different pros of today doing them are another thing I find is useless.Just a few different pros each answering q's a la Ask Bob in Musclemag.Besides answering the q's they go on to tell you how they're dieting, sleeping & training.The only thing about the magazine that held my interest is that it has very good info for ppl. that may be looking for info on steroids.Anyway, the magazine is nothing special that i'll be wasting my money on.Opinions of others?
-
MD current issue is a must-have:
February 2006 Table of Contents
Training
Muscle Form+Function
Slashing Deep Crevices Across Your Triceps
By Stephen Alway, PhD, FACSM
By the Expert Q & A
By Steven J. Fleck, PhD
Extreme Muscle Enhancement
By Carlon M. Colker, MD, FACN
The Freakin' Rican--NEW!
By Gustavo Badell
The Blonde Bomber--NEW!
By Chris Cook
David Vs. Goliath--NEW!
By David Henry
The Pro Creator
By Hany Rambod
The Contest Guru
By Chad Nicholls
Eight-Time Mr. O, Ronnie Coleman
By Ron Harris
The Cutting Edge
By Dexter Jackson
Marvelous Melvin
By Melvin Anthony
Trainer of Champions
By Charles Glass
Mass with Class
By Branch Warren
Jay Cutler: The Ultimate Beef
By Billy DeConcini
Victor's Gym
By Victor Martinez
The Priest Confessional
Lee Spills His Mind!
By Lee Priest
The Real Deal
By Chris Cormier
Nutrition & Performance
Research Training
Why Rest is Important for Muscle Growth...
By Steve Blechman and Thomas Fahey, EdD
Research Supplements
Lose Weight with Meal Replacement...
By Steve Blechman and Thomas Fahey, EdD
Research Nutrition
Why Proteins Cut Hunger...
By Steve Blechman and Thomas Fahey, EdD
Sports Supplement Product Review
EAS Muscle Armor: The Ultimate Armor to Protect Muscle Mass and Power
By Anssi Manninen, MHS
Supplement Performance
Sports Supplement Update: Interview with Dr. Jeff Volek and Dr. John Berardi
By Anssi Manninen, MHS
Nutrition Performance
Best of Research
By Anssi Manninen, MHS
MuscleTech Research Report
Research Fat Loss
Night Eating Does Not Trigger Obesity...
By Steve Blechman and Thomas Fahey, EdD
Fat Attack
Enhancing Fat Loss Through Beta-Adrenergic Mediated Stimulation
By Robbie J. Durand, MA, CSCS
Drugs
Research Drugs
IGF-1 Approved for Short Kids...
By Steve Blechman and Thomas Fahey, EdD
Future Pharmacy
By Douglas Kalman, MS, RD, FACN
Testosterone
Boosting Testosterone via Aromatase Inhibition
By Dan Gwartney, MD
Anabolic Research Update
Q&A
By William Llewellyn
Anabolic Edge
By Jose Antonio, PhD
The Anabolic Freak
By David Palumbo
Busted! Legal Q&A
Prison Time for Prescribing Growth Hormone?
By Rick Collins, JD
Health & Performance
Research Health & Performance
Smoking Promotes ED in Young Men...
By Steve Blechman and Thomas Fahey, EdD
Bodybuilding Science
Beta-2 Agonists: A Safe and Effective Stimulator of Muscle Hypertrophy?
By Robbie J. Durand, MA, CSCS
Inside Angle
Editor's Letter
MD Has The Winning Team!
By Steve Blechman
Mail Room
Where Our Readers Rave and Rant
Page 69
The Pictures Tell the Story!
By John Romano
The Romano Factor
By John Romano
Flex Report: 2005 NPC Nationals
By Flex Wheeler
Ramblin' Freak
By Gregg Valentino
Hot Shoppe
By Angela T. Frizalone
MD Marketplace
By Angela T. Frizalone and Manda Machado
The Last Word
Bring Steroids Back to the Ball Game Before There is No More Game
By John Romano
Features
GUSTAVO BADELL
The Uncrowned Mr. Olympia?
By Flex Wheeler
NORTH AMERICAN CANNONS
How the New Pro, Marcus "The Comet" Haley, Hits His Explosive Bi's and Tri's
By Ron Harris
THE TEXAS TITANS SHOCK SHOULDERS
Branch and Johnnie Talk Truly Hardcore Delt Training
By Ron Harris
MD EXCLUSIVE! ROMO THE DRAGON SLAYER
Why Bill Romanowski was the Most Feared Linebacker in the NFL
By John Romano
-
I have nothing to do with our Pro Columns. Rather, I concentrate on scientific content.
Anssi
Team MD
-
MD would be a lot better if they hired Lyle Mcdonald. That guy really knows his shit.
-
MD would be a lot better if they hired Lyle Mcdonald. That guy really knows his shit.
He lacks credentials and knowledge.
-
He lacks credentials and knowledge.
Do you two have a history, manny?
-
He lacks credentials and knowledge.
Whatever you say "Annsi"
-
Do you two have a history, manny?
No. Only "history" we have is that I refuted some of his BS claims concerning higher protein/lower carb diets.
-
No. Only "history" we have is that I refuted some of his BS claims concerning higher protein/lower carb diets.
any idea what ol' lyle is doing for a living these days?
One would think that with the numerous information delivery systems that come with the internet, he'd be all over the boards.
-
any idea what ol' lyle is doing for a living these days?
One would think that with the numerous information delivery systems that come with the internet, he'd be all over the boards.
All message board moderators have banned him. :D
-
any idea what ol' lyle is doing for a living these days?
One would think that with the numerous information delivery systems that come with the internet, he'd be all over the boards.
www.bodyrecomposition.co m
I think you gotta register to view the forums.
-
No. Only "history" we have is that I refuted some of his BS claims concerning higher protein/lower carb diets.
Message from Lyle Mcdonald:
-----
Well, apparently I'm not going to get my email validated by the mods so I asked someone else to post the following in response to Anssi's comments about me.
****
Anssi,
You have an interesting revisionist history regarding our 'debates' over high protein/low carb diets on my forum. But since I apparently have no credentials or knowledge, I'll simply repost the following questions, the same questions (with a couple of additions) that you have continually evaded on my forum.
I'm sure that the Getbig.com members will appreciate your detailed answers to these questions so that you can demonstrate your own credentials and knowledge.
Lyle
***
1. In their paper Bucholz et. al. bring up the following point regarding high vs. low carb diet studies.
In both short-term and long-term studies of low vs. high carb diets, the same ~2.5 kg difference in body weight shows up, this occurs whether the studies are a few days long, a few weeks long or a few months long.
So why doesn't this metabolic advantage sustain past the several day/several week mark?
Why it it only an early event?
Put differently: if there is a metabolic advantage that is able to nearly double weight loss over a few days to 2 weeks, how come that same metabolic advantage doesn't double weight loss over the length of the study (and spare me reference to the obese children study, if you look at the individual data, it was clear that three monster outliers in that study skewed the numbers in the low-carb group)?
