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 Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 09:23
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

If carbohydrate makes us fat, are we actually using the energy it contains? Is it food? Why do we eat it? In the absence of carbohydrate, the calorie is simply a measure of food energy but without the potential to make us fat in the event we eat too much of it. Even then, some caloric molecules (protein for instance) barely count toward the total usable food energy we consume. This leaves us only with fat as the sole source of usable calories. Energy is spent in all biological processes so it would be wise to supply these processes with adequate fuel.

The question is, are we eating enough of it?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 12:03
NrgQuest's Avatar
NrgQuest NrgQuest is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 916
 
Plan: LC since 1/15/09
Stats: 317/278/217 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 39%
Location: Tennessee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
35 years of cutting calories never brought me PERMANENT weight loss; vLC/HF/gluten-, soy-, junk- & dairy-free is the only approach that has worked. I alternated between being perfect on 1000-1200 calorie diets for months on end followed by periods where I ate 2000-3000 cals of crap per day, after my willpower failed, which it will. Over the course of the year I averaged 2000 cals/day.

On High-Fat (70%), very Low Carb (<30g net; 5%) I lost 1 lb/week averaging 1900 cals/day. I did not have to cut 500 cals/day as the usual formulas insist. And I maintain 136 lbs effortlessly on 2000 calories eating like this, whereas I maintained 190 lbs on 2000 cals of HC foods (I've logged everything I eat for the past 19 years). Sure N=1 in this study, but it proves to me that all calories do not have the same effect on hormones, the immune system & fat storage.

They only tested low-cal (& not very LC) diets, so how can they say low-cal diets are best?

The money trail also includes all low-cal, low-fat processed food makers who stock ~half the contents of typical supermarkets. They and the pill pushers rely on people never being successful, so they are not about to tell us to eat our meat and vegetables.


Diedra, you should write a book. You logged everything so you have a lot of data there to show what you are claiming about the LC lifestyle.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 12:39
lisa53098's Avatar
lisa53098 lisa53098 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 525
 
Plan: Mayo Clinic Diet
Stats: 188/169/158 Female 65"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Watertown, WI
Default

My husband went to the New England Journal of Medicine website and read the article. He posted a comment saying:
"This study says, reduce calories, and you lose weight. The dietary balance of protein, fat, and carbohydrate is unimportant for weight loss.

The statistics from this Harvard study don't agree with the conclusion of the study.

The graphed data shows, people on a "high fat" diet lost 18% more than "high carb" dieters. The "high protien" dieters lost 37% more weight than "high carb" dieters. The large population size studied means a small margin of error.

These diets weren't extreme enough to measure the true differences between variations in carb, fat, and proteins. However, the graphs still show, people on low-carb, high-protein diets lost more weight, on the same number of calories as other dieters.

It seems the designer of the test intended to prove there was no difference in diets. The diets should have been more extreme in their differences to measure the difference in effect on weight loss. The published data showed statistically significant differences in diet results that weren't recognized by the study and contradicted in their conclusions."

There was a poll being taken. It asked:
On the basis of your reading of this article, do you believe that the composition of one's diet with regard to fat, carbohydrates, and protein has an effect on one's ability to lose weight?

67% of the readers voted "NO".

The people in this forum are EXPERTS in dieting.
Go to the NEJoM webpage and post your comments there for the medical community to read.

BE HEARD!
-- Written by Lisa's Husband, Mark
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 13:13
TheCaveman's Avatar
TheCaveman TheCaveman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: Angry Paleo
Stats: 375/205/180 Male 6'3"
BF:
Progress: 87%
Location: Sacramento, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutchinson
Sorry I didn't attribute but was in a hurry and I didn't think by now anyone would think I ever put anything online that I hadn't checked first.


No excuse, Hutch. When people stop being surprised that doctors are paid by drug companies is when you can stop proving it to them.

And hey everyone: do you find it strange that researchers fail to answer the simple questions that layfolk like us have? I mean, couldn't these folks have asked us what evidence might convince us that calories are more important than composition?
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 13:35
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,887
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Well, there was that Paleo study I posted recently where the subjects were placed on a paleo diet designed to maintain their weight (same number of calories they were eating before). It wasn't terribly low carb but certainly lower than the SAD. But they had to increase the calories because everyone started losing weight anyway!
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 14:08
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,886
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

I've also contributed my personal experience to the comments section and voted in the poll. I think it would be a good thing if everyone here did the same. We really need to overwhelm the site with examples of how PROPER low carbohydrate diets actually reduce weight and keep it off without the need for either semi starvation or exercise. (that is not to say exercise is not a very good thing in it's one right)
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 14:27
amandawald amandawald is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,737
 
Plan: Ray Peat (not low-carb)
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 164cm
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Brit in Europe
Default

I instantly knew that there had been some study proclaiming that low-carb diets "didn't work", when I got about a million emails from my Google Alert called "low-carb diet research".

They were, of course, all about this one study. It has been reported in every single online newspaper around the globe, it would seem.

If only someone would take the success stories from this forum alone - all the people who have lost 50, 100 and more pounds (not just a measly nine!) by low-carbing, if only they would look at all the people on this forum who are maintaining their weight effortlessly by low-carbing, then the newspapers would have something really newsworthy and useful to report, instead of this totally useless and demotivating information from this "study"???

