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 > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Jul-16-18, 08:37
whynot18 whynot18 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 99
 
Plan: Modified Atkins
Stats: 210/191/150 Female 5 feet 7 inches
BF:38/37.2/??
Progress: 32%
Default Study implicates fat in weight gain

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018...eight-gain.html


1. We aren't mice.
2. Flies in face of human reaction to various diets.
3. My thought: Carbs trigger my eating much more than fat does. I eat fat; I stop eating. I eat processed carbs, I continue eating.

Last edited by whynot18 : Mon, Jul-16-18 at 11:27.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Jul-16-18, 11:28
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Another possible factor is the "sweet spot." Sugar doesn't just get better and better the more you add to a baked good. I'd eat more, if I ate that sort of thing, of a lightly sweetened banana bread than I would something more sickly-sweet. The increase in sugar in the Western diet isn't just about confections, you have to be careful buying things like mustard and mayo these days.

They haven't really captured everything about mice let alone humans, because there are various studies in mice--with very low omega 6 content in the diet, for instance--where fat is not particularly fattening.

There are studies showing that softer chow can be more fattening than harder chow, when eating hurts their mouth maybe mice eat less. Just softening chow with water works. Or adding water to a powdered chow can make it more pleasant. Fat can work as well as water in these cases.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Jul-16-18, 11:30
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

And yes, I'd butter that banana bread, and no, I wouldn't expect that to turn it into health food, I'd even expect the butter to be part of the problem in that context.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Jul-16-18, 12:25
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Yes, this is expected. Not only are we not mice (very insightful here, I know), but the fact that when fat is combined with a SAD way of eating, it then contributes to health differently than when healthy fats are eaten with a healthy low carb approach. By low carb, I'm talking about 20g of carbs or less and no processed carbage at all. Can this differentiation be made in the mouse studies? (Rhetorical question.)
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Jul-16-18, 14:08
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,596
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
Yes, this is expected. Not only are we not mice (very insightful here, I know), but the fact that when fat is combined with a SAD way of eating, it then contributes to health differently than when healthy fats are eaten with a healthy low carb approach. By low carb, I'm talking about 20g of carbs or less and no processed carbage at all. Can this differentiation be made in the mouse studies? (Rhetorical question.)

Did they do one of the mice diets at a level of carbs equivalent to that low? Don't know since it's just a summary without seeing the original journal report, but I kinda doubt it. As many here know, larger amounts of carbohydrate even if still "low carb" in common definitions should still cause enough insulin release to sweep all accompanying dietary fat off into fat storage, so yes I would expect that fat to be more fattening, not burned for energy. And even if they did test at truly low carbohydrate levels, I have no idea what effect compared to humans it would have on mice since their natural optimal diet is different from ours.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Jul-16-18, 14:30
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,312
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

Study itself is behind a paywall so impossible to gauge how well/poorly designed it was... nor find out who provided the funding!

But, John Speakman, the head of the lab from whence the study originated, has his own Wikipedia page. I think he is most famous for his "drifty gene" theory of obesity, as opposed to the better known "thrifty gene" theory of obesity.

The thrifty gene theory posits that our genetics predispose us to eat as much as possible when food is available in order to survive times of famine and, now that food is pretty much always available, and we no longer face periods of famine, we are getting fatter.

Speakman's drifty gene theory posits that humans have a broad range of genes for weight, some predisposing to skinniness and some to fatness. When we had to be able to run to escape from predators or get eaten, people with fat genes got caught and eaten more often so their fat-predisposing genes got passed on less frequently to offspring. Now that we're not subject to getting eaten by wild animals, the fat-predisposing genes are getting passed on more and more often so, as a population, we're "drifting" towards being fatter.

My take? We pretty much ceased being subject to getting eaten by predators eons ago but, rather than a slow steady increase in population weight (as one would expect) over the past thousands of years, we have witness and veritable explosion in obesity over the past half century. Drifty-gene can't explain sudden sharp uptick right AT the point in time when processed foods became very widely available AND we were told to stop eating fats and increase our carb consumption.

I think Speakman is simply trying to make himself (and his lab) "relevant" again.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Jul-16-18, 17:12
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 19,176
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Im surprized none of us here are not petitioned for participating in a study----lots of die hard lcers for life worth studying.

Human models do exist. ANd mice are not a great model as they are seed eaters and one researcher pointed out that to get mice into ketosis, the carb level must drop severely.

The kind of info that is a waste of my time..... and just proves how behind the times too many people still are.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Jul-17-18, 06:30
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bevangel
My take? We pretty much ceased being subject to getting eaten by predators eons ago but, rather than a slow steady increase in population weight (as one would expect) over the past thousands of years, we have witness and veritable explosion in obesity over the past half century. Drifty-gene can't explain sudden sharp uptick right AT the point in time when processed foods became very widely available AND we were told to stop eating fats and increase our carb consumption.

This is the issue and it doesn't make sense that genetic makeup alone can be the sole contributing factor, as it takes many, many generations for genes to mutate. However, recent epigenetic studies indicate that genes can be altered (expressed or not) at the cellular level due to environmental changes influencing that expression. Environment in this case includes dietary consumption. When our diets became distorted at the recommendation of the "experts" starting in the late 70s, we witnessed the power of epigenetics and the influence on physical and metabolic health due to the toxic environment of so many people following a SAD approach. Genes cannot mutate fast enough to be the cause of this, but epigenetics influencing the expression (or not) of genes at the cellular level can and the influences are carried on to offspring in future generations. I'm ascribing the "drifty gene" hypothesis to epigenetics. It's of value to term it this way, as we can all learn to reverse this dynamic by changing our dietary environment. And no, we learn nothing from mouse studies, particularly those studies where the controls and eating environment are of questionable rigor and specificity.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Jul-18-18, 22:42
BillyHW's Avatar
BillyHW BillyHW is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 378
 
Plan: Keto + IF
Stats: 260/300/165 Male 5' 6"
BF:
Progress: -42%
Location: Alberta, Canada
Default

This study contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.
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



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:44.


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