2. You wrote "People don't lose lot of water in low-carb diet (see the recent papers in the Annals of Internal Medicine) so it cannot explain the greater weight loss. "
So how come I can easily drop 5-7 lbs in the first 3 days on a lowcarb diet and piss like a racehorse the entire time? How come that same 5-7 lbs comes back on when I carb load on the weekends? How come the hundreds of people I've had report their results on lowcarb diets over the past 8 years report the same phenomenon?
Considering that this 5-7 lbs already exceeds the 2.5 kg difference reported in most studies, how can you justify your claim that loss of water cannot explain the greater weight loss?
While you're at it, can you please adress the role of insulin in water resorption at the kidney? How about the known diuretic effect of ketones? Perhaps you would care to explain the relationship between muscle glycogen and water storage. Please adress each within your assertio that 'people don't lose a lot of water in low-carb diet'.
3. How come no studies examiningg metabolic rate on different diets have noted a change in resting oxygen uptake? If this metabolic advantage is significant, why is it not measurable?
4. Can you and Feinman et. al. really not make the distinction between diets that differ in carbohydrates and those that differ in protein? Because every study you like to trot out invariably has protein, fat and carbohydrates varying. And the group with higher protein generally does better. That is, you're typically looking at studies with somethihng like
'Low-carb': 30% protein, 10% carbs, 60% fat
'High-carb': 15% protein, some %carbs, some %fat
The difference of course, has NOTHING to do with the carb content but that you're comparint diets that are high and lower in protein.
But this has nothing to do with carbohdyrate intake per se, does it. It's just as easy to eat high protein in the context of a carb-based diet as a low-carb diet.
Put differently, which diet would you expect to have the 'metabolic advantage'?
Diet 1: 30% protein, 50% carbs, 20% fat (typical carb-based diet)
Diet 2: 30% protein, 10% carbs, 60% fat (typical low-carb diet)
I'm sure that the Getbig members will be illuminated by your detailed answers to these questions.
Lyle
-
2. You wrote "People don't lose lot of water in low-carb diet (see the recent papers in the Annals of Internal Medicine) so it cannot explain the greater weight loss. "
So how come I can easily drop 5-7 lbs in the first 3 days on a lowcarb diet and piss like a racehorse the entire time? How come that same 5-7 lbs comes back on when I carb load on the weekends? How come the hundreds of people I've had report their results on lowcarb diets over the past 8 years report the same phenomenon?
Considering that this 5-7 lbs already exceeds the 2.5 kg difference reported in most studies, how can you justify your claim that loss of water cannot explain the greater weight loss?
While you're at it, can you please adress the role of insulin in water resorption at the kidney? How about the known diuretic effect of ketones? Perhaps you would care to explain the relationship between muscle glycogen and water storage. Please adress each within your assertio that 'people don't lose a lot of water in low-carb diet'.
I doubt that you've ever been on a low-carb diet from reading this crap "Anssi". I think you're the one lacking real knowledge and credentials.
-
In fact, while i do not know much about Lyle (besides from what others have told me), Anssi does have a MSc from a respected Medical School-University and has published in the scientific journals quite extensively. Lyle has not (at least when examining a HighWire press or Pubmed database.
Doug
-
Anssi does have a MSc from a respected Medical School-University and has published in the scientific journals quite extensively.
Which we can see means absolutely nothing at all considering Manninen was quoted as saying:
"People don't lose lot of water in low-carb diet (see the recent papers in the Annals of Internal Medicine) so it cannot explain the greater weight loss. "
-
Ok, so apparently I just needed to be patient, I finally got approved. But I had already had someone post my questions to Anssi for me.
I'm sure that, like everyone, we will enjoy his detailed answers to them so that he may display his credentials and knowledge.
Or, more likely, as he has done repeatedly on my board, he'll avoid all of them completely. Whether this is through ignorance or simply an inabilty to realize that he is completely and utterly wrong about the topic, I don't know. But the rather simple fact i that I have forgotten more about lowcarb dieting than he will ever know. As my first book makes pretty clear.
Lyle
-
Incidentally, here is the exact post from my forum. Anssi's brilliance is at the bottom.
Lyle
***
Anssi Manninen
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd
They still fail to adress the water loss issue
Lyle
People don't lose lot of water in low-carb diet (see the recent papers in the Annals of Internal Medicine) so it cannot explain the greater weight loss.
-
Ok, so apparently I just needed to be patient, I finally got approved. But I had already had someone post my questions to Anssi for me.
I'm sure that, like everyone, we will enjoy his detailed answers to them so that he may display his credentials and knowledge.
Or, more likely, as he has done repeatedly on my board, he'll avoid all of them completely. Whether this is through ignorance or simply an inabilty to realize that he is completely and utterly wrong about the topic, I don't know. But the rather simple fact i that I have forgotten more about lowcarb dieting than he will ever know. As my first book makes pretty clear.
Lyle
Oh, I too imagine he will avoid them, as he did more than a year ago in the "calorie is a calorie" thread on your board.
But, we can always hope....
::) ::) (ala' Manninen)
-
MD is not perfect, but its the best magazine out there and well worth the money.
I hear this month they're finally going to tackle the question about protein being good for building muscle mass.
And that new evidence that ECA can lead to fat-burning... I can't wait!
Mannien's purchase of the 1995 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica from the local Goodwill is certainly paying off!
-
Let´s wait that Feinman and co-workers get their latest paper on metabolic advantage published. It will put rest all the misinformation.
-
I said "People don't lose LOT of water in low-carb diet. I never said they will not lose any water. :)
For more info, see http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/site/pdf/Manninen-JISSN-1-2-21-26-05.pdf
-
Nutr Metab. 1978;22(5):269-77. Related Articles, Links
Comparative studies in obese subjects fed carbohydrate-restricted and high carbohydrate 1,000-calorie formula diets.
Rabast U, Kasper H, Schonborn J.
45 obese subjects were fed a high-carbohydrate, relatively low-fat, or a low-carbohydrate, relatively high-fat 1,000-calorie (4.14MJ) formula diet. The diet provided for an isoenergetic substitution of 170 g of carbohydrates for 75 g of fat. Weight reduction up to day 30 was significantly higher in the subjects on the carbohydrate-restricted diet. There were no significant differences between the water and electrolyte balances. The mean total weight reduction achieved on the high-carbohydrate diet was 9.8 +/- 4.5kg with a mean daily weight loss of 298 +/- 80g, while the corresponding values on the carbohydrate-restricted diet were 14 +/- 7.2 kg and 362 +/- 91 g/day, respectively.
PMID: 662209 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Annals of Internal Medicine:
"During the low-carbohydrate diet, mean body water decreased from 46.30 kg to 45.94 kg (P > 0.2). Body water decreased in 6 patients, increased in 3 patients, and did not change in 1 patient. After subtraction of body water, mean body weight decreased from 68.13 kg to 66.48 kg (mean change, –1.65 kg; P = 0.049)
-
Another old yet relatively well-controlled Rabast study:
Ann Nutr Metab. 1981;25(6):341-9. Related Articles, Links
Loss of weight, sodium and water in obese persons consuming a high- or low-carbohydrate diet.
