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
  #16   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 13:08
DancinGurl's Avatar
DancinGurl DancinGurl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 161
 
Plan: Atkins/KETO/IF
Stats: 370/163/155 Female 65
BF:
Progress: 96%
Location: Central Texas
Default

I thought GCBC was just about perfect- a page-turner replete with actual science, previously obscure historical data, anthropology, political intrigue...that book saved my life.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 14:26
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DancinGurl
I thought GCBC was just about perfect- a page-turner replete with actual science, previously obscure historical data, anthropology, political intrigue...that book saved my life.

Tongue firmly in cheek. Not a comment on the benefits many of us received from the book. I'd read teaser's "Cliffs Notes" version any day.
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 18:12
DancinGurl's Avatar
DancinGurl DancinGurl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 161
 
Plan: Atkins/KETO/IF
Stats: 370/163/155 Female 65
BF:
Progress: 96%
Location: Central Texas
Default

LOL, I enjoy teasers summaries with insightful comments.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 19:53
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,475
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/181/180 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 98%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default

CBS News just posted it from HealthDay News:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-ca...ce-study-finds/

Surprised, since it's pro low-carb not low-fat.
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Fri, Nov-16-18, 03:43
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,368
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_d
CBS News just posted it from HealthDay News:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/low-ca...ce-study-finds/

Surprised, since it's pro low-carb not low-fat.


Well that dietician in the video wasn’t favorable to Keto or IF but I only could watch 4 minutes of a 15 minute segment.
CBS article was good though Opposite what that negative Nancy was smirking about.

Last edited by JEY100 : Fri, Nov-16-18 at 04:51.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Fri, Nov-16-18, 03:47
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,368
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

DietDoctor article written by Dr Bret Scher.

New Major Study: A Calorie is not a Calorie

Quote:
Despite what the sugary beverage and processed snack food companies want us to believe, all calories are not created equal.

A new study from Harvard shows that individuals following a low-carbohydrate (20% of total calories) diet burn between 209 and 278 more calories at rest (each day) than those on a high-carbohydrate (60% of total calories) diet. So the type of calories we eat really does matter.

The New York Times: How a low-carb diet might help you maintain a healthy weight
This isn’t the first study to investigate this topic, but it is likely the best.

The current study was a meticulously controlled, randomized trial, lasting 20 weeks. Even more impressive, the study group provided all the food for participants, over 100,000 meals and snacks costing $12 million for the entire study! This eliminated an important variable in nutrition studies — did the subjects actually comply with the diet — and shows the power of philanthropy and partnerships in supporting high-quality science. After a run-in period where all subjects lost the same amount of weight, participants were randomized to one of three diets: 20% carbs, 40% carb, or 60% carbs, with the protein remaining fixed at 20%. Importantly, calories were adjusted to stabilize weight and halt further weight loss, thus making it much more likely that any observed difference in calorie expenditure was not from weight loss, but rather from the types of food consumed.

After five months, those on the low-carb diet increased their resting energy expenditure by over 200 calories per day, whereas the high-carb group initially decreased their resting energy expenditure, exposing a clear difference between the groups. In addition, those who had the highest baseline insulin levels saw an even more impressive 308-calorie increase on the low-carb diet, suggesting a subset that may benefit even more from carbohydrate restriction.

Why is this important? It shows why the conventional wisdom to eat less, move more and count your calories is not the best path to weight loss. Numerous studies show better weight loss with low-carb diets compared to low-fat diets, and now studies like this one help us understand why.

Our bodies are not simple calorimeters keeping track of how much we eat and how much we burn. Instead, we have intricate hormonal responses to the types of food we eat. It’s time to accept this and get rid of the outdated calories in-calories, calories-out model, thus allowing for more effective and sustainable long-term weight loss.


Additional coverage of this dramatic new study: LA Times: The case against carbohydrates gets stronger (by study author Dr. David Ludwig)

The Times: Low-carb dieters “shed more weight”


MedPage Today: Low-carb diet wins for weight maintenance
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Fri, Nov-16-18, 04:49
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,368
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Dr. David Ludwig's own Op-Ed in LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...1114-story.html

Quote:
The case against carbohydrates gets stronger

By DAVID S. LUDWIG
NOV 14, 2018

As anyone who’s gone on a diet knows, once you lose some weight, it gets harder to lose more. The “eat less, move more” mantra, as simple as it sounds, doesn’t help us deal with our bodies’ metabolic reality: As we shed pounds, we get even hungrier and our metabolism slows down.

But findings from a new study I led with my colleague Cara Ebbeling suggests that what we eat — not just how much — has a substantial effect on our metabolism and thus how much weight we gain or lose.

People have a hard time believing that weight control isn’t just a matter of calories eaten and calories burned. But there is an alternate hypothesis about obesity, which is what my group studies. The carbohydrate-insulin model argues that overeating isn’t the underlying cause of long-term weight gain. Instead, it’s the biological process of gaining weight that causes us to overeat.

