 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2006does lc cause muscle loss
i started atkins 2 yrs back and weighed 240lbs, lost upto 70 lbs in months and maintained it for about a year by gyming regularly. i'v now put back about 20lbs in the last 5 months and decided to go back o atkins. the first time round when i lost that much, i did lose all o atleast most of the muscle in my body but i didn't care as long as was losing the weight and getting into small sizes, a reason for thi though could be that because you don't feel hungry and don't consum enought calories. But for the last 1 year i have been doing stric weight training and i do see my upper body shaping up, but the downsid is that i have gone up by 4 inches on my tummy (all fat). Does anyon know if you really lose muscle doing atkins even if you take in a lo of protein ???? pls enlighte -- martin33 :: i started atkins 2 yrs back and weighed 240lbs, lost upto 70 lbs in 6 :: months and maintained it for about a year by gyming regularly. i've [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: (all fat). Does anyone know if you really lose muscle doing atkins :: even if you take in a lot of protein ???? pls enlighten Any kind of rapid weight loss will result in some muscle loss. With Atkins it's typically going to be less than with doing a low fat diet. The fact is, when you diet you can expect to lose some muscle, though you can minimize that loss by not losing too fast and doing a sensible program of weight lifting. I can't understand from your post why you think there is a particular problem with Atkins and muscle loss, though. The problem is your rapid loss, and then quiting the diet, rapidly gaining, and then trying to lose again. > :: i started atkins 2 yrs back and weighed 240lbs, lost upto 70 lbs in 6 > :: months and maintained it for about a year by gyming regularly. i've [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > loss, and then quiting the diet, rapidly gaining, and then trying to lose > again. 240 to 170 in 6 months is so rapid that if it's true, you have to wonder what he was doing. It certainly not typical Atkins. And I agree that kind of rapid weight loss is the real problem and it's not good for your health either. >>:: i started atkins 2 yrs back and weighed 240lbs, lost upto 70 lbs in 6 >>:: months and maintained it for about a year by gyming regularly. i've [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > agree that kind of rapid weight loss is the real problem and it's not > good for your health either. Not so unusual. I lost more than 60lbs in 2004 in three months and without dropping to Atkins carb levels. I just cut all *superfluous* carbs (non-nutritional) from my diet, dropped calorie intake from my normal 3500-3800 per day down to 1800-2000 and increased exercise, both aerobic and anaerobic. I dropped consumed calories by a minimum of fifteen hundred per day and burned a minimum of fifteen hundred calories with exercise. I would often ride a stationary bike on a high resistance setting for the time it took to watch a couple of DVD movies, in fact I would *only* watch movies while exercising, riding, stair-climbing or rowing. I got through a lot of movies. <g> Even with all the exercise I lost a lot of muscle weight, about a third of my total weight loss. I was not particularly overweight when I started, and was quite fit, I exercised regularly, though not as much as nowadays. I had a BMI of 25.5, putting me only 4.5 lbs overweight. I lost the weight to combat medically induced diabetes, and get off diabetic meds, not for any other reason. I am still struggling to regain the lost muscle mass, it will probably take me another year, even though I eat huge amounts of food. (No junk carbs though.) In the last eighteen months I have only regained about ten pounds of muscle although my strength has increased dramatically. It is hard to gain weight when avoiding junk carbs and maintaining high exercise levels, even though I have more than tripled my previous fat consumption. I eat about 140-160 grams of carb and a minimum of 200 grams of protein per day. No pasta, potatoes, beer or soft drinks, and very little bread, all things that I used indulge in quite heavily. My previous daily carb intake would have been closer to 350-400 grams. If I had maintained a high rate of exercise and not lowered calorie intake so much, I may have been able to lose the weight without as much muscle loss; I have no way of knowing for sure. I have never seen anyone yet who has lost a large amount of weight without muscle loss, but it may be possible with enough dedication. I didn't have the time available, I needed to get off insulin. My feeling is that a low carb diet allows a higher amount of protein and if anything in diet can offset muscle loss, increased protein (in conjunction with exercise) will do it. Regards David  SignatureTo email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line. All other mail is automatically deleted. :: trader4@optonline.net wrote: ::: Roger Zoul wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] :: :: Not so unusual. True. People do all sorts of crazy things. :: I lost more than 60lbs in 2004 in three months and without dropping :: to Atkins carb levels. I just cut all *superfluous* carbs [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: overweight. I lost the weight to combat medically induced diabetes, :: and get off diabetic meds, not for any other reason. You didn't need to implement such a severe weight loss to combat your diabetes, David. Such a over reaction can have consequences. :: I am still struggling to regain the lost muscle mass, it will :: probably take me another year, even though I eat huge amounts of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: loss, but it may be possible with enough dedication. I didn't have :: the time available, I needed to get off insulin. I don't think you can reasonably know how much muscle people lose who have lost a large amount of weight. Yes, it's reasonable to assume they might lose some, but it really depends. Rapid loss almost ensures a significant amount of muscle loss, but slower loss combined with sensible exercise can have a big impact on the amount that is lost, if any. :: My feeling is that a low carb diet allows a higher amount of protein :: and if anything in diet can offset muscle loss, increased protein (in :: conjunction with exercise) will do it. One can still overdo exercise and end up with less optimal muscle retention. :: Regards :: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: :: All other mail is automatically deleted. Sorry about the tardiness in responding but I had a weekend break