Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Mar-14-03, 20:27
abarlament abarlament is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 49
 
Plan: CKD
Stats: 235/212/200 Male 73 in
BF:estimated 18%
Progress: 66%
Location: WV
Default Where's the study that says low carb diets reduce muscle lost while reducing calories

Is there a study that says that while reducing calories, a low carb diet will spare more muscle in the same time as other low calorie diets?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Mar-14-03, 21:04
Lisa N's Avatar
Lisa N Lisa N is offline
Posts: 12,028
 
Plan: Bernstein Diabetes Soluti
Stats: 260/-/145 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Michigan
Default

Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Mar-15-03, 09:05
abarlament abarlament is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 49
 
Plan: CKD
Stats: 235/212/200 Male 73 in
BF:estimated 18%
Progress: 66%
Location: WV
Default

GREAT! Thank you very much the second one was JUST what I was looking for, thank you again!
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Jun-04-03, 13:56
doiron doiron is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 61
 
Plan: TKD
Stats: 195/185/210
BF:
Progress: -67%
Default

Not sure if those studies support this point -

the first study was really a comparison of a 30/43/27% P/C/F diet and a 16/57/27% P/C/F diet - neither one a "low-carb" diet. More of a comparison between a high-protein and moderate-protein diet - tending to validate the school of thought that protein requirements go up when calories are restricted...However if you look at the differences (over 10 weeks) you're talking about something less than a pound...not something to hang your hat on IMO.

The second study was on *8* people *total* divided into 3 groups, of carb intake between 30g and 104g - *ALL* low carb, really (protein intake and total calories were fixed, so fat intake varied between 52 and 68% of calories). (Of interest is that the 9 week study was interrupted after 3 weeks for 1 week of spring vacation...) Physical activity was uncontrolled. The only group to test positive for ketones was the 30g group. Interestingly, Young et al concluded that "it would seem that of the low CHO diets used, the one at the 104-g level would be most suitable for long-term use." The lesson I would glean from this study is that *if* you are going to go low-carb and high-fat, then you would want to get into ketosis, typically by going as low-carb as you can (and testing positive for ketones). Just my 0.02.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Jun-09-03, 02:11
Centinel Centinel is offline
New Member
Posts: 9
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 302/286/190
BF:
Progress: 14%
Location: USA
Default

Well, here's some proof. Nutrition Counselor/Fitness Consultant Jon Benson lost fat and gained muscle while low-carbing.

Look at his before and after pics!

http://www.allyourstrength.com/nutr..._fatphobia.html
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Jun-09-03, 12:34
doiron doiron is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 61
 
Plan: TKD
Stats: 195/185/210
BF:
Progress: -67%
Default

You may want to read the original post. Abarlament was looking for, and I quote, "a study that says that while reducing calories, a low carb diet will spare more muscle in the same time as other low calorie diets".
You may also want to read the website you quote as "proof" (although proof of what, I'm not sure)...Jon Benson went from 30% to 10% bodyfat over 2 years using "a diet of 45% carb, 30% fat (5% saturated) and 25% protein" - THEN he shifted to LC from April to December and went from 10 to 6.5%. 45% would hardly be considered low carb.
Interestingly, he lists Clarence Bass as a role model. From Bass' own website, "my eating style is low in fat (not too low), high in natural carbohydrates (carbs, the right kind, are not fattening) and near vegetarian (small amounts of meat and fish)".

Let's try to get back on topic, which originally was the question of whether studies exist which validate the position that a low carb will spare more muscle in the same time as other low calorie diets. Not whether low carb diets "work". Personally, I am not familiar with any studies which demonstrate this.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Jun-09-03, 14:16
Lisa N's Avatar
Lisa N Lisa N is offline
Posts: 12,028
 
Plan: Bernstein Diabetes Soluti
Stats: 260/-/145 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Michigan
Default

Quote:
Eight young, slightly overweight men, ranging in age from 20 to 28, were placed in one of three groups. Group 1 consumed 104 grams of carbohydrate, Group 2 consumed 60 grams of carbohydrate and Group 3 consumed 30 grams of carbohydrate. After nine weeks, researchers checked for deviations in sodium, nitrogen and potassium levels, in addition to changes in weight and body composition. Body fat levels were evaluated using both skin-fold measurements and under-water weighing. At the conclusion of the study, researchers noted no statistical differences in nitrogen, sodium or potassium balances among the three groups. Differences in body weight and body composition were observed. Members of Group 1 lost an average of 25 pounds while those in Group 2 lost an average of 27 pounds. It should be noted, however, that Group 1 and Group 2 lost muscle mass as well (an average of 25% and 15% respectively). Eating a low-carbohydrate, higher-fat diet, Group 3 lost an average of 31 pounds over nine weeks. Of that lost weight, 95% was fat mass and only 5% lean muscle mass.


Here is an excerpt of the second study. This is only a summary, but outlines the results fairly well. Yes, I realize that the sample size was small and that all the levels were lower in carbs than the average American diet BUT...the group that was on the lowest carb level (30 grams per day) lost the least lean body mass (5% vs. 25% for the highest carb group and 15% for the moderate carb group). The lowest carb group also lost the most weight with the largest percentage of that weight loss coming from fat. Calorie levels were the same for all groups.

