New Study out on Low Carb Diets

[SeymourCuts]

The fact that I and most people have been able to increase or at the very least retain strength on weight-loss diets that involve low-carb cycling while alternatively not being able to do so on other types of diets without external anabolic aid is enough evidence to me of their place for people wishing to better their bodies aesthetically.

There was a recent study showing that dieting unaccompanied by exercise shows tendancies towards fat burning from in and around internal organs rather than subcutaneous fat stores. Exercise is necessary too for that reason as well as just the issue of muscle tone and retention. Look at what's-his-face from Subway. He's a muscle-less beanpole. My uncle who was somewhat muscular looking many, many moons ago before becoming obese, gained a similar look through months of Atkins dieting. And Kate Moss when it comes to women. They are essentially nothing more than skin and bones and a minimal amount of muscle that happens to be quite soft. I don't know of anyone who thinks these particular looks are all that attractive. Widespread employment of a combination of exercise and (proper) diet and possibly stress-relief techniques such as meditation is key to getting at the issue of obesity and it's aesthetic as well as health-related problems such as heart disease and diabetes.

Carbs play an important role in sacroplasmic muscle tissue over the short and long term, and subsequently sarcomeric muscle tissue over the long term, that's why I disapprove of long term "no-carb" dieting.

 

[DanielBishop]

It's ALL calories in vs calories out.

You'll find that many of the low carb diets are just hypocaloric diets in disguise.... when you cut out carbs, you actually cut out a lot of fat as well (from cookies, cakes, pastries, fried carb stuff).... so while you think you're eating a lot of fat, you're probably eating much less than a regular day.

I found it interesting that people regard the low carb thing as a "new wave".... actually, it's been around since the late 1800's.... apparently a British undertaker was the first one to invent the low-carb diet. Yet low-fat diets have only been around since the 50's and 60's.

There was also a brief phase where some people came out with a low-protein diet.... and the few who tried it, did lose weight. Lots and lots of weight. And they kept it off. Permanently. Because they died.

There's many ways to do it, but they're all just means to the same end.... which is eating less calories than you burn.

 

[Toozee]

There was also a brief phase where some people came out with a low-protein diet.... and the few who tried it, did lose weight. Lots and lots of weight. And they kept it off. Permanently. Because they died

LMAO..... A-men.

 

[Babyfaced Assassin]

My cousin has been put on a high Carb low fat low protein diet by the docs cos of his kidneys... I personally reckon this is gonna be worse for him and my estimation of doctors has fallen yet more

 

[MS]

I have a very large file of research dating back as far as 1977 that clearly shows there is no metabolic advantage to very low carb/high fat diets for fat loss. It is true whether you're male or female, obese or diabetic, and whether you 'count' calories or not. They even put folks in whole body calorimeters to see if there is any metabolic difference, and found none. All the evidence (not just that study that started this thread) indicates that very low carb diets work merely because they kill appetite, thus resulting in reduced calories like any other hypocaloric diet. I don't see how any clear-thinking person could believe otherwise. However, if fats are your preference or you find a low carb diet easier to stick to, then that is the diet you should use. No need to infer any magical metabolic advantage.

Babyfaced: someone should tell your cousin's doc about soy protein for folks with kidney problems.

 

[ProteinFiend]

Explain ketosis and ketones bring present in the bloodstream as well as urine... You should find your answer there.

I have a very large file of research dating back as far as 1977 that clearly shows there is no metabolic advantage to very low carb/high fat diets for fat loss. It is true whether you're male or female, obese or diabetic, and whether you 'count' calories or not. They even put folks in whole body calorimeters to see if there is any metabolic difference, and found none. All the evidence (not just that study that started this thread) indicates that very low carb diets work merely because they kill appetite, thus resulting in reduced calories like any other hypocaloric diet. I don't see how any clear-thinking person could believe otherwise. However, if fats are your preference or you find a low carb diet easier to stick to, then that is the diet you should use. No need to infer any magical metabolic advantage.

