Interesting......very interesting!

Yes I think you are right AJ. This bodyfat 'set point' probably makes your body hormonally compensate for the hormonal influence of carbs in weight loss when a certain bodyfat is reached. Which makes the achievement of the necessary biochemical calorie deficit even more critical. I mean if you did reduce your total calories even more AJ, while continuing to ensure adequate protein, EFA's, and micronutrients, and continued to restrict carbs, by reducing fat calories, you would lose further bodyfat, but you'd be hungrier, even though you were still low carbing. So the hunger mitigating effect of low carbing has its limits. Don't forget that eating more carbohydrate is certainly not an option because you'll be even hungrier.

In any case this is a bit beside the point of whether their is any isocaloric 'metabolic advantage' of restricting carbohydrate, which is the question Anthony Colpo wants answered. Or more accurately, he's asking is there any persuasive metablolic ward evidence (yet!) that this mechanism exists. Gary Taubes certainly seems to think so, although I'm not that convinced that Mike Eades does. Should be interesting to find out. Surely a lot less than 20,000 bucks would be enough for someone like Regina to find the relevant studies if they do exist.

But they might not exist, either because the effect doesn't exist except in the minds of wishful thinking low carbers and the likes of Gary Taubes, or the work hasn't yet been done. I'm sure theirs a lot of things we think exist and anecdotal evidence certainly can be interpreted to support. But that doesn't make them true.

The benefits of Low Carb diets for both body comp and health simply don't need the existence of a 'metabolic advantage'. And people like Gary Taubes misinterpreting currently available evidence doesn't do their credibility amongst the as yet unconverted any favours.

So I am really looking forward to see if somebody can come up with the evidence Anthony Colpo is backing with such an attractive offer. But I won't ever be stopping Low Carbing, nor I take it will you AJ, nor will Anthony Colpo, even if current evidence doesn't prove that low carb metabolic advantage exists.

Appetite advantage and health advantage, maybe that's all low carbing can actually claim to be responsible for. But that's more than enough, surely?

Stuart

AC set the "rules" to be a no-win situation....but did manage to get play on it here anyway....he's become quite the masterful marketer of himself, hasn't he?

Regina, I'm no fan of Anthony Colpo either. But seriously, that's a cop out. I've carefully examined the conditions he set. It seems to me he is anxious to eliminate the 'self reporting' errors that do always seem to have stymied any sensible examination of whether low carb 'metabolic advantage' exists, or is just a figment of credulous low carber's imaginations.

I'm curious, which of A.C's conditions made it an unreasonable no win situation?. You do mean unreasonable don't you?. Or are you suggesting that he may be right?

I mean what's the point of flouncing around amongst other similarly credulous low carbers, excluding the skeptical faculties that you at least seem to make some attempt to foster (in yourself and others - your blog is called 'Weight of the Evidence' after all, not 'Weight of the Anecdotal, reporting error plagued "Evidence") Aren't you really saying: 'I don't care whether their is no metabolic ward evidence' of L.C metabolic advantage, I just 'know' it exists. Anyway I've....I've 'proved' it myself).

Regina, I'm afraid that is just not good enough.

Don't forget I'm specifically directing this at any credulous Low Carbers. You might not want to admit that your reaction so far puts you in that camp. In fact, you may very well splutter and try to take some kind of higher moral ground ( that you are somehow not going to 'lower' yourself to responding to such a challenge) about this. It doesn't matter ultimately. Either metabolic advantage exists or it doesn't. And even more importantly, either the metabolic ward evidence of it's existence has been found, or it hasn't. Can you see that Anthony Colpo cannot make it cease to exist if it actually does, however nasty a person he is?. What he is asking is whether conclusive evidence of its existence has been found, yet. That is a question very worth answering, Regina, whether you, I , or anyone else dislikes him or his methods.

