"Eating fat makes you fat"

Status
Not open for further replies.
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 28 2008,9:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you know what ad libitum means? Do you understand what restriction means? The graph specifically asks and then concludes with:</div>
In this example they achieved an energy restricted state while in the free feeding situation. I did not claim that these subjects were under specific caloric restricted state; that is the strawman you have built.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It is clear that the graph says that as we restrict carb intake, energy intake is spontaneously reduced [independently from the carb restriction]. </div>

Caloric intake is reduced independent from the carb restriction?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Caloric intake is not independent of carbohydrate restriction. </div>

What did you just say above?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> In other words, aside from the imposed carb restriction of the test, there was no other restriction and each could eat as much as they desired.</div>

Not quite as much as desired, but their normal recommendation is to eat til comfortably full.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> This particular set of conditions is intended to test the theory that overeating is caused by behavior or a psychological problem.</div>

Do you know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Explain the difference between behavioral and psychological.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> If the theory is true, then they'd have eaten just as many calories despite the carb restriction. That's not what happened. Instead, they ate less calories. The theory is refuted.</div>

To even examine a hypothesis like the one you proposed, which they didn’t, they would need a control group, or a nice crossover group, which the chart does not show.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The graph shows that something contained in carbs or something that carbs do when eaten affects energy intake independently of carbs' inherent caloric content.</div>

Unfortunately, with only one group shown in the chart, it does not provide any evidence to support that. Without any control group there is equal chance it happens due to entering into a trial which involves recording dietary intake (which can reduce food intake all on its own).

But with removal of fat from a normal diet also decreases food intake. So there must be something contained in fat or something that fats do when eaten affects energy intake independent of fats inherent caloric content.


The role of low-fat diets in body weight control: a meta-analysis of ad libitum dietary intervention studies.
Astrup A, Grunwald GK, Melanson EL, Saris WH, Hill JO.

The Research Department of Human Nutrition and LMC, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Denmark. ast@kvl.dk

OBJECTIVES: Low-fat high-carbohydrate diets are recommended to prevent weight gain in normal weight subjects and reduce body weight in overweight and obese. However, their efficacy is controversial. We evaluated the efficacy of ad libitum low-fat diets in reducing body weight in non-diabetic individuals from the results of intervention trials. DESIGN: Studies were identified from a computerized search of the Medline database from January 1966 to July 1999 and other sources. Inclusion criteria were: controlled trials lasting more than 2 months comparing ad libitum low-fat diets as the sole intervention with a control group consuming habitual diet or a medium-fat diet ad libitum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in changes in dietary fat intake, energy intake and body weight. Weighted mean differences for continuous data and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Two authors independently selected the studies meeting the inclusion criteria and extracted data from 16 trials (duration of 2-12 months) with 19 intervention groups, enrolling 1910 individuals. Fourteen were randomized. Weight loss was not the primary aim in 11 studies. Before the interventions the mean proportions of dietary energy from fat in the studies were 37.7% (95% CI, 36.9-38.5) in the low-fat groups, and 37.4% (36.4-38.4) in the control groups. The low-fat intervention produced a mean fat reduction of 10.2% (8.1-12.3). Low-fat intervention groups showed a greater weight loss than control groups (3.2 kg, 95% confidence interval 1.9-4.5 kg; P &lt; 0.0001), and a greater reduction in energy intake (1 138 kJ/day, 95% confidence interval 564-1712 kJ/day, P = 0.002). Having a body weight 10 kg higher than the average pre-treatment body weight was associated with a 2.6 +/- 0.8 kg (P = 0.011) greater difference in weight loss. CONCLUSION: A reduction in dietary fat without intentional restriction of energy intake causes weight loss, which is more substantial in heavier subjects.
 
this truly is a fascinating discussion, however, i'm frustrated. lol

we have different viewpoints, and because i have not had such extensive research into the function of carbohydrates, i don't know what is true, as both sides are saying they are right.

what is the truth? FACT??

i think Martin deserves to be listened to, he has a point, although i'm not sure if it's true or not (sorry, but i honestly don't know), it deserves to be looked at.