and didn't notice this post until this morning. > :: trader4@optonline.net wrote: > ::: Roger Zoul wrote: > ::: > :::: martin33 wrote: > ::: 240 to 170 in 6 months is so rapid that if it's true, you have to > ::: wonder what he was doing. It certainly not typical Atkins. And I [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > You didn't need to implement such a severe weight loss to combat your > diabetes, David. Such a over reaction can have consequences. It wasn't an overreaction, it was a necessity, and it did have consequences; losing more lean tissue than I would have liked. I was being treated for cancer as well as diabetes, and the diabetic meds were negatively affecting my therapy. I had to be able to control the diabetes without meds and do it quickly so I dropped carbs and increased exercise until I achieved that. The lowered carb consumption and the level of exercise resulted in a more rapid weight loss that ideal, but it was successful in allowing my therapy to proceed unimpeded. I would not recommend that anyone lose weight as rapidly as I did for the sake of weightless alone, but in my case, although I need to regain a lot of muscle, I had enough when I started to not have the loss affect me too much. > :: I am still struggling to regain the lost muscle mass, it will > :: probably take me another year, even though I eat huge amounts of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I don't think you can reasonably know how much muscle people lose who have > lost a large amount of weight. I spent several years professionally involved with fitness and weight loss and have pretty good idea. Yes, it's reasonable to assume they might > lose some, but it really depends. Rapid loss almost ensures a significant > amount of muscle loss, but slower loss combined with sensible exercise can > have a big impact on the amount that is lost, if any. I am referring to rapid weight loss, I mentioned that I didn't have the time available to attempt to lose while retaining lean tissue. > :: My feeling is that a low carb diet allows a higher amount of protein > :: and if anything in diet can offset muscle loss, increased protein (in > :: conjunction with exercise) will do it. > > One can still overdo exercise and end up with less optimal muscle retention. One can, which is why I rotate muscle group exercises over several days, giving sufficient rest in between workouts for each group. Regards David SignatureTo email me, please include the letters DNF anywhere in the subject line. All other mail is automatically deleted. :: Sorry about the tardiness in responding but I had a weekend break and :: didn't notice this post until this morning. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] :: I was being treated for cancer as well as diabetes, and the diabetic :: meds were negatively affecting my therapy. Sorry, I didn' realize this. I retract what I said. I had to be able to :: control the diabetes without meds and do it quickly so I dropped :: carbs and increased exercise until I achieved that. The lowered carb :: consumption and the level of exercise resulted in a more rapid :: weight loss that ideal, but it was successful in allowing my therapy :: to proceed unimpeded. I see. :: I would not recommend that anyone lose weight as rapidly as I did for :: the sake of weightless alone, but in my case, although I need to :: regain a lot of muscle, I had enough when I started to not have the :: loss affect me too much. Right. It's good you were able to accomplish that! ::::: I am still struggling to regain the lost muscle mass, it will ::::: probably take me another year, even though I eat huge amounts of [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] :: I spent several years professionally involved with fitness and weight :: loss and have pretty good idea. I see. :: Yes, it's reasonable to assume they might ::: lose some, but it really depends. Rapid loss almost ensures a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: I am referring to rapid weight loss, I mentioned that I didn't have :: the time available to attempt to lose while retaining lean tissue. I see. ::::: My feeling is that a low carb diet allows a higher amount of ::::: protein and if anything in diet can offset muscle loss, increased [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: One can, which is why I rotate muscle group exercises over several :: days, giving sufficient rest in between workouts for each group. Thanks for the info. It does make a lot of sense. :: Regards :: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: :: All other mail is automatically deleted. No. SignaturePeace, Om. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson > i started atkins 2 yrs back and weighed 240lbs, lost upto 70 lbs in 6 > months and maintained it for about a year by gyming regularly. i've [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > know if you really lose muscle doing atkins even if you take in a lot > of protein ???? pls enlighten The data I've read seems mixed, but it's definately less than low-fat and fasting. :: "martin33" <martin33.24r3fy@news.weightlossbanter.com> wrote in :: message news:martin33.24r3fy@news.weightlossbanter.com... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: The data I've read seems mixed, but it's definately less than :: low-fat and fasting. LC in and of itself doesn't cause muscle loss, period. Weight loss on any diet will typically result in some muscle loss. IMHO, not enough data to support or answer your argument or questions. Why don't you document your experience/experiment and post your result here half or one year later? Lots of people will be anxious to learn your data. For example, 2 months low cal low carb with standard protein requirement 2 months low cal low carb with double protein requirement 2 months low cal low carb with triple protein requirement 2 months low cal low carb with 4 times protein requirement I, and maybe others would be greatly interested to learn what kind of results you have. => =>i started atkins 2 yrs back and weighed 240lbs, lost upto 70 lbs in 6 =>months and maintained it for about a year by gyming regularly. i've =>now put back about 20lbs in the last 5 months and decided to go back on =>atkins. the first time round when i lost that much, i did lose all or =>atleast most of the muscle in my body but i didn't care as long as i =>was losing the weight and getting into small sizes, a reason for this =>though could be that because you don't feel hungry and don't consume =>enought calories. But for the last 1 year i have been doing strict =>weight training and i do see my upper body shaping up, but the downside =>is that i have