Obesity and Food Politics

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
101

[quote]anonym wrote:
The abstract for the first paper BEGINS WITH: “To study the metabolic effects of ketosis without weight loss”.

In fact, the abstract makes no mention of weight loss in any subject, whatsoever.

As my campus subscription to Metabolism only goes back to 1985, you will have to FIRST explain, yourself, what relevance this study has to our discussion and THEN provide me with a link to the complete piece.[/quote]

Weight loss still happened.

You are entirely missing the point. For some reason when carbohydrates are restricted patients do not feel the need to consume excessive calories - i.e., calorie restriction becomes self regulated.

Second point is that a person eating mostly fat as part of the diet requires less calories because fat calories are more efficient in that they do not starve the body of energy to be stored.

So yes, they eat less calories but why?

102

[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-27/calories-low-carb-weight-loss/55843134/1

Low-carb diet burns the most calories in small study

After 6 weeks in keto I’m firmly in the LCHF camp.

[/quote]
This is a point I think low carb people would do well with. Carbs need to be replaced with fat and not protein.

I started LCHF 3 months ago and I am in for life.

103

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Weight loss still happened.[/quote]

Gee, well that’s good to know.

Post a link to the study or upload it to sendspace (takes literally 30 seconds) so I can see for myself. Otherwise, it has no business being presented in this discussion.

No offense, but I am very doubtful that you’ve read it.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You are entirely missing the point. For some reason when carbohydrates are restricted patients do not feel the need to consume excessive calories - i.e., calorie restriction becomes self regulated.[/quote]

“For some reason” protein in particular is highly satiating. Many people who try to go “low carb” actually wind up going “high protein”.

It isn’t news that people who eat more protein tend to see a spontaneous reduction in calories. Some even find the effect more pronounced when combined with fat.

I am not “missing the point” because MY “point” was an extremely specific one.

But, I like how whatever point you are trying to make shifts about. Is there a metabolic advantage? Is it that low insulin isn’t trapping fat inside cells? Or is the “point” the spontaneous caloric reduction?

That last one isn’t so magical.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Second point is that a person eating mostly fat as part of the diet requires less calories because fat calories are more efficient in that they do not starve the body of energy to be stored.[/quote]

Gee, if they DO require LESS calories then dontcha think at least ONE of those studies I posted would have reflected this?

Newsflash: if a high fat diet causes one to “require” less calories, that person needs to CONSUME EVEN LESS CALORIES in order to achieve weight loss. What you are telling me here is that high fat diets SLOW THE METABOLISM. This is the OPPOSITE of what the metabolic advantage implies.

If I require 2,000 calories a day and start eating 1500 calories from a carb-based diet, I am burning 500 calories per day of fat (2000 - 1500). If I switch to a high fat diet, you are telling me that my metabolism would shift to “requiring less calories” (say, 2000 - 200 = 1800). Now, eating that same (1500) diet, I would only be in a 300 calorie deficit (1800 - 1500). I am burning 200 calories more per day on the higher carbohydrate diet. Clearly, I would need to reduce my intake FURTHER in order to lose weight at the same pace as I would on a higher carbohydrate diet.

Can you really not see how little sense you are making?

104

[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-27/calories-low-carb-weight-loss/55843134/1

Low-carb diet burns the most calories in small study

After 6 weeks in keto I’m firmly in the LCHF camp.[/quote]

No offense, but I’ve taken the time to educate myself and present sources from outside the mainstream media (textbooks, academic journals, etc).

If someone wants to offer evidence countering my position, I would need to see material of a similar quality before wasting my time. A newspaper article doesn’t cut it.

Besides, the comments below the article are giving me a headache.

105

Whatevr, N=1 looks good to me.

106

[quote]anonym wrote:

Can you really not see how little sense you are making?[/quote]

I’m not going to jump in here to defend Max, but I do like to share with you my experience on my low carbs/high fat diet.

It changed my life.

In six weeks I’m shedding fat at a high rate, but I’m also gaining musclemass like crazy [hurray for musclememory!]

I eat one large meal around noon, and a small bite late in the evening. A gallon of water a day and energy abound. For me, it’s really short of a miracle.

Fat satiates me and ketones as fuel are superior to glucose, in my experience.

I must admit, I don’t know why you two are argueing and I don’t have indepth knowledge of the physical processess that are involved during a LCHF diet; all I know it works.

107

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-27/calories-low-carb-weight-loss/55843134/1

Low-carb diet burns the most calories in small study

After 6 weeks in keto I’m firmly in the LCHF camp.

[/quote]
This is a point I think low carb people would do well with. Carbs need to be replaced with fat and not protein.

I started LCHF 3 months ago and I am in for life.[/quote]

I think, when I’ve reached my goal, I’ll start eating fruit and the odd chocolate again but other than that, LCFH all the way!

108

Leading expert on longterm “low carbohydrate” consumption and keto-adaptation, Stephen Phinney.

109

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I don’t know why you two are argueing and I don’t have indepth knowledge of the physical processess that are involved during a LCHF diet; all I know it works.[/quote]

I dunno either. I just posted a video I thought interesting and he wanted me to do the science for him…like I have the time he does to write entire essays…

110

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I dunno either. I just posted a video I thought interesting and he wanted me to do the science for him…like I have the time he does to write entire essays…[/quote]

LOL

Dude, you made a silly statement and I asked you to clarify your position. The rest is me dismantling your argument for both the sport and the benefit of people following along who might not be educated on the subject.