Babyfaced: someone should tell your cousin's doc about soy protein for folks with kidney problems.

 

[Scythian_Blade]

MS...I know what you say is very true. I too have seen references to studies showing no advantage to ketogenic styled diets over other hypocaloric diets for cutting purposes. I have to disagree with your statement questioning how a clear minded person could think otherwise though. And here is my logic...

There are a number of handwaving ways you can explain why atkins and other ketogenic diets sometimes appear more beneficial. The reduction in appetite on keto and the fact that most people haven't a clue how to run a cutting cycle using clean carbs are just a couple of examples. But this isn't always true. For me, appetite seems to be nominally supressed in keto. I could bulk using it without feeling too stuffed. I think the only way to come to a good conclusion is to look at it through scientific studies (such as the ones you mention) and biochemically.

Clearly, biochemically, the comparison between a keto diet (ckd for example) and a carb based diet (40/40/20 for example) will yield two very distinct situations hormonally and otherwise.

One advantage to a ketogenic diet that I can't seem to get past is the basic use of EFA's to mobilize fat stores (and all other beneficial roles played by EFA's). Also, there seems to be some good evidence that other clean fats possess thermogenic properties that carbohydrates lack. Nothing magical or groundbreaking, granted but... It seems that with a lower carbohydrate intake and greater EFA/clean fat intake, that this effect would be more pronounced in a ketogenic state. At least in theory it should lead to some sort of different metabolic response for some ppl imo.

I understand the utlility of carbohydrates in promoting anabolism in general and can certainly see the other side of the coin. Maybe this partly explains why either approach is successful. I also realize that achieving ketosis may not be such an important part of the success of ketogenic diets (my understanding is that ketones are utilized for energy to a small degree in most situation, but to a much larger degree in ketosis)

There are a number of angles to take on the whole issue obviously.

For me there is more than enough information to conclude that a ketogenic diet (or carb based diet) could easily work far better for some people than for others. I just cannot accept that because there is no meaninful statistical difference in studies that this necessarily indicates keto diets are not more suited for some individuals than others.

MS...finally I am curious if you disagree with my basic premise of keto diets being more useful for some than others from a biochemical perspective. I don't even pretend to have a strong background in biochemistry and am looking to learn more about this from a technical perspective. Can you or anyone else shed some light on the matter?


-Blade

 

[Scythian_Blade]

ps...im interested in seeing how people are eating over their caloric maintenance....and losing bodyfat. thats either a miscalculation of maint. cals or an somehow we have figured out how to lose while in a surplus (which isnt likely).

I don't really have a problem believing this to be possible. I think meal combinations, macronutrient ratios, and basic food choices can all influence BMR. I think you are right in that it is often a gross miscalculation of BMR upon switching to a new diet with completely different foods. Thermodynamically, they are obvious burning more energy than they consume (or equivalently altering body composition from fat burning to building muscle tissue. I have had it hammered into my head so many times that a calorie is not a calorie and with good reason.

 

[Babyfaced Assassin]

there's a study to prove that our bodies don't look for a certain breakdown of macronutrients in a meal to be satisfied rather the total amount of calories.
therefore perhaps the high fat/protein low carb thing about it satiates you better than carbs is really because you are eating a similar number of calories since fat is more calorie dense than carbs
when i was trying a 10% carb diet i would kill off my apetite by having heavy cream and whey protein in the morning and yeah i'd be full till lunch but that's still around 600 calories, if i ate 600 calories in carbs and protein i'd still be satisfied.

 

[krayziefresh]

The doctors and nutritionasts are ruunning scared. What are they going to do, come out and say...Gee Mr. Atkins is right, all these years we've been telling you to eat a high carb low fat diet, we were wrong. Sorry bout that. (now that millions are obese and dieing of heart disease

LoL, somehow I doubt thats why so many americans are dieing of obesity and heart disease. Did somebody say McDonalds