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
  #76   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 16:53
eryalen eryalen is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 398
 
Plan: Back to Atkins
Stats: 205/175/165 Male 72 in
BF:29%/24%/22%
Progress: 75%
Location: Toronto
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LC FP
I rationalized this as a sign from my body that my goal was unrealistic, so I'm content to sit at a BMI of 26-27 and not worry about it.

There is quite a bit of evidence that some body fat is the best state for longevity. Your body seems to know this, which is why it's so hard to lose the last 5-10 lbs.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #77   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 17:45
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Has anyone seen Anthony Colpo's latest diatribe, here

He may be an obnoxious thug, but you have to admit, the challenge he's thrown out to the believers in low carb Metabolic Advantage is fascinating. I mean if the Gary Taubes quoted studies so unequivocally showed that bodyfat loss did not require a calorie deficit (as conventionally measured too) then making the charity of your choice $ 20.000 richer should be a walk in the park, shouldn't it?

Surely Mike Eades has a favourite charity which could use the money?

It'll be fascinating to see if anyone takes Colpo up on the offer. Obviously the prospect of watching him rollerblade naked down Pitt Street ( a major road in Melbourne) wasn't enticing enough ( the longstanding incarnation of the same challenge). Maybe upping the ante like this will entice a bit more interest .

Maybe the metabolic ward studies done so far don't use subjects with a lot of bodyfat to lose, which in the light of our discussion, would explain their equivocal results about metabolic advantage. But Gary Taubes claims that unequivocal metabolic ward studies have been done, doesn't he?. So who's really telling porkies?

You'd think if there really was anything more to a low carb dietary approach to losing bodyfat than it reduces appetite and makes a calorie deficit more llikely, some deserving charity is looking at an easy boost to its coffers.

My understanding of Mike Eades' perspective is that he thinks that any metablolic advantage of LCD's is very small, but Gary Taubes seems to think it's considerable, and he seems to think the available metabolic ward studies show this too. Remember, if all Low carb diets do is naturally reduce food intake and make a calorie deficit more likely, it's not a metabolic advantage, it's an appetite advantage. Eating less naturally is a big deal to most people. That's why so many people are prepared to spend a fortune and jeopardize their health on appetite controlling drugs. But it's important that we get our terms of reference about what's causing the weight loss clear.

As somebody pointed out Gary Taubes mentioning in GCBC, it is definitely important to distinguish between cause and effect. But perhaps that's the mistake he's making himself? Which is why metabolic ward studies are so valuable.

Stuart

Last edited by kneebrace : Wed, Jan-30-08 at 18:05.
Reply With Quote
  #78   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 17:56
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

"low-carb diets have repeatedly failed to show any fat-derived weight loss advantage over high-carb diets"

The very fact that I exist disproves this. I never lost weight on high carb despite exercise, attempts at fasting, blah blah blah. I don't have my book in front of me, but there were plenty of documented references in Good Calories, Bad Calories.

I have tried calorie restriction and intense exercise since high school. I have tried low carb WITHOUT much exercise at all since May. Calorie levels were similar but hard to completely track. I lost weight on low carb and gained steadily over the years on high carb.

Anthony Colpo has an axe to grind, but I tried doing things "his way" for over 20 years. It didn't work, gave me high blood pressure and made me miserable in the process. I'll stick with the Eades', than you very much.
Reply With Quote
  #79   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 18:41
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wifezilla

The very fact that I exist disproves this. I never lost weight on high carb despite exercise, attempts at fasting, blah blah blah. I don't have my book in front of me, but there were plenty of documented references in Good Calories, Bad Calories.


Anthony Colpo has an axe to grind, but I tried doing things "his way" for over 20 years. It didn't work, gave me high blood pressure and made me miserable in the process. I'll stick with the Eades', than you very much.


Wifezilla, can you see that Anthony Colpo is not suggesting that low carb diets are not the most effective way for someone to lose bodyfat? He is merely pointing out that science done so far unequivocally shows this to be because they make people naturally eat less. And has nothing to do with any 'Metabolic Advantage'.

