mypcos

Commentsthanks to September for pointing out the major discrepancy)

aside from that,
1)the study is only 1/3rd the size of GD Foster's, and 1/4th the
amount of time. GD Foster (the largest and best study to interpret
atkins so far) found no difference between low-carb and low-kcal after
one year. GD Foster is extending his study to 5 years - we hope
extending the diets will be able to show some difference, hopefully.
GD Foster is cited as being pro low fat in the article, interestingly.

3)did they test the significance of 17lbs vs. 23lbs especially
considering their sample size is only 7ppl on each diet? It seems to
detect a significant difference of such a small amount of lb
difference would need a larger sample size, certainly more than 7ppl.
(I don't have time to calculate whether it is an underpowered estimate
but it seems like it -they should have commented on this) Also, is it
clinically significant. Especially when we have *proven* evidence of
benefit from low-fat even when there is no weight loss, whereas not
much evidence from low-carb of benefits in terms of real endpoints
(like diabetes-risk), I won't go into serum markers of benefit as this
is not a "real" endpoint.

4)Like the other poster pointed out what happened to being very low
fat(<<30%) and high fiber. High fiber, low-GI diets can *reduce*
bodyweight and improve serum hdl/tag/ldl.
Very low-fat diets have been shown much more convincingly than
low-carb to reduce bodyweight *even when* the calories of the diet are
kept the same.
(by no means a defiance of the calorie principle either)

5) MOst of the fat in the low-carb diet was *added* oils, do the added
oils stay on by next morning? I mean the menu for low-carb was
"salad", chicken fish.. The meats were lean, as they point out the
diet was low in animal fat..

6)*true* metabolic trials have shown no difference between low-carb
and low-fat in terms of weight loss. this study is *far* from being
controlled, obviously.

tunderbar

Gee, sure got quiet in ng all of a sudden. Especially from pbeyer,
wuzzy and the always opinionated mooshie as well as many others who
are always ready to show their brilliant and all encompassing
knowledge of the nutritional sciences. All of you guys should
remember how I proposed, 'bout a year ago or more, the possibility of
being able to consume more calories on a low-carb diet than on a
low-fat diet and losing more weight. But you guys were adamant that it
was a scientific impossibility. It contravenes the second Law of
Thermodynamics, according to you guys. You guys insisted that it was a
simple concept calories-in vs. calories-out. According to you guys,
macronutritional ratios has way too minuscule an effect on metabolism
to be a factor in weight management.

This study showed that one can eat 300 calories more on a low-carb
diet and still lose more weight than those on the low-fat diet. 300
calories. The difference in the women in the study was from 1500 to
1800 calories. 300/1500=.2*100=20%. Twenty percent more calories on a
low-carb diet is as effective for weight loss as the low-fat diet. For
the guys they were given 1800 calories on the low-fat diet and 2100 on
the low-carb diet and they still lost more weight. 300/1800=16.6%.
Six**** point six percent more calories and they still lost more
weight on the loe-carb diet.

If the second Law of Thermodynamics was applicable to the human body,
this would be absolutely impossible. The Law is supposed to be
universal. Even one instance disproving it is all that is needed raise
serious questions as to its applicability in weight management in
humans.

I will say it again, the second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to
*closed* systems, the human body is an *open* system. It does not
apply to weight management in humans.

The insulin/glucagon balance triggers the body to store fat
independently of the calculated amount of calories consumed. Refined
carbohydrates in the diet does two things, 1) triggers the body to
store fat and to not use fat and 2) provides plenty of raw material
for the body to convert to fat. Even if the amount of food consumed is
a relatively small number of calories, if it is refined carbohydrates,
it will store as much of it as possible as fat. Every first year
nutrition textbook will state in its first chapter that carbohydrates
are converted to bodyfat.

Conversely, if the meal is low in carbs the insulin response will be
much smaller and the body will not be triggered to store fat and it
will, in fact, use fat as fuel. Also a low-carb diet will contain a
higher amount of fat which does not trigger the body to store bodyfat
and in fact is essential to trigger the body to feel satiated. A
low-refined-carb diet will also contain more protein, which the body
needs for good health.