This seems to demonstrate what the original poster was asking for (less loss of lean body mass with lower carb levels). Whether or not you agree with the sample size and the carb levels is irrelevant...it shows what it shows.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Jun-09-03, 18:36
doiron doiron is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 61
 
Plan: TKD
Stats: 195/185/210
BF:
Progress: -67%
Default

I believe my post addressed this. The study you quote from the Atkins Center’s webpage is a comparison of three high-fat diets with varying carbohydrate levels, all of which are considered low. Let me quote from my post..” The lesson I would glean from this study is that *if* you are going to go low-carb and high-fat, then you would want to get into ketosis, typically by going as low-carb as you can (and testing positive for ketones). Just my 0.02.”

Now, my understanding of the original post was that the poster was seeking studies which indicated a greater lean mass-sparing effect on a low-carb diet. The implication being IN COMPARISON TO A DIFFERENT MACRONUTRIENT COMPOSITION, which given the nature of the “War Zone” would be a low-fat, moderate- to high-carbohydrate diet. Perhaps I read too much into it. Is the discussion now limited to high fat diets and comparing carbohydrate levels of 100 grams or less? Let me know. Because comparisons between the lean mass-sparing effects of a low- and high-carbohydrate diet are inconclusive at best.

Now, you assert that “whether or not (I) agree with the sample size and the carb levels is irrelevant”. First, it is not a question of whether I “agree” with the sample size – it is a question of whether the sample size is large enough to be meaningful. This is a simple matter of statistics. The smaller the sample size, the greater the likelihood that anomalies will skew the results. Now, eight people total in three groups – how many does that make per group? (Quick quiz: how many were in the 30g group? Do you know?) Second, the carb levels dictate which kinds of diet are being compared. With carbohydrate intake at 30, 60, and 104g, these are ALL low-carb, high-fat diets. The results may be used as an internal comparison between these kinds of diet, but you cannot make any extrapolation to diets of differing macronutrient composition.

“it shows what it shows.”
Precisely. And what it shows is this:
*in a study of limited size*comparing different carbohydrate levels of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet*it would appear that it is beneficial to reduce carbohydrates as low as possible. And isn’t that what I said in my post??
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Jun-09-03, 18:42
doiron doiron is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 61
 
Plan: TKD
Stats: 195/185/210
BF:
Progress: -67%
Default

Of course, there are other flaws in the study. We have already discussed the sample size. The other flaw would be that physical activity was uncontrolled. The muscle-sparing effect of exercise plus diet as opposed to diet alone is well-established. The third flaw is the inherent assumptions in the measurement of bodyfat and lean body mass….can you guess what they are?

(BTW, do you have a non-Atkins Center reference for the “skin-fold measurements”? My source only refers to underwater weighing being used for body composition measurements? Just curious…)

Now, before I am simply dismissed as being an agent provocateur, I would like to point out that I have done a CKD, I have done a TKD, I have done a "fat fast" - I would not be here otherwise. However, this is not an issue of whether *I* believe something, it is a question of has it been proven conclusively in well-controlled scientific studies? My criticism of the studies above would be the same regardless of the results. Would your defense of them be the same as well?
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Jun-09-03, 19:45
Lisa N's Avatar
Lisa N Lisa N is offline
Posts: 12,028
 
Plan: Bernstein Diabetes Soluti
Stats: 260/-/145 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Michigan
Default

Actually, Doiron...I'm not trying to argue that it's the lack of carbs that prevent loss of lean body mass, it's the presence of adequate dietary protein that most low fat/low calorie diets are lacking. If fat is low and carbs are high and you still want to keep your calorie levels down, protein gets sacrificed on the calorie alter.
There was another study that I ran across where the carb intakes for both groups were not what could be considered "low" carb for either group, although one group was lower than the other. The difference was that one group only got 68 grams of protein per day while the other got 125 grams. The group with the higher protein intake lost the least amount of lean body mass. The study Follows:


Reference:
Layman, D.K., Boileau, R.A., Erickson, D.J., et al., "A Reduced Ratio of Dietary Carbohydrate to Protein Improves Body Composition and Blood Lipid Profiles During Weight Loss in Adult Women," The Journal of Nutrition, 133(2), 2003, pages 411-417.

Summary:

Claims about the merits or risks of carbohydrate (CHO) vs. protein for weight loss diets are extensive, yet the ideal ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein for adult health and weight management remains unknown. This study examined the efficacy of two weight loss diets with modified CHO/protein ratios to change body composition and blood lipids in adult women. Women (n = 24; 45 to 56 y old) with body mass indices >26 kg/m(2) were assigned to either a CHO Group consuming a diet with a CHO/protein ratio of 3.5 (68 g protein/d) or a Protein Group with a ratio of 1.4 (125 g protein/d). Diets were isoenergetic, providing 7100 kJ/d, and similar amounts of fat ( approximately 50 g/d). After consuming the diets for 10 wk, the CHO Group lost 6.96 +/- 1.36 kg body weight and the Protein Group lost 7.53 +/- 1.44 kg. Weight loss in the Protein Group was partitioned to a significantly higher loss of fat/lean (6.3 +/- 1.2 g/g) compared with the CHO Group (3.8 +/- 0.9). Both groups had significant reductions in serum cholesterol ( approximately 10%), whereas the Protein Group also had significant reductions in triacylglycerols (TAG) (21%) and the ratio of TAG/HDL cholesterol (23%). Women in the CHO Group had higher insulin responses to meals and postprandial hypoglycemia, whereas women in the Protein Group reported greater satiety. This study demonstrates that increasing the proportion of protein to carbohydrate in the diet of adult women has positive effects on body composition, blood lipids, glucose homeostasis and satiety during weight loss.