gone up by 4 inches on my tummy (all fat). Does anyone =>know if you really lose muscle doing atkins even if you take in a lot =>of protein ???? pls enlighten --- The more we know, the less we know. Low carb cures hungry but stop not craving. k 1 6 8 9 a t h o t m a i l d o t c o m When you lose weight, the loss will be from fatty and muscle tissue alike. With a low carb diet, the majority will be from fat. This is because the body stores excess carbs as fat (future fuel) and burns it when the carb intake no longer meets the body needs. Muscle tissue will be lost, but the proportion of that loss compared to the overall weight loss will be relatively small. An increased exercise regimen will help make up for the loss of muscle tissue, and will accelerate the overall Weight loss. Dare I say it? Eat less and exercise more! > i started atkins 2 yrs back and weighed 240lbs, lost upto 70 lbs in 6 > months and maintained it for about a year by gyming regularly. Every so often I agree with trader4 on something - Three pounds per week is more than anyone I can recall who actually followed the directions. While I disagree with trader4 on what the directions say exactly, I agree with him that whatever they are you likely didn't follow them. > a reason for this > though could be that because you don't feel hungry and don't consume > enought calories. Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the appetite suppression to make it easy to "right size" your calories. I don't have a copy with me but I don't remember any permission in it to use the appetite suppression effect of ketosis to make it painless to starve yourself into lean loss. > Does anyone > know if you really lose muscle doing atkins even if you take in a lot > of protein ???? pls enlighten First, Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that's another sign you haven't read any of the editions of the book. Second, what do you mean by a lot of protein? You aren't pushing towards 200 grams per day I hope and 100-150 is a level many would not call high. Second, it's fat that prevents lean loss the best, thought I don't know if anyone has figured out what the mechanism for the fact is. One of the original experiments that triggered Dr A to design the process was one that compared 90% fat with 90% protein with 90% carb with a fast. While everyone expected the 90% protein group to have the least lean loss it actually turned out to be the 90% fat group that lost the least lean. Better, the 90% fat group lost more total weight than the fast group. Something other than calories-in was working and it made fat loss more and lean loss less. So the simple answer is - no. High fat is better at preventing lean loss than other types including high protein. Qualified by the fact that if you lose enough fat some luscle will disappear because it's no longer needed to carry the fat. No, LC if done properly does not "cause" muscle loss. A small amount of ML can occur with ANY diet, but eating high protein tends to minimize it. John Gohde advice causes extreme muscle loss tho'. SignaturePeace, Om. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson :: martin33 wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] :: know if anyone has figured out what the mechanism for the fact :: is. Not many share this opinion. One of the original experiments that triggered Dr A to :: design the process was one that compared 90% fat with 90% :: protein with 90% carb with a fast. While everyone expected :: the 90% protein group to have the least lean loss it actually :: turned out to be the 90% fat group that lost the least lean. :: Better, the 90% fat group lost more total weight than the fast :: group. This is only a single study. Got any corroboration? Something other than calories-in was working and it :: made fat loss more and lean loss less. So the simple answer :: is - no. High fat is better at preventing lean loss than other :: types including high protein. I still think the jury is out on this, not that I would get upset if it were true, mind you. Most people doing Atkins and LC get sufficient protein at least and I'd venture to say that most don't strictly watch ratios. Qualified by the fact that if you :: lose enough fat some luscle will disappear because it's no :: longer needed to carry the fat. I completely disagree with this statement. Muscle doesn't disapprear simply because it isn't needed to carry fat. there are many other factors that influence this. Found this article by accident. <http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e11.htm> --snip snip-- =>Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On =>Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the =>appetite suppression to make it easy to "right size" your calories. =>I don't have a copy with me but I don't remember any permission =>in it to use the appetite suppression effect of ketosis to make it =>painless to starve yourself into lean loss. Wrong, read "Calories does matter."(Subject: Do Calories Count?) => =>> Does anyone =>> know if you really lose muscle doing atkins even if you take in a lot =>> of protein ???? pls enlighten => =>First, Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that's another sign =>you haven't read any of the editions of the book. Second, what =>do you mean by a lot of protein? You aren't pushing towards =>200 grams per day I hope and 100-150 is a level many would not =>call high. => =>Second, it's fat that prevents lean loss the best, thought I don't =>know if anyone has figured out what the mechanism for the fact =>is. One of the original experiments that triggered Dr A to =>design the process was one that compared 90% fat with 90% =>protein with 90% carb with a fast. While everyone expected =>the 90% protein group to have the least lean loss it actually =>turned out to be the 90% fat group that lost the least lean. =>Better, the 90% fat group lost more total weight than the fast =>group. Something other than calories-in was working and it =>made fat loss more and lean loss less. So the simple answer =>is - no. High fat is better at preventing lean loss than other =>types including high protein. Qualified by the fact that if you =>lose enough fat some luscle will disappear because it's no =>longer needed to carry the fat. --- The more we know, the less we know. Low carb cures hungry but stop not craving. k 1 6 8 9 a t h o t m a i l d o t c o m > =>Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On > =>Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wrong, read "Calories does matter."