Rabast U, Vornberger KH, Ehl M.
Isocaloric 5.61 mJ (1,340 kcal) formula diets involving the isocaloric exchange of fat and carbohydrate were fed to 21 obese persons selected for sex, height, and weight before the start of the treatment and distributed over three groups. The weight loss observed during the carbohydrate-restricted diets was significantly greater than during the high-carbohydrate diet. After 28 days of treatment the weight loss recorded on the high-carbohydrate diet was 9.5 +/- 0.7 kg, as compared to 11.4 +/- 0.7 kg (p less than 0.05) on the corn oil-containing diet and 12.5 +/- 0.9 kg (p less than 0.01) on the butter-fat-containing diet. The weight loss achieved was not dependent on the type of fat administered (saturated vs. polyunsaturated). When calculated cumulatively, sodium excretion during the first 7 days was significantly greater on the low-carbohydrate diet, whereas after 28 days the total amount of sodium excreted was highest on the high-carbohydrate diet. Potassium excretion during the low-carbohydrate diets was significantly greater for as long as 14 days, but at the end of the experimental period the observed differences no longer attained statistical significance. At no time did the intake and loss of fluid and the balances calculated therefrom show significant differences. From the findings obtained it appears that the alterations in the water and electrolyte balance observed during the low-carbohydrate diets are reversible phenomena and should thus not be regarded as causal agents of the different weight reduction.
PMID: 7332312 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
-
Lyle, if the metabolic advantage of high-protein/low-carb diets is simply due to the dietary protein-induded thermogenesis, can you please explain me the results of Volek study:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15533250
-
I hear this month they're finally going to tackle the question about protein being good for building muscle mass.
I feel I actually know something about human protein metabolism:
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jjhulmi/Manninen.pdf
-
Ok, so apparently I just needed to be patient, I finally got approved. But I had already had someone post my questions to Anssi for me.
I'm sure that, like everyone, we will enjoy his detailed answers to them so that he may display his credentials and knowledge.
Or, more likely, as he has done repeatedly on my board, he'll avoid all of them completely. Whether this is through ignorance or simply an inabilty to realize that he is completely and utterly wrong about the topic, I don't know. But the rather simple fact i that I have forgotten more about lowcarb dieting than he will ever know. As my first book makes pretty clear.
Lyle
How about if you visit at Nutrition & Metabolism Society´s Annual Conference (http://www.nmsociety.org/program06.htm). You may actually learn something about high-protein/low-carbohydrate diets.
-
Lyle,
This presentation is especially important for you (since you lack basic knowledge of biological thermodynamics): :)
EFFICIENCY, THERMOGENESIS AND UNCOUPLING
10:00 Richard D. Feinman, PhD and Eugene J. Fine, MD, (SUNY Downstate)
The metabolic regime and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Theory and practice
-
Lyle,
This presentation is especially important for you (since you lack basic knowledge of biological thermodynamics): :)
EFFICIENCY, THERMOGENESIS AND UNCOUPLING
10:00 Richard D. Feinman, PhD and Eugene J. Fine, MD, (SUNY Downstate)
The metabolic regime and non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Theory and practice
Yeah, more crap by Feinman et. al. Whatever.
BTW< the volek study
"Actual nutrient intakes from food records during the VLCK (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = ~9:63:28%) and the LF (~58:22:20%) were significantly different."
FOOD records, Anssi. What is so hard for you to understand this. Why does every study supporting a metabolic advantage rely on self-reported food records. And why does every study that controls caloric intake find NO METABOLIC ADVANTAGE.
Why did Brehm et. al. (below) find NO MEAUSURABLE different in metabolic rate in diet?
***
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Mar;90(3):1475-82. Epub 2004 Dec 14. Related Articles, Links
The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets.
Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.
R.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu
We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption. We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss. To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- 0.28 kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet. Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects. Forty women completed the trial. The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight (9.79 +/- 0.71 vs. 6.14 +/- 0.91 kg; P < 0.05) and more body fat (6.20 +/- 0.67 vs. 3.23 +/- 0.67 kg; P < 0.05) than the low-fat group. There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ). Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months. The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = 0.017). Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.
-
Int J Obes (Lond). 2005 Sep;29 Suppl 2:S26-30. Links
The effect of low carbohydrate on energy metabolism.
Erlanson-Albertsson C, Mei J.
Section of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden. Charlotte.Erlanson-Albertsson@med.lu.se
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether low-carbohydrate diets are efficient for reduction of body weight and through which mechanism. DESIGN: A couple of studies using low-carbohydrate diets in the treatment of obesity are reviewed. Mechanisms for explaining the reduced appetite are described in relation to knowledge on regulation of appetite for fat and carbohydrate. RESULTS: Studies with low-carbohydrate diets demonstrate a rapid weight loss, being more pronounced after 3 and 6 months compared to low-fat diets. After 12 months there is no difference between the low-carbohydrate and the conventional low-fat diet on weight loss. Both diets lead to improvements in risk factors for coronary heart disease, the low-carbohydrate diet leading to a greater decrease in serum triglycerides and increase in HDL cholesterol compared to the low-fat diet. Blood pressure, insulin sensitivity and LDL cholesterol were improved to a similar degree by the two diets. The mechanism for the rapid weight loss with the low-carbohydrate diet is a suppressed appetite, first through the high-protein content of the diet, second through the ketogenic nature of the diet with satiety signals for fat being active and third through the absence of hunger-promoting carbohydrate components like sucrose and/or fructose. CONCLUSION: A rapid initial weight loss occurs with a low-carbohydrate diet due to a suppressed appetite. There is as yet no indication of an increased metabolic rate and an increased thermogenesis by the low-carbohydrate diet. The safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate diets have to await further studies.
-
Why did this study, utilizaing controlled caloric intake find NO difference in lipolysis
***
Horm Metab Res. 2005 Dec;37(12):734-40. Related Articles, Links
No Difference in Lipolysis or Glucose Transport of Subcutaneous Fat Cells Between Moderate-fat and Low-fat Hypocaloric Diets in Obese Women.
Lofgren P, Andersson I, Wahrenberg H, Hoffstedt J.
Karolinska Institutet, Clinical Research Center and Department of Medicine at Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of two different diets on lipolysis and lipogenesis in subcutaneous fat cells from obese women. In a ten-week nutritional intervention study, forty women were randomly assigned to a hypoenergetic - 2,514 kJ (- 600 kcal/day) diet of either moderate-fat/moderate-carbohydrate or low-fat/high-carbohydrate content. Body weight was equally reduced by approximately 7.5 % in both diet groups (p = 0.58). A subcutaneous adipose tissue biopsy was obtained for subsequent measurement of triglyceride breakdown (lipolysis) using drugs active at different steps of the lipolytic signaling cascade, and lipid synthesis (glucose transport) before and after intervention. No difference was found between the two diet groups at the maximum rate of either lipolysis or adrenoceptor sensitivity (p-values: 0.14 - 0.97). Inhibition of lipolysis by insulin was also similar in both diet groups before and after intervention. Finally, insulin-stimulated glucose transport did not show any changes that could be attributed to the type of diet. In conclusion, our data suggest that macronutrient diet composition has no major influence on glucose transport or mobilization of triglycerides in human subcutaneous fat cells of obese women.
