"Eating fat makes you fat"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter?
Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53706, USA. [email protected]

Greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets (<90 g/day) compared with traditional low-fat (<25% of energy), hypocaloric diets, implying a 233 kcal/day greater energy deficit. It has therefore been suggested that a low-carbohydrate diet may provide a metabolic advantage (an increase in energy expenditure), resulting in a positive effect on weight loss and maintenance. However, a review of studies in which 24-hour energy expenditure was measured did not provide evidence to support a metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets and showed little evidence of a metabolic advantage of high-protein (>25% of energy) diets. Nonetheless, diets high in protein, but either low or modest in carbohydrate, have resulted in greater weight losses than traditional low-fat diets. We speculate that it is the protein, and not carbohydrate, content that is important in promoting short-term weight loss and that this effect is likely due to increased satiety caused by increased dietary protein. It has been suggested that the increased satiety might help persons to be more compliant with a hypocaloric diet and achieve greater weight loss. The current evidence, combined with the need to meet all nutrient requirements, suggests that hypocaloric weight-loss diets should be moderate in carbohydrate (35% to 50% of energy), moderate in fat (25% to 35% of energy), and protein should contribute 25% to 30% of energy intake. More studies of the efficacy of weight-loss and weight-maintenance diets that address protein content are needed. In addition, controlled studies of total energy expenditure or physical activity measured under free-living conditions that directly compare high-protein diets with those containing low and moderate carbohydrate content should also be performed
 
<div>
(pete69 @ May 18 2008,1:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
[1]Nonetheless, diets high in protein, but either low or modest in carbohydrate, have resulted in greater weight losses than traditional low-fat diets.
...
[2]and that this effect is likely due to increased satiety caused by increased dietary protein. It has been suggested that the increased satiety might help persons to be more compliant with a hypocaloric diet and achieve greater weight loss.
...
[3]The current evidence, combined with the need to meet all nutrient requirements, suggests that hypocaloric weight-loss diets should be moderate in carbohydrate (35% to 50% of energy), moderate in fat (25% to 35% of energy), and protein should contribute 25% to 30% of energy intake.
...
[4]More studies of the efficacy of weight-loss and weight-maintenance diets that address protein content are needed.
...
[5]In addition, controlled studies of total energy expenditure or physical activity measured under free-living conditions that directly compare high-protein diets with those containing low and moderate carbohydrate content should also be performed</div>
1. That is a fact but it's not because of the protein content. Protein is much more nutritious than carbohydrates but fat is even more nutritious than protein. Carbohydrates also cause a portion of the energy and nutrients to be locked in adipose tissue thereby reducing the total amount of available nutrients. This mechanism could explain why we spontaneously cut our total energy intake when we cut out carbs.

2. Two erroneous assumptions. That to lose fat one must adopt a hypocaloric diet. That protein absorption and utilization is the same in high carb and low carb diets. The fact is cutting out carbs naturally allows more protein to be absorbed. Also, we don't need to adopt a hypocaloric diet to lose fat. We just have to cut out all carbs. Granted, we will spontaneously cut total intake as a result of this. But it's not the total intake that allows fat to be released from adipose tissue, it's the lack of carbs that does that. Which consequently, by allowing fat to be released from adipose tissue, increases total available calories up to whatever the body needs. In this sense, such a diet would not be hypocaloric since it would provide all the nutrients and energy the body needs.

3. I don't know what evidence they speak of but because they suggest any amount of carbs I'm sure their evidence is flawed and/or based on erroneous assumptions about our metabolism. I disagree with it.

4. This tells me those &quot;scientists&quot; don't know what to look for.

5. This confirms my observation above.


I don't have access to the full paper but I don't want to see it either. The abstract tells me enough to know that the &quot;scientists&quot; who wrote it don't know enough about the subject to even make suggestions about it. The paper is a joke.
 
1. The idea that fat is more nutritious than protein is flat out wrong. How do you even come up with a ridiculous statement like that? If you had to compare which macronutrient were more important, protein would win out as it has the structural components of all our tissue.

Look at research on starvation and fasting. Protein is clearly the most important macronutrient. One can go forever without carbs, very long without fat as even lean people have plenty of fat to live for a quite some time without food, and protein and water the least amount of time. Protein prevents muscle loss with weight loss, it's nitrogen sparing. Fat and carbs have a minimal effect on this.

2. Where did you get the idea that carbohydrates interfere with protein absorption?
rock.gif
? Absorption of amino acids, di and tri-peptides is independent of carbo intake as there are transporters for these that carbs do not interfere with?

3. Agreed this is way more carbs than someone who is losing weight needs to eat.

Martin, if one doesn't need to eat a hypocaloric diet to lose weight, then what allows most people on these very low carb/zero carb diet from not getting down to 3% bodyfat? Yes, some bodybuilders manage to achieve this.

If you believe that it's the carbs that 'trap' fat, and one can eat a lot of calories and still lose fat. By what mechanism is someone maintaining bodyfat on a carb-free diet. There are lots of people not eating carbs, go to forum.lowcarber.org , or the active no carb diet forum, among others. Many people stall in their weight loss.