Martin, are you saying that carbs are the sole cause of weight gain? although you are saying that it's because of nutrient function, does that mean we can eat 5000cals over our maintenance energy expenditure as long as its from protein and fats, and not gain weight?

sure protein and fats have a function whereas carbs are sort of in the middle (that they CAN be used, but don't have to be as fats can take its job), are you saying that we honestly don't need carbs? i'm not implying that you believe this, but i'm curious.

you said:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Since dietary fat does not cause an insulin secretion and release, it can't be the cause of obesity. We can't grow fat by eating fat. Protein causes an insulin secretion and release but does not cause a blood glucose increase so it can't cause us to grow fat either. Only carbohydrate, with its ability to both cause an insulin secretion and release and a blood glucose increase has the ability to cause us to grow fat.</div>

so is insulin secretion/release and blood glucose increase the ONLY factor in weight(fat/muscle) gain? if so, where does all that extra energy go if we consume more protein or fat than our calorie maintenance level???

at the start of this thread, i was on the PCB side, but now i'm choosing to be on neither for the moment until i find out the truth, and not some 'logical' explanation (i've heard PLENTY of 'logical' explanations used in the fitness industry (eg spot reduction, walking causes more bodyfat storage, adaption theories etc etc ETC)).

but Martin i totally understand what you're saying regarding the quality and function of what we are eating makes a difference, it makes sense to me. let's keep this going until we reach a conclusion based on REALITY and not ideological preservation. ;)

i do disagree with your recommendation/guess of bulking nutrition ratio, if you are saying that carbs cause weight gain, why cut them down to 0% when bulking???
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Apr. 28 2008,7:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">let's keep this going until we reach a conclusion based on REALITY and not ideological preservation.  ;)</div>
There is no need to keep this going because it has already been researched very well. That's not saying that there isn't more to be learned but overall whatever the driving force is (hedonistic over consumption, endocrine disorders, genetic, or pharmacological)ultimately it comes down to excess energy and the idea of luxuskonsumption has been abandoned by most researchers ages ago but obviously Taubes still holds on too it and Martin obviously believes Taubes.
 
Wow, luxuskonsumption! What an interesting word. I had to look it up.

Luxuskonsumption is an old term that refers to the extra fat burning that occurs in diet-induced thermogenesis – luxus is a Latin word that means luxury or excess.

Here's an old 1983 article on the subject (as Dan mentioned the idea of luxuskonsumption has been abandoned by most researchers ages ago so don't get all excited if you read this):

Luxuskonsumption, brown fat, and human obesity (1983)
 
<div>
(Lol @ Apr. 28 2008,9:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Wow, luxuskonsumption! What an interesting word. I had to look it up.

Luxuskonsumption is an old term that refers to the extra fat burning that occurs in diet-induced thermogenesis – luxus is a Latin word that means luxury or excess.

Here's an old 1983 article on the subject (as Dan mentioned the idea of luxuskonsumption has been abandoned by most researchers ages ago so don't get all excited if you read this):

Luxuskonsumption, brown fat, and human obesity (1983)</div>
I frequently read about diet recommendations saying that, to bulk, we should eat over maintenance + 10% due to the &quot;thermogenesis effect&quot;.

So no, it hasn't been abandoned.
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ Apr. 28 2008,7:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
Martin, are you saying that carbs are the sole cause of weight gain? although you are saying that it's because of nutrient function, does that mean we can eat 5000cals over our maintenance energy expenditure as long as its from protein and fats, and not gain weight?

sure protein and fats have a function whereas carbs are sort of in the middle (that they CAN be used, but don't have to be as fats can take its job), are you saying that we honestly don't need carbs? i'm not implying that you believe this, but i'm curious.

you said:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Since dietary fat does not cause an insulin secretion and release, it can't be the cause of obesity. We can't grow fat by eating fat. Protein causes an insulin secretion and release but does not cause a blood glucose increase so it can't cause us to grow fat either. Only carbohydrate, with its ability to both cause an insulin secretion and release and a blood glucose increase has the ability to cause us to grow fat.</div>

so is insulin secretion/release and blood glucose increase the ONLY factor in weight(fat/muscle) gain? if so, where does all that extra energy go if we consume more protein or fat than our calorie maintenance level???

