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
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Sun, Jan-27-08, 12:47
ceberezin ceberezin is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 619
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 155/140/140 Male 68
BF:18%
Progress:
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Default

Kneebrace - You have misread my post. I never said that a caloric deficit is not necessary for losing weight. I said that a caloric deficit is not necessary for burning fat. Taubes also said that without carbohydrates it is impossible to store fat. The Eades reported that at their clinic, there were a number of people who did not lose weight on a low carb diet. On investigating the situation, they discovered that these people were indeed eating low carb, but that they were eating about 4000 calories a day. The wonder is, they remarked, that even at that level of calories, these people did not gain weight on a low carb diet.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Sun, Jan-27-08, 12:53
PS Diva's Avatar
PS Diva PS Diva is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,102
 
Plan: Low GI
Stats: 220/214/145 Female 67
BF:yes, I admit it
Progress: 8%
Location: Western New York
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
Taubes let the evidence lead him to his conclusions, I'm thinking this guy let his conclusions lead him to his evidence.
That I think is the entire basis of Taubes book! That scientists were manipulating the data in various studies to reach the conclusions that they knew they were supposed to reach. And he is pretty darn convincing.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Sun, Jan-27-08, 13:11
alpdiver's Avatar
alpdiver alpdiver is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 56
 
Plan: Protein Power LifePlan
Stats: 206/164/164 Male 70 inches
BF:30%/18%/18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Kansas City Area
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kneebrace
Unfortunately, he does seem to be missing the point about bodyfat loss (as a distinct metabolic progression from just not gaining ) and low carb dieting a bit...............
So although the book in its entirety is an enormous achievement, in one of its most important messages he is completely misguided. This is such a pity. It doesn't mean Low Carb isn't by far the best approach to losing bodyfat, or preventing bodyfat gain, or indeed the healthiest way to nourish the human body. But it does mean that he looks a bit like a dill because he is so clearly wrong about the energy deficit/bodyfat loss thing..............
I still can't quite believe he got it so wrong, when most of the book gets it so right........


Stuart,
In my first read of GCBC, apparently too quick, I seemd ot have missed Gary's misguided discussion/comments regarding energy deficit/bodyfat loss. If you have the time, and are willing, would you please direct me to the chapter(s) and/or pages(s) where I can find these comments.

Best regards,

Andy
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Sun, Jan-27-08, 14:09
ProfGumby's Avatar
ProfGumby ProfGumby is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,927
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 361/285.0/240.0 Male 5'11"
BF:Shake Hands w/Beef
Progress: 63%
Location: In Da U.P. eh? Menominee
Default

So, asks Melissa Whitworth, could Atkins have been right all along?

Yup......

Nice article! Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Sun, Jan-27-08, 20:17
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpdiver
Stuart,
In my first read of GCBC, apparently too quick, I seemd ot have missed Gary's misguided discussion/comments regarding energy deficit/bodyfat loss. If you have the time, and are willing, would you please direct me to the chapter(s) and/or pages(s) where I can find these comments.

Best regards,

Andy


That's the point Andy, he doesn't refer to the importance of a calorie deficit for bodyfat loss at all. He seems to have neglected to mention it completely. As I said in my first post on this thread, he does explain in breathtaking detail how eating low carb will tend to stop you gaining any more bodyfat, at any calorie intake, and then kind of assumes I guess, and implies vaguely pretty well throughout any discussion of bodyfat gain/loss that a low carb dietary approach automatically results in bodyfat loss. Which it clearly doesn't without a calorie deficit. Some people don't have to exert much additional willpower apart from restricting carbohydrate to also restrict calories because of the appetite limiting effect of low carb food. Most need more.

Still considerably less than the hunger nightmare of higher carb/low fat, but in neglecting to give any metabolic detail to the necessity of a calorie deficit for bodyfat loss on any dietary approach, including low carb, Taubes has left himself very vulnerable to the accusation of sloppy reasoning. I'm sure he isn't a sloppy thinker at all. Maybe he just needs to discuss the metabolic details of bodyfat loss in more exhaustively with someone like Mike Eades, who seems to understand it better than most commentators. Who knows why this glaring omission was made. But it is a terrible shame, and makes the chances of his book appealing to any but the already converted very slim (pardon the pun) indeed.