If only, if only...

amanda
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 17:00
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,886
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

This is a direct link to the poll and comments page.
I don't know how long comments take to appear but my contribution of 4hrs ago has not yet appeared so perhaps they are moderating those that support low carbohydrate diets are being limited.
I would like to know if others here have trouble with their comment not appearing.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 17:26
mommonster's Avatar
mommonster mommonster is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 34
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 142/129/120 Female 65inches
BF:
Progress: 59%
Location: USA
Default

I saw this on the news and could hardly wait to get on here and read what everyone had to say. My husband was excited because he likes it best when I am making pasta and bread, but after reading the article and seeing how bogus the numbers are I can report that and my hubs will once again have to submit to my resolve. Poor guy.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 17:32
Nelson's Avatar
Nelson Nelson is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,096
 
Plan: Organic Dukan Attack
Stats: 132/129.4/116 Female 4' 11"
BF:
Progress: 16%
Location: So. Cal.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judynyc
The participants, who were classified as overweight or obese based on body mass index scores from 25 to 49, agreed to eat diets high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.



By definition, a high carbohydrate diet. They just fiddled with the fat and protein ratios within a set calorie deficit. No wonder there was no difference. A completely worthless study.
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Fri, Feb-27-09, 20:58
folkshot's Avatar
folkshot folkshot is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 507
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 220/255/180 Female 5'5"
BF:
Progress: -88%
Location: UT
Default

It was hard for me to answer the question on the poll because I *DO* believe that the composition of one's diet has an effect, but I *DON'T* believe it because of the study. Wasn't sure which way to go with that.

I left a couple comments as well....
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Sat, Feb-28-09, 03:55
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,886
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by folkshot
It was hard for me to answer the question on the poll because I *DO* believe that the composition of one's diet has an effect, but I *DON'T* believe it because of the study. Wasn't sure which way to go with that.

I left a couple comments as well....
I agree the question was badly worded and like you I thought twice about my answer. The key phrase is
"On the basis of your reading of this article, " and so the answer has to be NO as your opinion about the fat, carbohydrates, and protein has an effect on one's ability to lose weight was not altered by reading that article.

I believe the proportion of carbohydrate I consume in relation to fat intake did effect my ability to lose weight but there was nothing in that article that converted me to or confirmed that opinion.

If so called nutritional experts want to persuade me they know what they are talking about they need to perform a trial where a low carbohydrate less than 20% carbs + higher fat intake is included in the trial and compared with low fat high carb but they must also correct Vitamin D insufficiency by raising 25(OH)D status by attaining and maintaining 60ng ~ 150nmol/l thorough the trial so we have a level playing field.
Any trial that fails to control for variations in 25(OH)D through the trial is bound to be flawed as it affects glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Sat, Feb-28-09, 10:21
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,335
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisa53098
The graphed data shows, people on a "high fat" diet lost 18% more than "high carb" dieters. The "high protien" dieters lost 37% more weight than "high carb" dieters. The large population size studied means a small margin of error.

I used this to say YES to whether this article made me believe composition IS important (not the words).

Like the article, the questions seem to be deliberately worded to get people to agree with the unsupported conclusions of the paper.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Sat, Feb-28-09, 11:14
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

I thought that this Daily Dish from South Beach, is interesting:

From today's SBD Daily Dish in response to the reporting of the new study re: calories more important that fat or carbs:

Quote:
We Don't Count Calories, But Calories Do Count
A new two-year study funded by the National Institutes of Health and recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that it's not what you eat that matters on a diet, but rather how many calories you consume each day. The media is now reporting on this study in a way that is misleading, implying that all you have to do is cut calories to lose weight and that it doesn't matter how you do it.
The South Beach Diet lifestyle doesn't require you to count calories, but that doesn't mean that calories don't count. Dr. Arthur Agatston, leading preventive cardiologist and bestselling author of The South Beach Diet Supercharged, knows from his years of success with his patients that counting calories, grams of fat or carbs, or anything else is certainly not in harmony with making a diet a lifestyle. Counting is simply too difficult to sustain.
It is the quality of the calories that you take in that naturally leads to appropriate hunger satisfaction. Generally, if you are enjoying meals consisting of lean protein, good fats, and nutrient-dense, fiber-rich fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, you will naturally feel satisfied and have no desire to overeat. Invariably this means you'll take in fewer calories overall—no counting necessary.
As it turns out, all the diet groups in the reported study were urged to eat similar foods that had very little saturated fat (8% or less), were low in cholesterol (150 mg or less for every 1000 calories), and were relatively high in fiber (20 grams of fiber per day). Carbohydrate-rich foods with a low glycemic index were also recommended. (Low glycemic index foods are those that release their sugars more slowly, and thus don't cause blood sugar to rise and fall quickly, thereby helping to control cravings.) Missing from this study was a control group eating foods reflective of the typical American diet high in refined sugar, saturated fat, and processed foods.
Thus, all the participants were essentially eating a nutrient-dense, fiber-rich, heart-healthy diet, which is exactly what we recommend on the South Beach Diet. (It was also recommended that the dieters in all groups exercise moderately for 90 minutes weekly, also in line with the principles of the South Beach Diet.)
But while the researchers had targets for differences in the macronutrients (in other words, the amount of fat, protein, and carbs recommended varied among the diet groups), in reality these dietary goals were only partially achieved. In the final analysis, the differences in macronutrient intake were too small for the study authors to make a definitive conclusion that composition of a diet doesn't really matter. And yet, they did just that. And that's how some news outlets have been reporting this information.
Learning to make the right food choices most of the time is what transforms a diet into a lifestyle, and that ultimately leads to permanent weight loss and better health for life. Dr. Agatston encourages you to stick with the proven principles of the South Beach Diet, get at least 20 minutes of aerobic or core exercise daily (he actually recommends a bit more exercise than the study did), and celebrate your individual successes each and every day.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Sat, Feb-28-09, 17:46
folkshot's Avatar
folkshot folkshot is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 507
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 220/255/180 Female 5'5"
BF:
Progress: -88%
Location: UT
Default

Apparently they didn't like my comments; I posted last night and they still aren't up.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 08:00.


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