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
  #1   ^
Old Wed, Nov-14-18, 14:01
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,907
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default How a Low-Carb Diet Might Help You Maintain a Healthy Weight

New York Times by Anahad O'Connor, Nov 14, 2018:

How a Low-Carb Diet Might Help You Maintain a Healthy Weight

Adults who cut carbohydrates from their diets and replaced them with fat sharply increased their metabolisms.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/...thy-weight.html

Quote:
It has been a fundamental tenet of nutrition:

When it comes to weight loss, all calories are created equal. Regardless of what you eat, the key is to track your calories and burn more than you consume. But a large new study published on Wednesday in the journal BMJ challenges the conventional wisdom.

It found that overweight adults who cut carbohydrates from their diets and replaced them with fat sharply increased their metabolisms. After five months on the diet, their bodies burned roughly 250 calories more per day than people who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet, suggesting that restricting carb intake could help people maintain their weight loss more easily. The new research is unlikely to end the decades-long debate over the best diet for weight loss. But it provides strong new evidence that all calories are not metabolically alike to the body.

And it suggests that the popular advice on weight loss promoted by health authorities — count calories, reduce portion sizes and lower your fat intake — might be outdated. “This study confirms that, remarkably, diets higher in starch and sugar change the body’s burn rate after weight loss, lowering metabolism,” said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the research. “The observed metabolic difference was large, more than enough to explain the yo-yo effect so often experienced by people trying to lose weight.”

Dr. Mozaffarian called the findings “profound” and said they contradicted the conventional wisdom on calorie counting. “It’s time to shift guidelines, government policy and industry priorities away from calories and low-fat and toward better diet quality.”

The new study is unique in part because of its size and rigor. It is among the largest and most expensive feeding trials ever conducted on the subject. The researchers recruited 164 adults and fed them all of their daily meals and snacks for 20 weeks, while closely tracking their body weight and a number of biological measures. The trial cost $12 million and was supported largely by a grant from the Nutrition Science Initiative, a nonprofit research group co-founded by Gary Taubes, a science and health journalist and proponent of low-carbohydrate diets. The study was also supported by funding from the New Balance Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and others.


While some experts praised the findings, others were more cautious. Dr. Kevin Hall, a scientist and obesity expert at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said the new study was ambitious and very well run. But he said the researchers used methods that raise questions about the results. One method they used to track metabolism, called doubly labeled water, has not been shown to be reliable in people on low-carb diets and it may have exaggerated the amount of calories the subjects burned, he said.

Dr. David Ludwig, an endocrinologist at Harvard Medical School and one of the study authors, disagreed, saying: “We used a gold standard method that has been validated across a wide range of experimental conditions and universally adopted in the field.”

Dr. Hall added, “I would love it to be true that there was a diet combination of carbs and fats that led to large increases in energy expenditure — and I really hope it is true. But I think there are reasons to question whether or not it is.”..

The idea that counting calories is the key to weight loss has long been embedded in the government’s dietary guidelines. It is the driving force behind public health policies like mandatory calorie counts on restaurant menus and food labels. Many experts say that the underlying cause of the obesity epidemic is that Americans eat too many calories of all kinds, prompted by easy access to cheap and highly palatable foods, and that they need to exercise portion control. On its website, for example, the National Institutes of Health encourages people to count calories and warns that dietary fat has more calories per gram than protein or carbs: “You need to limit fats to avoid extra calories,” it states.

But experts like Dr. Ludwig, argue that the obesity epidemic is driven by refined carbohydrates such as sugar, juices, bagels, white bread, pasta and heavily processed cereals. These foods tend to spike blood sugar and insulin, a hormone that promotes fat storage, and they can increase appetite. Dr. Ludwig and his colleague Dr. Cara Ebbeling have published studies suggesting that diets with different ratios of carbs and fat but identical amounts of calories have very different effects on hormones, hunger and metabolism. He has also written a best-selling book on lower-carb diets.

Dr. Hall and others disagree. They have published studies disputing the notion that carb-restricted diets accelerate metabolism and fat loss. Dr. Hall said that low-carb diets have many benefits: They can help people with Type 2 diabetes manage their blood sugar levels, for example. But he argues that the carb and insulin explanation for obesity is too simplistic and has been “experimentally falsified” in rigorous studies.

Dr. Hall published a meta-analysis of feeding studies last year that suggested that energy expenditure was actually slightly greater on low-fat diets. But Dr. Ludwig pointed out that those studies were very short, with none lasting longer than a month and most lasting a week or less. He said the process of adapting to a low-carb diet can take a month or longer.

“A few days, or a couple weeks, is not enough time to make any meaningful conclusion about how diets affect metabolism over the long term,” he added.

