Low Carb Diet...Not Losing Weight

Nutrition
141

[quote]CoQ10 wrote:
From “Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism” by Gropper, Smith, and Groff:

“…in 1996 a study found that subjects in a hospital lost similar amounts of weight whether on on a low- (15%) or high- (45%) carbohydrate diet (1). The researchers provided 1000 kcal of energy. Significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip ratio occurred in both groups, but the size of these changes was not a function of diet. This finding suggests that the size of the caloric deficit and the length of time that a person is in negative energy balance have the greatest effect on the amount of weight lost.”

  1. Golay A. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr 1996; 63:174-8.[/quote]

pffft…what do those pencil neck geeks know anyway. let’s see some pics of people they’ve trained! science doesn’t have all the answers bro, ya gotta find what works for you bro

this thread is too much fun

142

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
CoQ10 wrote:
From “Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism” by Gropper, Smith, and Groff:

“…in 1996 a study found that subjects in a hospital lost similar amounts of weight whether on on a low- (15%) or high- (45%) carbohydrate diet (1). The researchers provided 1000 kcal of energy. Significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip ratio occurred in both groups, but the size of these changes was not a function of diet. This finding suggests that the size of the caloric deficit and the length of time that a person is in negative energy balance have the greatest effect on the amount of weight lost.”

  1. Golay A. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr 1996; 63:174-8.

pffft…what do those pencil neck geeks know anyway. let’s see some pics of people they’ve trained! science doesn’t have all the answers bro, ya gotta find what works for you bro

this thread is too much fun[/quote]

I totally agree, bro. When I read a scientifical study from the Pubmeds, I email the researchers and ask for pics. If they’re not jacked, the data loses all credibility. If I ask them who they’ve trained, and they can’t show me pics, I print out a hardcopy of the study and ceremoniously burn it.

143

Eh, I tried.

Good luck OP - I recommend doing a lot of reading from the top nutrition guys in the field at the moment and do what they suggest. I recommend Volek, Bowden, and Berardi.

144

[quote]ksommer wrote:
Eh, I tried.

Good luck OP - I recommend doing a lot of reading from the top nutrition guys in the field at the moment and do what they suggest. I recommend Volek, Bowden, and Berardi.[/quote]

Wow, strong retreat… And thus goes the progression of the internet debate:

Bro: “Physiological process X = Y because of Z.”

Skeptic: “Oh really? Show me the research evidence.”

Bro: “It’s true because [insert guru’s name here] said so.”

Skeptic: “Mr [guru]'s opinion is irrelevant to the discussion. Show me the objective scientific evidence, not subjective opinion or testimony.”

Bro: “Do you have half-n00dz pics you can show me please? Who have you trained bro?”

145

I agree, that was a rather tepid withdrawl. Perhaps ksommer is suffering from adrenal fatigue…

146

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
I agree, that was a rather tepid withdrawl. Perhaps ksommer is suffering from adrenal fatigue…[/quote]

Yep. Gotta be the adrenalz.

Seriously, this is why only a handful of people ever progress in their understanding of how the body works. The the majority get emotionally imprinted by a set of guru-born dogma.

Instead of prying open their thick skulls to the possibility of acquiring new knowledge, they shut their eyes, and grip their beloved beliefs as tight as they can despite any evidence to the contrary. This is why the majority remains ignorant.

147

Alan,

what is your take on manipulating hormones through diet? What is the optimal way to eat to achieve fat loss and muscle gain?

148

[quote]latenight_lifter wrote:
Alan,

what is your take on manipulating hormones through diet? What is the optimal way to eat to achieve fat loss and muscle gain? [/quote]

Focusing on the hormonal impact of dietary manipulation beyond some very simple fundamentals is for the most part a lost cause. For example, fear of insulin elevations hindering fat loss is hilarious, because overall calorie balance (given sufficient protein to support LBM) trumps any concerns of insulin flux.

There are plenty of examples of this in and out of the scientific lit. To draw a non-lit example that’s close to home around here, many folks will dose up on BCAA near & during the training period. The more spirited bros will swig it down between meals.

What do you think BCAA megadosing does to insulin levels? Despite this, fat is still lost as long as a caloric deficit is in place.

