How a Low-Carb Diet Might Help You Maintain a Healthy Weight
New York Times by Anahad O'Connor, Nov 14, 2018:
How a Low-Carb Diet Might Help You Maintain a Healthy Weight Adults who cut carbohydrates from their diets and replaced them with fat sharply increased their metabolisms. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/...thy-weight.html Quote:
Links within article. The BMJ study by Ludwig: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583 |
Very interesting article. Thank you for sharing.
I was just reading that someone said that staying in 20 carbs for long periods changes your metabolism and is not good for you. I have been sticking to 20 carbs for 3 months and all seems good. Any information or opinions on that? |
Quote:
This is great news and actually something I've thought for a long time, that we burn more calories on low-carb. |
Quote:
|
Good to see as headline news in the UK too
Quote:
Quote:
|
Thanks, Demi ! For news from the other side of the pond.
It's everywhere in US this morning too. Chicago Tribune: 'All calories are not alike': Cutting carbs instead of calories keeps weight off, study says https://www.chicagotribune.com/life...2018-story.html Today: (with the usual "experts" dissing on it, "horrendous levels of saturated fats" :( Yeah, so?) https://www.today.com/health/weight...be-best-t142060 WebMD: https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/201...-calorie-burn#1 MedPage Today Headline: "Low-Carb Diet Wins for Weight Maintenance Metabolic effect may improve success of obesity treatment" So far, like the Chicago Tribune best. Good headline, light on naysayers. |
Excellent! I really do think there is an awareness happening out there, at least among middle-aged people. More and more I'll hear my peers making references to carb content when speaking about food. Perhaps changes are happening among the young people as well - my high achieving 21-year-old daughter was surprised at some honors convocation dinner when it came up in conversation that she and all the other inductees had skipped breakfast and most had eaten late lunches that day because they were all on a 16:8 eating plan. To me, that says the future leaders are thinking differently from the experts about food intake, i.e. you know, "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day."
|
Another recent one was the Dr. Oz show on Keto posted in War Zone. They wanted keto volunteers from the audience to ask questions, Dr Oz was surprised to learn almost the entire audience was already eating keto.
Yeah, doc...no one is paying any attention to your diet advice anymore :lol: |
Quote:
There is. It's all there in the data. Low carb is it. Quote:
When I eat low carb I eat less and exercise more. You can question the reasons why until the cows come home. But isn't it the results that count? So far the standard dietary advice of the past 30+ years has lead to a health catastrophe. I can't believe that the nay-sayers are still going on record to defend it. Quote:
It is oft quoted that we are all different. Gary has been in the forefront to make it understood that all calories are not the same. But it is also true that people respond differently to the same calories. Some secrete more insulin that others. That's big -- and I do think that I am one of those people. So if the nay-sayers have an out, they could concede that a low carb diet may be the appropriate choice for those more sensitive to carbs -- namely those with metabolic/IR issues that are the focal point of this health crisis. Why try to come up with one universal "healthy" diet for all when it is actually the sick people that need a solution that works. For years I tried to eat and exercise like the healthy people so that I would be healthy, too. It didn't work. |
Quote:
Does "someone" have any information on that? :lol: I know a number of people online who have reversed type II diabetes or insulin resistance by eating this way, for years. Or who experience less seizures or migraine. Whatever undesirable side effects of eating very low carb there might be, and I'm not claiming that there actually are any, they have to be weighed against benefits that are often quite substantial. I can't speak to the person's claims without knowing what they're specifically claiming. There's a fair amount of nonsense out there. One claim is low carb, equals low leptin. This is sort of true. Lower fat mass means lower leptin. Especially if you're very lean. In obese people who've lost some weight and still have a bit to go--not so much. You can increase leptin by eating carbohydrate. Studies show insulin signalling is important to this--because the increase of leptin is dependent on the storage of fat in fat tissue. Stay fat, and you'll have increased resistance to getting fatter. I can see at least one problem with this strategy in the war against obesity. More common is, oh, it's bad for your thyroid. There are like one and a half studies looking at the effect of eating carbohydrate versus fat or protein on thyroid levels. Okay, make that two and a half. I've seen at least one carbohydrate overfeeding study, they wanted to see the capacity for de novo fatty acid synthesis in humans, so they fed thousands of extra carbohydrate calories, mostly as sugar. Thyroid hormone went