If the documented references in GCBC are not just so much hot air, don't you think it's a good opportunity for anyone, you, me, Gary Taubes, Mike Eades, or anyone else, to seize this amazing opportunity to make the charity of your choice $20.000 richer?. I mean, what has anyone got to lose by rising to this challenge?

It doesn't matter whether Anthony Colpo has an axe to grind. Any of the great people in History who has agitated for change, Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev, Mahatma Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln, Florence Nightinggale,... they've all had their particular 'axe' to grind. Try to look further than the admittedly offensive personality Anthony Colpo has, to see that the question he is posing is of critical importance to our understanding of how low carb diets work for bodyfat loss/gain. And you have to admit, it's a very generous offer.

Isn't it time people stopped hiding behind anecdotal misreading of how much a person actually puts in their mouths and discovered whether low carb diets are the most effective approach for bodyfat loss simply because they naturally lead you to eat less, or if there is something more complex going on. Surely you can see that it would be really interesting to find out?

Wifezilla, just curious what you mistakenly think 'his way' is?. Anthony Colpo believes, lives, recommends , and is a tireless campaigner for both the health and bodycomp control benefits of a low carb dietary approach. I don't like his methods either. In fact I think the man is his own worst enemy. Neverthelessm isn't this an opportunity to look past his unsavoury character for a moment, answer one of the most contentious questions in the low carb world, and at the same time, make some deserving charity twenty thousand bucks better off?

To recap:
Anthony Colpo is indeed a very unpleasant person.
He is a confirmed low carber, but thinks the concept of metabolic advantage is nonsense, and the clear advantage of a low carb dietary approach is because you naturally eat a lot less.
That is a question definitely worth answering.
All somebody has to do to make their fav charity a lot more solvent is to point out metabolic ward studies that show metabolic advantage exists.
Geez, just for the opportunity of relieving Anthony Colpo of $20.000 I'd leap at this opportunity, and I sincerely hope someone (Go Wifezilla!) does
Unfortunately I think the money will probably stay safely in the box under his bed, because I personally doubt whether metabolic advantage exists at all. And if it does exist, is so small that it is impossible for current measuring methods to detect.

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #80   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 18:41
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,162
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default

kneebrace

It seems to me that you have changed your argument from 'a calorie deficit is always required' to 'a calorie deficit is only required when your weight is close to goal'. I can live with that, since that seems to be what happened to me. But your first argument may be correct if metabolic advantage exists.

I'm a believer, because I can't think of another way that fat can disappear from the face of the earth so fast. The mechanism is unknown and can hardly be imagined without invoking magic. However, if you google uncoupling proteins especially in regard to high fat diets, you can see a nice mechanism where your mitochondria could become very inefficient at converting the chemical energy of food into the metabolic energy of ATP. If you open up the accessory proton gates of the inner mitochondrial membrane, and allow the proton gradient to leak back across without going through ATPase, you've effectively wasted all the food energy as heat, or light, or rap music, or whatever, and gotten minimal ATP out of it. I suspect that's how it works. It would be nice if someone actually researched it a bit, and ran some numbers...

So all you need to do is change the "macros", set a new set point, and metabolic magic does the rest, no matter how much you eat.

At least in the lucky few of us who are "exceptions"
Reply With Quote
  #81   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 18:47
LC FP LC FP is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,162
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 228/195/188 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: Erie PA
Default

Hey, I didn't see your last post. Screw AC. I've seen him in action over here. I could care less if he doesn't believe in metabolic advantage. I could care less if he has money to lose. He does "the cause" more harm than good in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #82   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 18:59
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LC FP
kneebrace

It seems to me that you have changed your argument from 'a calorie deficit is always required' to 'a calorie deficit is only required when your weight is close to goal'. I can live with that, since that seems to be what happened to me. But your first argument may be correct if metabolic advantage exists.

