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 Sat, Jan-18-20, 21:19
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,516
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/170/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 110%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default Why is the 'eat-less, move-more' plan going to be recommended?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...say/4454401002/

"Malik urges people trying to lose weight to target foods such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts, while limiting saturated fat, added sugar and added sodium. Balance those practices with daily physical exercise, and you've established a solid base for weight loss and a healthy lifestyle. Although she argues against daily calorie counting, Malik urges caution about portion sizes Ė there's no use in overeating. Avoid appetizers and snacks in front of screens, and limit meals to one plate of food, the American Heart Association advises."
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sat, Jan-18-20, 22:57
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,248
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Yeah, we could systematically go through this article to refute the utter BS it presents, or we could simply say that Malik is "adjunct assistant professor of Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health" which includes Walter Willett, Frank Hu, and others who claim that the only healthy way to eat is to consume plant based foods and greatly reduced saturated fats. Now the article's claims make sense despite being wrong. Brazen food agenda politics, nothing to see here, move along . . .
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Jan-18-20, 23:26
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,493
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

The usual fear of eliminating "healthy" grains/carbohydrate-rich plant matter. And this:
Quote:
As the keto diet essentially nixes the body's intake of carbs, the body searches for an alternative source of fuel. Before long, the body breaks down fat, muscle and tissues to sustain itself, Mechanick said.

"In theory, the keto diet basically mimics starvation," Mechanick said. "If you don't eat carbohydrates but you eat an excessive amount of fat and protein, you're still going to waste tissue. Tissue is still going to burn off."
Yes, tissue will be and should be burned off: FAT. That's the point of the diet, to waste/burn off fat. But if sufficient protein is eaten, it and not muscle and other body tissues will be used for metabolic needs such as gluconeogenesis to provide glucose to those few tissues which need it. And an "excessive amount of fat and protein," by whose definition? For those who dismiss the healthiness of meat/saturated fat it wouldn't take much of these foods to get declared "excessive." For me, I eat a lot of these foods and don't consider my amounts excessive but rather just right for my needs.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Jan-19-20, 04:11
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 12,494
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

The part that makes me angry now is now commenters now swarm the section (when they can) pointing out the bad science, but no one in publishing blinks. They just keep putting out press releases.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Jan-19-20, 08:16
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,248
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Yes, the very same publishers continue to sell books and articles on the benefits of keto as well. Conflict is good business.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Jan-19-20, 10:35
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,861
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
"In theory, the keto diet basically mimics starvation," Mechanick said. "If you don't eat carbohydrates but you eat an excessive amount of fat and protein, you're still going to waste tissue. Tissue is still going to burn off


If you eat an 'excessive' amount of fat and protein, in all probability tissue will accumulate. If you somehow manage to gorge on fatty porkchops, you will probably gain weight. Whether there's a difference in food efficiency or not--I don't think this has been fully explored. At any rate, this is the most back-handed expression of metabolic advantage I think I've seen.

In theory, mimics starvation. Mechanick doesn't know the theory (in the sense of a body of knowledge), or conflates it with a hare-brained hypothesis. It's well established fact that the keto diet mimics starvation while not being identical to it--the whole point is mimicking the metabolic state of starvation while sustaining the body. It's entirely possible to increase both body fat and muscle without eating carbohydrate, this is an observed fact.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Jan-19-20, 12:26
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,380
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
As the keto diet essentially nixes the body's intake of carbs, the body searches for an alternative source of fuel. Before long, the body breaks down fat, muscle and tissues to sustain itself, Mechanick said.


And so does a low calorie diet.

Isn't the purpose of going on a diet to lose weight?

Your body is composed of fat, muscle and tissue - there's no way of getting around that those sources of energy are going to be accessed when you're successful at losing weight.

What they're blissfully skirting around is that both a low fat/low cal diet and a LC/HF diet will both result in weight loss by accessing those sources of energy - but for an equal amount of weight loss, what percentage of fat, muscle is lost on low fat vs keto? My understanding is that LC/HF results in more fat loss and less muscle loss than a low fat diet - after all, isn't fat what we want to lose on a diet? I sure wouldn't knowingly go on a diet that wasted away my muscle and other tissue, while sustaining as much fat a possible.

DUH!
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Jan-19-20, 12:39
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,861
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

One question here is, how long is 'before long?' I could pull out a Kevin Hall study showing loss of lean mass in a metabolic ward setting on low carb relative to high carb, but then you could pull out longer term studies where after a period of adaptation, it's more of a wash. Weight lifting studies showed greater lean mass after a low fat weight loss diet versus low carb until they started doing a carb up at the end of the study--then it flipped, higher lean mass gains for low carbers. But the difference between carbing up and not is going to be mostly glycogen. Until somebody comes up with a strong reason to change my opinion, I'm going to figure it's a wash, just make sure I get in enough protein and work out on a regular basis. Still eating low carb, but not over lean mass, more because it seems to give me a better mood/energy and is easier to stick to/controls my appetite. Although--I do think the mood/energy things makes it easier to stick to the workout routine.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Jan-22-20, 07:02
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 12,494
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default Keto diet isnít the answer for weight loss, experts say. Hereís what is

I don't want to leave you in suspense.