To do the new study, Dr. Ludwig and his colleagues collaborated with Framingham State University, about 20 miles outside of Boston, where they recruited overweight students, staff members and faculty members. Each participant went through two phases of the study. First, they were put on strict diets that lowered their body weight by about 12 percent, which was designed to stress their metabolisms.

“At that point their bodies are trying to regain the weight,” Dr. Ludwig said. “It pushes the body and predisposes to weight regain.”

In the second phase of the study, the subjects were assigned to one of three diets with 20 percent, 40 percent or 60 percent of their calories from carbohydrates. Protein was kept steady at 20 percent of calories in each diet.

Over the next five months, the researchers tracked the subjects meticulously and provided them with enough daily meals and snacks to keep them from losing or gaining any weight. This was so the researchers could determine precisely how the subjects’ metabolisms responded to the different diets while their body weight remained stable.

The researchers tracked biomarkers that helped them ensure that the participants stuck to their diets. They also worked with a large food service company, Sodexo, to prepare thousands of generally healthful meals that the subjects could eat in cafeterias or take home with them. A typical meal for the high-carb group might consist of a chicken burrito bowl with rice and vegetables, for example, or roasted turkey with green beans and mashed potatoes. The low-carb group would get a similar meal with fewer carbohydrates, like a chicken burrito lettuce wrap or roasted turkey with green beans and mashed cauliflower.

What the researchers found was striking. The roughly 250 extra calories that the subjects in the low-carb group burned each day could potentially produce a 20-pound weight loss after three years on the diet, Dr. Ludwig said. People who tended to secrete higher levels of insulin did the best on the low-carb diet, burning about 400 extra calories a day.

The subjects on the low-carb diet also had the sharpest declines in a hormone called ghrelin, which is produced in the stomach. Ghrelin promotes hunger and body fat, and it lowers energy expenditure. Suppressing ghrelin may be one reason the low-carb diet increased metabolism, the authors noted.

Dr. Ludwig emphasized that the results need to be replicated by other investigators and he stressed that the findings do not impugn whole fruits, beans and other unprocessed carbohydrates. Rather, he said, the study suggests that reducing foods with added sugar, flour and other refined carbohydrates could help people maintain weight loss by increasing their metabolisms at a lower body weight.

“These foods seem to undermine your metabolism,” he said. “They slow metabolism in a way that may work against long-term weight loss maintenance.”


Links within article.

The BMJ study by Ludwig: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583

Last edited by JEY100 : Wed, Nov-14-18 at 14:26.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Nov-14-18, 16:47
LCer4Life's Avatar
LCer4Life LCer4Life is offline
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 155/129/130 Female 63
BF:33.2/29.2%/24%
Progress: 104%
Default

Very interesting article. Thank you for sharing.

I was just reading that someone said that staying in 20 carbs for long periods changes your metabolism and is not good for you. I have been sticking to 20 carbs for 3 months and all seems good. Any information or opinions on that?
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Nov-14-18, 16:58
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is online now
Posts: 10,076
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/188/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
What the researchers found was striking. The roughly 250 extra calories that the subjects in the low-carb group burned each day could potentially produce a 20-pound weight loss after three years on the diet, Dr. Ludwig said. People who tended to secrete higher levels of insulin did the best on the low-carb diet, burning about 400 extra calories a day.


This is great news and actually something I've thought for a long time, that we burn more calories on low-carb.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Nov-14-18, 20:21
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,436
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/181/180 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 98%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default

Quote:
National Institutes of Health encourages people to count calories and warns that dietary fat has more calories per gram [9 vs 4] than protein or carbs: “You need to limit fats to avoid extra calories,” it states.
The nutritionist's mantra -- largely responsible for starting the Low-Fat-Fad
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 02:20
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 22,055
 
Plan: LCHF/IF
Stats: 217/192/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: UK
Default

Good to see as headline news in the UK too


Quote:
Low-carb dieters can lose more than 1.5 stone over three years, study claims

Low-carbohydrate diets allow people to lose more than one and a half stone over three years because it boosts their metabolism, a study suggests.

Scientists behind the new research believe the regimen may be best for long-term weight loss because it most successfully overcomes the “bounce” which sees many dieters regain weight after the first few weeks.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/...s-study-claims/



Quote:
Low-carb dieters ‘shed more weight’

An Atkins-style low-carb diet makes dieters burn more calories and could help keep weight off, a trial has found.

Slimmers eating a low-carb diet used up more than 200 extra calories a day compared to those eating the same amount of energy through high-carb foods. Refined carbohydrates such as sugar and white bread that release energy quickly may encourage the body to store food as fat rather than metabolise it, scientists suggested.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...eight-bwfcbmnz0

Last edited by Demi : Thu, Nov-15-18 at 02:53.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 03:55
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,907
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Thanks, Demi ! For news from the other side of the pond.

It's everywhere in US this morning too.