-
why don't diets matched for calories affect gene expresion in adipose tissue differently?
***
Diabetologia. 2004 Dec 29; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links
Adipose tissue gene expression in obese subjects during low-fat and high-fat hypocaloric diets.
Viguerie N, Vidal H, Arner P, Holst C, Verdich C, Avizou S, Astrup A, Saris WH, Macdonald IA, Klimcakova E, Clement K, Martinez A, Hoffstedt J, Sorensen TI, Langin D; for the Nutrient-Gene Interactions in Human Obesity-Implications for Dietary Guideline (NUGENOB) project.
Obesity Research Unit of the French Institute of Health and Medical Research U586, Louis Bugnard Institute and Clinical
Investigation Centre, Toulouse University Hospitals, Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Adaptation to energy restriction is associated with changes in gene expression in adipose tissue. However, it is unknown to what extent these changes are dependent on the energy restriction as such or on the macronutrient composition of the diet. METHODS: We determined the levels of transcripts for 38 genes that are expressed in adipose tissue and encode transcription factors, enzymes, transporters and receptors known to play critical roles in the regulation of adipogenesis, mitochondrial respiration, and lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. Two groups of 25 obese subjects following 10-week hypocaloric diet programmes with either 20-25 or 40-45% of total energy derived from fat were investigated. Levels of mRNA were measured by performing real-time RT-PCR on subcutaneous fat samples obtained from the subjects before and after the diets. RESULTS: The two groups of subjects lost 7 kg over the duration of the diets. Ten genes were regulated by energy restriction; however, none of the genes showed a significantly different response to the diets. Levels of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma co-activator 1alpha mRNA were increased, while the expression of the genes encoding leptin, osteonectin, phosphodiesterase 3B, hormone-sensitive lipase, receptor A for natriuretic peptide, fatty acid translocase, lipoprotein lipase, uncoupling protein 2 and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma was decreased. Clustering analysis revealed new potential coregulation of genes. For example, the expression of the genes encoding the adiponectin receptors may be regulated by liver X receptor alpha. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In accordance with the comparable loss of fat mass produced by the two diets, this study shows that energy restriction and/or weight loss rather than the ratio of fat: carbohydrate in a low-energy diet is of importance in modifying the expression of genes in the human adipose tissue.
-
Why didn't you beloved metabolic advantage show up here?
This was as hospital study, calroies were exactly controlled with liquid nutrition and the subjects were bed-ridden. It was as controlled as you can find.
Result: NO EFFECT of carb variation from 0 to 70% of total calories. Protein stayed the same and fat and carbs were co-varied
Becuase that's what you and Feinman and the others have to be able to explain: every study on the topic. Not just the ones that you like to hand-pick to support your belief.
And as stated, ALL the studies you have finding a metabolic advantage are not ccalorie controlled and are relying on food records (which we know are notoriously inaccurate). And basically every study where calories are controlled (and protein doesn't vary hugely), there is no effect.
so, boom, I think we're done here. Until you and Feinman can explain the ENTIRE data set, you're justblowing smoke out of your butt and it's time to come to terms with it.
Lyle
***
Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Feb;55(2):350-5. Related Articles, Links
Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition.
Leibel RL, Hirsch J, Appel BE, Checani GC.
Laboratory of Human Behavior and Metabolism, Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10021.
Diets rich in fat may promote obesity by leading to a greater deposition of adipose-tissue triglycerides than do isoenergetic diets with less fat. This possibility was examined by a retrospective analysis of the energy needs of 16 human subjects (13 adults, 3 children) fed liquid diets of precisely known composition with widely varied fat content, for 15-56 d (33 +/- 2 d, mean +/- SE). Subjects lived in a metabolic ward and received fluid formulas with different fat and carbohydrate content, physical activity was kept constant, and precise data were available on energy intake and daily body weight. Isoenergetic formulas contained various percentages of carbohydrate as cerelose (low, 15%; intermediate, 40% or 45%; high, 75%, 80%, or 85%), a constant 15% of energy as protein (as milk protein), and the balance of energy as fat (as corn oil). Even with extreme changes in the fat-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of percentage fat intake.
-
Last one and I think we're done here.
***
Curr Diab Rep. 2005 Oct;5(5):374-8. Related Articles, Links
Are all calories created equal? Emerging issues in weight management.
Hollis JH, Mattes RD.
Purdue University, Department of Foods and Nutrition, 700 W. State Street, W. Lafayette, IN 47907-2059, USA. jhollis@purdue.edu.
The global prevalence of overweight and obesity is growing. Correction of the problem through dietary intervention has been disappointing and has prompted research into variations of diet composition or pattern to promote negative energy balance. Limited research suggests that selected approaches, such as low-carbohydrate diets, augment weight loss and offer an advantage over conventional low-fat diets. This has led to the hypothesis that although in theoretical terms a calorie is a calorie, in practice this is not the case. Support for such views and plausible mechanisms exist. Although any advantage may augment weight management, reported discrepancies between theoretical and observed effects are small. Thus, energy-restricted diets should be based primarily on energy intake and expenditure.
-
MD would be a lot better if they hired Lyle Mcdonald. That guy really knows his shit.
I stand by my statement.
-
Viagra Leads To Long Lasting Erections!!!!!
-
MD is the best at recycling the same shit and 30 pgs of retarded drawings
-
Ok, since I'm such a nice guy, I thought I'd give Anssi a free lesson on the thermogenics of diet. Maybe he'll learn something.
Now, in their papers, Feinman et. al. made two primary arguments for a metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets.
1. The first, as I mentioned, was the thermic effect of protein. And, of course, a diet higher in protein will show a greater caloric expenditure (via thermic effect) than one lower in protein.
It really shouldn't require stating that this has nothing to do with the carbohdyrate content of the diet per se. So rather than referring to low-carb diets, they should be referring to high-protein diets. Again, a point so obvious to anyone with basic intelligence but one apparently missed by Anssi and his pals.
In any event, having never seen a bodybuilder eating the kinds of protein that normal people eat, I see this as a non-issue and a non-argument. As well, for the reasons above, it's stilly to compare diets differing in protein and make conclusions about diets differing in carbohydrates. Yes, if you want to look at hte typical american diet or the stupidity given out by RD's and compare that to the generally increased protein intake seen on ad-lib low-carb diets, that's fine. But be honest,you can eat a high protein intake within the context of a carb-based diet just as easily as on a low-carb diet. If the advantage is due to higher protein, say it's due to higher protein. Don't wank about low-carbohdyrates having an advantage.
Anyhow, let's assume two different diets:
High carb: 30% protein, 50% carbs, 20% fat (a rather typical bodybuilding diet)
Low carb: 30% protein, 10% carbs, 60% fat (a typical ketogenic/low-carb diet).