Here’s how this hypothesis goes: Consuming processed carbohydrates (especially refined grains, potato products and sugars), causes our bodies to produce more insulin. Too much insulin, one of the most powerful hormones, forces our fat cells into calorie-storage overdrive. These rapidly growing fat cells then hoard too many calories, leaving too few for the rest of the body. So we get hungry, and if we persist in eating less, our metabolism slows down.

Our findings suggest that a more effective strategy to lose weight over the long term is to focus on cutting processed carbohydrates, not calories.

Scientists have known for decades that diet composition, apart from calories, can affect hormones, metabolism and even the very workings of our genes. And a lot of research supports the carbohydrate-insulin model. But it hasn’t been rigorously tested before because high-quality clinical nutrition trials that control exactly what everyone eats for months are expensive — so they rarely get done.

For our clinical trial — one of the largest feeding studies ever conducted — we collaborated with Framingham State University and the company that manages its food service. We recruited 164 students, faculty, staff and community members who agreed to eat only what the study dictated for a full academic year.

We started the participants on a calorie-restricted diet until they lost 10%-14% of their body weight. After that, we randomly assigned them to eat exclusively one of three diets, containing either 20%, 40% or 60% carbohydrates.
For the next five months, we made sure they didn’t gain or lose any more weight, adjusting how much food they received, but keeping the ratio of carbohydrates constant. By doing so, we could directly measure how their metabolism responded to these differing levels of carbohydrate consumption.

Participants in the low (20%) carbohydrate group burned on average about 250 calories a day more than those in the high (60%) carbohydrate group, just as predicted by the carbohydrate-insulin model. Without intervention (that is, if we hadn’t adjusted the amount of food to prevent weight change), that difference would produce substantial weight loss — about 20 pounds after a few years. If a low-carbohydrate diet also curbs hunger and food intake (as other studies suggest it can), the effect could be even greater.
This result could explain in part why U.S. obesity rates have been going up for decades. Individuals have a sort genetically predetermined weight  —  lighter for some, heavier for others. Despite this, the average weight for American men has gone from about 165 pounds in the 1960s to 195 pounds today. Women, likewise, have gone from an average of 140 pounds to about 165.


The calories-in, calories-out view offers no compelling biological explanation for the obesity epidemic beyond “it’s complicated,” “many factors are involved” and ultimately, we eat too much. But if the type of calories consumed affect the number of calories burned, this trend starts to make more sense. The processed carbohydrates that flooded the food supply during the low-fat diet era of the last 40 years pushed the body weight set-point up across the population.

Our findings suggest that a more effective strategy to lose weight over the long term is to focus on cutting processed carbohydrates, not calories.

Of course, no one study can answer all questions about diet and obesity. Our study will have to be replicated, and additional research is needed to answer new questions the study raises. Will low-carbohydrate diets produce more weight loss over several years, if people are supported in maintaining them? Do certain people respond better to a low-carbohydrate diet; if so, can we identify them in advance? Do ketogenic diets, which severely restrict carbohydrate intake, offer advantages over more moderate regimens?
Our study does not conclusively prove the carbohydrate-insulin model is true. But it credibly makes the case that all calories are not alike to the body. These novel effects of food might make a big difference in our ability to lose weight — and keep it off.


David S. Ludwig is co-director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and a professor of nutrition at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.



Another summary by Dr. David Ludwig in Medium:
https://medium.com/~davidludwigmd/m...GcKlqROQeRyQnZU

Last edited by JEY100 : Fri, Nov-16-18 at 05:11.
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Sat, Nov-17-18, 04:46
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,368
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

The Dr Oz clip from the The Today Show. More articles on the NBC website. He emphasized the most important part, not all calories are equal, doctors have been wrong telling patients to just eat less, and then blaming them for weight gain.
Spoiler alert: If you expected Dr Oz to turn to the camera and apologize for ten years of bad advice, it didn’t happen.


https://www.today.com/video/low-car...291960?v=railb&
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Sun, Nov-18-18, 13:30
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...81114120302.htm

Sciencedaily on this, nothing new except if this bit has been posted here yet my brain blah blah blah'd it.

Quote:
Ludwig and Ebbeling recently launched another clinical trial called FB4, in which 125 adults with obesity live in a residential center for 13 weeks. Participants are being randomized to one of three diets: very-low-carb, high carb/low sugar or high carb/high sugar diets, with their calorie intakes individually matched to their energy expenditure. Results are expected in 2021.



Not quite a "metabolic ward" study, but much greater control of just what people are eating. Also looks like it's probably non-weight reduced. There's a difference between a diet resulting in an increased metabolic rate in a weight reduced person versus just entering into a diet.
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Sun, Nov-18-18, 14:32
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,176
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

I still find it amazing astounding, and stupefying that the " calorie is a calorie" theory is still alive.