Chicago Tribune: 'All calories are not alike': Cutting carbs instead of calories keeps weight off, study says
https://www.chicagotribune.com/life...2018-story.html

Today: (with the usual "experts" dissing on it, "horrendous levels of saturated fats" Yeah, so?)

https://www.today.com/health/weight...be-best-t142060

WebMD: https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/201...-calorie-burn#1

MedPage Today Headline: "Low-Carb Diet Wins for Weight Maintenance
Metabolic effect may improve success of obesity treatment"

So far, like the Chicago Tribune best. Good headline, light on naysayers.

Last edited by JEY100 : Thu, Nov-15-18 at 06:03.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 07:59
tess9132 tess9132 is offline
 
Plan: general lc
Stats: 214/156/130 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 69%
Default

Excellent! I really do think there is an awareness happening out there, at least among middle-aged people. More and more I'll hear my peers making references to carb content when speaking about food. Perhaps changes are happening among the young people as well - my high achieving 21-year-old daughter was surprised at some honors convocation dinner when it came up in conversation that she and all the other inductees had skipped breakfast and most had eaten late lunches that day because they were all on a 16:8 eating plan. To me, that says the future leaders are thinking differently from the experts about food intake, i.e. you know, "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day."
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 08:09
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,907
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Another recent one was the Dr. Oz show on Keto posted in War Zone. They wanted keto volunteers from the audience to ask questions, Dr Oz was surprised to learn almost the entire audience was already eating keto.
Yeah, doc...no one is paying any attention to your diet advice anymore
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 08:46
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 7,189
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/211/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 100%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

Quote:
Dr. Hall added, “I would love it to be true that there was a diet combination of carbs and fats that led to large increases in energy expenditure — and I really hope it is true. But I think there are reasons to question whether or not it is.”.


There is. It's all there in the data. Low carb is it.

Quote:
The subjects on the low-carb diet also had the sharpest declines in a hormone called ghrelin, which is produced in the stomach. Ghrelin promotes hunger and body fat, and it lowers energy expenditure. Suppressing ghrelin may be one reason the low-carb diet increased metabolism, the authors noted.


When I eat low carb I eat less and exercise more. You can question the reasons why until the cows come home. But isn't it the results that count? So far the standard dietary advice of the past 30+ years has lead to a health catastrophe. I can't believe that the nay-sayers are still going on record to defend it.

Quote:
What the researchers found was striking. The roughly 250 extra calories that the subjects in the low-carb group burned each day could potentially produce a 20-pound weight loss after three years on the diet, Dr. Ludwig said. People who tended to secrete higher levels of insulin did the best on the low-carb diet, burning about 400 extra calories a day.


It is oft quoted that we are all different. Gary has been in the forefront to make it understood that all calories are not the same. But it is also true that people respond differently to the same calories. Some secrete more insulin that others. That's big -- and I do think that I am one of those people. So if the nay-sayers have an out, they could concede that a low carb diet may be the appropriate choice for those more sensitive to carbs -- namely those with metabolic/IR issues that are the focal point of this health crisis. Why try to come up with one universal "healthy" diet for all when it is actually the sick people that need a solution that works. For years I tried to eat and exercise like the healthy people so that I would be healthy, too. It didn't work.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 09:14
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,309
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LCer4Life
Very interesting article. Thank you for sharing.

I was just reading that someone said that staying in 20 carbs for long periods changes your metabolism and is not good for you. I have been sticking to 20 carbs for 3 months and all seems good. Any information or opinions on that?


Does "someone" have any information on that?

I know a number of people online who have reversed type II diabetes or insulin resistance by eating this way, for years. Or who experience less seizures or migraine. Whatever undesirable side effects of eating very low carb there might be, and I'm not claiming that there actually are any, they have to be weighed against benefits that are often quite substantial.

I can't speak to the person's claims without knowing what they're specifically claiming. There's a fair amount of nonsense out there. One claim is low carb, equals low leptin. This is sort of true. Lower fat mass means lower leptin. Especially if you're very lean. In obese people who've lost some weight and still have a bit to go--not so much. You can increase leptin by eating carbohydrate. Studies show insulin signalling is important to this--because the increase of leptin is dependent on the storage of fat in fat tissue. Stay fat, and you'll have increased resistance to getting fatter. I can see at least one problem with this strategy in the war against obesity.

More common is, oh, it's bad for your thyroid. There are like one and a half studies looking at the effect of eating carbohydrate versus fat or protein on thyroid levels.

