 |
 | 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 / General Topics / May 2004Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040518/HLOWCARB 18/TPHealth/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Low-carb v. low-fat: No clear loser, studies find After one year, weight-loss on the two diet regimes was about the same, researchers find By ANDRÉ PICARD PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - Page A17 Over a six-month period, low-carb diets like Atkins and South Beach result in greater weight-loss than traditional low-fat diets, but by one year, the results are about the same for each regime, according to two new studies. While the research is, by no means, the final word in the fierce diet debate, it will no doubt provide a boost to the immensely popular but much disparaged proponents of low-carbohydrate weight-loss. Even Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at Harvard University and one of the world's foremost nutritional experts, said that, based on the new research, "We can no longer dismiss very-low-carbohydrate diets." He stressed, however, that this should not be taken as an endorsement. Rather, Dr. Willett said, the message to retain is that people who are overweight should "experiment with various methods of weight control" to find the one that works best for them and "find ways to eat [that] they can maintain indefinitely rather than seeking diets that promote rapid weight-loss." Dr. Willett, the author of Eat, Drink and Be Healthy, is a proponent of a Mediterranean-style diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables, fish and nuts. He believes people should consume healthy fats and healthy carbs, and avoid refined sugars, flours and other processed foods. The new studies, published in today's edition of the Annals of Internal Medicine, are the first to compare low-carb and low-fat approaches to dieting head-to-head for a period of up to 12 months. The first study, conducted by researchers at Duke University in Durham, N.C., followed 120 healthy, moderately obese people over a six-month period. During that time, average body weight dropped by 12 kilograms in the low-carb group, compared to 6.5 kilograms in the low-fat group. The low-carb dieters also saw greater improvements in their blood lipids (markers for heart-disease risk), notably lower triglycerides and higher high-density lipoproteins (good cholesterol). However, two people in the low-carb group dropped out of the study because their low-density lipoprotein (bad cholesterol) rose sharply and, overall, they reported more bad reactions (such as constipation, diarrhea and general weakness) than the low-fat group. The second study, conducted at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Philadelphia, followed 132 severely obese adults for one year. At six-months, the low-carb group had lost more weight than the low-fat group. But, afterward, weight stabilized for the low-carb group, while it continued to drop for the low-fat group. By the one-year mark, both diets had virtually identical results, with the low-carb dieters having lost 5.1 to 8.7 kilos, and the low-fat group 3.1 to 8.4 kilos. In the end, however, the low-carb dieters had better lipid readings, particularly triglycerides and HDL cholesterol. Linda Stern, an internist at the VA hospital and lead author of the study, cautioned that "more research is needed to see if a low-carbohydrate diet remains safe and effective for the longer term." But she said the ability of people on low-carb diets to drop weight quickly and keep that weight off was impressive, and may be a good choice for many people. "I think a low-carbohydrate diet is a good choice because much of our overeating has to do with consumption of too many carbohydrates," she said. Gord Brethour, a retired General Motors worker who lives in Brighton, Ont., said he was not too surprised by the new research but, ultimately, what matters to him is practical results, not research findings. "You can make the numbers say whatever you want in these studies, but the numbers on my scale don't lie," he said. Mr. Brethour started on the South Beach diet, a low-carb regime, in February, and since then he has lost more than 15 kilos. His doctor has also cut the dose of his blood-pressure medication by half. "For me, South Beach has been a success. The diets I tried before weren't a success because I felt I was starving myself to death," he said. Prior to taking the low-carb route, Mr. Brethour had tried three low-fat diets, a grapefruit diet, an oat-bran diet and the Slim-Fast plan. Low-carb diets restrict grains, pastas, starchy vegetables, including potatoes, and refined sugars. Mr. Brethour said that at first, he missed staples such as potatoes and pasta, but has quickly come to enjoy the alternatives -- fresh vegetables, beans and legumes. "In my garden this year, I'm planting Swiss chard and spinach instead of potatoes," he said. An estimated one in nine adults in North America is on a low-carb diet, and twice as many again are planning to go the low-carb route in the coming two years, according to a recent survey. The new research shows that one of the difficulties in judging the effectiveness of diets, whether low-carb or low-fat, is that many people have trouble sticking to them. In both studies, the dropout rate was as high as 43 per cent over six months. Mr. Brethour said he is conscious of this pitfall, but is convinced he can keep the weight off permanently. "I've had to change my whole style of eating. This isn't short-term for me. I'll stick to a version of this diet permanently." Duelling diets Low-carb v. Low-fat: How they stack up after one year* Results....................................Low-fat.......Low-carb Dieters at start................................68............64 Still on diet at one year.......................43.............44 Weight loss..........................3.1-8.4 kilos....5.1-8.7 kilos Dietary intakes (numbers indicate deviations from the average diet) Calories - daily..............................-97...........-510 Protein - grams daily........................+7............-11 Carbs - grams daily.........................-22...........-131 Fat - grams daily.............................-6............+22 Fiber - grams daily...........................-1..............-5 Saturated fat - grams daily..................-4..............-2 Dietary cholesterol - grams daily..........-26............+88 Sodium - daily micrograms...............