Particularly because the chapters about the sorry slide into the lipid hypothesis becoming the dominant paradigm are so good.

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Sun, Jan-27-08, 20:33
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceberezin
Kneebrace - You have misread my post. I never said that a caloric deficit is not necessary for losing weight. I said that a caloric deficit is not necessary for burning fat. Taubes also said that without carbohydrates it is impossible to store fat. The Eades reported that at their clinic, there were a number of people who did not lose weight on a low carb diet. On investigating the situation, they discovered that these people were indeed eating low carb, but that they were eating about 4000 calories a day. The wonder is, they remarked, that even at that level of calories, these people did not gain weight on a low carb diet.


Ceberizin, maybe we're on the same page after all if you can see that a calorie deficit is necessary for losing bodyfat. And I agree about ( and Taubes indeed devoted considerable attention to) the difficulty of gaining on low carb. And of course a calorie deficit is not necessary to be in fat burning mode. It is breathtakingly easy to be in gourmandizing calorie surplus on low carb, adequate protein, and lots and lots of fat, and be burning fat for energy almost exclusively. The only problem is, none of it will be bodyfat. Why would your metabolic machinery go to the additional trouble of mobilizing bodyfat when there is ample dietary fat available for energy needs?

Also FWIW, Mike Eades quoted the 4000 calorie examples specifically because they were indeed remarkable for their not gaining. But let's not let that distract us (because it certainly doesn't distract Mike Eades) from the necessity of anyone, including those extreme patients, reducing their calorie intake prodigiously until they established a calorie deficit before they could lose bodyfat (I'm assuming that they weren't competitive athletes who may have been burning close to 4000 cals anyway).

Stuart

Last edited by kneebrace : Mon, Jan-28-08 at 06:00.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Sun, Jan-27-08, 20:41
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legeon
What would he have seen? The folks who increase the amount of calories they eat and still lose weight, maybe? The ones who say they have to do this or they stall?


Legeon, there aren't any folks who increase low carb calories and still lose bodyfat consistently. And the folks who do experience such short term anomalies are the first to admit with the benefit of hindsight, that there were other confounding factors, not the metabolic effect of restricting calories. Plenty of Low Carb folks would certainly like to believe that they can do so (I sense you are one ). But ask any Low Carb clinician who has been observing the metabolic effects of restricting carbohydrate for many decades, and they will unanimously tell you it is a myth.

If males consume fewer than 1200 calories and women 1000, they run the risk of their thyroid gland reducing metabolic rate and it becoming even more difficult to achieve a calorie deficit and lose bodyfat. Rather than consume lower than these lower calorie limits, somebody who still wasn't losing bodyfat with a low carb dietary approach would be well advised to do some HIIT exercise to get the all important calorie deficit without getting their thyroid gland's knickers in a knot. Which is the only type of exercise that will burn a lot of calories without commensurately increasing hunger. Which I mentioned in another post is another thing that GCBC got conspicuously wrong - ie, not identifying the special role of HIIT in burning calories without increasing hunger (commensurately).

Stuart

Last edited by kneebrace : Mon, Jan-28-08 at 05:51.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Sun, Jan-27-08, 20:57
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesmoke
Greatly abridged, Taubes reports that the body burns body fat whenever needed, such as between meals and at night while asleep. To rebuild those fat reserves, insulin is necessary or fat won't be stored. Low carb keeps insulin levels low and fat is not deposited. Taubes cites numerous sources and they can be checked, but how insulin works is not a secret among endocrinologists, it is just the most obesity "experts" don't pay attention. Nyah Levi


Nyah, that sort of ignores the effect of dietary calories as a direct energy source. And on a low carb diet, that would be dietary fat and Protein. It is metabolically even easier to slot free dietary amino acids (absorbed into your bloodstream from your digestive tract dealing with dietary protein) into the Kreb's cycle (very wastefully, to be sure, but simple biochemically nevertheless) than to mobilize bodyfat for that purpose. Dietary fat is a walk in the energy supply park. Why would your body bother mobilizing bodyfat when there are blood stream borne free fatty acids (in albumin - thanks L.C FP ) and/or chylomicrons ready and willing.