Okay, make that two and a half. I've seen at least one carbohydrate overfeeding study, they wanted to see the capacity for de novo fatty acid synthesis in humans, so they fed thousands of extra carbohydrate calories, mostly as sugar. Thyroid hormone went up. Hooray for Ray Peat. Fasting, like low carb, can decrease t3 and increase reverse t3. Let's see, overeating sugar drives t3 up, fasting does the opposite. Fasting, we run mostly on fat and a bit of protein. Sounds like low carb. Sounds like maybe we need a bit more thyroid--or we're resistant to its effect or something--with increased carbs, or at least increased sugar.

Another claim I've seen is you need carbs versus stress. Cortisol and other stress hormones work to increase availability of energy--glycogen breakdown, lipolysis, both increase. Focusing on the glycogen/supporting a higher blood glucose part of the equation, if I understand the argument, increase carbohydrate coming in from exogenous sources, and you won't need an increase in stress hormones to provide it from endogenous stores--or maybe, if glycogen stores are higher, then it doesn't take as much of a stress response to dig into those stores. Okay--but characterizing stress hormones as just bringing up glucose levels is faulty, that isn't all that stress hormones do. Their effect depends on your metabolic state going in--if your carbohydrate adapted, and have high glycogen stores, glucose from glycogen might provide the feedback, that energy's available to run from the lion, or whatever. Low glycogen? You might get a similar stress response--but the needs are satisfied more by an increase in free fatty acids and ketones and lactic acid produced by muscle during some necessary sprinting, and less by liver glycogen.

Bipolars keep popping up saying their symptoms, and overall stress levels are lower, not higher, on a ketogenic plan. I tend to give that claim maybe more merit than necessary, because I live in it.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 09:36
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,309
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

The numbers here are not small--if they're thrown in doubt by the double-labeled water method being imperfect, that implies not just a mild inaccuracy. Maybe we need some studies to see the effect of carbohydrate intake on the double-labeled water method.

We're where you'd expect. If there's any room for doubt at all, people sticking to their guns, for good or bad reasons.

The whole point of double-labeled water is that it provides a cheaper approach than a metabolic ward study. It might not be as accurate as a metabolic ward, but it can go where a metabolic ward can't go. Outside of the metabolic ward, into the real world, having some measure of metabolic rate in free living subjects is of some value.

Any study will have its flaws. It's sort of the nature of the beast. Being absolutely certain of the inputs and the results? You need a metabolic ward study. Assuming that a free living subject--even if you're absolutely certain their eating exactly what they'd be eating in that metabolic ward study--would have the same metabolic rate, is frankly stupid. Take a kid, feed theyma bowl of sugary cereal, sit them in front of a geography textbook. Or instead, same meal, take them to Grandma's house. You think the metabolism is the same? Dummy.

Can't trust studies? Maybe you can trust yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 10:39
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,634
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Yes, we can trust ourselves. Kevin Hall is going to play the skeptic, as this particular NuSI study shows different results than the one Hall conducted a couple years ago. In that study, the interpretations of the findings were disputed in terms of metabolic impact.
Regarding Hall:
Quote:
But he argues that the carb and insulin explanation for obesity is too simplistic and has been “experimentally falsified” in rigorous studies.
Yes, easy to claim, but I'm not convinced that 1) the studies were sound, and 2) the study results were interpreted without bias.
Hall will stick to his guns, but having David Ludwig involved provides a better balance in the hopes that objectivity in achieving and interpreting results will prevail.

We can trust ourselves and the results we get. We also know how consistent we are with a specific WOE and can attribute the results we get directly to the way we eat. Many previous studies can't make that claim. Coupled with the clinical results we receive every day from low carb and keto practitioners, who have increased in number over the past few years, we have a very strong correlation that is considered a root cause by many. People tend to practice lifestyle changes when they get results, the testimonials to healthy low carb eating are becoming prevalent. Good news.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 10:57
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,309
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I do agree the "carb and insulin" explanation is too simplistic. But I also think--the insulin explanation is considerably less too simplistic. Various other factors that ought to be worked in, besides carbohydrate, will invariably have insulin-related mechanisms. Or have so far. Carbs drive insulin. Insulin drives obesity. So carbs drive obesity. Well, no--more like, carbs and other things that drive insulin drive obesity. But well-placed insulin resistance will prevent obesity, while driving insulin up. Okay, so carbs and other things that drive insulin will drive fattening of those insulin sensitive cells prone to fattening--lipophilic cells, that is. That silly Gary Taubes and his oversimplification. No wonder people are always complaining about his 3 page flyer, Good Calories Bad Calories. I mean, he could have practically said everything he had to say in a couple of tweets, right?
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 11:55
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,634
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

And I would have read you, teaser, rather than the comparative tome of Taubes.

Yeah, changed spelling, didn't mean to imply that GCBC contained the dead . . .

Last edited by GRB5111 : Thu, Nov-15-18 at 14:23.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Thu, Nov-15-18, 12:01
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,309
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Thanks, I guess. But I actually do think GCBC was a reasonable length.
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 11:05.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.