Would cattle even eat butter and ice cream?

[September]

From The Zone website:

"If you wanted to find out the best way to make people fat,
who would you consult? One industry has spent millions and
millions of dollars studying this question, and that's the
cattle and hog industry. Why? Because for them, learning the
quickest way to fatten an animal leads to the highest profits.

So how do they do it? Do they feed their livestock diets high
in fat? Do they put out tubs of butter and ice cream to get
their animals nice and plump? No! The cattle industry knows
that the quickest way to fatten cows and hogs is to restrict
their activity, not let them roam on the range (sort of like
our couch potatoes), and feed them lots and lots of low fat,
complex carbohydrates, in the form of grain."

Can cattle and hogs eat butter and ice cream? Can their
digestive systems deal with these foods? I thought they were
basically herbivores. If allowed to choose, wouldn't they
prefer grasses? Also, how do the digestve systems of these two
animals compare to that of humans?

[Ron Ritzma]

On 3 Feb 2002 08:17:37 -0800, HBrook67@aol.com
(September) wrote:

>Can cattle and hogs eat butter and ice cream? Can their
>digestive systems deal with these foods? I thought they were
>basically herbivores. If allowed to choose, wouldn't they
>prefer grasses?

Well, the grains they are fed are more calorie dense then the
grasses they would graze on in the wild. This might be an
argument for fiber rich low GI carbs vs calorie dense starchy
high GI carbs.

Of course the question I would ask is why with the current
anti-fat craze, people who grow cows for a living still try to
"fatten them up". You would think that they would want to pick
a diet that would promote the production of as much lean
muscle as possible with as little fat as possible.

It's a shame you can't feed them Myoplex and get them to
lift weights.

[Justin Bon]

HBrook67@aol.com (September) wrote in message
news:<55f47425.0202030817.24809873@posting.google.com>...
> From The Zone website:
>
> "If you wanted to find out the best way to make people fat,
> who would you consult? One industry has spent millions and
> millions of dollars studying this question, and that's the
> cattle and hog industry. Why? Because for them, learning the
> quickest way to fatten an animal leads to the highest
> profits.
>
> So how do they do it? Do they feed their livestock diets
> high in fat? Do they put out tubs of butter and ice cream
> to get their animals nice and plump? No! The cattle
> industry knows that the quickest way to fatten cows and
> hogs is to restrict their activity, not let them roam on
> the range (sort of like our couch potatoes), and feed them
> lots and lots of low fat, complex carbohydrates, in the
> form of grain."
>
>
> Can cattle and hogs eat butter and ice cream? Can their
> digestive systems deal with these foods? I thought they were
> basically herbivores. If allowed to choose, wouldn't they
> prefer grasses? Also, how do the digestve systems of these
> two animals compare to that of humans?

Remember, according to USDA data americans eat lower in fat
now than they did 20 years ago and yet rates of obesity and
adult onset diabetes are higher (refs upon request). Yeah,
I'd say the low fat diet movement has been a resounding
success. *laughs*

Seriously, when will the last holdouts of the 'eating fat
makes you fat' school of thought dry up?

Justin

[Martin Ban]

HBrook67@aol.com (September) wrote in message

> Can cattle and hogs eat butter and ice cream? Can their
> digestive systems deal with these foods? I thought they were
> basically herbivores. If allowed to choose, wouldn't they
> prefer grasses? Also, how do the digestve systems of these
> two animals compare to that of humans?

Both dairy cows and laying chickens have been given high
fat diets and they do very well. For chickens, the egg
yolk has higher PUFA content and higher conjugated
linoleic acid levels.

For dairy cows, the milk has much more PUFA and the butter
formed from the milk fat is high in PUFA and much softer than
standard butter. Both the milk and the butter have much
hiigher conjugated linoleic acid levels than pasture feed or
grain feed dairy cows.

The fat for all of these studies done with chickens or cows
was either flaxseed oil or fish oil. Fat can be good for you.

In animals exposed to conjugated linoleic acid on a regular
basis, they lean up because conjugated linoleic acid inhibits
the lipoprotein lipase in adipose tissue.

[Alpha Male]

"September" <HBrook67@aol.com> wrote in part:
>
> So how do they do it? Do they feed their livestock diets
> high in fat? Do they put out tubs of butter and ice cream
> to get their animals nice and plump? No! The cattle
> industry knows that the quickest way to fatten cows and
> hogs is to restrict their activity, not let them roam on
> the range (sort of like our couch potatoes), and feed them
> lots and lots of low fat, complex carbohydrates, in the
> form of grain."

Grain??? I'd like to know what pct of their diet is grain.
Some farmers openly boast of feeding their cows 50% chicken
manure (hi-protein). Tip: The real growth-promoter
farmers/ranchers love is their arsenal of 50+ female hormones.

[Justin Bon]

mbansch314@aol.com (Martin Banschbach) wrote in message
news:<cba7fed1.0202031358.7c463870@posting.google.com>...
> HBrook67@aol.com (September) wrote in message
>
> > Can cattle and hogs eat butter and ice cream? Can their
> > digestive systems deal with these foods? I thought they
> > were basically herbivores. If allowed to choose, wouldn't
> > they prefer grasses? Also, how do the digestve systems of
> > these two animals compare to that of humans?
>
> Both the milk and the butter have much hiigher conjugated
> linoleic acid levels than pasture feed or grain feed
> dairy cows.

Do you have a referance for that? I posted one the other day
showing that pasture produces the highest CLA levels of
several differant feeding types.

Justin

[September]

"Alpha Male" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<a3kske$193553$1@ID-119695.news.dfncis.de>...
> Tip: The real growth-promoter farmers/ranchers love is their
> arsenal of 50+ female hormones.

Since posting my question to SMN, I did a little web searching
and found this site:
http://www.rhhall.ie/print/issue4_1999.html

This is what it states about steroid hormones...

"In Irish beef production systems maximum growth rate is
generally a pre-requisite for profitability. If attainment of
a target growth rate on a forage-based diet is not possible,
supplementary energy must be offered, usually in the form of
energy dense concentrates. When compared to unsupplemented
cattle, cattle fed concentrates will have a heavier and fatter
carcass at a similar age or will be younger at any common
carcass weight. An increase in the level of energy supply
during the finishing period generally has a positive effect on
tenderness, juiciness and flavour which is most likely due to
an increase in intramuscular fat deposition and a decrease in
the heat stability of the muscle connective tissue. Much of
the data in support of this observation comes from the United
States where steers that have been fed a forage-based
pre-feedlot diet are implanted with steroid hormones and fed
high energy diets ad libitum in a feedlot for various lengths
of time. Responses in meat quality therefore reflect the high
growth rates achieved rather than diet per se. This production
system could allow comparison of the effects of individual
feed ingredients on meat quality but there is a paucity of
such comparisons in the literature."