(Subject: Do Calories Count?) I get that you didn't even slightly understand my point. Atkins turns down appetite and forbids overeating. Therefore the sort of overeating discussed in that thread does not apply to Atkins. Until the last 10ish pounds for men, 20ish pounds for women, and the OP is not in that range. Then portion size reduction becomes necessary to get lower. >>=>Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On >>=>Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the sort of overeating discussed in that thread does not apply > to Atkins. I can't exactly find the part about "fordibbing overeating" , but I do know explicitly about the part where one is to: ".. eat till satisfied, not stuffed." Atkins said this many times in his book. It would be accurate to repeat what the man said. Paraphrasing it into "forbidding overeating" probably doesn't do anybody much good. Jim Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) > I can't exactly find the part about "fordibbing overeating" , but I do > know explicitly about the part where one is to: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Paraphrasing it into "forbidding overeating" probably doesn't do anybody > much good. He sure didn't forbid it, but he did warn about it with a phrase about failure to lose, something like, "you took the advice to eat as much as you want too literally" and went on to discuss satiety vs. gluttony, IIRC. Susan > > Atkins turns down appetite and forbids overeating. Therefore > > the sort of overeating discussed in that thread does not apply [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ".. eat till satisfied, not stuffed." Which is misunderstood by vast numbers of people. So I write the same meaning with different words in the hope that some who failed to understand it the way Dr A phrased it will understand it the way I phrased it. Direct quotes work sometimes, saying the same thing using other words works sometimes. >>>Atkins turns down appetite and forbids overeating. Therefore >>>the sort of overeating discussed in that thread does not apply [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it the way I phrased it. Direct quotes work sometimes, saying > the same thing using other words works sometimes. In your way, I picture a bleak mountain shrouded in clouds with some recalatant overweight travelers huddled below. This Godly voice emerges from the shrouded mountain and it magestically proclaims -- " THOU SHALT NOT OVEREAT " Signature1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book 2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book 3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins book 4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other) :: In your way, I picture a bleak mountain shrouded in clouds with some :: recalatant overweight travelers huddled below. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: :: " THOU SHALT NOT OVEREAT " And they wandered 40 years in the desert and overate. :) > >> ".. eat till satisfied, not stuffed." > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > " THOU SHALT NOT OVEREAT " Chortle. Say the same thing several different ways, may folks who don't understand one way will understand the other. Render the identical idea with multiple techniques. Since some will comprehend each rendering, the variety will succeed for a higher portion than any one technique. The plan of an essay is to tell them what you are going to tell them and that's your introduction. Then tell them again more verbosely and that's the body. Then tell them the same thing a third time and that's your conclusion. Just make sure you phrase the introduction, body and conclusion differently. >Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On >Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the >appetite suppression to make it easy to "right size" your calories. >I don't have a copy with me but I don't remember any permission >in it to use the appetite suppression effect of ketosis to make it >painless to starve yourself into lean loss. Doublespeak. Not reduce, but "right size"?!? Yeah, you ARE supposed to reduce your calories on Atkins. If you don't you won't likely lose any weight. Just because he doesn't have you counting calories doesn't negate the fact that he expects the appetite suppression effect of ketosis to result in automatic reduction in caloric intake sufficient to allow weight loss. You are right, though, in that if someone eats a semi-starvation level of calories, on any diet, their body will use a lot of muscle for fuel. Even on high protein or high fat, if calories are low enough. The fact that this guy was losing 3 pounds a week is pretty good evidence that he was just not eating enough. >Second, it's fat that prevents lean loss the best, thought I don't >know if anyone has figured out what the mechanism for the fact [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >lose enough fat some luscle will disappear because it's no >longer needed to carry the fat. That's an interesting study, I agree. But it's very old and to my knowledge there are no corroborating follow-on studies. I'd be cautious about building a whole paradigm out of a study like that. Not appropriate, nor good science. That said, excess protein can be converted to glucose at about a 50:50 ratio. Fat conversion is 10% or less. This may make a difference in some people. Anectdotally, lots of people on this ng have noticed they lose better when they up the fat % of their diet and reduced protein a bit. HG Anectdotally, lots of |people on this ng have noticed they lose better when they up the fat % |of their diet and reduced protein a bit. | |HG That's how I am. I've found that the ratio of fat/protein/carbs is critical to my weight loss. I have to keep fat calories at more than 70%; ideally for me it's fat 75%, protein 25%, carbs 5%. I can't ay why it works; maybe because of the appetite suppression of the fat? I guess it's a similar thing to why Dr. Atkins' "fat fast" works for those who are stalled in their weight loss. :: On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:58:10 -0500, Hannah Gruen :: <allium28-riverheights@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: I guess it's a similar thing to why Dr. Atkins' "fat fast" works for :: those who are stalled in their weight loss. I think appetite suppression comes from lack of carbs, not because of more fat or protein. :) Note, research says protein suppresses appetite and people here seem to think it's fat. We know that fat slows digestion in the gut so when eaten with carbs it can delay spikes in BG. But what really suppresses appetite? Maybe nothing. Maybe what's really happenning is that appetite is simply not being throttled up due to excessive carbs in those who are metabolically off kilter? Perhaps