It takes at least 18 hrs for a meal to make it through your digestive tract, during which time your bloodstream is being constantly being resupplied with free fatty acids/chylomicrons, which in a fat adapted person are going to be utilized very efficiently for energy needs. And most people eat at least every 9 waking hours.

Are you getting the picture, Nyah? I'm afraid in anything but a calorie deficit, your Bodyfat is going to relax and stay put while your body takes advantage of the (at least sufficient- ie equilibrium or surplus) dietary calories. In other words, you won't have to 'replenish' bodyfat reserves, because you won't ever start depleting them.

But don't forget, and this is incalculably important to the issue, a low carb dietary approach is definitely the easiest/healthiest way to achieve a calorie deficit with the least hunger. I'm amazed at the fuss a few apparently overzealous low carbers make when they can't avoid recognizing that a calorie deficit is still necessary for bodyfat loss. Anybody would think they were being asked to admit that Low Carb wasn't the best way to optimize bodycomp/health

Stuart

Last edited by kneebrace : Sun, Jan-27-08 at 21:18.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Mon, Jan-28-08, 03:02
LittleAnne's Avatar
LittleAnne LittleAnne is offline
Posts: 11,264
 
Plan: Atkins & Schwarzbein
Stats: 234/157/90 Female 4' 6"
BF:56.4%/38.8%/23.9%
Progress: 53%
Location: Orpington, UK
Default

What a great article Demi. Well spotted. I agree with this and all my reading has told me that insulin and the carbohydrate balance are key to this.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Mon, Jan-28-08, 15:49
bluesmoke bluesmoke is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 521
 
Plan: Atkins+
Stats: 386/285/200 Male 5'11"
BF:
Progress: 54%
Default

If my choice is to believe someone posting on the internet who has an obvious axe to grind, or an acclaimed science reporter who spent 5 years researching the subject, it isn't a hard choice. It amazes me how many people in the low carb community feel the need to deny the facts when it conflicts with their personal beliefs. Nyah Levi
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Mon, Jan-28-08, 16:03
Legeon's Avatar
Legeon Legeon is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 511
 
Plan: lowcarb/high fat/Failsafe
Stats: 280/245/150 Female 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 27%
Location: Pennsylvania
Default

Quote:
Legeon, there aren't any folks who increase low carb calories and still lose bodyfat consistently. And the folks who do experience such short term anomalies are the first to admit with the benefit of hindsight, that there were other confounding factors, not the metabolic effect of restricting calories. Plenty of Low Carb folks would certainly like to believe that they can do so (I sense you are one ). But ask any Low Carb clinician who has been observing the metabolic effects of restricting carbohydrate for many decades, and they will unanimously tell you it is a myth.
My point was its kind of dumb to wonder why Taubes didn't just visit the forums when all you have here is anecdotal stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Mon, Jan-28-08, 16:42
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesmoke
If my choice is to believe someone posting on the internet who has an obvious axe to grind, or an acclaimed science reporter who spent 5 years researching the subject, it isn't a hard choice. It amazes me how many people in the low carb community feel the need to deny the facts when it conflicts with their personal beliefs. Nyah

Levi


Nyah as I pointed out earlier, of course I don't expect you to believe an (obvious ??) 'axe grinder'. Just a quick question to the Drs. Eades, Wolfgang Lutz, Krasnewski (speaks excellent English), or any one of the many others all over the world, is all it would take to confirm that they've bee observing the necessity of a calorie deficit for bodyfat loss for decades. Not once or twice Nyah, thousands upon thousands of cases. These clinicians are very well placed to know exactly what they are talking about.

Taubes is a science journo, not a low carb clinician. He's a good science journo, no doubt about it. Most of GCBC is a very fine read. And I have no idea why he neglected to explicity mention this fundamental point.

I'm just a tad curious also, why, because I'm pointing out that one of your obvious sacred cows is well past its expiry date (easily confirmable by people who actually see how a low carb diet works metabolically every working day of their professional careers) I'm an 'axe grinder' when an obviously well meaning low carb adherent science journo, is an acclaimed science journo beyond intellectual reproach.