[Jay Tanzma]

Justin Bond wrote:
>
> HBrook67@aol.com (September) wrote in message
> news:<55f47425.0202030817.24809873@posting.google.com>...
> > From The Zone website:
> >
> > "If you wanted to find out the best way to make people
> > fat, who would you consult? One industry has spent
> > millions and millions of dollars studying this question,
> > and that's the cattle and hog industry. Why? Because for
> > them, learning the quickest way to fatten an animal leads
> > to the highest profits.
> >
> > So how do they do it? Do they feed their livestock diets
> > high in fat? Do they put out tubs of butter and ice cream
> > to get their animals nice and plump? No! The cattle
> > industry knows that the quickest way to fatten cows and
> > hogs is to restrict their activity, not let them roam on
> > the range (sort of like our couch potatoes), and feed them
> > lots and lots of low fat, complex carbohydrates, in the
> > form of grain."
> >
> >
> > Can cattle and hogs eat butter and ice cream? Can their
> > digestive systems deal with these foods? I thought they
> > were basically herbivores. If allowed to choose, wouldn't
> > they prefer grasses? Also, how do the digestve systems of
> > these two animals compare to that of humans?
>
> Remember, according to USDA data americans eat lower in fat
> now than they did 20 years ago and yet rates of obesity and
> adult onset diabetes are higher (refs upon request).

This is an example of ecologic fallacy. At any one point in
time (analogous to 'within any one country' in international
studies), percentage of total energy intake from fat would be
postitively correlated with total energy intake. The reason
that Americans have gotten fatter over the last 20 years is
not becuse their fat intakes have dropped.

> Yeah, I'd say the low fat diet movement has been a
> resounding success. *laughs*
>
> Seriously, when will the last holdouts of the 'eating fat
> makes you fat' school of thought dry up?

To a first approximation, it does.

-Jay

[Timothy J.]

In article <9e410988.0202031330.359abc25@posting.google.com>,
Justin Bond <justin_bond@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Remember, according to USDA data americans eat lower in fat
>now than they did 20 years ago and yet rates of obesity and
>adult onset diabetes are higher (refs upon request).

Isn't it a lower percentage of calories from fat, but more
total calories (from all sources) per day?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is
not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with
this message.

[Martin Ban]

justin_bond@hotmail.com (Justin Bond) wrote in message
news:<9e410988.0202031720.3721e7dc@posting.google.com>...

> > Both the milk and the butter have much hiigher conjugated
> > linoleic acid levels than pasture feed or grain feed
> > dairy cows.
>
> Do you have a referance for that? I posted one the other day
> showing that pasture produces the highest CLA levels of
> several differant feeding types.
>
> Justin

Justin, you going to see a tremendous variation in the CLA
content of cow's milk (2.5 to 17.7 mg/g of fat). J. Dairy Sci
1996 Mar;79(3):438-445.

This variation is due to food source, breed and copper status
(my interpretion of the published data).

Food source:

corn silage low oil corn - 3.8 mg/g high oil corn - 3.9 mg/g

1/3 pasture, 2/3 alfalfa hay - 8.9 mg/g
2/3 pasture, 1/3 alfalfa hay - 14.3 mg/g all pasture -
22.1 mg /g

55% alfalfa, 45% grain - 5.3 mg/g 3% fish meal added - 8.6
mg/g 250 grams of monensin added - 6.8 mg/g monensin and fish
meal added - 8.9 mg/g

J Dairy Sci 1999 Oct;82(10):2146-2156.

25% corn silage, 25% alfalfa hay plus 50% experimental mix
(corn and alfalfa with or without fish oil)

2% fish oil in the experimental mix - 22.0 mg/g CLA, 356%
increase over control.

3% fish oil - no further increase in CLA. Changed omega-3 from
a trace in the control diet to over 10 mg/g.

J. Dairy Sci. 2000 Nov;83(11):2620-2628.

For a medline search for CLA and butter you will get 7 hits.

Here is just 1 of the papers. I wish the U.S. would start
selling this kind of butter, I would buy it.

50/50 ratio of forage to concentrate.

Concentrate is forage plus oil at 2%

no oil - 5.6 mg/g fish oil - 23 mg/g fish oil plus soybean oil
- 21.7 mg/g

butter obtained from the fish oil soybean oil mix was much
softer than the butter obtained from the other treatment
diets. A panel of sensory appeal experts could find no
difference in flavor for the three kinds of butter.

J. Dairy Sci 2001 Oct;84(10):2144-2151.

This area of CLA in human health is so important that I am
going to cover CLA as several new threads. While going over
the literature I decided that I made a very big mistake in
using a CLA supplement. I do not use it often and when I do
use it I take it with fish oil supplements, a natural mixed
Tocopherol and Tocotrienol supplement, a Coenzyme Q10
supplement and a lecithin supplement.

[Justin Bon]

Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:<3C5EE2D9.AB93E5C@sph.llu.edu>...
> Justin Bond wrote:
> >
> > Remember, according to USDA data americans eat lower in
> > fat now than they did 20 years ago and yet rates of
> > obesity and adult onset diabetes are higher (refs upon
> > request).
>
> This is an example of ecologic fallacy. At any one point in
> time (analogous to 'within any one country' in international
> studies), percentage of total energy intake from fat would
> be postitively correlated with total energy intake. The
> reason that Americans have gotten fatter over the last 20
> years is not becuse their fat intakes have dropped.

That's true.

> > Seriously, when will the last holdouts of the 'eating fat
> > makes you fat' school of thought dry up?
>
> To a first approximation, it does.

Referance, please.

Justin

[Justin Bon]

mbansch314@aol.com (Martin Banschbach) wrote in message
news:<cba7fed1.0202041220.2e73d102@posting.google.com>...
> justin_bond@hotmail.com (Justin Bond) wrote in message
> news:<9e410988.0202031720.3721e7dc@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > Both the milk and the butter have much hiigher
> > > conjugated linoleic acid levels than pasture feed or
> > > grain feed dairy cows.
> >
> > Do you have a referance for that? I posted one the other
> > day showing that pasture produces the highest CLA levels
> > of several differant feeding types.
>
> all pasture - 22.1 mg /g
>
> Here is just 1 of the papers. I wish the U.S. would start
> selling this kind of butter, I would buy it.
>
> 50/50 ratio of forage to concentrate.
>
> Concentrate is forage plus oil at 2%
>
> fish oil - 23 mg/g

Ah, I stand corrected. What is forage? I'm not a farmer. In
any case, it only edges out the all pasture by a small amount.
Is there any reason why you would want the fish oil butter
over all pasture? You can get 100% pasture butter if through
mail order, some CSA's, and some health food stores. I
personally use raw (unpasteurized) pasture butter.

