to me there is no arguement what so ever as to whether you can lose and maintain (if you choose to) on a low carb diet. Many people here are living proof.

My bigger questions are whether there is a low term health impact of being a healthy weight low carb or low fat (which is very hard for me)

http://freetheanimal.com/2010/03/is...get-a-life.html

Interesting take on it.

Patrick

I'd like to see his answer to the bold part.

Patrick

Animal studies don't prove anything in humans. But they're very valuable as a start. Two different things. Eades should certainly know that, but I have no idea if Eades ever claims animal studies as "proof" or if Colpo is exaggerating Eades' stance.

War zone type comment: I eat very (quite?) low carb, and it no longer keeps my weight down. On other sites I read that low carb gives you an initial loss but then stops. But the weight that did come back is spread far more evenly over my whole body.

That is why I follow a diet close to PaNu. I can cycle low-carb and high-carb as long as my carbs comes from non-gluten sources. So sometimes I eat rice, potatoes or sweet potatoes. But when I eat high-carbs, I make sure to eat low-fat at the same time. Otherwise I will simply intake way too much calories for my needs. And when I eat low-carb it's always high-fat.

Patrick

This may be a little of a sideways comment - but does it seem to you that all the people who get deranged at the idea of a metabolic advantage, are people who are seriously invested in exercise and the calories-in-out model, or both?

It starts to sound like it's really about the Very Idea!!!! that someone could Even Think!!! of choosing a diet based on the hope of using more calories without restricting more or exercising more.

I was thinking of the two most scary and shrill people I know of - Colpo and Jillian Michaels in that one interview with Taubes.

A Moral Panic school of thought.

Bingo!!!

In my personal life, I have a bunch of exercise fanatic friends. Their answer to everything is more exercise. When I had worked my way up to 1 hour workouts 6 days a week for 2 years and NEVER LOST A POUND, they assumed I was lying about my work outs. Good thing I had a work out buddy to show that I was indeed working out as much as I said.

Then they just assumed I was some genetic freak and that is pretty much where things stand today...especially after my dramatic weight loss on low carbing without much exercise

This Colpo guy might be interested in health, but he's definitely interested in character assassination. It's not enough to disagree, he wants humiliation. Sure, Eades can be criticized for certain commercial aspects and perhaps some of his advice is wrong, or needs updating, but his style is humble and accessible, unlike, say, Barry Sears and his Empire and his seclusion. There's a trend for these newer internet gurus to take on internet methods with internet bravado, such as that BS guy calling out Taubes and Eades - no discussion, no disagreeement first, it's shoot first and condescend later. And this Summer Tomato calling out Mark's Daily Apple - no disagreement or point of contention - just calling the guy a BSer on her site. While it feels good to hear a quack get called a quack, without first confronting the claimant respectfully and asking for a discussion, just puffing up and calling out names is internet cowardice - I doubt these people would talk this way in front of a convention audience. So these examples ensure that they will receive less of an audience from me in the future.

I'm not sure I understand who you mean by "they" here, bloggers like Colpo and Dr Eades?

Patrick

i won't take the time to read colpo's response because 1) i'll only end up wanting to strangle him after 1 paragraph, and 2) the definitive studies on metabolic advantage have yet to be done.

i've read all of the 19 studies cited by colpo and found these 3 issues:
1. the studies weren't conducted to find evidence to support or challenge the existence of a metabolic advantage.
2. the studies were almost all hypocaloric, with participants taking in less than 1000/day in most cases.
3. although colpo contended - and now, apparently, defends - the notion that these studies were "tightly controlled", this is not the case. one of the first studies i read (i'll go back and check which one) notes that participants were going to work and returning to the metabolic ward in the evenings.

also, the idea that animal studies are meaningless in this argument is laughable. if a metabolic advantage exists in one species (i.e. a calorie is NOT a calorie), than it greatly enhances the possibility that it can exist in another. taubes provided great examples from the animal world (squirrels that fatten when deprived of food at the expense of bones and internal organs) that just blows the idea that weight balance is simply an energy in - energy out equation completely out of the water.

for an interesting read and an explanation as to why colpo only briefly graced us with his presence, see this:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=270965

Hey thanks Eepobee for digging this thread back (you've been here a long time ). It was a very interesting read. I guess that Colpo has changed his mind on the metabolic advantage.

I think that acting like Colpo is doing nowadays prevents you from being a good researcher. Because he won't be able to change his mind in the future without hurting his ego. In the past I told everyone on this forum that calories does not matter at all and I was very arrogant about it (sorry to those who were affected by that, mea culpa). Now that I know a lot more about metabolism, I can see when counting calories gives useful information about our eating habits.

I'm not saying we should intentionally starve ourselves to lose excess fat, but calorie counting is a good tool to discover the foods that latter triggers an intake of more food than you require. The way physiology affects psychology and vice-versa. The way our body makes you hungry if it is missing some nutrient, like a particular vitamin or mineral, and results in an intake of way too much energy just to get enough of this nutrient. etc...

Even while calories do count, it's not just a question of how much we eat or burn in exercise. There are so many ways that our body can use more or use less of the energy we intake. It's not simple and simply cutting calories does not control where the weight is lost. Lean tissue, fat or even bones, etc...

Anyway, I try not to be arrogant anymore, because I know that I'm going to change my mind about important matters in the future and I believe that Colpo is painting himself in a corner by being so vehement about his current views.

Patrick

Yep, I too believe that the majority of research on obesity should be spent on maintenance level intake or overfeeding experiments instead of on weight loss. I think the resulting science would be much more useful.


<sigh> Yeah I know! I don't understand where this contempt of animal studies comes from. When I exchange with Lyle McDonald, if I cite an animal study, I am automatically relegated to the retarded camp. It does not matter which point I am trying to make. Ah well, maybe I am retarded and one day I will see why animal studies should be looked at with contempt.

Patrick

I see animal studies as proof of concept. However, it doesn't always carry over to humans. For example, the rabbit and the high fat diet. If I'm not mistaken, a rabbit will grow fatter if fed a high fat diet. Now that's proof of concept but has yet to be tested on humans. Only once we test it on humans can we conclude that a high fat diet will make humans grow fatter. As far as I know, the only way we can fatten humans on a high fat diet is to include some carbohydrate. In other words, it's not the high fat content that allows humans to grow fatter, it's the carbohydrate content.

If it doesn't always carry over doesn't mean that it won't carry over for this particular hypothesis, because for some things it does carry over to humans. This is where we are at fault when we summarily dismiss animal studies in a discussion.

It would be funny to watch Lyle argue against carry-overs in his domain of expertise, i.e. exercise, muscle growth, strength, cell function with regard to the former, etc. I mean, it's all been tested on animals first.