NIH study compares low-fat, plant-based diet to low-carb, animal-based diet
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
This confusing and contradictory information is the cause of many who are searching for a healthy way of eating to "lose the will to live." While the research Kevin Hall is pursuing may be considered well-designed (2 weeks on a keto diet is hardly enough for a conclusion), I usually lose interest when I read caloric intake is measured as a primary indicator.
|
Marty Kendall's response:
Did you see the LATEST animal-based keto vs low-fat, plant-based diet study from Kevin Hall? https://optimisingnutrition.com/did...rom-kevin-hall/ |
Mr. Hall has shown that I can eat several hundred more calories per day on low carb yet still lose the same amount of weight as a lower calorie high carb diet. That's my takeaway from this.
|
When my body eats carbs it eats more and more and more carbs. And the scale goes up up up. Frustrating to read that these participants eating a high carb diet actually ate less calories. Makes me wonder where the participants where along the diabetes path as doctor Atkins describes 5 steps, of which only number 5 is clinically diabetes.
Only low carb works for me. And yes, we here on the forum know that eating lots of fat keeps us fat. Fat content of diet also needs to drop to move body fat. But this experiment pitted fat against carbs, and non - processed carbs at that. I know this mornings scale didn't budge do to eating fatty oxtails all yesterday's meals. Eating leaner meats today will move the scale. Would like to know if the low fat group lost muscle as well as fat.....muscle loss in either group not mentioned. Was all weight loss only fat, or was it fluids or muscle? |
Quote:
I would eat 1200 calories a day for weeks on end. The hungrier I got, the more I went for carbs, because they were fewer calories. But they made me hungrier, of course. I would drop maybe 5 pounds and STOP. It didn't matter how long I white-knuckled it. Now I know why. |
Anyone can eat a low-fat diet for 2 weeks, especially in a clinic setting. I did it hundreds of times of times on my own before I found LC diets. But I never found the two diets satisfied hunger and were "pleasant" to the same degree. On LF diets I thought about food 24/7 and 2-4 weeks was the longest I could white-knuckle it before caving in and binging on carby junkfood. Those who were one of the 10 who did LF first in Kevin Hall's experiment were rewarded by the LC diet & its fat. If they did LF last, they could binge as soon as the study ended. How many of them kept the weight off after month or more?
|
I was extremely suspicious of "satiation" being the same on both diets. Certainly was not the case with me, and I'd wager, at least 90% of the people who ever visited this site.
|
So, for the first time I will contribute: I find the most telling part of this article was:
"The low-fat. By a lot: nearly 700 calories per day. This, despite the fact that insulin levels on the low-fat diet were, Hall told me, “through the roof.” Insulin, among other things is a FAT STORAGE HORMONE. Having a higher insulin will result in higher body fat. The fact that those on a plant based diet consumed 700 less calories says more about the palatability of the diet, not the effectiveness of satiety of the diet. Given the extremely short duration of the diets (2 weeks each) there are NO conclusions that can be made on the effectiveness of said diet. 2 weeks is not even enough time for the body to properly adjust to a diet. Studies have shown for athletes, it can take 6 months to fully adapt to a diet change. So in the end, another worthless study to push a presupposition, a bias and can likely lead to poorer health overall. |
If I know I have to eat a low fat, plant-based diet for 2 weeks, no problem. I can function through that short period, and the change from the way I eat might not be noticeable during that time. If I had to eat the same diet for the long term, well, that's a horse of a different color, and that's why I eat a low carb, protein rich diet today.
|
This study might be useful when considering weight loss in a controlled setting--like maybe a prison. People living in countries where for a long time, it wasn't even possible to feed the population anything but a lower fat, largely carbohydrate diet, and where industrial processed foods mostly weren't available--the time when this described actual places seems to be quickly fading, if it's not already gone--at least on a population level, like people living in a metabolic ward, are pretty good at complying to the sort of low fat diet used in the study, but people with any other choice don't seem to be.