Ok, protein is identical, there can be NO advantage of one diet over the other from the standpoint of the thermic effect of food, can there Anssi? Of course there can't.
So first let's look at the overall TEF of carbs vs. fat.
The typical values given are 6% for carbs and 3% for fat. So of 100 calories of carbs eaten, you burn about 6 calories. For 100 calories of fat, you burn about 3. Clearly, the carb based diet has the advantage in terms of resting energy expenditure here. It's pretty damn small, mind you, but it exists. And so many studies show this, examining the effect of higher carbs to higher fat on TEF, that it's just stupid that Ansii and Feinman can only seem to reference diet studies based on self-reported food intakes and uncontrolled diets.
Even the mechanisms of this are clear. Carbs raise insulin which jacks up nervous system activity which increases caloric expenditure. Fats do not. Carbs stimulate their own storage and oxidation, fat does not stimulate its own oxidation; it simply gets stored as fat. This is all basic nutritional biochemistry.
Ok, so let's calculate out the projected difference in TEF between the diets. Again, since protein is identical, we can ignore that and look only at the carbs/fat. I'm interested here in the difference in TEF between the diets.
Let's say that both diets above contain 3000 calories. The
high carb diet will contain 1500 cal of carbs and 600 calories from fat.
The total estimated TEF of the carbs+fat would be 108 calories.
The low-carb diet will contain 1800 calories from fat and 300 calories from carbs.
The total estimated TEF of the carbs+ fat will be 72 calories.
For a whopping difference of about 36 calories/day wth the (tiny-ass) advantage going to the carb-based diet. Hooray. Basically, with a fixed protein content, switching out carbs and fat has basically no major effect on anything. Which is probably a big part of why controlled studies (such as the one by Hirsch I posted as well as the one by Brehm) with identical protein which vary carbs and fat find no effect on metabolic rate.
Oh, by the way, Anssi claims that metabolic chambers can't pick up the differences in metabolic rate because they are not sensitive enough. Yet hundreds of studies over a couple of decades of work have reliably picked up differences between different dietary and feeding conditions. Yet, somehow, they cannot seem to measure a 'metabolic advantage' for low-carb diets. He can dismiss the method out of hand but he's just blowing smoke out of his ass on that one.
2. Ok, but now we turn to the second argument by Feinman et. al. which rests on the caloric value of gluconeogenesis. they go through a lot of biochemical and thermodynamic wanking in their first paper without really quantifying exactly how much of an energy expenditure this should add up to over the course of a day. Maybe Anssi can clear this up for me because Feinman et al's writing is, frankly, incomprehensible.
Ok, so let's assume that gluconeogensis is significant enough during a low-carb diet to contribute meaningfully to total caloric expenditure. First off any gain from gluconeogenesis has to be gained against the loss of TEF from eating less carbs. Of course, that TEF is small in the first place.
In any case, here's the major problem, something that apparently Feinman and Anssi are both unaware of: one of the primary adaptations to ketosis, that occurs over the first 2-3 weeks, is an increase in utilization of ketones by the brain (other tissues such as muscle use a combination of fatty acids and ketones in varying concentrations). This occurs to spare glucose, which occurs so that the gluconeogenesis from protein can decrease significantly. Because, if it didn't, during something like fasting, you would lose so much body protein that you'd die.
I want everyone to read that again. Gluconeogenesis, which is initially high to produce glucose for the brain which isn't coming from the diet, drops significantly by the 2nd or 3rd week of adaptation to ketones.
What does this mean? That any metabolic advantage predicated on that biochemical process is basically rendered moot. Well, except for the first couple of weeks of the diet I suppose.
Now this at least gives some type of plausible mechanism for why the entire difference in weight loss shows up as an early event only (as I mentioned previously) although apparently I have to make Anssi's arguments for him since he's incapable of bringing anything useful to the table. Although the huge amount of water loss (Still denying that it occurs, Anssi) still colors that. When the total difference in weight loss between diets is 2.5 kg and people are dropping 2-3 kg of water in the first few days, well.....
But predicating a metabolic advantage on a process that is made basically irrelevant after 2-3 weeks seems hopeful at best, and ridiculous at worst.
Any advantage of low-carb/high-protein diets is going to be predicated primarily on the fact that protein blunts hunger (Skov et. al found that the individuals eating 25 vs 12% protein ate approximatly 400 cal/day less and lost weight because of it) and people eat less. As one of the reviews I posted clearly showed.
Studies have typically indicated an ad lib intake of 1600-1800 calories on ketogenic diets which creates a huge deficit for fat people. Contrast this to the fact that people routinely underreport their intakes on a carb-based diet by up to 50%, they may say they are eating 1600calories, but they are really eating 3200. Now consider that within the context of all of the food diary studies that Anssi continuously relies on for his data.
One recent study in diabetics showed that a shift to a low-carb diet caused them to decrease caloric intake by 1000 calories/day. Now you can wank all day long about metabolic advantages but, at the end of the day it comes down to this: people who are losing weight/fat on a low-carb/high-protein diet are doing it because they are eating less, not because of some mystical metabolic advantage that no study has ever been able to directly measure (i.e. metabolic chamber).
The end.
Lyle
-
Lyle,
Lets wait that Feinman, Layman, etc. get their latest papers on metabolic advantage published. :) Then we can make a firm conclusion who was right ;)
-
[Ok, protein is identical, there can be NO advantage of one diet over the other from the standpoint of the thermic effect of food, can there Anssi?
Postpradial thermogenesis is just a part of whole body thermogenesis.
-
[But be honest,you can eat a high protein intake within the context of a carb-based diet just as easily as on a low-carb diet. If the advantage is due to higher protein, say it's due to higher protein. Don't wank about low-carbohdyrates having an advantage.
I certainly agree that higher-protein intake alone provides a metabolic advantage, but it is not the only reason why low-carbohydrate diet is effective for fat loss.
-
[FOOD records, Anssi. What is so hard for you to understand this. Why does every study supporting a metabolic advantage rely on self-reported food records. And why does every study that controls caloric intake find NO METABOLIC ADVANTAGE.]
So, you are not familair with Greene study? They subjects ate all their meals in restaurant.
-
Anssi,
you'll have to forgive me for not continuing this argument but one of my New Year's Rsolutions is not to argue with complete idiots with no undersatnding of basic physiology
Perhaps your idiotic arguments have convinced some that you pwned me. I imagine that anyone with a brain will see through your idiotic smoke screens and total lack of physiological understanding. The simple fact tht you deny a large scale ater loss on a keto diet, a reality to anyone with real world experience of one, should point out that you know nothing, MHS or whatever notwithstanding. Your inability to answer dirct questions, but simply ttry to turn the issue around should continue to poit out your utter ignorance.
For while you an otehrs will continue to pray for a metabolic advantage that is, at best miniscule, I'll have people focusing on what matters which is caloric intake. And while the peple following your idiotic advicel continue to sit aruond wondering "Why is nothing happening, I have the mtabolic advantage", the people listening to me will be losing fat because they are not hoping for magic.