Justin

[Jay Tanzma]

Justin Bond wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3C5EE2D9.AB93E5C@sph.llu.edu>...
> > Justin Bond wrote:
> > >
> > > Remember, according to USDA data americans eat lower in
> > > fat now than they did 20 years ago and yet rates of
> > > obesity and adult onset diabetes are higher (refs upon
> > > request).
> >
> > This is an example of ecologic fallacy. At any one point
> > in time (analogous to 'within any one country' in
> > international studies), percentage of total energy intake
> > from fat would be postitively correlated with total energy
> > intake. The reason that Americans have gotten fatter over
> > the last 20 years is not becuse their fat intakes have
> > dropped.
>
> That's true.
>
> > > Seriously, when will the last holdouts of the 'eating
> > > fat makes you fat' school of thought dry up?
> >
> > To a first approximation, it does.
>
> Referance, please.

Here:

-begin quote-

Ad libitum food intake on a "cafeteria diet" in Native
American women: relations with body composition and 24-h
energy expenditure

DE Larson, PA Tataranni, RT Ferraro and E Ravussin Clinical
Diabetes and Nutrition Section, National Institute of Diabetes
and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of
Health, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

Epidemiologic studies consistently report associations
between obesity and dietary fat but not total energy intake.
We measured ad libitum food intake in a laboratory setting
and evaluated its relation to body weight and composition,
energy expenditure, and macronutrient utilization in 28 women
of Pima-Papago heritage (aged 27 +/- 7 y, 85.3 +/- 19.0 kg,
44 +/- 6% body fat; means +/- SD). All women were studied
during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. After a
4-d weight- maintenance period, the volunteers selected their
food for 5 d from computerized vending machines offering a
variety of familiar and preferred foods, ie, a "cafeteria
diet". Twenty-four-hour energy expenditure and substrate
oxidation were measured in a respiratory chamber on the 4th d
o weight maintenance and the 5th d of ad libitum intake.
Average ad libitum intake was 13,732 +/- 4238 kJ/d (11 +/- 1%
protein, 40 +/- 1% fat, 49 +/- 4% carbohydrate), ie, moderate
overeating by 27 +/- 37% above weight maintenance
requirements (range: - 27% to 124%). Percent body fat
correlated with daily energy intake (r
= .53, P < 0.01), the degree of overeating (r = 0.41, P <
= 0.05), and the
selection of a diet higher in fat and lower in carbohydrate (r
= 0.70 and r = -0.63, respectively, P < 0.001). Excess
carbohydrate intake caused an increase in carbohydrate
oxidation (r = 0.51, P < 0.01), whereas excess fat intake
resulted in a decrease in fat oxidation (r = - 0.53, P < 0.01)
and thus a positive fat balance of 85 +/- 65 g/d. The positive
relations among degrees of obesity, dietary fat intake and
overeating, and the fact that dietary fat does not induce fat
oxidation, support the hypothesis that dietary fat promotes
obesity in women. Am J Clin Nutr 62: 911-917.

-end quote-

[Martin Ban]

justin_bond@hotmail.com (Justin Bond) wrote in message

> Ah, I stand corrected. What is forage? I'm not a farmer. In
> any case, it only edges out the all pasture by a small
> amount. Is there any reason why you would want the fish oil
> butter over all pasture? You can get 100% pasture butter if
> through mail order, some CSA's, and some health food stores.
> I personally use raw (unpasteurized) pasture butter.
>
> Justin

Not ever having been involved in raising dairy cows, I don't
know what forage is. My guess is that it's pasture grass that
has been converted to hay but that's only a guess.

I did not know that all pasture butter could be purchased. I
use butter, no margarine for me. Again my wife and son think
I'm crazy, they will only use margarine.

I go to Atkin's a lot (a local health food store) and buy some
of their produce but I do not recall seeing pasture butter
there. If I do a google search I should be able to find it.

I would like to get my hands on the butter produced with fish
oil and soybean oil because it is much softer than regular
butter. My wife and son hate butter because it tears up their
english muffins and bread when they try to spread it.

If you remember to take it out of the frig, it's not so bad
but who remembers these kinds of things?

[Justin Bon]

Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:<3C601AB8.E3FF3C37@sph.llu.edu>...
> Justin Bond wrote:
> >
> > Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<3C5EE2D9.AB93E5C@sph.llu.edu>...
> > > Justin Bond wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Remember, according to USDA data americans eat lower
> > > > in fat now than they did 20 years ago and yet rates of
> > > > obesity and adult onset diabetes are higher (refs upon
> > > > request).
> > >
> > > This is an example of ecologic fallacy. At any one point
> > > in time (analogous to 'within any one country' in
> > > international studies), percentage of total energy
> > > intake from fat would be postitively correlated with
> > > total energy intake. The reason that Americans have
> > > gotten fatter over the last 20 years is not becuse their
> > > fat intakes have dropped.
> >
> > That's true.
> >
> > > > Seriously, when will the last holdouts of the 'eating
> > > > fat makes you fat' school of thought dry up?
> > >
> > > To a first approximation, it does.
> >
> > Referance, please.
>
> Here:
>
> -begin quote-
>
<snip>
>
> -end quote-

Jay,

Ad Libitum studies? Epidemiology? How did you manage to miss
the clinical studies in your review? The only kind of study
that establish causality is strangely absent. Allow me to fill
in the gaps:

First to rebut the Ad Libitum and Epidemiology, clinical
studies show that focusing on reducing energy intake achieve
more weight loss than those that focus on reducing fat intake:
--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Obes Res 1998 May;6(3):202-7 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

The efficacy of dietary fat vs. total energy restriction for
weight loss.

Harvey-Berino J.

University of Vermont, Department of Nutritional Sciences,
Burlington 05405-0148, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Dietary fat restriction is currently being promoted
as a weight loss strategy. However, previous investigations
suggest that fat restriction alone may not be more beneficial
than total energy restriction for the treatment of obesity.
The purpose of this project was to assess whether an
energy-restricted or fat-restricted diet was more effective at
promoting weight loss, improving eating behaviors, and
reducing barriers to dietary adherence. RESEARCH METHODS AND
PROCEDURES: Eighty individuals (15 men and 65 women) were
randomized into the two treatment conditions. Subjects were
120% to 140% of ideal body weight and 25 years to 45 years
old. Treatment consisted of 24 weeks of dietary fat (22 g/day
to 26 g/day) or energy restriction (4,186 kJ/day to 5,023
kJ/day), including behavior modification and exercise. Body
weight change, dietary intake, eating behaviors, and barriers
to adherence were measured at baseline and after treatment.
RESULTS: Results show that subjects in the energy-restricted
condition lost over twice as much weight as those in the
fat-restricted group
(11.5 kg vs. 5.2 kg). Additionally, subjects in the low-energy
condition had greater improvements in eating behavior
scores, enhanced feelings of wellness, a greater distaste
for dietary fat, and no more pronounced feelings of
deprivation than did those in the fat-restricted
condition. DISCUSSION: An energy-restricted diet produces
greater short-term weight loss than dietary fat
restriction without many of the negative consequences
commonly attributed to reducing energy intake.