to suppress, one needs to take something away, not add something. > I think appetite suppression comes from lack of carbs, not because of more > fat or protein. :) I think it's both. > Note, research says protein suppresses appetite and people here seem to > think it's fat. Research also says it's fat and less carbs. We know that fat slows digestion in the gut so when eaten > with carbs it can delay spikes in BG. But what really suppresses appetite? > Maybe nothing. Maybe what's really happenning is that appetite is simply > not being throttled up due to excessive carbs in those who are metabolically > off kilter? > > Perhaps to suppress, one needs to take something away, not add something. We know that ketosis lowers metabolism and suppresses hunger. Ketosis results from either very low calories or from low carb. We also know that protein is a significant source of glucose, but it's slow to convert to glucose, so slow that it doesn't raise bg, so it doesn't cause a rapid insulin spike with resultant hunger. Fat slows digestion of all it's eaten with. It stimulates neither insulin nor glucagon, and it causes a feeling of fullness very quickly. It's all the above, I believe, but to different degrees in different people. When I was extremely insulin resistant (before metformin) I never got the appetite suppression of low carb; I had less intense hunger, but not appetite suppression. This may be an important variable for other folks, too. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: :: Research also says it's fat and less carbs. I'm not sure if I've seen this. Do you have a link handy? If not, don't trouble. :: We know that fat slows digestion in the gut so when eaten ::: with carbs it can delay spikes in BG. But what really suppresses [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] :: :: Susan > :: Research also says it's fat and less carbs. > > I'm not sure if I've seen this. Do you have a link handy? If not, don't > trouble. You haven't seen research about lower carb, higher fat being more satiating? The research of fat alone is all over the map, but so much of the research that allegedly finds it's less satiating finds that high carb is confirmed as moreso that I find it untrustworthy. The only experiments with fat alone involve gastric infusion, and the fat infusions are associated with less appetite. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: You haven't seen research about lower carb, higher fat being more :: satiating? Well, I'm saying if you remove the carbs (taking one to LC) then that alone is what kills appetite (doing nothing else, including replacing calories). I've seen papers claiming that protein has some special property (I think Lyle even basis one of his diets on it). However, I've not seen a paper talking specifically about fat. I've heard claims, though. :: The research of fat alone is all over the map, but so much of the :: research that allegedly finds it's less satiating finds that high :: carb :: is confirmed as moreso that I find it untrustworthy. yes. :: The only experiments with fat alone involve gastric infusion, and the :: fat infusions are associated with less appetite. hmmm...haven't read that stuff. Well, what I've heard is that fat is satiating, but I'm not sure if I believe that. I think simply removing the carbs does the trick, if the trick is going to happen. I, for one, can over eat fat easily. Tub of almonds.... Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either, since that's easy to abuse. As you said, removing the carbs brings on ketosis, and that suppresses appetite. > Well, I'm saying if you remove the carbs (taking one to LC) then that alone > is what kills appetite (doing nothing else, including replacing calories). Okay, maybe we misunderstood one another. I agree that this alone will reduce appetite. I just added that other factors also suppress hunger. > I've seen papers claiming that protein has some special property (I think > Lyle even basis one of his diets on it). However, I've not seen a paper > talking specifically about fat. I've heard claims, though. They're there, though there are more of the "fat is bad, carbs and fiber are satiating" from the old school of What Was Never True But Everyone Says It Is." > :: The research of fat alone is all over the map, but so much of the > :: research that allegedly finds it's less satiating finds that high [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > hmmm...haven't read that stuff. It's done with an infusion emulsion of triglycerides, apparently. YECCH. I also found one in that search demonstrating hunger resulting from an aspartame load; the degree of sweetness triggered more hunger. > Well, what I've heard is that fat is satiating, but I'm not sure if I > believe that. I think simply removing the carbs does the trick, if the > trick is going to happen. I, for one, can over eat fat easily. Tub of > almonds.... That's the issue with fat; high caloric density for volume eaten. > Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either, since > that's easy to abuse. True, though it will at least slow the spike. > As you said, removing the carbs brings on ketosis, and that suppresses > appetite. But feeding folks nothing but fat satiates more than feeding with carbs in the infusion studies; folks were less hungry later on, IIRC. Then there's protein, with its long lasting, slow supply of energy from glucose. I think that cutting carbs will reduce hunger/cravings a LOT; I think replacing carbs with protein staves off cravings with a steady, but slow supply of glucose (no rebound hunger) and fat creates more feeling of fullness, so the combination is hunger suppressing. If you were to ask me which is most important, especially in IR folks, I'd say carb cutting. Susan > But feeding folks nothing but fat satiates more than feeding with carbs > in the infusion studies; folks were less hungry later on, IIRC. Then > there's protein, with its long lasting, slow supply of energy from glucose. Here's a couple of cites, the emphases are mine: Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jan;69(1):6-12. Related Articles, Links Effects of small-intestinal fat and carbohydrate infusions on appetite and food intake in obese and nonobese men. Chapman IM, Goble EA, Wittert GA, Horowitz M. Department of Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, South Australia, Australia. ichapman@medicine.adelaide.edu.au To determine whether the satiating effects of nutrients in the small intestine are lower in obese than in nonobese people, 9 healthy, obese men [age: 18-33 y; body mass index (BMI; in kg/m2) 30.4-40.8] and 11 healthy, nonobese men (age: 18-33 y; BMI: 19.1-26.4) received an intraduodenal infusion of saline (control), lipid ( 11.97 kJ/min, or 2.86 kcal/min), or glucose (11.97 kJ/min) for 120 min on separate days. Fullness, hunger, and nausea were assessed by visual analogue scales. After the infusions, a meal was offered and food intake was quantified. There was no difference in appetite ratings between the obese and nonobese subjects during the infusions, in the amount or macronutrient composition of food eaten after the infusions, or in the time taken to eat the meals. Both the lipid and glucose infusions were associated with greater fullness than the control infusion. *******The energy content of the food eaten was less after the lipid infusion than after either the control or glucose infusion (P < 0.01): lipid infusion suppressed energy intake by 22% compared with the control infusion and by 15% compared with the glucose infusion.