There are plenty of examples in the lit supporting this point, yet people are still stuck on the idea that insulin is the master regulator of fat gain because so-and-so said so. That’s called maintaining a hearsay education.

If lowered insulin levels were the key to fat loss, we would consistently see either more fat gain or less fat loss with more insulinogenic diets in head-to-head comparisons with isocaloric/isonitrgenous diets. Guess what? This is not the case.

And the kicker of it is that most of the research is done on obese, deconditioned people who presumably would be consistently more susceptible to the lipogenic potential of a more insulinogenic diet.

Guess what? It ain’t so, Joe. As a matter of fact, chronically inhibiting insulin output via pharmacological means does not further fat loss beyond placebo.

149

thank you for the response. I have another question, however, what is your take on glycogen depletion and fat loss?

150

I have given my opinions and I know where I stand; arguing with brick walls is pointless, so I’m done, and with that, I gave my suggestion to the OP (the point of the thread) and am bowing out. I “lose,” but thanks for informing me about the “new” knowledge of caloric expenditure. I myself lost a ton of weight armed with that knowledge.

If I knew then what I do now, I could have saved myself a lot of wasted years eating crap. I am only trying to give the OP advice that has worked for me and many others. I am more interested in calorie partitioning than calorie control, and with that I will say no more on the topic.

Also, among those listed are those deep in the scientific literature… just thought I would point that out. The unfortunate reality of things like this can be related to study design and interpretation. You can find 100 studies supporting either claim. I do not represent them or claim to have their knowledge, but I respect their opinions a great deal moreso than those given by 20 year old communication majors (I know those are not your credentials Alan).

151

[quote]ksommer wrote:
I respect their opinions a great deal moreso than those given by 20 year old communication majors[/quote]

great use of ad hominem pal,

Even if I am young, does that make what I and others in this thread wrote any less valid? No. Facts are facts, no matter who’s tellin em.

152

I don’t think anyone should bow out and resign themselves to their current level of knowledge/understanding. If you make claims, but are unable to present the evidence behind them, then how solid are your claims? These questions are not to antagonize you; this is scientific thinking 101.

100 studies supporting either side? Not true. Since you sincerely believe this, Go ahead and post a single study comparing isonitrogenous treatments where the more insulinogenic treatment shows less fat or weight loss.

153

There’s one; took about 3.2 seconds. Actually, it appears the low carb group ate more calories yet lost more fat.

No, I guess it isn’t isonitrogenous… but they consumed 300 more calories a day, which more than makes up for any TEF from increased protein intake. They also lost more fat, and lost more of it from the trunk.

Huh.

154

[quote]ksommer wrote:
No, I guess it isn’t isonitrogenous…[/quote]

Then you didn’t do what Alan asked.

I’m sure Alan will have more to say on this, as dissecting research is his “thing”. However, from just glancing at the abstract I see that the LC diet had ~2x the amount of protein of the LF diet (140g vs. 77g).

This is why nobody recommended that the OP, or anyone for that matter, cut back on protein while on a diet. Insufficient protein only results in greater loss of muscle tissue.

In addition to the lowered protein intake, LC diets are also diuretic in nature, so some of the weight lost on the LC diet can be attributed to water and glycogen.

Finally, I’m not sure how well controlled the study was wrt food intake, as self reporting of food intake is notoriously inaccurate. But I DO know when calories and protein are meticulously controlled in a laboratory setting, and only carbs and fat are shuffled, no “metabolic advantage” is seen.

155

It was fat loss, according to DEXA scan, fyi. Do you know how the DEXA scan works? Before you google it, please try to answer that question. They knew exactly what was lost and where it came from.

The calculation of TEF from the increased protein intake will not make up for the discrepancy in caloric intake alone. And yes, I admitted that it is not isonitrogenous, but if the whole point is that carbs/fats don’t matter, then why should protein matter, from that same standard?

Your point that calories alone determine fat loss doesn’t stand by itself according the study results.

The full-text to the study is freely linked in the upper right. Please “glance” over it a little more closely before passing an incomplete judgment.

156

I did look over the full text and noticed that food intake was monitored via self report logs. That pretty much invalidates the study IMO.