at the start of this thread, i was on the PCB side, but now i'm choosing to be on neither for the moment until i find out the truth, and not some 'logical' explanation (i've heard PLENTY of 'logical' explanations used in the fitness industry (eg spot reduction, walking causes more bodyfat storage, adaption theories etc etc ETC)).

but Martin i totally understand what you're saying regarding the quality and function of what we are eating makes a difference, it makes sense to me. let's keep this going until we reach a conclusion based on REALITY and not ideological preservation. ;)

i do disagree with your recommendation/guess of bulking nutrition ratio, if you are saying that carbs cause weight gain, why cut them down to 0% when bulking???</div>
The bulking question first.

If the whole point of bulking is to put on muscle, it serves no purpose to eat carbs which contain nothing useful in the building of muscle. And so it's only logical to cut them out of the diet anyway. To build muscle, we need fat, protein, vitamins and minerals. If we need surplus calories, fat contains twice the number of calories that carbs do. It's only logical that we eat fat for that purpose. In fact, that's partly where the anti-fat advice comes from. &quot;Well, fat is energy dense so if we cut them out, we'll grow lean.&quot; It fits well with the PCB hypothesis, don't you think?

If you are concerned with strength and performance, look at how it works. We don't use glucose or fatty acids directly for strength production, we convert both of them to ATP first. Then we use that to power muscle. The argument is very long here but that's a start.



Carbs are the sole cause of obesity. Take them out and obesity disappears. Check the Sumo wrestlers' diet. They eat about 5000kcal/d. Macro-nutrient ratio of their diet is about, by weight, C/F/P 700g/100g/300g.

There is a difference between gaining weight and growing fat. I'm not saying we lose/gain weight indiscriminately. I am saying we can't grow fat by eating a low-zero carb/high fat/adequate protein diet. I'm not saying we can eat 5000kcal/d over maintenance. You can try but I'm not sure you can even eat that much fat and protein. But that's partly the point: We can hardly overeat when we don't eat carbs. In other words, we can overeat only when we eat carbs.



Let's look at overeating as a function of getting the appropriate amount of nutrients first and then as eating a surplus.

If carbs make us store, and trap, fat and nutrients in adipose tissue, surely those nutrients are not available for immediate use. If they're not available, did we actually eat to satisfaction? No. So we eat more. We don't eat more because we're weak willed. We eat more because we've not met our nutrients requirements. We've not met our nutrients requirements because a portion of those nutrients is locked in adipose tissue. So did we actually overeat? If it's only a function of satisfying our nutrients requirements, and if we do fulfill them by eating more, then no we haven't overeaten. It gives quite a different view of obesity.

If, on the other hand, the definition of overeating is that we grow fat, then it doesn't matter how much we eat, we've overeaten as soon as we grow fat. That last definition is the most popular. You see this everyday. We assume that anybody who's overweight is overeating. We believe it so strongly that we don't believe them when they tell us that they don't overeat in fact. When they tell us that they work very hard, harder than most people in fact, to control their caloric intake. Yet they remain fat. They even grow fatter in spite of all the hard work they put in.

If overeating is to eat a surplus, cutting out carbs will stop us from doing so. As Aaron_f showed with the graph he so kindly shared with us.



We don't need carbs. Ever. Unless, of course, your goal is to grow fat and play Sumo wrestler.

Carbs/insulin is the only cause of obesity. See diabetes type 1. They can't secrete any insulin. They can't grow fat either. But, as soon as they inject with exogenous insulin, they can put on fat especially when they eat carbohydrate.

We could argue the ASP aspect but ASP's function doesn't allow fat to be trapped in adipose tissue as insulin does. Further, even without ASP, insulin can still do its job of nutrient storage and does so not with adipose tissue but within the muscle and lean tissue itself.