The diet consisted of roughly 1700 calories for each group. One group got 125 grams of protein, 50 grams of fat and 187 grams of carb. The other group got 68 grams of protein, 50 grams of fat and 244.5 grams of carb. The group with the higher protein level lost only slightly more weight than the lower protein group, but more of the loss was fat and less was lean body mass than the lower protein group.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-03, 14:02
doiron doiron is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 61
 
Plan: TKD
Stats: 195/185/210
BF:
Progress: -67%
Default

Lisa,
We're actually finding common ground here - although we are far off the original posted question. I agree with you in the importance of adequate protein intake during a diet - IMO, the most critical elements to sparing lean tissue during a diet are sufficient protein and lifting heavy weights (to ensure that the body will try to maintain the muscle mass). (Don't make me dig into studies to support that assertion! Just my 0.02 )

Of course, being the irredeemable crank that I am, I will still point out some areas of disagreement with the study...first, I think focusing on the Protein/CHO ratio is misleading - I believe the important parameter is the ratio of protein to body weight (some use lean body mass, the concept is the same). Now, the Protein group in this study received 1.6g/kg of protein per day, the CHO group received 0.8g/kg of protein. For the protein group, this is about 0.7g/lb. By way of comparison, Lyle McDonald recommends 0.8g/lb for non-exercising individuals and 0.9g/lb for exercising individuals on a ketogenic diet. (After a pretty thorough review of the research, which I don't even want to try and duplicate - I'll take his word...) So the protein group is somewhere in the ballpark to experience protein sparing. So the comparison between groups is good, but I disagree with the parameter they chose to focus on...
Next, the protein intake of the CHO group was actually decreased from their baseline intake. Essentially, the CHO group had their protein and carb intakes slightly decreased (less than 10g), while the reduction in fat intake made up most of the caloric reduction. The protein group had the same reduction in fat intake, their protein increased 50g, and their carb intake cut by about 75g (mean values, so they won't "zero out"). Now, I strongly believe that any time you cut calories, you have to increase protein intake - so I like the result of the study..however, I would have liked it better (*and this criticism would have been removed*) IF they had kept the CHO groups protein intake constant from the baseline. As it is, you have one group with increased protein intake (associated with a protein-sparing effect), and then you cut the protein of the other group (which will likely increase protein losses) - VOILA, you attain the expected result....
Finally, do you notice that in the abstract they only quote the partitioning ratio of fat loss to lean loss? They don't represent the difference between total fat loss or total lean body mass loss as being significant...why? Because it wasn't! I hate to say it, (esp. because I do agree with the basic result) but they "cooked the books" here. Okay, there was a difference between the fat loss and the lean muscle loss between the two groups, but the difference wasn't significant. However, instead of stating *that*, they use the ratio of fat loss to lean loss...follow the bouncing ball. Both diets experienced a high percentage of fat loss as a percentage of weight loss (86% in the protein group and 80% in the CHO group)- -however the ratio makes the difference appear to be greater - because as you get up into high percentages, the denominator (lean loss) is going to drop more *relatively* than the numerator (fat loss). (86% is only 8% greater than 80%, but 20% is 43% greater than 14%). Why didn't they do the inverse ratio (lean loss to fat loss)?? Would the difference have been insignificant? Ah, the troubles with statistics....

Of course, I'm just being the crank...although the body composition methods still trouble me somewhat....
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-03, 14:08
doiron doiron is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 61
 
Plan: TKD
Stats: 195/185/210
BF:
Progress: -67%
Default

And before I forget...."protein gets sacrificed on the calorie alter"??

I have to say I have never viewed a diet as ritual sacrifice of macronutrients on an altar of calories....but that sure would make a diet more fun!! ("By the dark god Kah'B, I now will take the life force of the water god Sa'almon...oil the sacrificial teeth with flax...")
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I found this info on Dr. Ellis Ultimate Diet Secrets, in case you are interested. Eveee Low-Carb War Zone 22 Tue, Jan-13-04 20:45
Interesting article on if excericse necessary for weight loss... Frederick LC Research/Media 4 Tue, Jan-06-04 14:32
the history of Low Carb diets.. It is older then you think... Arie LC Research/Media 2 Sun, Jun-01-03 00:38
Research sheds light on why protein-rich diets aid weight loss tamarian LC Research/Media 0 Thu, Feb-06-03 20:39
Atkins Research Update tamarian LC Research/Media 0 Fri, Nov-08-02 18:30


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:52.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.