Nyah, the 'facts' you are referring to are very easy to check with the also acclaimed low carb medicos whose take I am reasonably sure you would respect. Give it a go. You've got nothing to lose except some tough old sacred cows which should have been quietly laid to rest a long time ago. Save the character assassination barbs, and educate yourself. We're both low carbers, Nyah. But for some reason you persist in clinging to some metabolic wishful thinking. It really wouldn't be very difficult to bring yourself up to speed in a way you wouldn't be able to obfuscate about.

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Mon, Jan-28-08, 16:46
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legeon
My point was its kind of dumb to wonder why Taubes didn't just visit the forums when all you have here is anecdotal stuff.


I couldn't agree more, Legeon. But Gary Taubes actually knows Mike Eades personally. It would have been pretty easy to confirm this point with him. Yet for some reason, he didn't, and the credibility of his book in its entirety will incalculably suffer as a result in the minds of anyone but the already low carb converted, like you and I.

Which is a terrible pity, you'd have to agree .

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Mon, Jan-28-08, 18:08
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

Quote:
'What are the chances of writing an article that says the entire medical establishment is wrong, and them going, " Good point, thank you, Gary. Can we give you an award?"


LOLOLOL...I love this guy.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Mon, Jan-28-08, 18:10
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,110
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Just a quick question to the Drs. Eades, Wolfgang Lutz, Krasnewski (speaks excellent English), or any one of the many others all over the world, is all it would take to confirm that they've bee observing the necessity of a calorie deficit for bodyfat loss for decades. Not once or twice Nyah, thousands upon thousands of cases. These clinicians are very well placed to know exactly what they are talking about.

Taubes is a science journo, not a low carb clinician. He's a good science journo, no doubt about it. Most of GCBC is a very fine read. And I have no idea why he neglected to explicity mention this fundamental point.


Perhaps the very reason Taubes didn't mention that point is that he's a science journalist, and there are no studies that show exactly that point? By that, I mean that the doctors mentioned all have lots of anecdotal evidence of it, but has anyone conducted double blind research (or whatever it's called - I'm obviously not a scientist) to confirm all this anecdotal evidence?

The thing is that not only do we have a lot of anecdotal evidence that people can avoid weight gain on low carb, even when consuming massive amounts of fat calories, there is also some anecdotal evidence that some people still lose when consuming far more calories than they can consume while still losing weight on a low fat, calorie controlled diet.

For instance, notice the following from deirdra's post about her own personal experience with the two types of diets:

Quote:
On high carb (65% cals from carbs, 25% protein, 10% fat) I lost 1lb/wk on 1100 cal iff I exercised 10 hrs/wk (lost nothing without exercise). I was starving all the time.

On low carb (65% cals from fat, 25% protein, 10% carbs) I lost 1lb/wk on 1900 cal if I exercised 0-1.5 hrs/wk. I was satisfied all the time.

If all calories were metabolically identical, I should have lost 3lbs/wk on the high carb diet with the extra 7000 calories/wk deficit (calories not eaten + calories expended in the extra 8.5 hrs of aerobic exercise/wk, conservatively estimated). The 1900 calories on LC DID provide enough of a deficit to lose 1lb/wk, but my body only behaves like a "normal" person's in terms of theoretical weight loss rates if I eat vLC.

Interestingly, 1900 cal/day is what a "normal" 136-lb person should maintain on (that is using the 14cal/lb rate for an active person, as opposed to the 12cal/lb for someone exercising as little as I was). I now maintain on 1900-2000 cals/day, but only if I eat no more than 35g ECC. If I eat that many calories on the SAD "standard american diet", I'll balloon back up to 180-190lbs in 2-3 months (I know because I did it about 20 times in 35 years of yo-yoing). Eating low carb is the only WOL that keeps my weight and relationship with food "normal", i.e. without constant hunger and cravings. I've been maintaining for 19 months now.


There are lots of people on these very boards who have noticed similar relationships between calorie consumption and weight loss/maintenance/weight gain, depending on whether their calories come primarily from carbs or primarily from fat.
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 19:15.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.