--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
There is mixed info comparing diets with differant fat
content. Sometimes it seems like the degree of energy
restriction is all that matters:

--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Am J Clin Nutr 1996 Feb;63(2):174-8 Related Articles,
Books, LinkOut

Comment in: Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Nov;64(5):823-5.

Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets.

Golay A, Allaz AF, Morel Y, de Tonnac N, Tankova S, Reaven G.

Department of Medicine, Geneva University Hospital,
Switzerland.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of diets
that were equally low in energy but widely different in
relative amounts of fat and carbohydrate on body weight during
a 6-wk period of hospitalization. Consequently, 43 adult,
obese persons were randomly assigned to receive diets
containing 4.2 MJ/d (1000 kcal/d) composed of either 32%
protein, 15% carbohydrate, and 53% fat, or 29% protein, 45%
carbohydrate, and 26% fat. There was no significant difference
in the amount of weight loss in response to diets containing
either 15%
(12.9 +/- 0.6 kg) or 45% (7.5 +/- 0.5 kg) carbohydrate.
Furthermore, significant decreases in total body fat and
waist-to-hip circumference were seen in both groups, and
the magnitude of the changes did not vary as a function of
diet composition. Fasting plasma glucose, insulin,
cholesterol, and triacylglycerol concentrations decreased
significantly in patients eating low-energy diets that
contained 15% carbohydrate, but neither plasma insulin nor
triacylglycerol concentrations fell significantly in
response to the higher-carbohydrate diet. The results of
this study showed that it was energy intake, not nutrient
composition, that determined weight loss in response to
low-energy diets over a short time period.
--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
However, other studies show extra weight loss in the higher
fat group:

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001 Oct;25(10):1503-11 Related
Articles, Books, LinkOut

A randomized controlled trial of a moderate-fat, low-energy
diet compared with a low fat, low-energy diet for weight loss
in overweight adults.

McManus K, Antinoro L, Sacks F.

Department of Nutrition, Brigham and Women's Hospital and
Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
kdmcmanus@bics.bwh.harvard.edu

CONTEXT: Long-term success in weight loss with dietary
treatment has been elusive. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a diet
moderate in fat based on the Mediterranean diet compared to a
standard low-fat diet for weight loss when both were
controlled for energy. DESIGN: A randomized, prospective 18
month trial in a free-living population. PATIENTS: A total of
101 overweight men and women (26.5-46 kg/m(2)). INTERVENTION:
(13) Moderate-fat diet (35% of energy); (2) low-fat diet (20%
of energy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Change in body
weight. RESULTS: After 18 months, 31/50 subjects in the
moderate-fat group, and 30/51 in the low fat group were
available for measurements. In the moderate-fat group,
there were mean decreases in body weight of 4.1 kg, body
mass index of 1.6 kg/m(2), and waist circumference of 6.9
cm, compared to increases in the low-fat group of 2.9 kg,
1.4 kg/m(2) and
14.6 cm, respectively; P < or = 0.001 between the groups.
The difference in weight change between the groups was
7.0 kg. (95% CI
15.3, 8.7). Only 20% (10/51) of those in the low-fat group
were actively participating in the weight loss program
after 18 months compared to 54% (27/50) in the moderate-fat
group, (P<0.002). The moderate-fat diet group was continued
for an additional year. The mean weight loss after 30
months compared to baseline was 3.5 kg (n = 19, P
= .03). CONCLUSIONS: A moderate-fat, Mediterranean-style diet,
controlled in energy, offers an alternative to a low-fat diet
with superior long-term participation and adherence, with
consequent improvements in weight loss.

--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
This trend of people in the high fat group losing more weight
relative to the low fat group is particularly pronounced in
the low-carb diets:
--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Nutr Metab 1978;22(5):269-77 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Comparative studies in obese subjects fed
carbohydrate-restricted and high carbohydrate 1,000-calorie
formula diets.

Rabast U, Kasper H, Schonborn J.

45 obese subjects were fed a high-carbohydrate, relatively
low-fat, or a low-carbohydrate, relatively high-fat
1,000-calorie (4.14MJ) formula diet. The diet provided for an
isoenergetic substitution of 170 g of carbohydrates for 75 g
of fat. Weight reduction up to day 30 was significantly higher
in the subjects on the carbohydrate-restricted diet. There
were no significant differences between the water and
electrolyte balances. The mean total weight reduction achieved
on the high-carbohydrate diet was 9.8 +/- 4.5kg with a mean
daily weight loss of 298 +/- 80g, while the corresponding
values on the carbohydrate-restricted diet were 14 +/- 7.2 kg
and 362 +/- 91 g/day, respectively.

--------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Am J Public Health 1986 Nov;76(11):1293-6 Related Articles,
Books, LinkOut

A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low
fat/high fiber diets for weight loss.

Baron JA, Schori A, Crow B, Carter R, Mann JI.

Among 135 overweight subjects, we conducted a three-month
randomized controlled trial of two sets of dietary advice,
each providing approximately 1,000 calories per day but
differing in fiber, carbohydrate, and fat content. Information
on weight and eating habits, as well as measures of
lipoprotein and glucose metabolism were obtained at entry and
one and three months later. We found that dieters given low
carbohydrate/low fiber dietary advice tended to lose more
weight than those given a higher carbohydrate/higher fiber
regimen (5.0 vs 3.7 kg on average at three months). This
pattern was particularly marked among women, and among
participants who were under age 40 or of lower social class.
There were no differences between the diet groups in the
proportion complaining of hunger but, in general, members of
the low carbohydrate group complained of more problems in
dieting. There were only minor differences in the serum
lipoprotein patterns during the diet period. In view of these
results, we believe previous claims of the benefits of fiber
for weight loss may have been overstated.
--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------

So, I'm intrigured. Before looking into this I believed that
all that mattered was energy intake and the higher calorie
content of fat was offset by its greateer satiating effects.
But it may be that high(er) fat diets have a real benefit
beyond the energy restriction. One reason might be that the
satiating effects of fat are greater than its increased energy
density, and that while researchers may have put people on
1000 kcal/day diets, they did not force subjects to finish
their meals.

Since the greater weight loss is seen in the low carb diets,
it may also be that the subjects were going into ketosis, and
IIRC, there is a loss of energy when converting lipids to
ketones. However, I don't think that's it. I'll bet
researchers did not force people to finish their meals.

Finally, lest I be confused of selective citation, the only
studies I found in which low-fat diets were more effective
than moderate fat diets were ones in which the moderate fat
group formed a 'usual diet' control. IMO, this goes back to
the first reference I mentioned: having people focus on fat
restriction does result in weight loss, but having people
focus on energy restriction results in even more.

I think I'll spend some time in the library on this one. I'm
very curious about the satiating effects of fat now.