Eating a surplus of fat and protein doesn't do much in terms of surplus growth. If we don't need to grow. If we've been on a high carb diet for a while, then maybe we'll gain lean tissue that was lost during the high carb period. There will be a loss of lean tissue during a high carb period because there is no mechanism (that I know of) that carbs can retain or help retain lean tissue. On the contrary, carbs inhibit protein, fat, vitamins and minerals absorption and so can't simultaneously help retain what's not going in. This is partly why we see simultaneous muscle gain and fat loss when we cut carbs out.

The PCB hypothesis is only logic. It's not based on science. On the other hand, once we understand the science, we learn its logic and can use it to see the logical fallacies of the PCB hypothesis. For instance, it's claimed that once we cut total calories, fat can be released from adipose tissue because there's a deficit. The alternative view is that as we cut total calories, we invariably cut total carbohydrate which in turn drops insulin levels and allows fat to be released from adipose tissue.



Don't take my word for it. See for yourself elsewhere what they say about carbohydrate, insulin and obesity. Nevertheless, here you can take my word for it: Fat can't make us fat.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Apr. 28 2008,5:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
Without any control group there is equal chance it happens due to entering into a trial which involves recording dietary intake (which can reduce food intake all on its own).
...</div>
But you just said you posted the graph to show that cutting carbs results in an energy reduction. Look, if you're not ready to discuss the subject for some reason, take your time do your homework and come back when you're ready. Now we just don't know what to think of your posts.
 
<div>
(Lol @ Apr. 28 2008,9:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">luxus is a Latin word that means luxury or excess.</div>
One of my neighbors has a Luxus -- nice car...!
wink.gif
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 29 2008,9:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But you just said you posted the graph to show that cutting carbs results in an energy reduction.</div>
Do have you any background in research? or is your depth of knowledge solely based on low carb books?

In this example, there is a reduction of energy itnake when reducing carbohydrates.

The level of caloric restriction can be questioned, but to answer that would require some form of control group.

However, you had asked &quot;The graph shows that something contained in carbs or something that carbs do when eaten affects energy intake independently of carbs' inherent caloric content.&quot; which cannot be assertained form this example due to the lack of control groups, or a crossover.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> Look, if you're not ready to discuss the subject for some reason, take your time do your homework and come back when you're ready. Now we just don't know what to think of your posts.</div>

Nice, first a collection of strawmen, now a

redherring.gif
 
Something I would like to see Martin address is why there is research showing that removing/restricting fat causes a decrease in calories under ad libitum feeding.
 
Dan, what are your thoughts on what Martin is saying?

Martin, am i correct in saying that you believe energy excess can cause weight gain, but carbs are the main source of weight gain?


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">We don't need carbs. Ever. Unless, of course, your goal is to grow fat and play Sumo wrestler.</div>

that's a preeeetty big statement. So eating any carbohydrates at all causes weight gain??? And you're saying our bodies do not need carbohydrates at all??? To me, that's insane, and so untrue, but i'd like to hear your thoughts.

keep it up guys, cause i still haven't reached a conclusion based on reality yet, too many different views, and i really want to know what's REALLY going on. ;)
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ May 04 2008,12:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
Martin, am i correct in saying that you believe energy excess can cause weight gain, but carbs are the main source of weight gain?


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">We don't need carbs. Ever. Unless, of course, your goal is to grow fat and play Sumo wrestler.</div>

that's a preeeetty big statement. So eating any carbohydrates at all causes weight gain??? And you're saying our bodies do not need carbohydrates at all??? To me, that's insane, and so untrue, but i'd like to hear your thoughts.

keep it up guys, cause i still haven't reached a conclusion based on reality yet, too many different views, and i really want to know what's REALLY going on. ;)</div>
If energy excess causes us to grow fat and if carbs make us eat more then eating carbs makes us fat. But eating carbs by itself makes us fat anyway so it's a double whammy when we do eat carbs. At least if we believe that eating in excess makes us fat.