Please stop this ridiculous obfuscation and consider the question, not muddy the waters with irrelevancies about the personalities. Otherwise it might be time to reconsider a change of the title of your blog to something like 'Weight of the Evidence that suits my preconceptions', perhaps?

Stuart

the prisoners that were fed more and more, up to 10K calories a day (and the part about the fat rats that were still fat when starved to death) is what I find interesting. So a calorie is only a calorie based on how our bodies handle them and for some of us, where the calorie comes from. The study had people who hardly gained at all when eating 5 full meals a day. If Jane Brody was right, they would all be blimbs.

There are a lot of overweight people around and I'm convinced it's because of the increase in sugar/corn syrup/refined carbs/portions that we all consume. But we all know people who supersize all the time and are thin or at least normal size and people who don't eat much and still have weight to loose.

So why can some eat carbs and remain thin and others not? Genetics?

Barb

PS: I loved the Tuabes book and I understood it to be a review of existing literature and scientific studies. I think some people want him to draw conclusions when there is no data out there to support those views. He mentions that even the studies currently in the works won't answer a lot of the questions that need answering.

It depends on how individual bodies respond to insulin resistance. At some point, adipose tissue becomes insulin resistant, too. It might happen when you're relatively thin or when you're morbidly obese. Your genes only determine how insulin resistance will kill you.

I think the problem is him drawing conclusions from the existing data erroneously Barb. That's why his book is not being taken seriously by anyone but the already low carb converted. Believe it or not there are huge numbers of people who, as Mike Eades says, don't really have a dog in this fight. They just want to know what the science has so far told us. And concerning bodyfat loss what the unequivocal studies have told us so far is that Low Carb Metabolic advantage is insignifigantly small. Misinterpreting the available evidence is no way to advance the low carb cause. What the science does tell us unequivocally is that low carb is still the best way to lose bodyfat becuase you naturally eat less, and you are less likely to store any excess calories you do consume. Why isn't that enough at this stage?

And about the thin carb gluttons. It doesn't matter how much insulin your pancreas is desperately pumping out in an effort to keep carb fueled blood sugar spikes under control, if your cells don't listen to insulin anymore. There are a lot of thin diabetics out there (particularly asian males). The really scary thing is that the medical profession will often pump even more insulin into a diabetic to try to overwhelm insulin resistant cells.

Stuart

The ad hominem is truly unnecessary and my assertion that the "challenge" is a no-win isn't based on personality or even that utilizing evidence to show potential/probable/actual metabolic advantage exists isn't possible - it is Anthony's insistence that one must ALSO prove he has misrepresented the metabolic ward studies he cites (something I myself have never claimed he's done, although on some there are definitely issues of interpretation IMO - but hey, I'm just a blogger, eh)

Here is what makes the challenge a "no-win" Stuart: "2. You must present conclusive proof that the metabolic ward studies I have cited in Table 1, Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible have been misreported, and in fact really show greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate groups."

[...]

"After citing the metabolic ward research requested in requirement 1, they must then invalidate each and every one of the metabolic ward studies I have cited in Chapter 1 in which the lower-carb group ate less than 100 grams of carbohydrate per day. They must provide conclusive evidence that these studies did in fact find statistically significant greater fat losses on the lower carb diets, but that the researchers – by accident or design – misreported this data and instead claimed no difference in weight/fat losses."

Is this challenge about examining data or AC setting up a publicity stunt with a no-win situation since it's impossible to prove he misrepresented/misreported every single met-ward study cited originally or since he's continuously updated.....it's silly to even add that one must prove him wrong on every point of data he's cited as a requirement, especially IF this is truly about the science and not simply a pissing contest. (pardon my bluntness)....JMHO

Regina, no need to apologize for possible bluntness. I've been known to be blunt occasionally too . And you do seem to have a point. Do you mind if I send my post and your response to A.C to see what he makes of them?. Regardless of what you may have decided my motivation in all this is, I would just like to know whether the so called metabolic advantage of LC Diets in bodyfat loss is as insignifigant as Mike Eades seems to think it is, at any bodyfat level.