Justin

[Justin Bon]

mbansch314@aol.com (Martin Banschbach) wrote in message
news:<cba7fed1.0202051125.6978c962@posting.google.com>...
> justin_bond@hotmail.com (Justin Bond) wrote in message
>
> > Ah, I stand corrected. What is forage? I'm not a farmer.
> > In any case, it only edges out the all pasture by a small
> > amount. Is there any reason why you would want the fish
> > oil butter over all pasture? You can get 100% pasture
> > butter if through mail order, some CSA's, and some health
> > food stores. I personally use raw (unpasteurized) pasture
> > butter.
> >
> > Justin
>
> Not ever having been involved in raising dairy cows, I don't
> know what forage is. My guess is that it's pasture grass
> that has been converted to hay but that's only a guess.
>
> I did not know that all pasture butter could be purchased. I
> use butter, no margarine for me. Again my wife and son think
> I'm crazy, they will only use margarine.

lol, that must be like chinese water torture. Here you are
with a doctorate in ??? (nutritional biochemstry?) something,
and your family eats margarine in front of you. Ouch.

> I go to Atkin's a lot (a local health food store) and buy
> some of their produce but I do not recall seeing pasture
> butter there. If I do a google search I should be able to
> find it.

You may want to start with:

http://www.eatwild.com/suppliers.html
http://www.biodynamics.com/csa.html

to find local suppliers. Also there is a nationally
distributed brand of pasture butter from irish cows called
Kerrygold. Its more expensive than supporting your local CSA,
but its probably worth it. You may find a gourmet supermarket
or health food store that carries it.

> I would like to get my hands on the butter produced with
> fish oil and soybean oil because it is much softer than
> regular butter. My wife and son hate butter because it
> tears up their english muffins and bread when they try to
> spread it.

I hope no marketers are reading this thread - your family is
their dream :p

"now in a new, easier spreading variety!"

Anyways, there is a device called a butter bell that you
can get from some specialty kitchen stores. Its basically a
bowl that you put butter in, then invert and put into a
larger bowl partially filled with water. Your butter will
stay soft and fresh outside of the freezer for several
weeks or longer that way.

> If you remember to take it out of the frig, it's not so bad
> but who remembers these kinds of things?

Not me, that's for sure.

Justin

[Jay Tanzma]

Justin Bond wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3C601AB8.E3FF3C37@sph.llu.edu>...
> > Justin Bond wrote:
> > >
> > > Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:<3C5EE2D9.AB93E5C@sph.llu.edu>...
> > > > Justin Bond wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember, according to USDA data americans eat lower
> > > > > in fat now than they did 20 years ago and yet rates
> > > > > of obesity and adult onset diabetes are higher (refs
> > > > > upon request).
> > > >
> > > > This is an example of ecologic fallacy. At any one
> > > > point in time (analogous to 'within any one country'
> > > > in international studies), percentage of total energy
> > > > intake from fat would be postitively correlated with
> > > > total energy intake. The reason that Americans have
> > > > gotten fatter over the last 20 years is not becuse
> > > > their fat intakes have dropped.
> > >
> > > That's true.
> > >
> > > > > Seriously, when will the last holdouts of the
> > > > > 'eating fat makes you fat' school of thought dry up?
> > > >
> > > > To a first approximation, it does.
> > >
> > > Referance, please.
> >
> > Here:
> >
> > -begin quote-
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > -end quote-
>
> Jay,
>
> Ad Libitum studies? Epidemiology? How did you manage to miss
> the clinical studies in your review? The only kind of study
> that establish causality is strangely absent. Allow me to
> fill in the gaps:
>
> First to rebut the Ad Libitum and Epidemiology...

Justin, be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth into
gear. The "ad libitum" study I posted _was_ a clinical study.

It was a mistake for me to address your sloppily worded
statement that "eating fat makes you fat," with my own sloppy
comment that "to a first approximation, it does." But, what I
meant by that, is exactly what the reference (which is
representative of a body of similar studies) I posted shows:
that people who self-select higher fat diets tend to have
higher body fat and higher energy intake (after adjustment for
physical activity) than those who self-select lower-fat diets.

> ...clinical studies show that focusing on reducing energy
> intake achieve more weight loss than those that focus on
> reducing fat intake:

This is a banality, and does not contradict either my
statement or the abstract I posted.

-Jay

[Justin Bon]

Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:<3C616A52.54EAE713@sph.llu.edu>...
> Justin Bond wrote:
> >
> > Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<3C601AB8.E3FF3C37@sph.llu.edu>...
> >
> > Ad Libitum studies? Epidemiology? How did you manage to
> > miss the clinical studies in your review? The only kind of
> > study that establish causality is strangely absent. Allow
> > me to fill in the gaps:
> >
> > First to rebut the Ad Libitum and Epidemiology...
>
> Justin, be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth
> into gear. The "ad libitum" study I posted _was_ a
> clinical study.

Oh? What was the control group and what was the intervention
group? In the abstract you posted there was one cohort which
self selected a diet and that diets fat and carbohydrate
content was measured to see how it correlated with obesity.

Surely you recognize the fact that a clinical intervention
trial is a more controlled and rigorous form of study than an
ad libitum trial?

Justin

[Jay Tanzma]

Justin Bond wrote:
>
> Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3C616A52.54EAE713@sph.llu.edu>...
> > Justin Bond wrote:
> > >
> > > Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:<3C601AB8.E3FF3C37@sph.llu.edu>...
> > >
> > > Ad Libitum studies? Epidemiology? How did you manage to
> > > miss the clinical studies in your review? The only kind
> > > of study that establish causality is strangely absent.
> > > Allow me to fill in the gaps:
> > >
> > > First to rebut the Ad Libitum and Epidemiology...
> >
> > Justin, be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth into
> > gear. The "ad libitum" study I posted _was_ a clinical
> > study.
>
> Oh? What was the control group and what was the intervention
> group? In the abstract you posted there was one cohort which
> self selected a diet and that diets fat and carbohydrate
> content was measured to see how it correlated with obesity.
>
> Surely you recognize the fact that a clinical intervention
> trial is a more controlled and rigorous form of study than
> an ad libitum trial?

"Clinical" means it was done in a clinical setting. Strictly
speaking, it means the subjects are patients, but the term is
often used to mean any study done with human subjects under
controlled conditions. In the present study, the hypothesis
concerned self-selected, or ad libitum, diets, so subjects
were provided ad libitum access to "computerized food vending
machines" containing a variety of foods in a "laboratory
setting." These are tightly controlled conditions. The
investigators knew exactly how much of each macronutrient each
subject ate. There was no control group per se. Since
comparisons were among subjects who selected different diets,
subjects were each others' controls. What this study is not is
a _randomized_ controlled trial (RCT); however, randomization
would defeat the purpose of the study. There are, however,
RCTs that have investigated the effect of macronutrient
content on total energy intake, which have found similar
results: the proportion of calories from fat in the diet
correlates with total calories consumed.

