MD The Best Magazine? Hijack/Bump

[lylemcd]

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

****

[cycomiko]

[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

[cycomiko]

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.

[cycomiko]

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.

[cycomiko]

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?

[Manninen dude]

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.

[Manninen dude]

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.

[Manninen dude]

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

****

Lyle, you cant read, or you are an indiot. One group consumed 300 kcal extra! 

[Manninen dude]

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. 

[Manninen dude]

"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)

[cycomiko]

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.

[cycomiko]

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

[cycomiko]

 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?

[Blake]

Good posts, cycomiko.

[Manninen dude]

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.

[Manninen dude]

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.

[Manninen dude]

[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.

[cycomiko]

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?

[cycomiko]

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.

[cycomiko]

[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.

[Princess L]

Resurrection

[Rimbaud]

Resurrection

It's Christmas time...not Easter. 

[Princess L]

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  )