+451............-633 Average blood pressure................132/77..........139/82 Blood lipids (numbers indicate deviations from the average person) Triglycerides - mmol/L..................+0.05...........-0.65 Cholesterol - mmol/L.....................-0.21..........+0.16 (Good cholesterol) HDL - mmol/L.....-0.13..........-0.03 (Bad cholesterol) LDL - mmol/L......-0.10..........+0.18 -*Based on a study of 132 obese adults, only 87 of whom stuck to the diet for a full year. SOURCE: ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE Now these numbers are really really interesting:! > Dietary intakes (numbers indicate deviations from the average diet) LF LC > Calories - daily..............................-97...........-510 !!!! > Protein - grams daily........................+7............-11 !!!! High protein diet, indeed.... > Saturated fat - grams daily..................-4..............-2 !!!! Diet high in saturated fat, sure... > Sodium - daily micrograms...............+451............-633 !!!! Diet high in sodium, of course... What a pity they have not traced hydrogenated fats too... Mirek > Low-carb v. Low-fat: How they stack up after one year* > Results....................................Low-fat.......Low-carb [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Calories - daily..............................-97...........-510 > Protein - grams daily........................+7............-11 I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition suggests. Also, low fat and low carb diets are not opposites of one another, and they both restrict most of junk food. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." > > Low-carb v. Low-fat: How they stack up after one year* > > Results....................................Low-fat.......Low-carb [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition > suggests. Did you read it wrong? I think it states the low-carb dieters ate +7 grams more than the average diet and the low-fat dieters ate -11 grams below the average. > Also, low fat and low carb diets are not opposites of one another, and > they both restrict most of junk food. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34); } > "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." >> > Low-carb v. Low-fat: How they stack up after one year* >> > Results....................................Low-fat.......Low-carb [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > more than the average diet and the low-fat dieters ate -11 grams below the > average. I removed extraneous lines to make sure you see which column is titled low carb and which column is titled low fat. Apparently, low fat dieters eat more protein and low carb dieters eat less protein. This is counterintuitive as most protein comes packaged with fat. Think most meats, most fish, eggs, cheese, milk, etc. Protein without fat is more of an exception than the rule. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." > I removed extraneous lines to make sure you see which column is titled > low carb and which column is titled low fat. Apparently, low fat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Protein without fat is more of an exception than the rule. It seems that low-carbers ate 500 less calories per day though, likely due to the appetite-supressant effcts of a ketogenic diet. It's hard to say though, there just isn't enough information about what constitutes low-fat or low-carb in this study. But it doesn't surprise me *too* much if low-fat dieters ate more protein since they ate more overall. They'd choose chicken breasts over hamburger, but hunger on a low-fat diet could push the numbers up. Also... I buy the groceries here - and I don't buy more meat since I began doing low-carb. Surprisingly enough, I buy a whole heck of a lot less bacon than I used to. I buy a lot less hamburger too. I don't *limit* meat in any way, I just seem to buy less of it. Contrary to the stereotypes of a low-carb diet, our familial dairy and vegetable intake has increased, but our meat intake has actually decreased. Given that I'm the only one who specifically changed diets here, I assume that difference in grocery shopping is due to me low-carbing.  SignatureAs you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value. Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets. -- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food :: This is counterintuitive as most protein comes packaged with :: fat. Think most meats, most fish, eggs, cheese, milk, etc. :: :: Protein without fat is more of an exception than the rule. One point: the fact tht protein usually comes with fat is significant. Our removal of fat from protein is likely wrong. > I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low > carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition > suggests. There are high protien, low fat foods. There are low carb/high fat foods that are low protien. Steve SignatureSteve http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/ "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen on television or bought in a shopping mall" >> I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low >> carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition >> suggests. > > There are high protien, low fat foods. well, sure, just not very many. Some lean fish, chicken breast, and some very lean meats, but it is not that much compared to high fat/high protein food. I still suspect that someone put these two numbers into wrong columns. I initially suepected that column headings got switched by mistake, but no, other data does seem to fit the actual headings, in some other instances. > There are low carb/high fat foods that are low protien. sure, like butter or lard or oils... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." >>>I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low >>>carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > some very lean meats, but it is not that much compared to high > fat/high protein food. Most legumes( dozens of legumes, dozens of recipies ), low fat cottage cheese, low fat yogurt, skim milk, along with what you mention that is quite a variety. Many vegtables also have more protien per calorie then just about anything else and they are low in fat. He he, the trick is being able to eat a sufficent number of calories with them, like with spinach. >>There are low carb/high fat foods that are low protien. > > sure, like butter or lard or oils... ice cream, cookies, cakes, coconut, avodcados, many sauces, and all of the recipes, oils, butters etc are used in. Steve SignatureSteve http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/ "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen on television or bought in a shopping mall" Mmmmmmmm, butter. In news:c8d3uu$sci$2@pita.alt.net, Ignoramus13397 <ignoramus13397@NOSPAM.13397.invalid> stated || There are low carb/high fat foods that are low protien. | | sure, like butter or lard or oils... | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} | "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." Bullshit. Any diet that requires you to feel hunger all the time is by definition a loser. SignatureBob Kanyak's Doghouse http://www.kanyak.com > Bullshit. Any diet that requires you to feel hunger all the > time is by definition a loser. Not sure what you are replying to with this one, but I agree 100%. If I'm constantly hungry I'm miserable. I lost a ton of weight on a low fat diet about 20 years ago, but after 10 months I finally fell off the wagon. I was constantly hungry every waking hour, from the minute I woke up until the minute I went sleep - and I finally just could not stand being hungry all the time like that. Debbie I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never felt deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a years now) nicely and easily... That being said.. low fat doesn't mean no fat.. and as with everything else, I think the way to go is all in moderation.. carbs, fat, whatever.. there is nothing I can't eat.. it's all a matter of choices.. SignatureWill~ The problem with this world is stupidity, now I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself? > > Bullshit. Any diet that requires you to feel hunger all the > > time is by definition a loser. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Debbie >I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never felt >deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a years [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I think the way to go is all in moderation.. carbs, fat, whatever.. there is >nothing I can't eat.. it's all a matter of choices.. It all depends on the individual -- no matter how much some people may want it to be so, there's no "one size fits all" when it comes to diet. As some suffering from serious insulin resistance -- made worse by years of yo-yo dieting -- I was never successful on a low-fat, low-calorie diet. I felt like I was starving to death, my blood sugar was so low I wanted to commit murder and my mood swings were deadly. And my weight loss was sloooooooow. Deathly slow. Even with starvation-level calories, which for me had to be well below what was recommended or else I couldn't drop a pound. A low-carb diet, on the other hand, has equalized my blood sugar, eliminated my mood swings, elevated my mood and I don't feel like I'm starving to death. And I've lost weight at a nice clip -- at a considerably higher calorie level than on a low-fat diet. Is it for everyone? No, of course not. Most people really just need to cut back on calories and exercise more. If low-fat does that for them and they're eating in a healthy fashion, great. But for some of us, low-carb is definitely a superior diet. Nobody's body's the same. Dawn > >I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never felt > >deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a years [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > want it to be so, there's no "one size fits all" when it comes to > diet. Agreed > As some suffering from serious insulin resistance -- made worse by > years of yo-yo dieting -- I was never successful on a low-fat, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > starvation-level calories, which for me had to be well below what was > recommended or else I couldn't drop a pound. sounds bad > A low-carb diet, on the other hand, has equalized my blood sugar, > eliminated my mood swings, elevated my mood and I don't feel like I'm [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dawn I agree.. I have to admit I'm dedicated to Weight watchers and their plan has fitted me like a glove since the begining.. can't say that I'm a food nazi or a food cop though.. I eat what I want.. when I want.. generally 6 to 8 meals a day.. just controlling the portions.. *shrugs* works for me.. ;o) Good luck on your life Journey ! SignatureWill~ The problem with this world is stupidity, now I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself? >As some suffering from serious insulin resistance -- made worse by >years of yo-yo dieting -- I was never successful on a low-fat, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >starving to death. And I've lost weight at a nice clip -- at a >considerably higher calorie level than on a low-fat diet. My 78 year old mother has diabetes. I gave her the South Beach diet book for Christmas. On her last visit to her doctor, he took her off one of her meds and told to stay on the diet because it was working. > I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never felt > deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a years > now) nicely and easily... cheetos are not low fat... http://www.dietfacts.com/item.asp?itemid=6051 i > > I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never felt > > deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a years [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > i On a low-fat diet it's the overall fat intake and not the fat contained in one food. I've done low-fat before but didn't give up the high fat content foods I liked - just had to limit the quantity. O-O OMG.... REALLY ????????? SignatureWill~ The problem with this world is stupidity, now I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself? > > I lost 70 lbs in 9 months on a low-fat died, never got hungry... never felt > > deprived (ate cheetos every night *blush*) and am maintaining (over a years [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > i >> I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low >> carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition >> suggests. > > There are high protien, low fat foods. There are low carb/high fat > foods that are low protien. Exactly. And, low-fat protein (albacore tuna, for instance) can be quite filling. Low fat dieters, like low-carb dieters, also seek foods that they can eat in small quantities