I'm a believer, because I can't think of another way that fat can disappear from the face of the earth so fast. The mechanism is unknown and can hardly be imagined without invoking magic. However, if you google uncoupling proteins especially in regard to high fat diets, you can see a nice mechanism where your mitochondria could become very inefficient at converting the chemical energy of food into the metabolic energy of ATP. If you open up the accessory proton gates of the inner mitochondrial membrane, and allow the proton gradient to leak back across without going through ATPase, you've effectively wasted all the food energy as heat, or light, or rap music, or whatever, and gotten minimal ATP out of it. I suspect that's how it works. It would be nice if someone actually researched it a bit, and ran some numbers...

So all you need to do is change the "macros", set a new set point, and metabolic magic does the rest, no matter how much you eat.

At least in the lucky few of us who are "exceptions"


So L.C. you'd obviously have access to the full texts of the available metabolic ward studies. Why don't you beat Mike Eades, or Regina, ... or anyone else to the $20.000 gift for your favourite charity. Surely your kid's soccer club could do with the money? I mean, if the evidence so clear, what are you all waiting for? Are you seriously suggesting that because of Anthony Colpo's character flaws you're going to stand on your dignity and turn your collective noses at this amazing opportunity to rub Anthony Colpo's in the dirt he so richly deserves to have it rubbed in, and answer one of the most interesting puzzles of low carb once and for all.

Regina, you are always quoting study after study. You obviously have a lot of respect for the light they can throw on unanswered metabolic questions. So seize this opportunity to take advantage of your considerable skill at sourcing and interpreting 'studies'.

Please, won't somebody make Anthony Colpo poorer/some charity better off/ our collective understanding of why low carb diets work infinitely enhanced?

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #83   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 19:03
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LC FP
Hey, I didn't see your last post. Screw AC. I've seen him in action over here. I could care less if he doesn't believe in metabolic advantage. I could care less if he has money to lose. He does "the cause" more harm than good in my opinion.


LC. Honestly, that is truly a pathetic excuse. I hope someone out there who believes in Metabolic Advantage is a bit less spineless. I couldn't care less wether Anthony Colpo believes in it either. I'd just like to know whether the currently available metabolic ward evidence supports it's existence or not. Surely that's not too much to ask?

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #84   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 19:04
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,324
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

A lot of nutritional research has been done on "normal" or slightly overweight college students with 15-20 lbs to lose, not people with metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance. Just because they don't get a metabolic advantage from eating LC doesn't mean nobody does.
Reply With Quote
  #85   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 19:07
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

Anyone have a couple of spare million so I can properly design and implement a metabolic ward study and win $20,000?

(oh, wait a minute.....)
Reply With Quote
  #86   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 19:16
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
A lot of nutritional research has been done on "normal" or slightly overweight college students with 15-20 lbs to lose, not people with metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance. Just because they don't get a metabolic advantage from eating LC doesn't mean nobody does.


But Diedra, 20 lbs is a lot of excess weight. And most people who have been raised on the SAD diet do have some degree of insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome. Besides, Gary Taubes isn't claiming that metabolic advantage only exists for some people. He thinks it applies to all humans because of the hormonal bodyfat storage/burning conducive environmental effects of restricting carbohydrate. And even more tellingly he is claiming that currently available evidence proves this. Proof which Anthony Colpo is asking for.

So where is it?

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #87   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 19:28
Beth1708 Beth1708 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 197
 
Plan: Just no carbs
Stats: 149.6/149.4/128 Female 68
BF:
Progress: 1%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kneebrace
\ And even more tellingly he is claiming that currently available evidence proves this. Proof which Anthony Colpo is asking for.
Stuart


I read Good Calories, Bad Calories. I don't remember him claiming that he has proof that a low carb diet is better for health. He does claim that the available evidence is that it is, and that more research is called for to explore the idea -- at least, that is what I thought he was saying.

So far as I can tell, there are many unanswered questions about metabolism, both with regard to low-carb and in general. The mechanisms by which hunger is controlled, for example, are poorly understood, the mechanisms of insulin resistance, the causes of insulin resistance, the number of people that have some degree of insulin resistance and by how much, all these things are unknown.