********* Suppression of energy intake after intraduodenal nutrient infusions was due to slower eating (P < 0.01). Intraduodenal infusions of fat suppressed appetite and food intake more than did equienergetic infusions of carbohydrate in both obese and nonobese young men, and the responses to intraduodenal fat and glucose were not affected by obesity. The latter observation suggests that established obesity is not associated with reduced small-intestinal responses to dietary fat or carbohydrate. Publication Types: • Clinical Trial • Randomized Controlled Trial Physiol Behav. 1999 Aug;67(2):299-306. Related Articles, Links Comparison of the effects of a high-fat and high-carbohydrate soup delivered orally and intragastrically on gastric emptying, appetite, and eating behaviour. Cecil JE, Francis J, Read NW. Centre for Human Nutrition, University of Sheffield, Northern General Hospital, UK. Cecil@monell.org To investigate the effects of fat and carbohydrate on appetite, food intake and gastric emptying with and without the influence of orosensory factors, a group of nine healthy, fasted male subjects took part in two separate paired experiments involving high-fat and high-carbohydrate radiolabelled soup preloads. In the first experiment subjects received direct intragastric isocaloric infusions of either a high-fat tomato soup or a high-carbohydrate tomato soup (400 kcal in 425 mL) over 15 min, on two occasions. In the second paired experiment subjects ingested the same high-fat and high-carbohydrate soup over 15 min. In both experiments ratings of hunger and fullness were recorded over a period of 135 min and gastric emptying was measured by scintigraphy. Food intake was evaluated from a test meal (yoghurt drink) given 2 h after the end of the soup infusion/ingestion. When soup was administered intragastrically (Experiment 1) both the high-fat and high-carbohydrate soup preloads suppressed appetite ratings from baseline, but there were no differences in ratings of hunger and fullness, food intake from the test meal, or rate of gastric emptying between the two soup preloads. ****When the same soups were ingested (Experiment 2), the high-fat soup suppressed hunger, induced fullness, and slowed gastric emptying more than the high-carbohydrate soup and also tended to be more effective at reducing energy intake from the test meal.***** The results of these studies demonstrate that orosensory stimulation plays an important role in appetite regulation, and also indicate that subtle differences in orosensory stimulation produced by particular nutrients may profoundly influence appetite and gastrointestinal responses. PMID: 10477062 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: :: Here's a couple of cites, the emphases are mine: Thanks. You must be very organized to enable you to keep up with all of these articles! Good show. > Thanks. You must be very organized to enable you to keep up with all of > these articles! Good show. I wish I were more organized! I'm just an information junkie. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: :: I'm just an information junkie. and good at it! :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] :: me which is most important, especially in IR folks, I'd say carb :: cutting. Thanks. I think that pretty much sums it up. > Thanks. I think that pretty much sums it up. For some of us. I suspect that the degree to which extreme carb cutting is the most critical to appetite suppression *may* relate to the degree to which one is insulin resistant or hyperinsulinemic. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: cutting is the most critical to appetite suppression *may* relate to :: the degree to which one is insulin resistant or hyperinsulinemic. Yeah....I think I've lost all benefit from appetite suppression. However, I can get used to being hungry a fair amount. > :: x-no-archive: yes > :: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yeah....I think I've lost all benefit from appetite suppression. However, I > can get used to being hungry a fair amount. In my case, because I have to eat very low calorie, I was always hungry, though very small meals filled me up. Now that I'm on metformin, I am experiencing the appetite absence I've always heard about. I have to make myself eat something now, often, when it's been too long between meals or snacks. Also, I'm actually losing weight without trying, though slowly. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> :: cutting is the most critical to appetite suppression *may* relate to >> :: the degree to which one is insulin resistant or hyperinsulinemic. Hi susan, i watch your posts a lot because i also am extremely insulin resistant with pcos. we have talked before.. i am on 3 x 1000mg per day. anyway, question i am asking is to what level did you find cutting carbs was helpful for appetite suppression and lowering of insulin levels and resistance? i have been following the pcos forum as you suggested. wonderful resource. thankyou. just curious now about how many carbs a day has worked for you. thanks t >> Yeah....I think I've lost all benefit from appetite suppression. >> However, I can get used to being hungry a fair amount. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Susan > Hi susan, i watch your posts a lot because i also am extremely insulin > resistant with pcos. we have talked before.. i am on 3 x 1000mg per day. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > resource. thankyou. just curious now about how many carbs a day has worked > for you. thanks Hi, T, glad you found the PCOS forum helpful. I have never had appetite suppression from low carbing til starting metformin recently. My IR improved, but was still severe, years after low carbing at about 50-70 net carbs per day, which is what I still aim for. I LC to control my type 2 diabetes, not for weight loss, though loss of 10lbs would be nice. Susan > Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either, since > that's easy to abuse. Fat alone as having effect on appetite - Imagine you are required to eat a stick of butter. 