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for refined carbohydrates in
the diet. It is not required in any quantity. They do not contain any
useful micro-nutrients, in fact they deplete many necessary vitamins
and minerals.

TC

mypcos

lol, yes, i can see that the authors don't believe kcal's don't have
to add up!
This is funny considering they really think their study shows anything
about kcal balance..

tunderbar

They did find a difference between low-carb vs low-cal. There were
several pounds difference. You guys just seem to conveniently choose
to ignore it. This study appears to be significantly better controlled
than the GD Foster study. The GD Foster study just gave the
participants some information about the respective diets they were
supposed to follow and told them to follow it with little or no
further attempts to monitor or control food intake. This study
actually had the food prepared for them on a daily basis.

There is very little real *proven* evidence of any benefit from
low-fat diets. The "science" behind that whole pile of nonsense is
very suspect. But that is not the point of this particular discussion.


Which means exactly what I've been saying. Cut out high-GI carbs and
you will lose weight and be healthier.


NO. Low-fat diets fail in more than 95% of cases. What part of this do
you guys not understand.


Keep grasping at straws.... ya might grab a good one yet.


*true* metabolic trials have obviously failed then, haven't they.
Simply because they did not find or predict this kind of observation,
that low-carb dieters can eat 20% more calories than low-fat dieters
and get similar results.

This study sounds quite well controlled, and fairly well designed,
especially compared to previous studies that were designed with
specific biases in mind, such as the famous chocolate cake study. :-)

TC

jmk

Haven't we just been through this? There is no evidence that low carb
diets have a higher long term success rate than any other diet.
Futhermore, studies do show that people who successfully keep weight off
over the long haul follow a low fat diet.

jay tanzman

No, of course not, ignoramus. Why don't you go read the energy chapter in a
standard nutritional biochemistry textbook, so you can stop wasting bandwidth
with your repetitious failure to comprehend energy balance.

-Jay

sufein

x-no-archive: yes

In article <bmjthe$h3d$1@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu>, jmk
<jmkizernospam@bellsouth.net> writes:

Can you furnish cites that compare groups on LC vs. LF diets and long term
success weight loss maintenance?

Susan

jmk

Here's an article about it: http://www.naaso.org/news/20001030.asp

Basically, they like low carb short term but found in a seperate study
that more of the long term weight loss people were not low carb. Since
Atkins has been around for a while, that was kind of surprising to me.
I have seen this reported in other studies as well. These ones used
30 pound and one year as their cutoffs for long term and 90 carbs as the
cutoff for low carb.

jmk

This one is newer and also kind of interesting:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2002/102_fat.html

"These successful losers report four common behaviors, says Wing. They
eat a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, they monitor themselves by
weighing in frequently, they are very physically active, and they eat
breakfast."

"Six years after their weight loss, most of the registry's successful
losers still report eating a low-calorie, low-fat diet, with about 24
percent of calories from fat."

tunderbar

The odd thing is that I *have* read *several* standard nutritional
biochemistry textbooks, and furthermore, I've actually read the
studies that they referenced in the so-called *energy chapter*. I've
also read the seminal atwater studies and many studies that preceded
and followed the atwater studies and I still haven't found the one
groundbreaking study that first postulated or later confirmed the idea
that the second Law of Thermodynamics is applicable to the human body.
It was never done. It was *assumed*. Hence todays rock solid
mainstream belief in the calorie theory which has led us to
unprecedented huge numbers of incidences of obesity and obesity
related disease. Since I am the so-called ignoramus and you insist
that I am wrong, maybe you can educate us with your incredible
brilliance and provide for us the name of the study and the scientist
or researcher who made this monumental discovery and proved beyond
doubt that the second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the human body.

Show me the money. Who is it who found and proved that the law of
thermo applies to the human body? What is the name of the seminal
study or studies that proved it beyond a doubt? This is the
fundamental key to todays understanding of the nutritional sciences.
This little piece of data should be easy to find. Everything about the
calorie theory rests on it. Prove it to us.

TC