As a corollary, do you personally think there are metabolic ward studies that indicate that their is some metabolic advantage of restricting carbohydrate in losing bodyfat, whether or not they are the same ones that Anthony Colpo used as references? I really couldn't give a toss what Anthony Colpo thinks. And I don't have either the time or the expertise to read the existing metabolic ward papers. But I get the impression Mike Eades has, which is why he doesn't think metabolic advantage is an important factor in why low carb diets are the best way to lose bodyfat. Skill which you also have. So what do you think ?.

In short, I really do agree with you that this should be about the science, not the personalities, and if you perceived an ad hominem, it was because I got the impression that you were using personality issues to weasel out of discussing the science. Lets hope we can both avoid doing so.

Stuart.

Throwing out an idea here:

0. "Calorie deficit" in this context seems to be used to mean "eating less than the appetite desires". It doesn't seem to be used to mean anything in particular about actual energy balance. Practically speaking, the only way to measure energy balance (and hence, the obvious meaning of calorie deficit) is to look at changes in weight. IMHO, this terminology, while easy to use, is very confusing.

1. From what I've read on this forum, it seems that there are at least some people that lose large amounts of weight simply by reducing carbs and not paying attention to total calories. This amounts to an existence proof for the idea that in some situations, people can lose weight by reducing carbs without going hungry.

2. It is known that even eating zero carbs doesn't reduce body fat to zero. If this were not true, carbs would be a necessary macro nutrient, like fat and protein, since the body needs some level of stored fat for health.

3. It is known that if people reduce calories enough, they either lose weight or die.

This gives us three "corners", that is three boundary cases, for the relationship of carbs, calories and weight. It doesn't say much for what parameters (e.g. percent bodyfat to start with, degree of insulin resistance, etc) affect which corner would apply for any given person. [Connecting the corners for all the parameters would produce a n-dimensional surface, which could be useful, but that is getting pretty nerdy. :-)]

Hopefully, as investigation continues, it will eventually become apparent what parameters are most relevant for any given person, but again, there is so much that really isn't known.

Beth

Good heavens Beth polygonal faceted graphical analogies (or something...). I'm speechess . Nevertheless I agree entirely with the points you've made. If Gary Taubes had stuck to this kind of line, it would have been a much more compelling book, and would have done the LC cause far more good, IMHO.

Instead he made glib misleading oversimplifications about the metabolic processes involved in bodyfat loss, the most conspicuous being that he ignored that total calorie intake will affect the bodyfat loss/not losing conducive hormonal environment just as powerfully as macronutrient ratio. In other words, sure carbs affect the hormonal environment, but so do calories, and it's the total hormonal environment that determines what happens to stored calories just as much as dietary ones, not just the bit(of the total hormonal environment) that carb level affects.

I'm not saying he did this wilfully. But perhaps he needs to do some vacation courses in biochemistry

Stuart

really? which regulatory hormone/enzyme does dietary fat stimulate? lipoprotein lipase? insulin? acylation-stimulating protein?

Who said anything about fat affecting the hormonal environment pb. That's the point. Food calories don't affect the hormonal environment just by virtue of them being either carbs fat, or protein. They do so simply by contributing to a total calorie amount that either puts you in energy deficit, equilibrium, or surplus.

It really isn't just a simple matter of: 'I am a carb calorie, therefore the hormonal environment I contribute to can only be fat storage'. Because if that carb calorie is part of an energy deficit, then the body ensures that the hormonal environment will mobilize stored energy. I'm afraid the human body is a lot more complex than the simple macronutrient oversimplifications Gary Taubes, and you perhaps, are making.

Stuart

so are you implying that insulin isn't stimulated by CHO, but by calories in general? if so, i think you're the one who's guilty of oversimplification.

So Gary's big mistake was not agreeing with Stuart? Wow, he could have saved himself 5 years of research. Nyah Levi.