In the livestock world, this doesnt exist, as it is dark ages feed theory. Seriously, all my feed and feeding books ( for hogs, lamb, and cattle and horses) ALL look at feed based on ME or DE. Metabolized energy or digestible energy. Every agricultural animal has been put in a chamber to calculate this. My books are 30 years old.

[doh]
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Sun, Nov-18-18, 14:52
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,456
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/194/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
I still find it amazing astounding, and stupefying that the " calorie is a calorie" theory is still alive.

In the livestock world, this doesnt exist, as it is dark ages feed theory. Seriously, all my feed and feeding books ( for hogs, lamb, and cattle and horses) ALL look at feed based on ME or DE. Metabolized energy or digestible energy. Every agricultural animal has been put in a chamber to calculate this. My books are 30 years old.

[doh]


Here is a question for you, Why does cattle Poop come out liquid and plops on the ground in a cow-patty but a horses poop comes out in roundish shaped nuggets?
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Sun, Nov-18-18, 14:59
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,176
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Figure it is the amount of fluid adsorbed in the lower gi.. but frankly I have forgotten most of what I used to know. lol One makes great dried cow- patties for tossing , and the other not so much; more like tossing a stone. lol

Do you know??

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-goats-...poop-in-pellets

Last edited by Ms Arielle : Sun, Nov-18-18 at 15:06.
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Wed, Nov-21-18, 04:59
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,368
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Dr. Westman's short summary, Research indicates that our weight is affected more by what we eat than by how much we eat

https://healclinics.com/research-in...ow-much-we-eat/

Quote:
A randomized controlled trial conducted by several institutions including Boston Children’s Hospital and the Harvard Medical School over three years and published last week in a peer-reviewed medical journal concludes that, “Consistent with the carbohydrate-insulin model, lowering dietary carbohydrate increased energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance. This metabolic effect may improve the success of obesity treatment, especially among those with high insulin secretion.”

As summarized in ScienceDaily, “Most people regain the weight they lose from dieting within one or two years, in part because the body adapts by slowing metabolism and burning fewer calories. A meticulous study now finds that eating fewer carbohydrates increases the number of calories burned. The findings suggest that low-carb diets can help people maintain weight loss, making obesity treatment more effective.”

One of the study’s authors, Dr. David Ludwig, explains in the Los Angeles Times, “As anyone who’s gone on a diet knows, once you lose some weight, it gets harder to lose more. The ‘eat less, move more’ mantra, as simple as it sounds, doesn’t help us deal with our bodies’ metabolic reality: As we shed pounds, we get even hungrier and our metabolism slows down. But findings from a new study I led with my colleague Cara Ebbeling suggest that what we eat — not just how much — has a substantial effect on our metabolism and thus how much weight we gain or lose.”

Dr. Ludwing continues, “People have a hard time believing that weight control isn’t just a matter of calories eaten and calories burned. But there is an alternate hypothesis about obesity, which is what my group studies. The carbohydrate-insulin model argues that overeating isn’t the underlying cause of long-term weight gain. Instead, it’s the biological process of gaining weight that causes us to overeat. Here’s how this hypothesis goes: Consuming processed carbohydrates (especially refined grains, potato products and sugars), causes our bodies to produce more insulin. Too much insulin, one of the most powerful hormones, forces our fat cells into calorie-storage overdrive. These rapidly growing fat cells then hoard too many calories, leaving too few for the rest of the body. So we get hungry, and if we persist in eating less, our metabolism slows down.”

He concludes, “The calories-in, calories-out view offers no compelling biological explanation for the obesity epidemic beyond ‘it’s complicated,’ ‘many factors are involved’ and ultimately, we eat too much. But if the type of calories consumed affect the number of calories burned, this trend starts to make more sense. The processed carbohydrates that flooded the food supply during the low-fat diet era of the last 40 years pushed the body weight set-point up across the population. Our findings suggest that a more effective strategy to lose weight over the long term is to focus on cutting processed carbohydrates, not calories.”
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Wed, Nov-21-18, 08:13
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,036
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
"Our findings suggest that a more effective strategy to lose weight over the long term is to focus on cutting processed carbohydrates, not calories.”


This says it all.
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Fri, Dec-07-18, 09:56
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot...alf-bricks.html

Peter's take on a Kevin Hall criticism of the study. Hall does the statistical trick of using the pre-weightloss metabolic rate as the starting point, which brings the differences in metabolic rate to non-significance.

I've sort of scrunched my nose at some studies, based on significance. Suppose you have A, B, and C. A is significantly better than C, non-significantly better than B. B is non-significantly better than C. So which is the best choice? Well, if you were going to do C, the obvious answer is A. If you started at B... it apparently doesn't matter. I guess if you switch to C, then you can improve things by going to A. Or you could just switch to A to lord it over those losers still doing C, even if there's no obvious benefit to you.
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 08:30.


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