The Metabolic Advantage of Low Carb Diets

P

pete69

New Member
Sign Up is free and WELL, WELL worth it for anyone who believes in this metabolic advantage nonsense. ESPECIALLY relevant is page 6 of the presentation.

http://www.medscape.com/viewprogram/3400

Metabolic Ward studies confirm when calories are strictly measured in patients in a metabolic ward, there is no difference in fat loss from a higher carb or lower carb diet. The initial weight loss is water and glycogen. And there is no increased energy expenditure on a lower carb diet when protein is held constant. An increased protein intake offers a slight increase in caloric expenditure, and according to 1 study, caloric expenditure drops drastically in the 1st 2 weeks of a low carb diet from decreased physical activity.
 
More papers on the same subject:

"Metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets: a calorie is still not a calorie"
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/1442

"Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets"
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/5/1055

"Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum

"Thermodynamics of weight loss diets"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article....5588283

"Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article....5533250

""A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics"
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article....5282028
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot;Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets&quot;
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/5/1055[/QUOTE]

The Conclusion:

&quot;Patients should know that there is no apparent metabolic advantage associated with ketosis during dieting.&quot;

&quot;Weight loss among participants was significant after 6 wk (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg for Ketogenic Low Carb and Non-Ketogenic Low Carb dieters, respectively; both: P &lt; 0.001)&quot;

So a 2lb difference after 6 weeks, WOW. which can EASILY be explained by lower glycogen and water weight, a proven effect of lowering carb intake. Which is explained in my 1st link.

Martin, do you even read the papers you reference???

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot;Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter?&quot;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum[/QUOTE]

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 (&lt;90 g/day) compared with traditional low-fat (&lt;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. <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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 (&gt;25% of energy) diets.</div> 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></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">&quot;Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women&quot;
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article....5533250[/QUOTE]

&quot;protein (~20% energy)&quot; for the low fat diet
&quot;protein (~30% energy)&quot; for the low carb diet

&quot;food records during three 7-day periods (21 days total) for each diet. Food measuring utensils and scales were provided to subjects to ensure accurate reporting of food/beverage amounts consumed. Food diaries were analyzed for energy and macro/micronutrient content&quot;

Food records, which are problematic because there is no accountability. Research has shown calorie intake can vary widely (up to 50% difference) with studies on food records. This is why there are METABOLIC WARD STUDIES, where people are tracked and every calorie is accounted for. And this research shows its the CALORIES that matter, and high carbs don't TRAP fat. You are really an idiot, Martin.

This is tiresome and i'm not gonna even get a reply. And you posted a link to Anssi Maninnen, his BS arguements have been put to rest by Lyle McDonald and Anthony Colpo. Go do some reading and maybe learn something.
 
Shucks guys, are we going to ruin EVERY thread with this war?
smile.gif
Anyone know why gorillas can get JACKED on that tree hugger diet of theirs? haha
 
<div>
(beingisbeing @ May 26 2008,7:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Anyone know why gorillas can get JACKED on that tree hugger diet of theirs?</div>
Maybe gorillas do lotsa deadlifts...
laugh.gif
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum


Bear in mind people, many of these studies are carried out on Obese and severely overweight populations. As pertains to healthy weight individuals, one always reads the caveat that athletes - endurance, sprinters and weight lifters- have unique requirements which include adequate carbohydrates to sustain high levels of performance.

There is an individual on this board who is pushing the LCKD as a panacea for all those wishing to cut to below 8% body-fat. Be forwarned, this individual is neither a medical doctor nor a nutritional expert and does not posses any physical qualities remotely related to his promulgation of the effects of LCKD.
 
I feel stupid with this question, as it's probably self-evident, but what is the definition of a metabolic ward?
 
<div>
(quadancer @ May 27 2008,9:47)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I feel stupid with this question, as it's probably self-evident, but what is the definition of a metabolic ward?</div>
Metabolic Ward studies keep the subjects in a hospital ward, so they can keep tabs on their activity and caloric intake. All food is precisely measured and they aren't free to go off the diet or add some food here and there, like studies in free living subjects.

It's a way more reliable way of doing things, and way more expensive.

Most studies on diet are free living, they tell the subjects what to eat, what to avoid and send them on their way. No accountability and it's been shown people can be WAY off on their caloric estimates. And Martin couldn't explain this, but a great deal of these studies show better weight loss with a low fat, higher carb diet. Of course many show a more with a low carb diet, but the results are mixed.

Metabolic ward studies have shown when calories and activity is tightly controlled, diets of 0 to 70% carbs show equal fat loss. The greater initial weight loss of low carb diets is well established, as glycogen and water is lost when carbs are low, and kidney metabolism changes to excrete more water and electrolytes.
 
You might need to sign up on medscape to see this image. The inpatient study is a metabolic ward study, where calories are strictly controlled and fat loss is equal. outpatient is free living, where the results vary.

slide53.gif


&quot;One is the outpatient study in adolescents by Sondike, and the other is the inpatient study in which individuals were fed only 1000 calories per day.

Shown here in the graph are the rates of weight loss in pounds per week for the 6-week inpatient study and for a 24-week outpatient study. You'll notice that again, the low-carb diet only shows the greater weight loss in the outpatients. This suggests again that it's not just the water loss, and also that the rates of weight loss are slower in the outpatient setting than in the inpatient setting.

Well, if we're going to conserve energy and obey the laws of thermodynamics, that means that the inpatient study, which was 1000 calories per day, must not be being met in terms of the intakes in the outpatient study. The outpatients must be eating more than 1000 calories per day, or else they'd be losing weight more rapidly.