Or look at the inuit, or Stephanson and his colleage, who went on a zero carb diet for one full year, being monitored in Bellvue hospital. why aren't these people completely bodyfat free??? If it's just the carbs, then fat should continue to be lost in the absence of carbs.

Why was I able to bulk up and gain 40+ lbs. on a no carb diet?
rock.gif


It's because calories still matter. And it doesn't make evolutionary sense for the body to just keep losing bodyfat when adequate calories are being eaten, carbs or no carbs. Humans would not have been able to survive long enough for you to go on and on with your fallacious posts if human metabolism was as simplistic as you misinterpret it to be. The name of the game is survival and our bodies are capable of storing fat from dietary carbs, dietary fat AND protein (less likely) from the foods we eat.
 
<div>
(pete69 @ May 19 2008,10:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
It's because calories still matter.
...</div>
Calories still matter?

This implies that overeating is the cause of obesity. Or the cause of fat loss stall. Or the cause of your weight gain. Or the cause of the lack of weight loss of Stephanson or the Inuit.

Exercise stalls fat loss. Eating carbs stalls fat loss. Overeating by itself doesn't do that. Overeating will, however, change our body composition by simultaneously adding lean tissue and releasing stored fat. At least, if we don't eat carbs, eat lots of fat and eat adequate protein.

Exercise stalls fat loss by changing the hormonal profile in such a way that it prevents the release of stored fat.

Eating carbs stalls fat loss by changing the hormonal profile in such way that it prevent the release of stored fat.

I haven't looked at it this way before. But it makes a whole lot of sense to me. Calories matter? How do total calories affect fat loss? Is there a meter, a sensor or a switch that somehow senses how many calories we've eaten, determines how many to store and pushes those in adipose tissue? How does this mechanism work? What's the name of the various agents? Are they hormones, enzymes or what?
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Exercise stalls fat loss by changing the hormonal profile in such a way that it prevents the release of stored fat..</div>
rock.gif
?
rock.gif
?
rock.gif
Exactly the opposite of what every phisiologist, coach, nutritionist and whomever out there says...
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Eating carbs stalls fat loss.</div> Yeah, eat enough.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Is there a meter, a sensor or a switch that somehow senses how many calories we've eaten, determines how many to store and pushes those in adipose tissue? How does this mechanism work?</div> Get a bucket. Fill it up with something. Keep filling. What happens?
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 19 2008,5:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Exercise stalls fat loss.</div>
That is a uh... strange statement to make.

Exercise stalls fat loss?

Alright, guinea pig time. Why don't you go do a no carb diet with no exercise at all. Come back in half a year and let us see how much fat you lost and how much lean mass you spared during this time.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ May 19 2008,6:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Get a bucket. Fill it up with something. Keep filling. What happens?</div>
I didn't ask for an analogy. I asked for the actual mechanism. Can you explain how the actual mechanism works? Don't use analogies. Describe the real mechanism.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ May 19 2008,7:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ May 19 2008,5:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Exercise stalls fat loss.</div>
That is a uh... strange statement to make.
...</div>
That is because uh... you don't get it.
 
Yeah, we know, taubes takes the data that shows exercise drives food intake up (you know, providing extra energy, even tho it doesnt count, right), and avoids the data that shows the opposite effect.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ May 19 2008,9:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yeah, we know, taubes takes the data that shows exercise drives food intake up (you know, providing extra energy, even tho it doesnt count, right), and avoids the data that shows the opposite effect.</div>
That's not what I gather from the article. On page 5, it says muscle LPL activity increases during exercise which pulls fat in muscles but drops after exercise at which point it spikes in fat tissue which pulls fat back in. This means blood fat content decreases. This means nutrient availability decreases and cells would sense this and call for increased nutrients intake: Hunger.

I understand how you can miss this since you don't look at the papers that disagree with your beliefs. Perhaps for fear of having your beliefs destroyed once and for all. Instead, you only look at papers that confirm whatever you believe in. I guess you're just like Taubes.

Didn't you try to argue the LPL angle of the PCB hypothesis a while back? Yeah, I seem to remember you did. You were so proud of it, you bugged us for weeks trying to get us to look at it again. And again. And again. Don't give up Aaron, you'll get it some day.
 
Martin,

Are you saying that cardiovascular exercise, performed at the proper target heart rate, won't help mobilize stored fat? My own experience would indicate that adding cardio after my workouts helped me lose body fat. I was the leanest during that period. I'm not sure what else it would be attributed to.
 
I also would like to add...

I think that many of your points are valid, but the extreme stance you take on certain issues leads me to think that you may me a bit fanatical or irrational at times. Like the concept that fruits and vegetables are not a healthy part of our diet, that exercise stalls fat loss, and that calories consumed doesn't matter at all if carbs are eliminated. I WANT to believe many of the things you say, but you just seem to take things over the edge into an area that seems a bit &quot;cultish,&quot; which then makes me less likely to believe anything. Is there no middle ground with these theories?
 
hey guys. just wanted to say: I'm new to this forum, and for anyone that would doubt the value of these debates, I have gotten a hell of a lot out of them. Keep the fires going! yeah! ;)
 
I haven´t posted much lately as I am constantly on my bike, training and eating alot of carbs.