120 grams almost all fat. Not mixed with any other food. Now imagine that there's a second stick to be eaten as well. Some on ASDLC could and some couldn't pull off the first stick, few would be able to pull off the second. Fat mixed with carbs - Imagine the first stick of butter gets mixed with flour and sugar instead of with the second stick. And the mixture gets cooked together to form simple sugar cookies. Now you're required to eat the batch of cookies. Easier or harder than the two sticks of pure butter for the same total calories? Some on ASDLC would have problems stopping once started eating the cookies. Even mixing with carbs to the level of half-h-half light cream and many would be able to down it all. > As you said, removing the carbs brings on ketosis, and that suppresses > appetite. Agreed, but fat does something to the appetite when not mixed with carbs, and whether it does mixing in carbs seems to mask that effect. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: cookies. Even mixing with carbs to the level of half-h-half light :: cream and many would be able to down it all. This sounds strangely like the "ick" effect to me, Doug. I frankly couldn't eat even a little butter by itself because alone it invokes an "ick" factor in me. Add it to something and it changes. You know, I can think of many items that aren't fat that would induce a similar "ick" with me. I won't bother to name any. I can sort of see your point applied to other foods, like steak or any fatty meat. I could do some really serious damage to a plate of sugar cookies but would have a much harder time doing the same with steak. However, I would claim that's due to the fast acting carbs in the cookies rather than the fat / protein the steak. ::: As you said, removing the carbs brings on ketosis, and that ::: suppresses appetite. :: :: Agreed, but fat does something to the appetite when not mixed :: with carbs, and whether it does mixing in carbs seems to :: mask that effect. > :: Roger Zoul wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > eat even a little butter by itself because alone it invokes an "ick" factor > in me. Add it to something and it changes. Consider - Ick factor is some sort of reduced appetite, some sort of satiety. Not the same sort as dropping carb cravings, but some sort nonetheless. > You know, I can think of many items that aren't fat that would induce a > similar "ick" with me. I won't bother to name any. Similar isn't same. Years ago I wanted to try increasing my fat-to-protein ratio so I calculated how many calories I was having for breakfast and how much olive oil that would be. Turned out it was between a shot glass and a jigger glass. Can't beat 100% fat for the fat-to-protein ratio and I wasn't going to change my other meals, so I tried having a shot of olive oil straight as my breakfast. First day no problem. Second day no problem. Third day I didn't look forward to it. Fourth day I stared at it and held my nose when I gulped. Fifth day I had to hold my nose to even sip it. Sixth day I could not bring myself to have breakfast and ended up having an omlette for lunch. While I don't know what sort of appetite it reduced, it reduced something. > I can sort of see your point applied to other foods, like steak or any fatty > meat. I could do some really serious damage to a plate of sugar cookies but > would have a much harder time doing the same with steak. Consider a 600 calorie portion of untrimmed fatty steak and a 600 calorie portion of lean sliced turkey breast. Which would you expect to be more filling from the size? The turkey is bigger. But when I actually try one one day and the other the next, the steak seems more filling. The difference is small, but if I try that with 600 calories of cookies, look out. > However, I would > claim that's due to the fast acting carbs in the cookies rather than the fat > / protein the steak. That's why I offer ethe example of comparing beef and turkey both while low carbing. To me there's a different feeling to the cravings involved. Carb cravings seem sharp and intense. Fat cravings seem more nebulous and weak. But get into ketosis and my carb cravings turn off like a light switch. There's no turning off my fat cravings when I attempt low fatting. I figure this is why Induction seems hard but then low carbing seems easy for lots of folks who tried low fat and couldn't stick to it. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Doug Freyburger wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] :: having an omlette for lunch. While I don't know what sort of :: appetite it reduced, it reduced something. I'm not sure this is convincing of reduced appetite in general. Making yourself "icked out" by drinking pure fat to the point that you didn't want to eat breakfast by day 6, but then eating a goodly lunch, or maybe eating more of other foods later, doesnt really imply reduced appetite. Had you done the same on some foods you really enjoyed and tracked ad lib calorie consumption, perhaps. Frankly, this all seems like double talk. We say that carbs result in BG swings with increases appetite. But they do that in the presense of fat too (though perhaps not as badly). Remove the carbs, normalize BG, then appetite returns to normal. Now, we add an additional thing that fat makes us full quicker. so we get another boost to eat less if we remove carbs and eat more fat. Next, we add LC veggies - full of fiber, so we get a third kick because fiber-rich, high-water content veggies take up space in the belly. Geez, with all of this going on, there should be no question of the efficacy of LC dieting over LF. That's basically 3 to 1 in favor of LC (LF having fiber, but high in carbs and low in fat). I would therefore expect LC to have a much greater rate of success, if all of that really works. ::: I can sort of see your point applied to other foods, like steak or ::: any fatty meat. I could do some really serious damage to a plate of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: 600 calorie portion of lean sliced turkey breast. Which would :: you expect to be more filling from the size? I honestly can't say. The turkey is :: bigger. But when I actually try one one day and the other the :: next, the steak seems more filling. The difference is small, :: but if I try that with 600 calories of cookies, look out. I would say that I'd probably