If you think that we need carbs, ask yourself why. What's in carbs that we absolutely need that we can't get with fats or protein? The short answer is nothing. The long answer is that anything that carbs has, we can get from fats and proteins. The amount of glucose that supposedly our brain absolutely needs in one day, 130g, can be had with gluconeogenesis independently of our carbs intake.

Do you think that eating exclusively meat and animal flesh will satisfy our fat, protein, vitamins and minerals requirements? Where do these requirements comes from? Did we measure [our requirements] when we were eating high carbs, low carbs or what? What's normal and what's not?
 
although i think a no carb diet is a little extreme for long term use, not to mention it wouldnt be much fun, i do feel that we could all use a little less carbs in our diet and that this would certainly go along way to making us thinner and healthier.
 
<div>
(_Simon_ @ May 04 2008,12:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Dan, what are your thoughts on what Martin is saying?</div>
My thoughts, when reviewing the actual scientific research are easy to understand.

1. Insulin is not evil and in normal weight persons insulin secretion actually correlates to increased satiety and reduced energy intake postprandially. Read the research.

2. In test meal studies the overwhelming evidence indicates that higher carb/high fiber eucaloric meals reduce subsequant snacking or next meal energy density. Whereas high fat meals tend to do the opposite in both human and rat models.

3. I've read posts now about Sumo wrestlers several times yet have found nothing in those posts indicating why it's even being mentioned.

For one this group of subjects is worthless when it comes to trying too indentify anything because they are intentionally consuming large amounts of foods in order to gain mass (fat and lean). In one study they saw that a diet of the lower wrestler group consisted of 1,003 g of carbohydrate, 50g of fat, 165g of protein, and a total of 5,122 kcal, while a diet of the upper wrestler group consisted of 780g of carbohydrate, 98g of fat, 396g of protein, and a total of 5,586 calories. So to try and prove a point with Sumo is probably not the best approach.

I have never read anything but excerpts from Taubes' book so I can not say exactly what was written and whether or not what Martin is recounting is accurate or not, I suppose it is as I have no reason to believe that Martin is unintelligent or illiterate. But as many times happens when one writes a book sometimes the readers misinterpret what is being implied or they over emphasive points. Again I haven't read it in it's entirety so I do not know.

But I have read a lot of research on the matter and tend to think that the research itself is being misunderstood or at the least misrepresented.

For instance here is an abstract and some key points from the recently published review by Dr. Bray

Obes Rev. 2008 May;9(3):251-63.

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf.

Bray GA.

Good Calories, Bad Calories has much useful information and is well worth reading. Gary Taubes's tenets related to obesity can be summarized in four statements (i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance; (ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity; (iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity and (iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity. However, some of the conclusions that the author reaches are not consistent with current concepts about obesity. There are many kinds of obesity, and only some depend on diet composition. Two dietary manipulations produce obesity in susceptible people: eating a high-fat diet and drinking sugar- or high-fructose corn syrup-sweetened beverages. Insulin is necessary but not sufficient in the diet-dependent obesities. When diet is important, it may be the combination of fat and fructose (the deadly duo) that is most important. Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity. Obese people clearly eat more than do lean ones, and food-intake records are notoriously unreliable, as documented by use of doubly labelled water. Underreporting of food intake is greater in obese than in normal-weight people and is worse for fat than for other macronutrient groups. Accepting the concept that obesity results from a positive energy balance does not tell us why energy balance is positive. This depends on a variety of environmental factors interacting with the genetic susceptibility of certain individuals. Weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to its macronutrient composition.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Let me make my position very clear. Obesity is the result of a prolonged small positive energy surplus with fat storage as the result. An energy deficit produces weight loss and tips the balance in the opposite direction from overeating.</div>

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In the section on ‘The Mythology of Obesity’ and the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis, there is no mention of doubly labelled water, a sophisticated technique that has allowed us to ‘check’ on the accuracy of self-reports of food intake. Also missing is a discussion of the ‘nutrient’ balance hypothesis. These limitations may change the conclusions that are reached from reading Good Calories, Bad Calories.</div>

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy (9) (the
first law of thermodynamics) applies to humans as it does to other species. Over the period of about 100 years from 1787 to 1896, the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy were shown to apply to human beings, just as they do to animals.