The answer IS:

Quote:
Mechanick recommends minimizing your intake of two types of carbs Ė sugars and starches Ė while boosting another: fiber. High-fiber foods, including vegetables, low-glycemic index fruits, beans and nuts, are instrumental to a healthy eating pattern, he said.

"If you can get it up to seven to 10 servings a day, that's great," he said. "You can't do that with the keto diet."

Keto diet isnít the answer for weight loss, experts say. Hereís what is


It is a new tactic! They are admitting we should lower our carbs! I don't think there's an emoticon for Evil Laugh (and why not) but I'll do it anyway. BWAHAHAHAHA.

Quote:
"In theory, the keto diet basically mimics starvation," Mechanick said. "If you don't eat carbohydrates but you eat an excessive amount of fat and protein, you're still going to waste tissue. Tissue is still going to burn off."


I'd like to note here that we all know such experts like to pretend "an excessive amount of fat and protein" is basically ANY. Any at all. I think I have somewhat unique circumstances that might drive my own needs higher than average, such as healing from serious illness, recognition of how neurotransmitters and neurohormones affect my mental state, and a very low carb/fiber tolerance. I basically RUN on fat and get protein according to my needs.

This horrifies them because it's the total opposite of what they think I need. But they are so wrong. I joke about being a mutant, but come on. I'm not grown in a lab by some Baron with too much time on their hands. I was born on this planet.

Quote:
Yes, you might experience weight loss on the keto diet, but that might not actually be good for you, considering what you give up.


Oh, riiiiiiiiight. I gave up 40 pounds of fat just last year. I'm a shadow of my former self! And I still have muscle, my saggy parts are UNsagging, and when I'm well enough to do more activity, this will only improve, I'm sure.

But don't worry, while that paragraph is in the middle, they conclude with this:

Quote:
Malik urges people trying to lose weight to target foods such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts, while limiting saturated fat, added sugar and added sodium. Balance those practices with daily physical exercise, and you've established a solid base for weight loss and a healthy lifestyle.


Confused yet? Isn't this the same-old, only now with nuts? They are still preaching against saturated fat. They don't even mention any other source of fat, either. So it's the eat-eat-eat-because-I'm-so-hungry plan, and try to exercise it OFF, basically. But now they have thrown in a soothing placebo in case no one loses much on this "plan."

Quote:
The answer might not be a traditional "diet" at all, but there are changes you can make to shed weight while leading a healthy and sustainable lifestyle.

The importance comes in the quality of the foods you eat, not necessarily the number of calories you consume, Malik said. She favors eating patterns that don't abide by a restrictive calorie count, because they generally help people stick with the pattern longer.


Yay! We get to stop counting calories! Whew, the relief. I can hear the cries of joy now.

And you won't get results right away, you bunch of whiners. Just eat the way they say! And it will work! Trust us. Eat some nuts. Not too much. More fiber. Fiber will fill you up. Did you get your 7-10 servings of High-fiber foods yet?

What intrigues me is how they would be appalled at my low-low fiber diet, which is not unique to me. Even Diet Doctor offers lists of low-carb, high fiber vegetables to help people with constipation. My experience suggests this may be off-base for some. I follow the ideas of the "Fiber Menace" researcher at Gutsense.org and have always been the better for it.

So I anticipate Our Sainted Experts doubling down on the fiber thing, especially the kind of fiber that can't be digested. Hello! If I have digestive troubles the last thing I need is to eat more things I can't digest!

Quote:
Reducing your intake of carbs, as the keto diet does, goes hand-in-hand with reducing intake of whole grains, fruits and some vegetables, which raises red flags for health professionals.

"That's where I get a little concerned about the keto diet," Vasanti Malik, adjunct assistant professor of Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told USA TODAY.


My bold, because everyone should know Harvard has been infested with vegans.

I feel that they are still being led astray by epidemiological studies. This is supposed to lead to avenues of inquiry; not taken as a given. Because, after decades of being told health-conscious people should build their diets on whole grains, fruits and vegetables, guess what? Health-conscious people do that; along with working out, taking vitamins, and not smoking, drinking to excess, or throwing themselves on the couch with a giant bag of snack food.

Health-conscious people also go to the doctor, and as our population ages into the prescription-immersed middle period of their lives, they will do everything "right" and still be sick.

We've never done this before, you know: we've never grabbed a population, designed drugs for every symptom that occurs with chronic disease from eating all the wrong things, and the overwhelming numbers will keep making cement-headed authorities, bribed with all the processed food/drug money, consider it "normal" because "It happens to everyone! It's just aging! Shut up!"