People are simply shitty at estimating energy intake. Especially considering these are “average” people (as opposed to hyper-meticulous bodybuilders), the margin of error is probably quite significant.

Even when one measures out servings they often make mistakes, as demonstrated here: - YouTube

finally, I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this is something to note:

“This study was supported by a grant from The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation, New York, NY.”

157

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2939

conclusion- (pasted from study)- The main finding from this pilot study was that healthy overweight women and men with relatively greater insulin secretion in response to a standard oral glucose tolerance test lost more weight when assigned to a low�??glycemic load hypocaloric diet than to a high�??glycemic load diet,

but there was no differential effect of the two diets on weight loss in individuals who had relatively lower insulin secretion.

any thoughts?

158

Okay,

For all you that refuse to learn more about anything… in this case, hormone modulation etc rather than simply counting calories.

A week ago I decided to get my biosig test done and got given a few protocols to follow relative to my results, some of which included INCREASING protein, NOT counting fats, which means I ate more than I have been, and DROPPING low intensity cardio altogether.

Now, I had been dieting for 10 weeks prior to the test, slowly dropping calories, increase cardio etc…the same old sht that you all believe is the ONLY way to go about it, and as mentioned earlier, I also had the same understanding up until my past weeks results.

I GAINED weight and caliper readings went down or stayed the same. I GAINED muscle and LOST fat at the same time using the protocols given. This included SOME supplementation, but not much.

I aint no newbie either, so these results from biosignature modulation speak for themselves.

Always be willing to learn more about anything and everything…dont simply make up your mind about something and call others wankers for stating their views/ideas etc.

GJ

159

[quote]Gymjunkie wrote:
Okay,

For all you that refuse to learn more about anything… in this case, hormone modulation etc rather than simply counting calories.

A week ago I decided to get my biosig test done and got given a few protocols to follow relative to my results, some of which included INCREASING protein, NOT counting fats, which means I ate more than I have been, and DROPPING low intensity cardio altogether.

Now, I had been dieting for 10 weeks prior to the test, slowly dropping calories, increase cardio etc…the same old sht that you all believe is the ONLY way to go about it, and as mentioned earlier, I also had the same understanding up until my past weeks results.

I GAINED weight and caliper readings went down or stayed the same. I GAINED muscle and LOST fat at the same time using the protocols given. This included SOME supplementation, but not much.

I aint no newbie either, so these results from biosignature modulation speak for themselves.

Always be willing to learn more about anything and everything…dont simply make up your mind about something and call others wankers for stating their views/ideas etc.

GJ

[/quote]

I don’t quite follow. How many biosig tests did you do? How long did you follow the protocol?

160

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
I did look over the full text and noticed that food intake was monitored via self report logs. That pretty much invalidates the study IMO.

People are simply shitty at estimating energy intake. Especially considering these are “average” people (as opposed to hyper-meticulous bodybuilders), the margin of error is probably quite significant.

Even when one measures out servings they often make mistakes, as demonstrated here: - YouTube

finally, I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this is something to note:

“This study was supported by a grant from The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation, New York, NY.”
[/quote]

Having worked in a nutrition laboratory myself, it is NOT the subjects who calculate the food logs. There is usually someone hired to do JUST that (at least there was on the study I worked on… a single person to do daily food logs for over 200+ subjects).

This person actually contacts the subjects to validate the food logs; if the data seems suspect, we contact the person to get brand, amount… everything. Lots of studies use food logs. Is it the best? No.

Does it invalidate the study? Well, if that’s true, you’re invalidating MANY other studies. Keep in mind these studies are what is called PEER REVIEWED, meaning other scholars review them before they get published.

That means others with higher level degrees (no offense, certainly higher than yours or mine) approved the study and assume it is valid. So, honestly, the fact that you don’t think it is valid really means absolute shit in the scheme of things.

And about the funding of the study; where do you think your beneficial studies regarding low fat diets and calorie restriction come from? Ornish? Pritkin? Probably; just like studies that showed eggs raised cholesterol were done by the cereal board.

Like I said… I recommend actually reading about the authors in question and going in depth with their other work before passing judgment. I am familiar with Volek’s work… you likely aren’t, so I suggest starting with the TNT Diet.