-Jay

[Justin Bon]

Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:<3C61BB65.ACC70244@sph.llu.edu>...
> Justin Bond wrote:
> >
> > Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:<3C616A52.54EAE713@sph.llu.edu>...
> > > Justin Bond wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:<3C601AB8.E3FF3C37@sph.llu.edu>...
> > > >
> > > > Ad Libitum studies? Epidemiology? How did you manage
> > > > to miss the clinical studies in your review? The only
> > > > kind of study that establish causality is strangely
> > > > absent. Allow me to fill in the gaps:
> > > >
> > > > First to rebut the Ad Libitum and Epidemiology...
> > >
> > > Justin, be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth
> > > into gear. The "ad libitum" study I posted _was_ a
> > > clinical study.
> >
> > Oh? What was the control group and what was the
> > intervention group? In the abstract you posted there was
> > one cohort which self selected a diet and that diets fat
> > and carbohydrate content was measured to see how it
> > correlated with obesity.
> >
> > Surely you recognize the fact that a clinical intervention
> > trial is a more controlled and rigorous form of study than
> > an ad libitum trial?
>
> "Clinical" means it was done in a clinical setting. Strictly
> speaking, it means the subjects are patients, but the term
> is often used to mean any study done with human subjects
> under controlled conditions. In the present study, the
> hypothesis concerned self-selected, or ad libitum, diets, so
> subjects were provided ad libitum access to "computerized
> food vending machines" containing a variety of foods in a
> "laboratory setting." These are tightly controlled
> conditions. The investigators knew exactly how much of each
> macronutrient each subject ate. There was no control group
> per se. Since comparisons were among subjects who selected
> different diets, subjects were each others' controls. What
> this study is not is a _randomized_ controlled trial (RCT);
> however, randomization would defeat the purpose of the
> study. There are, however, RCTs that have investigated the
> effect of macronutrient content on total energy intake,
> which have found similar results: the proportion of calories
> from fat in the diet correlates with total calories
> consumed.

Now we're back on track.

Referances, please.

Justin

[Jay Tanzma]

Justin Bond <justin_bond@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e410988.0202061734.6cd73098@posting.google.com...

> Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:<3C61BB65.ACC70244@sph.llu.edu>

> > There are, however, RCTs that have investigated the effect
> > of macronutrient content on total
energy
> > intake, which have found similar results: the proportion
> > of calories
from fat in
> > the diet correlates with total calories consumed.
>
> Now we're back on track.

Well, I suspose we are back on track if that means we are back
to your agenda.

> Referances, please.

The following controlled trials all show the same thing: that
when energy intake is not restricted, energy intake
spontaneously increases in response to an increase in the
percentage of fat in the diet. The first two studies are
randomized controlled trials, the second two are controlled
clinical trials, the final abstract summarizes two clinical
trials, but does not specify whether they are randomized.

1: Am J Clin Nutr 1997 Sep;66(3):539-45

Ad libitum intake of a high-carbohydrate or high-fat diet in
young men: effects on nutrient balances.

Proserpi C, Sparti A, Schutz Y, Di Vetta V, Milon H,
Jequier E.

The effect of diet composition [high-carbohydrate, low-fat
(HC) and high-fat, low-carbohydrate (HF) diets] on
macronutrient intakes and nutrient balances was investigated
in young men of normal body weight. Elven subjects were
studied on two occasions for 48 h in a whole-body indirect
calorimeter in a crossover design. Subjects selected their
meals from a list containing a large variety of common food,
which had a food quotient > 0.85 for the HC diet and < 0.85
for the HF diet. ***The average ad libitum intake was 14.41
+/- 0.85 MJ/d (67%, 18%, and 15% of energy as carbohydrate,
fat, and protein, respectively) with the HC diet and 18.25 +/-
0.90 MJ/d (26%, 61%, and 13% of energy as carbohydrate, fat,
and protein, respectively) with the HF diet.*** Total energy
expenditure was not significantly influenced by diet
composition: 10.46 +/- 0.27 and 10.97 +/- 0.22 MJ/d for the HC
and HF diets, respectively. During the 2 test days, cumulative
carbohydrate storage was 418 +/- 72 and 205 +/- 47 g, and fat
balance was 29 +/- 17 and 291 +/- 29 g with the HC and HF
diets, respectively. Only the HF diet induced a significantly
positive fat balance. These results emphasize the important
role of the dietary fat content in body fat storage.

Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial

2: Am J Clin Nutr 1995 Aug;62(2):316-29

Covert manipulation of dietary fat and energy density: effect
on substrate flux and food intake in men eating ad libitum.

Stubbs RJ, Harbron CG, Murgatroyd PR, Prentice AM.

This study assessed whether human food intake is regulated by
negative feedback, directly or indirectly, from carbohydrate
stores (glycogenostatic model). Six men were studied on three
occasions during 7 d of whole-body indirect calorimetry,
throughout which they had ad libitum access to one of three
covertly manipulated diets: low fat (20% of energy as fat, 67%
of energy as carbohydrate, and 13% of energy as protein; 4.80
kJ/g; LF), medium fat (40% of energy as fat, 47% of energy as
carbohydrate, and 13% of energy as protein; 5.59 kJ/g; MF), or
high fat (60% of energy as fat, 27% of energy as carbohydrate,
and 13% of energy as protein; 7.04 kJ/g; HF). ***Energy
intakes increased with percent fat (F[92,60] = 36.7; P <
0.001)***, producing average daily balances of -0.27, 0.77,
and 2.58 MJ/d during the LF, MF, and HF diets, respectively.
Changes in carbohydrate stores were attenuated by
autoregulatory changes in carbohydrate oxidation. Carbohydrate
balance showed a negative relation to the subsequent day's
energy balance (t
= 2.696; P = 0.0082) but explained only 5.5% of the variance.
= The relation
for fat was positive (t = 5.245; P < 0.0001), accounting for
19.9% of the variance (stepwise regression). LF, lower-energy
diets are more satiating than are HF-higher-energy diets, but
carbohydrate stores per se did not entirely account for the
change that diet composition had on energy intake. This study
suggests that protein and carbohydrate have potential to
reduce subsequent energy intake whereas there was no apparent
reductive effect due to fat.

Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial

3: Am J Clin Nutr 1992 May;55(5):934-42

Nutrient balance and energy expenditure during ad libitum
feeding of high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets in humans.

Thomas CD, Peters JC, Reed GW, Abumrad NN, Sun M, Hill JO.

To study the influence of diet composition on regulation of
body weight, we fed 21 weight-stable subjects (11 lean, 10
obese) high-carbohydrate (HC) and high-fat (HF) diets for 1 wk
each. Although diet composition was fixed, total energy intake
was unrestricted. ***Subjects had a higher energy intake on
the HF (11,039 +/- 2700 kJ/d) than on the HC (10,672 +/- 2617
kJ/d) diet (P less than 0.05)***, but energy expenditure was
not different between diets. On day 7 of the HC diet,
carbohydrate (CHO) oxidation was significantly related to CHO
intake with the slope of the regression line .99, suggesting
that overall CHO balance was near zero. However, the slope of
the regression line was greater for obese than for lean
subjects. On day 7 of the HF diet, fat oxidation was
significantly related to fat intake but the slope of the line
was 0.50, suggesting that overall fat balance was positive.
However, this relationship was due entirely to lean subjects,
with obese subjects showing no relationship between fat intake
and oxidation.