This suggests that the differences in weight loss in the inpatient and the outpatient study are largely due to how well a person complies with the energy restriction. The differences that we've been talking about between a low-carb diet and a low-fat diet are due not to just the water loss, but are actually due to differences in compliance with the reduced caloric intake strategy of a diet.&quot;
 
<div>
(pete69 @ May 27 2008,10:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
And Martin couldn't explain this, but a great deal of these studies show better weight loss with a low fat, higher carb diet. Of course many show a more with a low carb diet, but the results are mixed.</div>
Of course I could explain it. If you provided the studies in question for us to discuss. But you're so blinded by your own irrational anger that you can't even consider the possibility that your assumptions are incorrect, especially if I'm the one pointing it out, and so you see no reason to provide the data you speak of. Incidentally, you just assumed that a &quot;great deal of these studies show better weight loss&quot;. You've made many assumptions recently yet haven't deemed it worthy to supply data to support those assumptions. How many is a great deal? Which studies do you speak of? Provide just one of those studies and we'll discuss it at length. Failing that, we'll have to conclude that you don't know if there is any study that shows what you assume either way.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 27 2008,10:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(pete69 @ May 27 2008,10:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
And Martin couldn't explain this, but a great deal of these studies show better weight loss with a low fat, higher carb diet. Of course many show a more with a low carb diet, but the results are mixed.</div>
Of course I could explain it. If you provided the studies in question for us to discuss. But you're so blinded by your own irrational anger that you can't even consider the possibility that your assumptions are incorrect, especially if I'm the one pointing it out, and so you see no reason to provide the data you speak of. Incidentally, you just assumed that a &quot;great deal of these studies show better weight loss&quot;. You've made many assumptions recently yet haven't deemed it worthy to supply data to support those assumptions. How many is a great deal? Which studies do you speak of? Provide just one of those studies and we'll discuss it at length. Failing that, we'll have to conclude that you don't know if there is any study that shows what you assume either way.</div>
For someone who has made statements that have been proven false again and again. Skirted around issues when asked direct questions, and have been unwilling to support studies on your false beliefs on metabolism. I have no need to provide this evidence to you. When you start supporting half of your BS claims with good references then we can talk. I already have shown studies, metabolic ward studies, RELIABLE studies where everything is measured, there is no difference in fat loss. So you send people on their way, free to indulge in foods, well, there is a difference in weight loss because people end up eating more.

YOU are the one making claims suggesting calories don't matter on a low carb diet. Burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence of greater fat loss, and this would have to be in a metabolic ward setting so that we can be sure calorie intake is controlled. Of course you can't do this. But it's been fun exposing you for the simple-minded man that you are.
 
I'm not going to get into any pissing contests over invalid info, but in part it's personal now that the person is revealed for that which is. And that is becoming annoying by way of this constant din of repetition. Again and again the arguments are debunked yet this goes on. My time is valuable, this forum is precious to me as part of my evening &quot;escape&quot; time, and I hate to spend a lot of time trying to glean information amongst my friends, only to find I've just wasted it on junk.
And I agree that new people can be misled; something that is NOT the norm for this website. We've kept a valuable reputation for truth and science-backed reasoning here and I hate to see one person's ego tainting it. It isn't too surprising if a few unreasonable adjectives are spat out now and then when this ridiculous venue continues unceasingly. Even a child knows when to quit eventually.
End of rant.
Oh, and I did learn much lately. Pearls are formed by covering an irritating piece of dirt, and that seems to have worked here. My thanks to the regular guys and some of the very interesting new guys on the forum, especially Pete and Being.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ May 27 2008,11:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
only to find I've just wasted it on junk.
...</div>
How's IF working out for you? If it's not producing the results it's supposed to, check your blood glucose level and your insulin resistance. Maybe at your age you've become too insulin resistant to take advantage of IF in any form even as a CKD. Lyle McDonald, somebody you trust, talks about that.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My time is valuable, this forum is precious to me as part of my evening &quot;escape&quot; time, and I hate to spend a lot of time trying to glean information amongst my friends, only to find I've just wasted it on junk. </div>Use this
 
Allright I just cleaned out the nonsense and either keep this thread on track or I'll delete the whole thing.

There are plenty of studies in the begining that can be discussed without all the other crap.
 
<div>
(beingisbeing @ May 26 2008,7:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Shucks guys, are we going to ruin EVERY thread with this war?  
smile.gif
Anyone know why gorillas can get JACKED on that tree hugger diet of theirs? haha</div>
Lots and lots of passive and active tension
 
Heh, you're saying BW exersize works well! I guess so, since swinging from trees is very similar to gymnasts work. THOSE guys look jacked, although having met one in person, off tv, my first thought was how small he was. But I'd wager he was carrying more muscle than me; he just doesn't have the fat over it.
 
I don't like secrets. So I'll share mine.


<div>
(Dan Moore @ May 28 2008,8:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This message was sent to: Aaron_F, Bryan Haycock, jvroig, Martin Levac</div>
Martin,

While I do appreciate your passion for your opinion you have a history of expressing it then when prompted to provide adequate evidence you side track out of the scientific relevant facts and go into irrelevant tangents.

This is not how this forum operates.

Consider this a friendly warning and future responses that do not explain your stance, when in a scientific related thread and prompted to do so, will be considered inappropriate trolling and may result in your posts being deleted, public warnings being issued or even banning.

Dan Moore
cc:
Mods
Admin</div>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top