I think it's a legitimate area of study to look for ways, for people who want to eat the sort of low fat diet described here, to make compliance easier. I have no problems with studies showing low fat doing better than low carb, or vice versa--but ya gotta pay attention to study design, what conditions the findings are shown to be true under. Quote:
More like that's the hypothesis. But it's not like somebody came up with this hypothesis, and then people learned for the first time when it was tested that a low carb diet could be an effective weight loss tool. It went the other way--people observed that switching to a low carb diet often results in weight loss. It's entirely possible that any given hypothesis is actually incorrect, or incomplete, that doesn't throw out the original observation that needs to be explained. Quote:
Another thing that might be different in the real world. Before I went low carb--the vegetable 'crisper' in my fridge was where vegetables went to wilt. After low carb--at least when they're in the mix, they tend to get used up. Maybe with the lower general carb intake, the slight carbohydrate content of something like lettuce or celery is more appealing. Also often I do like the increase in volume it can give a meal--not because I think calorie per bite is a big deal for me, it's more about enhancing the eating experience. |
Quote:
:lol: :lol: :lol: I thought I was the only person who was like this! Even now, I find I purchase more veggies than I actually eat, and so have to do a veggie purge on a regular basis. Hubby doesn't eat veggies much at all, so if I buy a head of lettuce, I can only eat so much of it and most of it goes to waste. |
A new interview with Dr. Ted Naiman lead me to a DietDoctor video about this NIH study. With the sensational article title of "Is the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity dead?" the controversy rages on.
Quote:
https://youtu.be/pUVOrrSm3CM After a year of eating way more carbs than I did for the past decade, I also find "satiety per calorie", whether through more protein, more fiberous vegetables and more micronutrients, has been the key to my weight loss. https://forum.lowcarber.org/showpos...3&postcount=295 Thread on Dr. Naiman's The P:E Diet and a short weight loss summary at https://forum.lowcarber.org/showthr...852#post9411852 |
A few years back I saw an interesting video by a low fat vegan who claimed that her type 1 diabetes was less fragile when she ate a very high carb, low fat diet--and her personal explanation for this what that it kept her liver glycogen levels fairly high, so that if she used a little too much insulin, and experienced a hypo, her counter-regulatory stress response resulted in more glucose being released by her liver than would be available to somebody eating a much lower carbohydrate diet. That might have been nonsense, but I don't know if I'd just dismiss it out of hand.
But anyways--the problem with the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis still might be that it's just too simple. So you eat a bunch of carbs, your insulin goes up. An excess insulin response might cause or threaten hypoglycemia--so you overeat to either correct or avoid hypoglycemia. But it's not at least *usually* that you just get more hypoglycemic the more carbs you eat and so you just never stop eating so you get fat. Fat eaten isn't neutral in this. But suppose we assumed it was. You eat some carbs, you've got this threatened hypoglycemia because you put out a bit more insulin than necessary, the body made a poor prediction of how much carbohydrate was going to be being absorbed an hour or two from now. Appetite up, you eat enough to cover that faulty prediction, and then some. You could have had 400 calories of potato. But you had 400 calories of potato, 400 calories as damaged canola oil when you ate those french fries. Body makes a bad calculation, so you need to eat a bit more. If fat is neutral--whattaya need? More carbs. If it's fatty carbs--calories per needed gram of carbohydrate is higher than it would be without fat. Of course, fat slows digestion of carbs. But also--fat digestion is much slower than carbohydrate, especially if eaten with carbohydrate, so while the carbs are all absorbed in an hour or two, the fat is still being digested eight or ten hours later. So, keto, you never ate carbs, insulin didn't go up, the problem of keeping glucose in a narrow physiological limit is much less. Very low fat. Okay, maybe your body misfires if you eat 400 calories of carbohydrate and 400 calories as fat. Does it necessarily misfire worse, if you just eat 800 calories of carbohydrate? That might depend on the person. It might be better. We might be tempted to say, okay, a greater load, that's a greater challenge to the system. For somebody with sensory issues--increase the volume, increase auditory discomfort. Unless the sensory issue isn't discomfort from loud sounds, it could be the other way, low sensitivity, in which case, increasing the volume makes it easier to process the sounds, understand voices etc. Increased carbohydrate, with a decrease in fat content, could send a clearer signal, and a clearer signal might make for a more appropriate hormonal response. |
Quote:
This reminds me of how the Rice Diet worked. For 1/3 of the population, this high carb/low fat mix put their diabetes into remission. AND, for 1/3 of the population, it made their condition worse. It's not wonder we've all had office mates who chirped helpful things like, "I realized I needed to lose TEN pounds! So I stopped eating dessert and took walks." And then stare at us. In any of these studies, I have yet to see any acknowledgement of the wide variations of actual human physiology. Like many of us, I might eat a low-fat, plant-based diet for two weeks, but I can guarantee it would not help curb my appetite. In fact, depending on lectin content, I would likely spend those two weeks throwing up and feeling like death warmed over. In that case, I would lose weight :lol: |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:12. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.