want to eat more streak since I enjoy it more than somewhat bland turkey breast. Now, if you scale the serving size up a lot more, perhaps to the point of overeating, then results might change. That a lot of protein and fat. ::: However, I would ::: claim that's due to the fast acting carbs in the cookies rather [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: To me there's a different feeling to the cravings involved. Carb :: cravings seem sharp and intense. See...I honestly cannot remember what a carb craving feels like. I'm not good at remembering feelings outside of what hurts and what feels good. Fat cravings seem more :: nebulous and weak. But get into ketosis and my carb cravings :: turn off like a light switch. Well, I can crave both when I'm really wanting to eat. I do know that when I dive in on something carby, I can find myself compelled to pig out. So I know it's real. Wanting to eat again later on when I'm not really hungry is probably the result of a dip in BG. There's no turning off my fat cravings :: when I attempt low fatting. I figure this is why Induction seems :: hard but then low carbing seems easy for lots of folks who :: tried low fat and couldn't stick to it. > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You haven't seen research about lower carb, higher fat being more > satiating? Maybe per calorie. With me, it ain't more sating at all per calorie. Sure, 1 oz of fat is more sating than an ounce of carbs, it's also more calories. Carrot cake is pretty damn sating, at least for that moment, and it's packed with calories. ::: x-no-archive: yes ::: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: more calories. Carrot cake is pretty damn sating, at least for that :: moment, and it's packed with calories. It's damn good, too. I stay away from it. I can do myself serious damage with good cake. > It's damn good, too. I stay away from it. I can do myself serious damage > with good cake. I haven't made it in ages, but now that I have powdered erythritol for the cream cheese frosting and granulated for the cake (0 calorie, 0 gastric distress), and a decent LC bake mix to cut the flour with (carb quick) I may make it. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: calorie, 0 gastric distress), and a decent LC bake mix to cut the :: flour with (carb quick) I may make it. Unlike more normal people, even LC cake is a problem for me. I just don't do moderation well. I tend to live on the extremes, except where I'm indifferent. Sad, I know. > Unlike more normal people, even LC cake is a problem for me. I just don't > do moderation well. I tend to live on the extremes, except where I'm > indifferent. Sad, I know. You know yourself best. Just the sensation of sweetness can cause an insulin response in some folks, and that may trigger cravings. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: You know yourself best. Just the sensation of sweetness can cause an :: insulin response in some folks, and that may trigger cravings. Honestly, I think I just like sweet things like cake and just want to indulge myself while no one is looking. I think what you say may be the case for some folks, but some of us (me, in particular) are just shamefully greedy. > Honestly, I think I just like sweet things like cake and just want to > indulge myself while no one is looking. I think what you say may be the > case for some folks, but some of us (me, in particular) are just shamefully > greedy. I'll certainly take your word for it, Roger. I do tend to think that biology, in the form of hormonal response, drives hunger/appetite in most folks. Susan :: x-no-archive: yes :: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: biology, in the form of hormonal response, drives hunger/appetite in :: most folks. I certainly think that's part of it, and for me, most of it when I was 367lbs. However, I now realize that some of it is just me and my enjoyment of eating. I guess I could have made that more clear in what I wrote above. > | Anectdotally, lots of > | people on this ng have noticed they lose better when they up the fat % > | of their diet and reduced protein a bit. Which is a part of the Atkins process in editions 1972 through 1999 that isn't as present in the 2002 edition. Extra protein isn't encouraged but extra fat is. Whether this is to overcome prior anti-fat bias or because it works better, that's a matter of knowing the underlying mechanisms. > That's how I am. I've found that the ratio of fat/protein/carbs is > critical to my weight loss. I have to keep fat calories at more than > 70%; ideally for me it's fat 75%, protein 25%, carbs 5%. I can't ay > why it works; maybe because of the appetite suppression of the fat? > I guess it's a similar thing to why Dr. Atkins' "fat fast" works for > those who are stalled in their weight loss. The underlying mechanism is known. Dietary carbs directly trigger insulin release. Insulin moves fat into storage. Dietary fat indirectly triggers glucagon release. Glucagon moves fat out of storage. So once you've found your best carb level for loss (CCLL in Atkins) then further improvement comes from working the fat-to-protein ratio. So while the lean loss aspect is up in the air, the fat loss benefit of more dietary fat isn't. Fat may be unpopular to folks who haven't studied the hormones involved, but learn the underlying mechanism and it isn't unpopular any more. Insert standard caveat that overeating fat still doesn't work. Glucagon improves fat withdrawal but it is no magic antedote to overeating. Interesting that both extremes tend to break stalls - Going to almost all fat because it increases the glucagon, going to almost all low glycemic index carbs because it resets the leptin. No wonder folks get confused - they want only one answer to be correct. > The underlying mechanism is known. > > Dietary carbs directly trigger insulin release. Insulin moves fat > into storage. Dietary fat indirectly triggers glucagon release. > Glucagon moves fat out of storage. According to the Eades in Protein Power, dietary fat is hormonally neutral, stimulating neither insulin nor glucagon. Protein stimulates glucagon, though. > So once you've found your > best carb level for loss (CCLL in Atkins) then further improvement > comes from working the fat-to-protein ratio. And the calories. Susan |Anectdotally, lots of ||people on this ng have noticed they lose better when they up the fat % [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] |I guess it's a similar thing to why Dr. Atkins' "fat fast" works for |those who are stalled in their weight loss. Oops, I meant fat 70%, protein 25%, carbs 5% |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.