My impression is that Taubes, who has thought a lot more than I about these questions could come up with a much longer list of important questions. I suspect that Taubes is aware enough of the boundaries of what is known to be jumping out claiming that something has been proved unless the evidence is strong enough to convince any honest skeptic.

Beth
Reply With Quote
  #88   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 19:37
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wifezilla
Anyone have a couple of spare million so I can properly design and implement a metabolic ward study and win $20,000?

(oh, wait a minute.....)


Now you're talking. Actually, Wifezilla you'd answer the question, but you'd miss out on the money. All Anthony is pointing out is that clear evidence that metabolic advantage exists has not yet been done (which is a bit like saying that convincing studies to confirm alien abduction have not yet been done - plenty of anecdotal 'evidence' though) and that it is quite possible that the clear advantage of a low carb dietary approach is down to eating less naturally. I'm just curious why you want to believe in metaboic advantage so desperately.

Seriously, what's wrong with low carb diets being the best way to lose weight because they effortlessly make you eat less, and (usually) healthier? Is it because you think 'metabolic advantage' sounds more impressive or something?

Maybe such studies will indeed be done at some future date. And if and when they are, I've no doubt Anthony Colpo will find some minimally embarrassing way to admit he was wrong. The man is a voracious reader of research papers, as well as being an avid low carber himself. until then personally believe in whatever metabolic theories you like. It's a free country after all. But you'll have to resist the temptation, as Gary Taubes has clearly not done, (curiously enough although A.C loves to put the boot into Mike Eades, my understanding of Mike Eades perspective is that Metabolic Advantage is insignifigant, in anyone, if it even exists at all) to claim that currently available metabolic ward studies lend support to its existence.

If Gary Taubes had said merely that there was considerable anecdotal evidence that something like Metabolic Advantage might exist then his book wouldn't be so easily dismissed by all but the already low carb converted. Instead he devotes considerable effort to claiming that the evidence of metabolic advantage is scientifically unequivocal. Which it isn't. And as I've said all along, this is a terrible pity. In so many other respects GCBC is very well researched and written.

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #89   ^
Old Wed, Jan-30-08, 20:10
Thinny Thinny is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 152
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 300/225/150
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: BC
Default

As a lowcarber on another forum pointed out, it wasn't till her brother left off his diabetes meds that she realized that no matter what he ate, w/o insulin (a hormone) he was unable to gain an ounce no matter what his carb intake was. He died, of course. I myself lost 80+ pounds when first lowcarbing and eating frequently, more calories than I'd handled in years. Remember the old advertising for Atkins, where an exuberant copywriter claimed you could breathe out excess calories? (ketones). Doggone if he wasn't right. Now it's a lot harder to burn off calories, even with cutting amounts. Something sure seems fishy in the calories. Ketosis might be the difference.
Reply With Quote
  #90   ^
Old Thu, Jan-31-08, 12:20
AJCole AJCole is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 199
 
Plan: protien power
Stats: 185/155/135 Female 64"
BF:
Progress:
Default

Perhaps (as others have pointed out), our bodies know more then us about what is healthy.

Perhaps the issue is weight loss v. health attained.

I would like to have a lower weight, but after 8 yrs of LC, I can stay ketogenic for months on end without losing a pound.

But my health, even at my current overweight, is the best it has ever been. And the overweight I am carrying is in my breasts, thighes, buttocks, and upper arms. I have less belly fat now then I did thirty pounds lighter (obviously I am strongly enfluenced by estrogen). My labs and physicals are all great.

Barry Groves makes the point that one cannot continue to lose weight below the bodies set weight (homeostasis weights?) on a LC diet.

So perhaps the metabolic advantage of low carb is in achieving health. Afterall, low fat diets often result in muscle loss and a starvation which the body compensates for with even bigger weight gain. So the point is that there is a metabolic advantage in achieveing health and not weight.
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 23:46.


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