Publication Types: Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial

4: Am J Clin Nutr 1995 Aug;62(2):330-7

Covert manipulation of the ratio of dietary fat to
carbohydrate and energy density: effect on food intake and
energy balance in free-living men eating ad libitum.

Stubbs RJ, Ritz P, Coward WA, Prentice AM.

We previously increased the energy density and fat content
across three diets (factorial design), which led to a marked
increase in energy intake in six men over 7 d while
continuously resident in a whole-body indirect calorimeter. In
the present study we fed the same diets to seven men who were
resident in, but not confined to, a metabolic suite for 2
wk/diet. This added a component of increased physical
activity. The fat, carbohydrate, and protein contents,
respectively, of each diet (as a percent of energy) were as
follows: low-fat (LF), 20:67:13; medium-fat (MF), 40:47:13;
and high-fat (HF), 60:27:13. Energy density increased as the
percent of fat in the diet increased. ***Energy intakes from
the LF, MF, and HF diets (9.11, 10.32, and
5.78 MJ/d, respectively)*** were almost identical to those in
our calorimeter study (9.02, 10.2, and 12.35 MJ/d,
respectively) whereas energy expenditures (estimated by the
doubly labeled water method) were 12.45,
6.10, and 11.97 MJ/d on the LF, MF and HF diets, respectively,
compared with 9.48, 9.53, and 9.78 MJ/d, respectively, in
our calorimeter study. This finding suggests that diet
composition and energy expenditure combined influence energy
balance in humans.

Publication Types: Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial

7: Am J Clin Nutr 1991 May;53(5):1134-7

Nutritional determinants of the increase in energy intake
associated with a high-fat diet.

Tremblay A, Lavallee N, Almeras N, Allard L, Despres JP,
Bouchard C.

Two studies were performed to evaluate the short-term effect
of a high-fat diet on spontaneous energy intake and the
respective contribution of diet composition and energy density
of food. ***Ingestion of high-fat foods was associated with a
significant increase in energy intake in the two studies (P
less than 0.05).*** In study 1 this increase was accompanied
by a reduction in total weight of food consumed when compared
with values obtained under low-fat-diet conditions. Moreover,
the occurrence of satiety coincided with a level of
carbohydrate intake corresponding to the expected daily
carbohydrate oxidation when high-fat foods contained a
moderate amount of carbohydrates. In study 2, where the
carbohydrate content of high-fat foods was unusually low (less
than or equal to 25% of their energy content), carbohydrate
intake was lower than usual carbohydrate oxidation. Under the
conditions of this study, energy density of foods seemed to
play a significant role on the occurrence of satiety.

[Justin Bon]

Jay, I expected that you were going to come back with
references that showed people on a low-fat diet lost more
weight than people on a moderate or high-fat diet. Then I
would go back to the library and do a more thorough search
of the literature myself. Then after a few exchanges we'd
have the literature well covered and a preponderance of
evidance would emerge. Can we still do that, please? I'm
going home for the weekend, can I have a post from you with
a half dozen references showing that people on low-fat diets
lost more weight than people on moderate or high-fat diets
for when I get back?

I am willing to concede that once you get someone eating
low-fat, that that person will eat less than someone on a
tastier diet. But you can do the exact same thing by getting
someone to eat low-carb as well (I'll dig up a low-carb diet
in which calories were not restricted if you like). More
fundimentally, there are no 'get out of jail free' cards when
it comes to weight. You can either eat low-fat, or watch
portion size. Either one of them will be a lifetime
commitment, so if you're going to have to do, why not follow
the principle that gives you the most bang for the buck -
watching total caloric intake and not fat intake?