1. I think there is a big difference between someone who is obese/drastically overweight and someone who is on their way to being obese.

2. Zero carbs as a static way of dieting makes NO PHYSIOLOGICAL SENSE. Period. Anyone that says otherwise, is lying and doesn´t understand human metabolism and energy production.

3. When I start bike training, my carb calories go from 20% to about 50-80% depending on training intensity and only directly before, during and shortly afterwards. Otherwise, it is 50% Fat, 30% P, 20% Carb. During this tiime, I lose muscle mass on my upper torse and my legs explode.
 
<div>
(soflsun @ May 20 2008,12:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
I'm not sure what else it would be attributed to.</div>
How much glucose does your blood contain at any one time? How fast do you digest the carbs you eat? How fast do you spend that glucose?
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,4:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's not what I gather from the article. On page 5, it says muscle LPL activity increases during exercise which pulls fat in muscles but drops after exercise at which point it spikes in fat tissue which pulls fat back in. This means blood fat content decreases. This means nutrient availability decreases and cells would sense this and call for increased nutrients intake: Hunger.</div>
hmmm...

Do you just skim pieces and pick up what you want?

Taubes is attempting to provide a mechanism behind the experimental data that shows exercise increases food intake, but avoids the data that does not show this. Hmm, it almost seems like I am repeating myself again...

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I understand how you can miss this since you don't look at the papers that disagree with your beliefs. Perhaps for fear of having your beliefs destroyed once and for all. Instead, you only look at papers that confirm whatever you believe in. I guess you're just like Taubes.</div>

You dont even know what my beliefs are, let alone talented enough at regurgitating Taubes work to destroy anything.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Didn't you try to argue the LPL angle of the PCB hypothesis a while back? Yeah, I seem to remember you did. You were so proud of it, you bugged us for weeks trying to get us to look at it again. And again. And again. Don't give up Aaron, you'll get it some day.</div>

Ah, that reading problem rears its head again. Did you have these problems before low carb, or is it just something that has appeared since starting ?
 
<div>
(soflsun @ May 20 2008,12:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I also would like to add...

I think that many of your points are valid, but the extreme stance you take on certain issues leads me to think that you may me a bit fanatical or irrational at times. Like the concept that fruits and vegetables are not a healthy part of our diet, that exercise stalls fat loss, and that calories consumed doesn't matter at all if carbs are eliminated. I WANT to believe many of the things you say, but you just seem to take things over the edge into an area that seems a bit &quot;cultish,&quot; which then makes me less likely to believe anything. Is there no middle ground with these theories?</div>
There is no need to believe anything. Just look at the research and make up your own mind. The cult-like behavior doesn't come from me. It comes from those who believe in the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis. Note how they can't come up with a fair explanation for it. Note how they avoid answering with plain facts. Once you know the facts, it's very difficult to make them go away.
 
it is rather funny, but if there were no bread, no pasta, no HFCS, no colas, etc... this conversation would not exist. nobody who eats fruits and vegetables as the sole source of carbs would ever get fat (unless they take in way more energy than they burn which would be hard to do in the absence of grain products)
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,2:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
1. I think there is a big difference between someone who is obese/drastically overweight and someone who is on their way to being obese.

2. Zero carbs as a static way of dieting makes NO PHYSIOLOGICAL SENSE. Period. Anyone that says otherwise, is lying and doesn´t understand human metabolism and energy production.

3. When I start bike training, my carb calories go from 20% to about 50-80% depending on training intensity and only directly before, during and shortly afterwards. Otherwise, it is 50% Fat, 30% P, 20% Carb. During this tiime, I lose muscle mass on my upper torse and my legs explode.</div>
1. Not really. One is a bit insulin resistant, the other is highly insulin resistant. The mechanism is the same. What differs is the amplitude.

2. It makes perfect sense once you understand how it all works. Read the papers, note how they call burning glucose &quot;to dispose of&quot; glucose. There's a reason for this. Glucose is toxic in any quantity greater than normal. This is just the beginning, there's a multitude of other toxic effect of glucose on our metabolism especially considering the insulin resistance that it causes over time.

3. If you ate no carbs, you'd lose no muscle mass anywhere. Further, you'd have much more total energy. You can only store so much glycogen and then when that's gone, you're down to using fat. It makes no sense to start with glucose when you end up with fat as the only fuel. It makes no sense to cycle glucose and fat on a weekly or even a daily basis when it take weeks to adapt fully to fat utilization. By the looks of it, you have never tried zero carb so you can't really know what it does. All you know is what you read. If that's the case, read more and you'll see that fat is much more effective especially for somebody who's always making an aerobic effort such as a cyclist.


If you think a carbohydrate metabolism is normal, how can you explain a fatty liver caused by eating HFCS? Is that normal? How about insulin resistance, is that normal? How about obesity, is that normal? How about diabetes, is that normal? Before you can make the point that a carbohydrate metabolism is normal, you'll have to show that these chronic diseases are normal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top