Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Low carb diets

anthrax

MVP
EF VIP
yes, low carb diets do help in weight loss but it is the calories restriction that do matter, not the carbs !

Researchers have expressed the need for long-term studies on the effects of low-carbohydrate diets. A review of this currently popular regime suggests that although successful, and with no obvious short-term adverse effects, it is not clear how the diet impacts people in middle age.

People who go on low-carbohydrate diets typically lose weight, but restricted caloric intake and longer diet duration are the biggest reasons why, according to the study from Stanford University Medical Center and collaborators at Yale University.

"Low-carbohydrate diets have been extremely popular as of late, and the lay press has suggested they're a safe and effective means of weight loss," said lead author Dr Dena Bravata, social science research associate at Stanford's Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research. "While these diets are effective in the short term, weight loss results from reduced calories, not carbohydrate restriction."

The study appears in the 9 April issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Despite the popularity of low-carbohydrate/ high-protein diets, and the concern of some in the medical community that these diets are too high in fat and can lead to kidney and liver problems and other health risks, Bravata said little evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets.

Bravata and her colleagues collected literature on low-carbohydrate diets published between 1966 and 2003. They reviewed a total of 107 diet studies, which involved 3,268 people from around the world. The studies were small and heterogeneous, with carbohydrate and caloric intake, diet duration and participant characteristics varying greatly.

However all of the studies had two things in common: none had participants with a mean age over 53 and none of the randomised and controlled studies lasted longer than 90 days.

"Information on older adults and long-term results are scarce at best, and this should be kept in mind when looking at our findings," noted Bravata.

The researchers' meta-analysis found that people on diets of 60 or fewer grams of carbohydrates a day (a threshold used in some of the popular low-carbohydrate diets) did lose weight. But the weight loss was associated with restriction of caloric intake and longer diet duration, not with reduced carbohydrate intake. It also found that the greatest weight loss occurred among those participants on diets with the highest baseline weight and lowest caloric content.

"The greatest predictors of weight loss appear to be caloric intake and diet duration," she said. "The findings suggest that if you want to lose weight, you should eat fewer calories and do so over a long time period."

The researchers found no significant adverse effects on cholesterol, glucose, insulin and blood-pressure levels among participants on the diets. But, Bravata stressed, the adverse effects may not have shown up within the short period of the studies. She also said losing weight typically leads to an improvement in some of these levels, so this could have had an impact on the numbers.
 
Yes, that is true.....any diet that works has to involve eating less energy than you expend. The reason why a low carb diet works for me is because I like the food involved (nothing better to me than devouring a pound of bacon or a huge ass ribeye) and carbs play hell with insulin levels, causing you to eat more and have massive cravings.
 
Of course, if calories in < calories out, you will lose weight.

BUT there are definitely different ways of doing this, and ketogenic dieting, especially the CKD & TKD, are likely MUCH more effective than a Moderate protein, high carb, low fat diet that the AMA has suggested for years.

The same AMA that disregarded Dr. Atkins diet theories as "blasphemy" and "dangerous".
 
Some people will literally never understand the distinction that the trite notion that 'a calorie is a calorie' is correct in a bomb calorimeter but has little meaning when viewed phsyiologically and biomechanically in terms of food ingested.

Of course thermodynamically, a greater degree of overall energy expenditure will lead to weight loss. Noone has EVER questioned that notion.

Meal frequency, stategic meal timing, the thermic effects of different macronutrients, your activity level and basic differences in bodytype in terms of propensity for fat accretion are a few of the factors that influence metabolism.

Take two cutting diets that are calorically identical. The first would utilize an increased complete protein consumption, an increase in thermically active lipids, and a marked decrease in carbohydrate consumption (go ahead and say keto). The second would utilize a decreased protein intake, plenty of sugary drinks, and a good heaping helping of palmitate, myristic acid and stearic acid. Hopefully it is obvious that you would get superior weightloss from the first option.

As a student of Physics, it is quite difficult for me to understand how so many people can't see this. A calorie is not a calorie biomechanically. And this does not violate any law of thermodynamics that I have ever learned!

It is like trying to argue the merits of Aristotelian phyics in front of Stephen Hawking. One day, you are just going to have to give it up =D
 
carbs are only the devil in MOST cases if you just cant control them. many people have the problem of not knowing when, and how much.
 
Scythian_Blade said:
Take two cutting diets that are calorically identical. The first would utilize an increased complete protein consumption, an increase in thermically active lipids, and a marked decrease in carbohydrate consumption (go ahead and say keto). The second would utilize a decreased protein intake, plenty of sugary drinks, and a good heaping helping of palmitate, myristic acid and stearic acid. Hopefully it is obvious that you would get superior weightloss from the first option.

Nope, it's like asking which objects falls faster in a vacuum, a feather or a bowling ball........the answer is that they fall at equal rates.

If guy A ate 2000 calories of chicken breast and guy B ate 2000 calories of sugar right out of the bag, they would lose equal amounts of weight, because a calorie is just a unit of energy no matter what form its in.

Now of course there is a vast difference in the type of mass lost. Guy A (chicken) would lose less muscle than guy B.......and of course guy B's insulin levels would be all whacked out :mix:
 
Shark01 said:

If guy A ate 2000 calories of chicken breast and guy B ate 2000 calories of sugar right out of the bag, they would lose equal amounts of weight, because a calorie is just a unit of energy no matter what form its in.

Now of course there is a vast difference in the type of mass lost. Guy A (chicken) would lose less muscle than guy B.......and of course guy B's insulin levels would be all whacked out :mix:

Shark, you are right on that a calorie is just a unit of energy no matter what form it is in. And I also agree there would be a huge difference in the type of mass lost on diet A and B. However, I don't agree that Guy A would lose the same amount of weight as Guy B necessarily however. For the sake of argument, let me assume that Guy A would lose more.

And here is my reasoning.
I believe the protein in chicken consumed by Guy A would have a greater thermic effect than the sucrose consumed by Guy B. I believe it takes the body more energy to break down and utilize 2000 kcals of chicken for energy purposes than it would to break down and use 2000 kcals sucrose for energy. (I am pretty sure this is accurate).

Now, my argument is that net energy balance at the end of the day is what determines weight lose rather than the number of calories consumed.

Mathematically...
Net energy loss per day = Calories consumed - Calories expended

Ceteris Paribus....
For guy A:
Net energy loss = 2000 kcals - 2500 kcals = -500 kcals

For guy B:
Net energy loss = 2000 kcal - 2200 kcals = -200 kcals

The 2500 and 2200 were obviously just numbers I made up, but it illustrates what i mean by the possibility of Guy A experiencing a different total weight loss than Guy B due to an increase in thermic effects.

There are obviously other factors to take into account other than the thermic effect of the two foods. You could make type argument using an all fat or an all carb 2000kcal diet. My only point is that different macronutrients and different food choices even can lead to a marked difference in total energy expenditure at the end of the day. And that is where I see the potential for differering amounts of weight loss from one isocaloric diet to the next.

-Blade
 
I hear you Blade :fro:

Along those same lines of your body energy burning calories, I read this article by Dr Ellington Darden that said he advises people dieting to drink 5 liters of ice water daily. He says it takes 180 calories to bring the water up to body temperature.

If you did this every day for 26 weeks it would burn off 9 lbs.......kind of interesting.
 
Top Bottom