If you can’t discuss the science, stay out of scientific discussions and refrain from making claims that require scientific evidence to verify.

But, let’s make one thing crystal clear: you can’t “do the science” because you lack the education, the peer-reviewed evidence and, quite possibly, the raw intelligence to do so. You can’t “do the science” because you have adopted a scientifically untenable position and were surprised when someone who actually knows what he’s talking about happened to be browsing this thread. Pretending the flaws in your argument are the result of a busy lifestyle and not a lack of compelling data is the weakest shit you’ve put forth so far.

It isn’t an issue of whether or not you “have the time”, because you took two days off to dredge up those four (largely irrelevant) studies I tossed out the window. It isn’t an issue of whether or not you “have the time” because you can take ANOTHER two days to stew over your previous posts and you STILL won’t be able to explain how utterly lacking in common sense they are.

Again, thanks for the shit-tier debate. At least Dr. Matt chimed in so this wasn’t a complete waste of my time.

111

This was supposed to be about the politics of food…but thanks for boring us out of the thread.

112

A more comprehensive look at that study I posted earlier: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

113

Thought this was related and funny.

Minnesota For Marriage – Wedding Advice And Marriage Planning Ideas??s-a-fight-general-mills-wants-â??-itâ??s-a-fight-theyâ??ve-got/

114

1024×683 92.6 KB

115

[quote]ephrem wrote:
A more comprehensive look at that study I posted earlier: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154[/quote]

I’ll be moving my thoughts to the Supplements forum once I digest this paper, as a topic was started there to specifically discuss this.

But what I find curious after an initial skim is the statement that “body weight did not differ significantly among the 3 diets”. If all three diets were designed to be isocaloric (each contain the same amount of calories), a difference in total energy expenditure between the low fat and VLC diets of 326 kcal/day should have resulted in some degree of weight change over a 4 week duration, right?

116

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
A more comprehensive look at that study I posted earlier: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 [/quote]

I’ll be moving my thoughts to the Supplements forum once I digest this paper, as a topic was started there to specifically discuss this.

But what I find curious after an initial skim is the statement that “body weight did not differ significantly among the 3 diets”. If all three diets were designed to be isocaloric (each contain the same amount of calories), a difference in total energy expenditure between the low fat and VLC diets of 326 kcal/day should have resulted in some degree of weight change over a 4 week duration, right?[/quote]

Perhaps they meant to starting bodyweight of the participants?

In any case, I’ve tried a number of diets over the years and the LCHF diet is the only one where I don’t feel hungry all the time. The only diet where I have a surplus of energy and experience a general wellbeing I’ve never had before.

I’m not only losing fat but also am building muscle with ease. That’s what all the protein is for after all.

Looking good, feeling great!

117

I feel really sorry for the poor, fat bastards ordering brown rice with their steamed chicken breast as I drown a T-bone in butter.

118

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
For decades now we’ve been fed the idea that fat is bad and that grains are good; meanwhile, childhood and adult obesity is at an all time high while consumption of fat is down and consumption of grains (and foods processed from grains) is up.

What gives?!

Garyy Taubes is right about carbs but doesn’t know shit about the effects of training on insulin resistance.
He is basically 10 years ahead of the mainstream and 5 years behind T-Nation.[/quote]

x2

119

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Perhaps they meant to starting bodyweight of the participants?[/quote]

As all 21 subjects took turns participating in each diet (four weeks each), so BW not differing between the three diets indicates no change from any intervention. Even if they had taken starting measurements, the beginning of one diet would dovetail with the end of a previous one and would still reflect a change.

This is interesting, because not only are we looking at a (326 x 7 x 4 =) 9,128 kcal difference in TEE between high GI diet and VLC diet, which should have resulted in SOME change in weight, no differences were observed that could be attributed even solely to water weight – a CLASSIC symptom of VLC diets.

We are being told that macronutrient sources impact metabolic rate, but that these changes result in no measurable differences in weight? What gives??

But, again when examining the study we see that this is yet another “free-living” example. Participants were only assessed two out of every four weeks per diet under free-living conditions, with hospital admission occurring at the end of each dietary stint. No way to guarantee compliance.

In fact, a search for “log”, “journal” and “compliance” gives no results… so how did these researchers make sure these people were doing EXACTLY what they were supposed to be doing?

Note also that there is a difference in protein intake between LF and VLC diets – it is surprising that the researchers did not control for this as it limits what we can extrapolate from these findings. But then, the low-carb crowd has never been one to discern between “high protein” and “low carb” diets.

Figure 3 looks like it could contain some interesting data about how each subject reacted to the different diets… unfortunately, the way the authors chose to graph this information makes it a headache to decipher. I’d have preferred a table of data, myself.

120

anonym- you’re obviously well versed in studies, have you looked into the study done on type 2 diabetes with a Paleo Diet vs traditional diabetic diet? It was a cross-over study, but only involved 13 people, for 12 weeks at a time.