From my reading of Good Calories, Bad Calories, the
author seems to misinterpret what this relationship means. The thermodynamic laws relate overall changes. They are so-called ‘state’ equations. That is, they tell us what happens to the system under the specified conditions (dieting or overeating). They do not tell us how the change occurred (composition of the diet or type of activity). I see nothing inconsistent with the truth of the idea that a positive energy balance produces obesity and the idea that it does not tell us why this imbalance occurred.</div>


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In Good Calories, Bad Calories, Taubes says that ‘All those who have insisted (and still do) that overeating and/or sedentary behaviour must be the cause of obesity have done so on the basis of this same fundamental error: they will observe correctly that positive caloric balance must be associated with weight gain, but then they will assume without justification that positive calorie balance is the cause of weight gain. This simple misconception has led to a century of misguided obesity research’. Again, the author has repeated his misunderstanding of the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. When we heat a closed vessel and note that the temperature and pressure rise, that is what the Laws of Thermodynamics predict will happen. It is irrelevant whether the heat is chemical or electrical. Experiments in which human subjects voluntarily overeat
(20,21) provide the link between calorie intake and calories going into body fat stores. The weight and fat gains that follow conscious overeating in human subjects are a clear test of the cause-and-effect relation of the energy-balance concept. The author of Good Calories, Bad Calories seems to miss this point. The concept of energy imbalance as the basis for understanding obesity at one level does not preclude any of the influences that affect or modify food intake or energy expenditure, including the quantity and quality of food, toxins, genes, viruses, sleeping time, breast feeding, medications, etc. They are just the processes that modify one or other component of the energy-balance system.</div>

There are several other fascinating replies to Taubes' book in this review that clearly spell out either a misunderstanding, misinterpretation or clear disregard for the current concensus.

BTW happy birthday Simon
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">2. In test meal studies the overwhelming evidence indicates that higher carb/high fiber eucaloric meals reduce subsequant snacking or next meal energy density. Whereas high fat meals tend to do the opposite in both human and rat models.</div>

If you hold calories and protein constant? What evidence I'm aware of actually indicates the opposite, including a paper recently posted at Lyle's (I'm having trouble finding it at the moment) which held calories/protein constant and swapped out carb&lt;-->fat calories.
 
<div>
(mikeynov @ May 04 2008,3:05)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">2. In test meal studies the overwhelming evidence indicates that higher carb/high fiber eucaloric meals reduce subsequant snacking or next meal energy density. Whereas high fat meals tend to do the opposite in both human and rat models.</div>

If you hold calories and protein constant? What evidence I'm aware of actually indicates the opposite, including a paper recently posted at Lyle's (I'm having trouble finding it at the moment) which held calories/protein constant and swapped out carb&lt;-->fat calories.</div>
Then there's the other hypothesis that says that a)because of insulin's ability to store nutrients by literally flushing them out of the blood and into adipose tissue and b)because of both protein's and carbs' ability to cause an insulin release and c)because fat doesn't have that ability and d)because hunger is a function of nutrients availability, that eating zero carbs/high fat/low protein would therefore satiate us much more that any other macro combo for the simple reason that this combo does not interrupt the flow of nutrients to cells.
 
mikey,

What about your own personal results...has being on a low/zero carb diet had an effect on your body composition, strength, etc.?  This is not an insult, but I think I remember a pic of you awile back after a cut where you had eliminated carbs completely.  You were definitely lean, but your muscle mass seemed quite low as well.

Also, do you believe you can gain fat without gaining muscle on a high carb/high preotein diet when in conjunction with weight training.  I always thought that if I was getting fat, I must at least be putting on muscle as well.

Lastly, what about pre or post workout nutrition where an insulin spike is supposed to be beneficial.  Are you against this as well?

Thanks.
 
One thing for sure...cutting carbs to a low level has a very positive effect on blood lipids (cholesterol, triglycerides). So I believe it is healthy, regardless of the other issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top