Lyle
-
Whatever you say, Lyle. :-*
-
Lyle, I bet this is your favourite article :)
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/03-lowcarb.html
-
Lyle "Becuase if here is an effect [i.e., metabolic advantage] , it should show up in EVERY study".
Sorry Lyle... your statement is clearly fallacious. :)
"In isocaloric comparisons, low CHO diets do better than LF diets for weight loss
Because weight reduction is considered the first line of attack in MetS or frank diabetes it is worth considering the record of low CHO diets on this parameter alone. It is generally agreed that the major effect of a low CHO diet is a spontaneous reduction in calories. In studies mentioned above, subjects did not significantly increase fat or protein intake but merely removed CHO from their diets [23-25]. Foster and Samaha also attributed the better performance of low CHO arm to decreased caloric intake, although this was not actually measured.
Beyond spontaneous caloric reduction, however, it has been shown that the macronutrient composition of the diet can affect the efficiency of energy utilization and greater efficacy, the so-called metabolic advantage, of low CHO diets compared to LF diets has been the subject of several reports (Reviews: [39,41]. It has long been argued that there must be some mistake because it is physically impossible and would violate the laws of thermodynamics. We have shown this argument is based on misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics [39,47-49] and the effect of variable efficiency is now better accepted [50,51]. The precise conditions that allow the so-called metabolic advantage to occur are not known although Cornier, et al. [51] have suggested that those subjects with insulin resistance will show a metabolic advantage on a low CHO diet whereas those who are insulin sensitive do better on low fat. This is consistent with the proposal here, namely that MetS, where insulin-resistance is generally considered a major component, can be defined by the response to CHO restriction. The study of Cornier, et al. [51] had only a small number of subjects and the low CHO arm was not particularly low (40%) but their theory follows from the general rationale of the effect of CHO on energy efficiency. The factors that determine whether a metabolic advantage can play a role in a CHO restricted diet is unknown but given that the insulin resistance association is reasonable, it would seem that some form of CHO restriction is one of the standard, if not preferred attacks on obesity where MetS is suspected.
Figure 2 shows data from Golay, et al. [52] This study is widely quoted as an example of how weight loss is independent of macronutrient composition; although the low CHO arm did better in weight loss, this was judged not significant. This may well be an experiment in which metabolic advantage does not occur – the effect is only possible, not required [39]. It is clear, however, from the figure that there is improvement in TAG and insulin and Golay's conclusion was that "...considering the greater improvement of fasting blood insulin, the glucose/insulin ratio and blood triglyceride, the low carbohydrate diet (25%) could be more favourable in the long-term [52]."
(In: Volek & Feinman. Carbohydrate restriction improves the features of Metabolic Syndrome. Metabolic Syndrome may be defined by the response to carbohydrate restriction. Nutrition & Metabolism 2005, 2:31. Free full text available at: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/31#B52
-
GetSmart.com
-
Lyle: "Ok, so let's assume that gluconeogensis is significant enough during a low-carb diet to contribute meaningfully to total caloric expenditure... here's the major problem, something that apparently Feinman and Anssi are both unaware of: one of the primary adaptations to ketosis, that occurs over the first 2-3 weeks, is an increase in utilization of ketones by the brain (other tissues such as muscle use a combination of fatty acids and ketones in varying concentrations). This occurs to spare glucose, which occurs so that the gluconeogenesis from protein can decrease significantly. Because, if it didn't, during something like fasting, you would lose so much body protein that you'd die."
We are unaware of basic facts about ketone body metabolism? I dont think so. :)
Feinman paper:
http://www.downstate.edu/kingsbrook/pdf's/Feinman&Makowske.pdf
My paper (just basic stuff):
http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/site/pdf/Manninen-JISSN-1-2-7-11-04.pdf
I want everyone to read that again. Gluconeogenesis, which is initially high to produce glucose for the brain which isn't coming from the diet, drops significantly by the 2nd or 3rd week of adaptation to ketones.
What does this mean? That any metabolic advantage predicated on that biochemical process is basically rendered moot. Well, except for the first couple of weeks of the diet I suppose.
Now this at least gives some type of plausible mechanism for why the entire difference in weight loss shows up as an early event only (as I mentioned previously) although apparently I have to make Anssi's arguments for him since he's incapable of bringing anything useful to the table. Although the huge amount of water loss (Still denying that it occurs, Anssi) still colors that. When the total difference in weight loss between diets is 2.5 kg and people are dropping 2-3 kg of water in the first few days, well.....
But predicating a metabolic advantage on a process that is made basically irrelevant after 2-3 weeks seems hopeful at best, and ridiculous at worst.
Any advantage of low-carb/high-protein diets is going to be predicated primarily on the fact that protein blunts hunger (Skov et. al found that the individuals eating 25 vs 12% protein ate approximatly 400 cal/day less and lost weight because of it) and people eat less. As one of the reviews I posted clearly showed.
Studies have typically indicated an ad lib intake of 1600-1800 calories on ketogenic diets which creates a huge deficit for fat people. Contrast this to the fact that people routinely underreport their intakes on a carb-based diet by up to 50%, they may say they are eating 1600calories, but they are really eating 3200. Now consider that within the context of all of the food diary studies that Anssi continuously relies on for his data.
One recent study in diabetics showed that a shift to a low-carb diet caused them to decrease caloric intake by 1000 calories/day. Now you can wank all day long about metabolic advantages but, at the end of the day it comes down to this: people who are losing weight/fat on a low-carb/high-protein diet are doing it because they are eating less, not because of some mystical metabolic advantage that no study has ever been able to directly measure (i.e. metabolic chamber).
The end.
Lyle
-
Lyle: "Gluconeogenesis, which is initially high to produce glucose for the brain which isn't coming from the diet, drops significantly by the 2nd or 3rd week of adaptation to ketones... What does this mean? That any metabolic advantage predicated on that biochemical process is basically rendered moot. Well, except for the first couple of weeks of the diet I suppose. "
No shit, Sherlock?! :) Tell us something we dont already know:
Feinman paper:
"Gluconeogenesis-stimulated protein turnover in carbohydrate restriction
The following hypothesis is suggested from classic studies of starvation done in chronically fasted obese individuals [27,28]. The brain's metabolism requires 100 grams of glucose per day. In the early phase of starvation, glycogen stores are rapidly reduced, so the requirement for glucose, is met by gluconeogenesis. Approximately 15–20 grams are available from glycerol production due to lipolysis, but fatty acid oxidation generally cannot be used to produce glucose. Therefore, protein breakdown must supply the rest of substrate for conversion to glucose in the early phases of starvation. By 6 weeks of starvation, ketone bodies plus glycerol can replace 85% of the brain's metabolic needs, the remainder still arising from gluconeogenesis due to protein. It should be mentioned that, since the fundamental role of ketones is to spare protein, it might be expected that the reliance on protein would actually decrease with time, perhaps relating to the anecdotal observation of "hitting the wall" on weight loss diets.