up. Hooray for Ray Peat. Fasting, like low carb, can decrease t3 and increase reverse t3. Let's see, overeating sugar drives t3 up, fasting does the opposite. Fasting, we run mostly on fat and a bit of protein. Sounds like low carb. Sounds like maybe we need a bit more thyroid--or we're resistant to its effect or something--with increased carbs, or at least increased sugar. Another claim I've seen is you need carbs versus stress. Cortisol and other stress hormones work to increase availability of energy--glycogen breakdown, lipolysis, both increase. Focusing on the glycogen/supporting a higher blood glucose part of the equation, if I understand the argument, increase carbohydrate coming in from exogenous sources, and you won't need an increase in stress hormones to provide it from endogenous stores--or maybe, if glycogen stores are higher, then it doesn't take as much of a stress response to dig into those stores. Okay--but characterizing stress hormones as just bringing up glucose levels is faulty, that isn't all that stress hormones do. Their effect depends on your metabolic state going in--if your carbohydrate adapted, and have high glycogen stores, glucose from glycogen might provide the feedback, that energy's available to run from the lion, or whatever. Low glycogen? You might get a similar stress response--but the needs are satisfied more by an increase in free fatty acids and ketones and lactic acid produced by muscle during some necessary sprinting, and less by liver glycogen. Bipolars keep popping up saying their symptoms, and overall stress levels are lower, not higher, on a ketogenic plan. I tend to give that claim maybe more merit than necessary, because I live in it. :) |
The numbers here are not small--if they're thrown in doubt by the double-labeled water method being imperfect, that implies not just a mild inaccuracy. Maybe we need some studies to see the effect of carbohydrate intake on the double-labeled water method.
We're where you'd expect. If there's any room for doubt at all, people sticking to their guns, for good or bad reasons. The whole point of double-labeled water is that it provides a cheaper approach than a metabolic ward study. It might not be as accurate as a metabolic ward, but it can go where a metabolic ward can't go. Outside of the metabolic ward, into the real world, having some measure of metabolic rate in free living subjects is of some value. Any study will have its flaws. It's sort of the nature of the beast. Being absolutely certain of the inputs and the results? You need a metabolic ward study. Assuming that a free living subject--even if you're absolutely certain their eating exactly what they'd be eating in that metabolic ward study--would have the same metabolic rate, is frankly stupid. Take a kid, feed theyma bowl of sugary cereal, sit them in front of a geography textbook. Or instead, same meal, take them to Grandma's house. You think the metabolism is the same? Dummy. :lol: Can't trust studies? Maybe you can trust yourself. |
Yes, we can trust ourselves. Kevin Hall is going to play the skeptic, as this particular NuSI study shows different results than the one Hall conducted a couple years ago. In that study, the interpretations of the findings were disputed in terms of metabolic impact.
Regarding Hall: Quote:
Hall will stick to his guns, but having David Ludwig involved provides a better balance in the hopes that objectivity in achieving and interpreting results will prevail. We can trust ourselves and the results we get. We also know how consistent we are with a specific WOE and can attribute the results we get directly to the way we eat. Many previous studies can't make that claim. Coupled with the clinical results we receive every day from low carb and keto practitioners, who have increased in number over the past few years, we have a very strong correlation that is considered a root cause by many. People tend to practice lifestyle changes when they get results, the testimonials to healthy low carb eating are becoming prevalent. Good news. |
I do agree the "carb and insulin" explanation is too simplistic. But I also think--the insulin explanation is considerably less too simplistic. Various other factors that ought to be worked in, besides carbohydrate, will invariably have insulin-related mechanisms. Or have so far. Carbs drive insulin. Insulin drives obesity. So carbs drive obesity. Well, no--more like, carbs and other things that drive insulin drive obesity. But well-placed insulin resistance will prevent obesity, while driving insulin up. Okay, so carbs and other things that drive insulin will drive fattening of those insulin sensitive cells prone to fattening--lipophilic cells, that is. That silly Gary Taubes and his oversimplification. No wonder people are always complaining about his 3 page flyer, Good Calories Bad Calories. I mean, he could have practically said everything he had to say in a couple of tweets, right?
|
And I would have read you, teaser, rather than the comparative tome of Taubes. :cool:
Yeah, changed spelling, didn't mean to imply that GCBC contained the dead . . . |
Thanks, I guess. But I actually do think GCBC was a reasonable length. :lol:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:57. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.