Or so I've been told
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Wed, Jan-22-20, 07:28
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is offline
Posts: 4,670
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

This kind of junk always gives me that through the looking glass feeling. Gary Taube's talk:

htps://www.dietdoctor.com/how-to-think-about-how-to-eat-gary-taubes

has helped me to understand what is so wrong about this kind of thinking based on hypothesis but not either scientific evidence or personal experience. He talks about how low carb doctors who see such great results from their patients all say that they can't unlearn what they see and neither can I unlearn what I have experienced personally.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Wed, Jan-22-20, 09:23
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,483
 
Plan: <21 NetC, NoCarSnack (Q1)
Stats: 342.2/216/000 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 37%
Default

I agree with "eat less, move more" recommendation - if you change WHAT you eat you will likely eat LESS. avoid GPS (grains, potatoes, sucrose) if you're interested in losing weight is what I think

"eat less, move more" is not a goal, it is something, like a side effect, of changing something else, namely, avoiding sugar. At least it works that way for me. (excuse the comma's I live the , - even tho I don't know how to use them properly)

Lastly, there's the trap that one might think, "If i MOVE LOTS MORE - that means I can EAT MORE, or if I eat the SAME - I can lose that extra WEIGHT" - this doesn't work for me as my mouth is much stronger than both my legs put together.

YMMV
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Wed, Jan-22-20, 11:34
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,861
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Malik urges people trying to lose weight to target foods such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts, while limiting saturated fat, added sugar and added sodium. Balance those practices with daily physical exercise, and you've established a solid base for weight loss and a healthy lifestyle. Although she argues against daily calorie counting, Malik urges caution about portion sizes Ė there's no use in overeating.


Going back to this bit--I advocate calling what you're doing--what you're actually doing. Don't calorie count, just control your portion sizes. Why? So you don't eat too many calories. Go ahead and do the thing--just do it in an imprecise way. Close your eyes, Luke, or however that goes. Heaven forbid you should take in any data.

I am all for counting calories. If I eat a certain way, and it allows me to either lose weight while eating more calories, or to eat less calories without discomfort--how will I know this, if I don't keep some sort of track of the calories I've eaten? Here's an experiment--eat 2000 calories a day as potato chips and pizza. Count every calorie. Now do the same thing--with pork chops and bacon. Or just cheese and nuts. Or try to do a 2000 calorie a day potato hack.

Or you can just go by the 'feels.' You might eat 2000 calories of pizza--but it feels like less food than if you're trying to eat just potatoes, or just pork chops. But you won't know for reals unless you take some sort of measurement. Are you eating more of the weight loss diet--or does it just feel like more food? Our perceptions are distorted when we're hungry, or stuffed.

Sometimes I'll measure out my porkchops, five ounces per, if I'm targeting deeper ketosis. If I don't weigh for a few months, and try to eye a five ounce piece--on measuring it, I'll invariably find that five ounces has become disappointingly small. Our perception of portion size is not to be trusted, only kitchen scales and measuring cups can be trusted.

I'm not saying some people won't find some metabolic advantage, differences in feed efficiency between one diet and another, that it's all about the calories--I'm saying you won't have measured the difference if you don't um measure.

I do think the best place to get is eating types of food where your appetite matches your goal weight. While we're at it--it's all right to eat to maintain or target a certain weight. Fine to prioritize health over that, but unless you're targeting super model thinness, usually those two targets have enough overlap for me. I think too often, it's about the health not the weight looks like an excuse for an approach not achieving one of its goals.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Wed, Jan-22-20, 13:23
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 12,494
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Oh, gee, I figured out what I did. Sorry moderators

But I got to rant and that was fine stuff. I needed it.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Wed, Jan-22-20, 15:52
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 36,071
 
Plan: DANDR '92 Induction
Stats: 241/173/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 67%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
Oh, gee, I figured out what I did. Sorry moderators

But I got to rant and that was fine stuff. I needed it.

We prefer to keep current discussion about the same topic in one place, that's why I've merged new thread/s here . Reason is, we link the most recent 20 threads posted here in LC Research/Media forum on the home page of our host site, https://lowcarb.ca. If it's been months since the original topic was posted, then it's fine to create a new thread.

This article is certainly rant-worthy, so well done


Doreen
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Wed, Jan-22-20, 16:00
Mycie14's Avatar
Mycie14 Mycie14 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 683
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein, IF
Stats: 200/159/155 Female 68
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Southern California
Default

The question really boils down to how is a person best able to limit their calorie intake basically every day for the rest of their life.

The vegans or SAD proponents tell you what to eat and that you need to limit portions. Fine, but how to limit? weighing everything works, but how many people will weigh their food forever? Eyeballing using the deck of cards method can work, if you're not constantly hungry!

Ask a person who is metabolically healthy how they know limit their food intake. Most of them don't think that much about it. They quit eating when full. If they do think about portions, it is more of something in the back of their mind.

But a metabolically unhealthy person, eating too many carbs, is never full. Portion control takes extreme will power. Eat less is almost impossible to maintain because the hormones are out of whack.

Put a metabolically unhealthy person on a low carb diet, and portion control will eventually take care of itself. It is hard to continually overeat pork chops and broccoli, tasty though they may be. That's the beauty and simplicity of low carb/keto. You don't have to weigh and measure all the time; you're not thinking about food every waking moment, trying not to eat the chips or cookies.

As Thud said, eat less, move more is the end result, not the starting point.

It's a travesty that the "smart" people at Harvard don't understand or even try to understand this.
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 03:05.


Copyright © 2000-2020 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.