Very low carbohydrate diets, in their early phases, also must supply substantial glucose to the brain from gluconeogenesis. For example, the early phase of the popular Atkins or Protein Power diet restricts dieters to about 20–30 grams of carbohydrate per day, leaving 60–65 grams to be made up from protein-originated gluconeogenesis. One hundred grams of an "average" protein can supply about 57 grams of glucose so 110 grams protein would be needed to provide 60–65 grams glucose. Increased gluconeogenesis has been directly confirmed using tracer studies on day 11 of a very low carbohydrate diet (approx 8 grams/day) [29]. If indeed, 110 grams of endogenous protein is broken down for gluconeogenesis and re-synthesized, the energy cost, at 4–5 kcal/gram could amount to as much as 400–600 kcal/day. This is a sizable metabolic advantage. Of course, the source of protein for gluconeogenesis may be dietary rather than endogenous. Whereas endogenous protein breakdown is likely to evoke energetically costly re-synthesis in an organism in homeostasis, dietary protein may conserve energy. The source of protein for the observed gluconeogenesis [29] remains an open question, but there is no a priori reason to exclude endogenous rather than dietary sources. This is therefore a hypothesis that would need to be tested. The extent to which the protein for gluconeogenesis is supplied by endogenous protein would explain very high-energy costs. It should be noted, however, that even if limited to breakdown of dietary protein sources, there would be some energy cost associated with gluconeogenesis."
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/15
My paper:
"However, there will be metabolic accommodations and one cannot assume that the metabolic advantage (i.e., greater weight loss compared to isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet) will stay the same over a long term."
http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/site/pdf/Manninen-JISSN-1-2-21-26-05.pdf
-
Lyle: "Although the huge amount of water loss [during very low-carb diet]..."
Well, whatever happened to the "HUGE" amount of water loss?
Source: Annals of Internal Medicine
Title: Effect of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet on Appetite, Blood Glucose Levels, and Insulin Resistance in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
Authors: Guenther Boden, MD; Karin Sargrad, MS, RD, CDE; Carol Homko, PhD, RN, CDE; Maria Mozzoli, BS; and T. Peter Stein, PhD
15 March 2005 | Volume 142 Issue 6 | Pages 403-411
"Changes in body water varied (decreases in 6 patients, increases in 3 patients, and no change in 1 patient). These changes may have reflected changes in natriuresis due to increased ketone body excretion and "obligatory water changes" due to changes in glycogen stores". :)
-
"During the low-carbohydrate diet, mean body water decreased from 46.30 kg to 45.94 kg (P > 0.2). Body water decreased in 6 patients, increased in 3 patients, and did not change in 1 patient."
46.30 kg --> 45.94 kg = hardly a huge amount :-*
-
And just so everyone can see just how full of it, Anssi is, here's a scan of the abstract of the study he's talking about.
#1. Who cares if they ate a single meal at a restaurant? What about the REST OF THE DAY?
#2. Note the words around the results. NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.
#3. Yes, there is a trend towards slightly greater WEIGHT loss in both lowcarb groups.
And when you factor in water weight loss which can be 5-7 lbs anyhow (Do you still deny it, Anssi), well....
Have a lovely day, Anssi
Lyle
****
(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3739/greenstudy8nu.jpg)
-
[FOOD records, Anssi. What is so hard for you to understand this. Why does every study supporting a metabolic advantage rely on self-reported food records. And why does every study that controls caloric intake find NO METABOLIC ADVANTAGE.]
So, you are not familair with Greene study? They subjects ate all their meals in restaurant.
Hi Anssi,
why do you keep using the Greene study as some form of evidence for low carb advantage? obviously you have a short memory as you have already been called on this piece of research a number of times.
One, they did NOT eat all of their meals in a restaurant. The food provided by the research group was prepared in a restaurant, nothing of great interest as this style of research has been done for a number of years, and while it is better than sending them home with a menu, it still does not allow tight control of calories as people have the habit of eating items that are not provided, and lying about it.
There was also no indication of a metabolic advantage within this study. While the higher calorie Low carb group lost similar weight to the lower calorie high carbohydrate group, there is no measurement of water balance (glycogen before you start warbling on about lack of water loss) we cannot determine if the loss is purely from adipose or water (and dexa accuracy, like any body composition measurement, is compromised by alterations in water balance)
Seeing as Lyles linking didnt work, I will link to it
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3739/greenstudy8nu.jpg
-
Lyle "Becuase if here is an effect [i.e., metabolic advantage] , it should show up in EVERY study".
Sorry Lyle... your statement is clearly fallacious. :)
(In: Volek & Feinman. Carbohydrate restriction improves the features of Metabolic Syndrome. Metabolic Syndrome may be defined by the response to carbohydrate restriction. Nutrition & Metabolism 2005, 2:31. Free full text available at: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/31#B52
Its been an interesting article, but until they actually measure water balance during the study they are grasping majorly at straws. All of the research they provided with greater weight loss did not measure water balance. Hence worthless to indicate any advantage to low carbohydrate diets.
And dont bother with your normal garbage about low carb not influencing water balance, or if you do, tell us how much glycogen is lost on a low carbohydrate diet and how much water is associated with this glycogen.
-
Lyle, I bet this is your favourite article :)
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/03-lowcarb.html
you being caught lying in your own posts Anssi? I thought you said that they ate all of their meals in the restaurant? except in the link you provide they say
First Greene herself, then the restaurant's chefs, prepared meals from a meticulously crafted menu, and bagged them so participants could pick them up daily.
Each bag, color-coded and picked up in the early evening, contained that night's dinner, a snack, the next day's breakfast and lunch, and a multivitamin/mineral supplement.
-
Lyle: "Although the huge amount of water loss [during very low-carb diet]..."
Well, whatever happened to the "HUGE" amount of water loss?
Source: Annals of Internal Medicine
Title: Effect of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet on Appetite, Blood Glucose Levels, and Insulin Resistance in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
Authors: Guenther Boden, MD; Karin Sargrad, MS, RD, CDE; Carol Homko, PhD, RN, CDE; Maria Mozzoli, BS; and T. Peter Stein, PhD
15 March 2005 | Volume 142 Issue 6 | Pages 403-411
"Changes in body water varied (decreases in 6 patients, increases in 3 patients, and no change in 1 patient). These changes may have reflected changes in natriuresis due to increased ketone body excretion and "obligatory water changes" due to changes in glycogen stores". :)
Now Anssi,
are you saying type 2 diabetics are a good example of a healthy person?
Besides the fact that the study design is pathetic, SEVEN DAYS? in 10 subjects.... and then using BIA as a measure of bodywater.. BIA for bodywater is relatively pointless, especially in such small groups, and in diabetics.. hypertensive diabetics..
wonder what happen with waterbalance when people have hypertension and diabetes...
::) ::) ::)
oh ya, while we are at it...
Their predicted mean weight loss was 1.59 kg, which did not differ from the observed and water-corrected mean weight loss of 1.49 kg. Thus, our results suggested that the weight loss was completely accounted for by a reduction in caloric intake and a relatively small loss of body water, which occurred in 6 patients but not in the other 4 patients.
wheres the calories not equalling calories? surely there should be a fantastic metabolic advantage?