Justin

"Jay Tanzman" <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
news:<a41tnu$1b9c1v$1@ID-80132.news.dfncis.de>...
> Justin Bond <justin_bond@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9e410988.0202061734.6cd73098@posting.google.com...
>
> > Jay Tanzman <jtanzman@sph.llu.edu> wrote in message
> news:<3C61BB65.ACC70244@sph.llu.edu>
>
> > > There are, however, RCTs that have investigated the
> > > effect of macronutrient content on total
> energy
> > > intake, which have found similar results: the proportion
> > > of calories
> from fat in
> > > the diet correlates with total calories consumed.
> >
> > Now we're back on track.
>
> Well, I suspose we are back on track if that means we are
> back to your agenda.
>
> > Referances, please.
>
> The following controlled trials all show the same thing:
> that when energy intake is not restricted, energy intake
> spontaneously increases in response to an increase in the
> percentage of fat in the diet. The first two studies are
> randomized controlled trials, the second two are controlled
> clinical trials, the final abstract summarizes two clinical
> trials, but does not specify whether they are randomized.
>
> 1: Am J Clin Nutr 1997 Sep;66(3):539-45
>
> Ad libitum intake of a high-carbohydrate or high-fat diet in
> young men: effects on nutrient balances.
>
> Proserpi C, Sparti A, Schutz Y, Di Vetta V, Milon H,
> Jequier E.
>
> The effect of diet composition [high-carbohydrate, low-fat
> (HC) and high-fat, low-carbohydrate (HF) diets] on
> macronutrient intakes and nutrient balances was investigated
> in young men of normal body weight. Elven subjects were
> studied on two occasions for 48 h in a whole-body indirect
> calorimeter in a crossover design. Subjects selected their
> meals from a list containing a large variety of common food,
> which had a food quotient > 0.85 for the HC diet and < 0.85
> for the HF diet. ***The average ad libitum intake was 14.41
> +/- 0.85 MJ/d (67%, 18%, and 15% of energy as carbohydrate,
> fat, and protein, respectively) with the HC diet and 18.25
> +/- 0.90 MJ/d (26%, 61%, and 13% of energy as carbohydrate,
> fat, and protein, respectively) with the HF diet.*** Total
> energy expenditure was not significantly influenced by diet
> composition: 10.46 +/- 0.27 and 10.97 +/- 0.22 MJ/d for the
> HC and HF diets, respectively. During the 2 test days,
> cumulative carbohydrate storage was 418 +/- 72 and 205 +/-
> 47 g, and fat balance was 29 +/- 17 and 291 +/- 29 g with
> the HC and HF diets, respectively. Only the HF diet induced
> a significantly positive fat balance. These results
> emphasize the important role of the dietary fat content in
> body fat storage.
>
> Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized
> Controlled Trial
>
>
> 2: Am J Clin Nutr 1995 Aug;62(2):316-29
>
> Covert manipulation of dietary fat and energy density:
> effect on substrate flux and food intake in men eating ad
> libitum.
>
> Stubbs RJ, Harbron CG, Murgatroyd PR, Prentice AM.
>
> This study assessed whether human food intake is regulated
> by negative feedback, directly or indirectly, from
> carbohydrate stores (glycogenostatic model). Six men were
> studied on three occasions during 7 d of whole-body indirect
> calorimetry, throughout which they had ad libitum access to
> one of three covertly manipulated diets: low fat (20% of
> energy as fat, 67% of energy as carbohydrate, and 13% of
> energy as protein; 4.80 kJ/g; LF), medium fat (40% of energy
> as fat, 47% of energy as carbohydrate, and 13% of energy as
> protein; 5.59 kJ/g; MF), or high fat (60% of energy as fat,
> 27% of energy as carbohydrate, and 13% of energy as protein;
> 7.04 kJ/g; HF). ***Energy intakes increased with percent fat
> (F[92,60] = 36.7; P < 0.001)***, producing average daily
> balances of -0.27, 0.77, and 2.58 MJ/d during the LF, MF,
> and HF diets, respectively. Changes in carbohydrate stores
> were attenuated by autoregulatory changes in carbohydrate
> oxidation. Carbohydrate balance showed a negative relation
> to the subsequent day's energy balance (t
> = 2.696; P = 0.0082) but explained only 5.5% of the
> = variance. The relation
> for fat was positive (t = 5.245; P < 0.0001), accounting
> for 19.9% of the variance (stepwise regression). LF,
> lower-energy diets are more satiating than are
> HF-higher-energy diets, but carbohydrate stores per se
> did not entirely account for the change that diet
> composition had on energy intake. This study suggests
> that protein and carbohydrate have potential to reduce
> subsequent energy intake whereas there was no apparent
> reductive effect due to fat.
>
> Publication Types: Clinical Trial Randomized
> Controlled Trial
>
>
> 3: Am J Clin Nutr 1992 May;55(5):934-42
>
> Nutrient balance and energy expenditure during ad libitum
> feeding of high-fat and high-carbohydrate diets in humans.
>
> Thomas CD, Peters JC, Reed GW, Abumrad NN, Sun M, Hill JO.
>
> To study the influence of diet composition on regulation of
> body weight, we fed 21 weight-stable subjects (11 lean, 10
> obese) high-carbohydrate (HC) and high-fat (HF) diets for 1
> wk each. Although diet composition was fixed, total energy
> intake was unrestricted. ***Subjects had a higher energy
> intake on the HF (11,039 +/- 2700 kJ/d) than on the HC
> (10,672 +/- 2617 kJ/d) diet (P less than 0.05)***, but
> energy expenditure was not different between diets. On day 7
> of the HC diet, carbohydrate (CHO) oxidation was
> significantly related to CHO intake with the slope of the
> regression line .99, suggesting that overall CHO balance was
> near zero. However, the slope of the regression line was
> greater for obese than for lean subjects. On day 7 of the HF
> diet, fat oxidation was significantly related to fat intake
> but the slope of the line was 0.50, suggesting that overall
> fat balance was positive. However, this relationship was due
> entirely to lean subjects, with obese subjects showing no
> relationship between fat intake and oxidation.
>
> Publication Types: Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial
>
>
> 4: Am J Clin Nutr 1995 Aug;62(2):330-7
>
> Covert manipulation of the ratio of dietary fat to
> carbohydrate and energy density: effect on food intake and
> energy balance in free-living men eating ad libitum.
>
> Stubbs RJ, Ritz P, Coward WA, Prentice AM.
>
> We previously increased the energy density and fat content
> across three diets (factorial design), which led to a marked
> increase in energy intake in six men over 7 d while
> continuously resident in a whole-body indirect calorimeter.
> In the present study we fed the same diets to seven men who
> were resident in, but not confined to, a metabolic suite for
> 2 wk/diet. This added a component of increased physical
> activity. The fat, carbohydrate, and protein contents,
> respectively, of each diet (as a percent of energy) were as
> follows: low-fat (LF), 20:67:13; medium-fat (MF), 40:47:13;
> and high-fat (HF), 60:27:13. Energy density increased as the
> percent of fat in the diet increased. ***Energy intakes from
> the LF, MF, and HF diets (9.11, 10.32, and
> 12.78 MJ/d, respectively)*** were almost identical to those
> in our calorimeter study (9.02, 10.2, and 12.35 MJ/d,
> respectively) whereas energy expenditures (estimated by
> the doubly labeled water method) were 12.45,
> 12.10, and 11.97 MJ/d on the LF, MF and HF diets,
> respectively, compared with 9.48, 9.53, and 9.78 MJ/d,
> respectively, in our calorimeter study. This finding
> suggests that diet composition and energy expenditure
> combined influence energy balance in humans.
>
> Publication Types: Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial
>
>
> 5: Am J Clin Nutr 1991 May;53(5):1134-7
>
> Nutritional determinants of the increase in energy intake
> associated with a high-fat diet.
>
> Tremblay A, Lavallee N, Almeras N, Allard L, Despres JP,
> Bouchard C.
>
> Two studies were performed to evaluate the short-term effect
> of a high-fat diet on spontaneous energy intake and the
> respective contribution of diet composition and energy
> density of food. ***Ingestion of high-fat foods was
> associated with a significant increase in energy intake in
> the two studies (P less than 0.05).*** In study 1 this
> increase was accompanied by a reduction in total weight of
> food consumed when compared with values obtained under
> low-fat-diet conditions. Moreover, the occurrence of satiety
> coincided with a level of carbohydrate intake corresponding
> to the expected daily carbohydrate oxidation when high-fat
> foods contained a moderate amount of carbohydrates. In study
> 2, where the carbohydrate content of high-fat foods was
> unusually low (less than or equal to 25% of their energy
> content), carbohydrate intake was lower than usual
> carbohydrate oxidation. Under the conditions of this study,
> energy density of foods seemed to play a significant role on
> the occurrence of satiety.

[Jay Tanzma]

Justin Bond <justin_bond@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e410988.0202090911.997680f@posting.google.com...
> Jay, I expected that you were going to come back with
> references that showed people on a low-fat diet lost more
> weight than people on a moderate or high-fat diet.

Why would you expect that I would do that?

> Then I would go back to the library and do a more thorough
> search of the literature myself. Then after a few exchanges
> we'd have the literature well covered and a preponderance of
> evidance would emerge. Can we still do that, please?

No.

> I'm going home for the weekend, can I have a post from you
> with a half dozen references showing that people on low-fat
> diets lost more weight than people on moderate or high-fat
> diets for when I get back?

No.

> I am willing to concede that once you get someone eating
> low-fat, that that person will eat less than someone on a
> tastier diet. But you can do the exact same thing by getting
> someone to eat low-carb as well (I'll dig up a low-carb diet
> in which calories were not restricted if you like). More
> fundimentally, there are no 'get out of jail free' cards
> when it comes to weight. You can either eat low-fat, or
> watch portion size. Either one of them will be a lifetime
> commitment, so if you're going to have to do, why not follow
> the principle that gives you the most bang for the buck -
> watching total caloric intake and not fat intake?

That's fine with me.

-Jay