-
you being caught lying in your own posts Anssi? I thought you said that they ate all of their meals in the restaurant? except in the link you provide they say
First Greene herself, then the restaurant's chefs, prepared meals from a meticulously crafted menu, and bagged them so participants could pick them up daily.
Each bag, color-coded and picked up in the early evening, contained that night's dinner, a snack, the next day's breakfast and lunch, and a multivitamin/mineral supplement.
Sorry, I meant that they ate meals that were prepared in restaurant.
-
Now Anssi,
are you saying type 2 diabetics are a good example of a healthy person?
Besides the fact that the study design is pathetic, SEVEN DAYS? in 10 subjects.... and then using BIA as a measure of bodywater.. BIA for bodywater is relatively pointless, especially in such small groups, and in diabetics.. hypertensive diabetics..
wonder what happen with waterbalance when people have hypertension and diabetes...
::) ::) ::)
oh ya, while we are at it...
Their predicted mean weight loss was 1.59 kg, which did not differ from the observed and water-corrected mean weight loss of 1.49 kg. Thus, our results suggested that the weight loss was completely accounted for by a reduction in caloric intake and a relatively small loss of body water, which occurred in 6 patients but not in the other 4 patients.
wheres the calories not equalling calories? surely there should be a fantastic metabolic advantage?
There was no high-carb control group.
-
And just so everyone can see just how full of it, Anssi is, here's a scan of the abstract of the study he's talking about.
#1. Who cares if they ate a single meal at a restaurant? What about the REST OF THE DAY?
#2. Note the words around the results. NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.
#3. Yes, there is a trend towards slightly greater WEIGHT loss in both lowcarb groups.
And when you factor in water weight loss which can be 5-7 lbs anyhow (Do you still deny it, Anssi), well....
Have a lovely day, Anssi
Lyle
****
(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3739/greenstudy8nu.jpg)
Lyle, you cant read, or you are an indiot. One group consumed 300 kcal extra!
-
Bottom Line of Greene study: "Greene et al. found that people eating an extra 300 kcal a day on a very-low-carbohydrate diet lost a similar amount of weight during a 12-week study as those on a low-fat diet 19. Over the course of the study, subjects consumed an extra 25,000 kcal that should have added up to about a 7 pounds weight gain; it did not. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant, so the researchers knew exactly what they ate, and one could not argue that diets were not palatable."
(http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/site/pdf/Manninen-JISSN-1-2-21-26-05.pdf)
Now, Lyle and his little helpers feel that the very-low-carb group simply lost 7 pounds of body water. Well, this assumption appears to be fallacious. The subjects were not well-trained endurance athletes, so we can assume that they did not had huge glycogen stores before they started the very-low-carbohydrate diet.
-
"One conclusion of previous reports on low carbohydrate diets was that the increased weight loss was due to the diuresis that accompanies severe caloric restriction or was due to decreased body water, presumably accompanying depletion of stored glycogen (29, 30). However, these studies were of very short duration, from 1–2 wk in length. Most diets that have a significant restriction of calories cause a sodium diuresis that occurs over the first wk or 2 of their use, and in fact, we noted the most rapid weight loss in both groups over this period. The low fat diet group lost 1.6 kg in the first 2 wk, representing 38% of their mean weight loss during the first 3 months of the study. The very low carbohydrate group lost 3.0 kg during the first 2 wk, or 39% of their mean 3-month weight loss. We analyzed body composition at 3 and 6 months of dieting, well after the expected period of diuresis. Our analysis of body composition showed that the weight lost in the very low carbohydrate diet group consisted of a similar percentage of fat mass as in the low fat diet group. Thus, we think it is very unlikely that differences in weight between the two groups at 3 and 6 months are a result of disproportionate changes in body water in the very low carbohydrate dieters."
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 88, No. 4 1617-1623
Copyright © 2003 by The Endocrine Society
A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women
Bonnie J. Brehm, Randy J. Seeley, Stephen R. Daniels and David A. D’Alessio
University of Cincinnati and Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
(http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/88/4/1617)
-
There was no high-carb control group.
You are wrong. The subjects themselves were used as control during the first seven day period, ie the Usual diet period.
See Study design on page 2, and also table 2 on page 3, where it says CONTROL GROUP.
-
Now, Lyle and his little helpers feel that the very-low-carb group simply lost 7 pounds of body water. Well, this assumption appears to be fallacious. The subjects were not well-trained endurance athletes, so we can assume that they did not had huge glycogen stores before they started the very-low-carbohydrate diet.
ASS UME
I am not an endurance athlete, why can I lose 10+lbs ? or am I magical?
Now your grasping at straws with no evidence
-
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 88, No. 4 1617-1623
Copyright © 2003 by The Endocrine Society
A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women
Bonnie J. Brehm, Randy J. Seeley, Stephen R. Daniels and David A. D’Alessio
University of Cincinnati and Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
(http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/88/4/1617)
Come on now Anssi, you spend time trying to refute the use of calorometers for measuring energy utilization, but you keep presenting studies that do not provide accurate measurments of bodyweight when taking into account body water (and dont dream about dexa being accurate in that example)
WHy are you not providing a more rounded view of the low carbohydrate research? or would it undermine your bias?
-
Good posts, cycomiko.
-
You are wrong. The subjects themselves were used as control during the first seven day period, ie the Usual diet period.
See Study design on page 2, and also table 2 on page 3, where it says CONTROL GROUP.
It was not a real control group.
-
Come on now Anssi, you spend time trying to refute the use of calorometers for measuring energy utilization, but you keep presenting studies that do not provide accurate measurments of bodyweight when taking into account body water (and dont dream about dexa being accurate in that example)
Concerning energy expenditure, see Discussion in Obes Res. 2005 Apr;13(4):703-9.
-
[WHy are you not providing a more rounded view of the low carbohydrate research? or would it undermine your bias?
Oh..looks who talking. It doesnt make sense to continue this debate, especially because Lyle´s little helper cycomiko lacks basic knowledge of human physiology. So, I rest my case. :)
-
It was not a real control group.
You understand the point of using people as their own control group?
or is that too much of a challange?
-
Concerning energy expenditure, see Discussion in Obes Res. 2005 Apr;13(4):703-9.
as I said, you dislike energy expenditure meausrements, but are willing to post studies based around BIA? bias because htey suit your views?
how quaint.
-
[WHy are you not providing a more rounded view of the low carbohydrate research? or would it undermine your bias?
Oh..looks who talking. It doesnt make sense to continue this debate, especially because Lyle´s little helper cycomiko lacks basic knowledge of human physiology. So, I rest my case. :)
What lack of basic knowledge? the fact that you provide an article on diabetics as a good representation of a normal person?
The constant refusal to even aknowledge glycogen and water loss during a low carbohydrate diet? oh wait, thats you.
-
Resurrection
-
Resurrection
It's Christmas time...not Easter. ;)
-
It's Christmas time...not Easter. ;)
;)
I decided to bring this thread back to life since it turned into a rather interesting battle about something other than the magazine.
(I did remove all the magazine gibberish tho ;) )