and yet feel satisfied. As a low-carb dieter I find I do *not* eat "more protein", contrary to popular myth. There may be the few who get caught in the act by the media (that silly couple who pigged out on roast beef at the buffet restaurant for example), but that is entirely their actions, and it is certainly not definitive of the low-carb diet. Increasing protein is *not* a requirement of a low-carb diet. My fat intake, however, has increased, because I enjoy olive oil and good fats accompanying my food. Also, my intake of low-starch vegetables, greens, etc, has increased dramatically. YMMV SignatureThe post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion and experience. Please interpret accordingly. Ignoramus13397 wrote: > I find it impossible that low fat dieters ate more protein, and low > carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition > suggests. The fun part is it shows that both low carbing and low fatting work. If only that were obvious enough to justify a duh, sigh. "Find it impossible" is irrelevant. "Contray to intuition" is irrelevant. Measured observed facts are exactly that, measured, observed, facts. Are you saying the studies lie in stated facts? Or are you actually saying your intuition leads you down the worng road? Check, wrong road. All this shows is what non-low-carbers wildly dream that low-carbers eat is a wild dream. And for that matter it shows that low-fatters eat more than many think. Low carbing causes appetite suppression in most people. It's the greatest advantage low carb has going for it. It explains most of the rest of the numbers. Lower appetite, less drive to eat more food. Fat tends to reduce appetite and carbs tend to increase appetite, so low carbers tend to eat less. It's interesting that by month six, there was little different between low fat and low carb. Some will have reached goal and once at goal it no longer matters how you got there you will stay the same weight. I wonder how much difference that made. I do know that the metabolic advantage of ketosis gets less and less as you have less to lose, but I thought similar happened on low fat. > Ignoramus13397 wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > less as you have less to lose, but I thought similar happened > on low fat. The problem with studies like this is that there are so many variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie. However, to be really good, a study should split groups into multiple "to lose" weight classes (i.e., this takes into account body type so that a muscular but obese person wouldn't be the same as a person of thin stature but obese). The study should regulate or at least try to determine how much exercising is done. How do we know that people on the low carb diet didn't simply exercise more? If the study really wants to study Atkins, then carbs should increase after induction (a mere two weeks long). Also, did you note that saturated fat was less on the low carb group? SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > The problem with studies like this is that there are so many variables. > Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I think low carb > is the way to go and low fat is a lie. Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low fat is "a lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems to work for some. Signaturejmk in NC >> The problem with studies like this is that there are so many >> variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I >> think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie. > > Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low fat is "a > lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems to work for some. I think it does work for some. The problem is that I thought I was one of those people. I ate low fat for many years. I developed insulin resistance. Was that genetic predisposition or the low fat diet? I don't know, but I wouldn't hesitate to say the latter or at least a combination of the two. Moreover, I could eat pasta or brown rice and be hungry with an hour or even a half-hour of eating. Even if one believes that saturated fat is bad (which I no longer do), "low fat" has to include fat such as olive oil and nuts. These things sate me whereas true low fat products do not. So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or exacerbate insulin resistance and requires one to forego potentially useful fats. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply >>> The problem with studies like this is that there are so many >>> variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or exacerbate > insulin resistance and requires one to forego potentially useful fats. But couldn't one argue that many low-carb dieters forgo potentially useful fruits and vegetables? Does that make low-carb "a lie?" I don't think that weight management is a one size fits all approach -- not even close to it. Signaturejmk in NC >>>> The problem with studies like this is that there are so many >>>> variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I don't think that weight management is a one size fits all approach -- > not even close to it. What you say is true. Nonetheless, low carb has helped me lessen my insulin resistance, raise my HDL, lower my triglycerides, and improve my total choleserol/HDL ratio. Plus, I actually eat more vegetables (and selected fruits) on low carb than I did on low fat. On low fat, I couldn't eat salad dressings, so I typically ate more beans and whole grains. For whatever reason, I neglected vegetables (although I did eat tomatoes, corn, etc.), although I did eat fruits. What I've found is that I feel so much better on low carb than on low fat. That's another lie -- carbs give you energy. I workout more now than I ever have. I also am way less depressed now than when I was on low fat -- the blood sugar highs and lows on low fat became so bad that I was always depressed. Yet one more lie (or at least something the low fat proponents don't tell you) is blood sugar swings. Yet another lie is that saturated fat is bad. Yet another lie is that fat itself is bad. What about olive oil and nuts? Should I go on? SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply >>>>> The problem with studies like this is that there are so many >>>>> variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Should I go on? Ah heck, I'll continue. Yet another lie is that it's healtier, a la the food pyramid, to eat a plate a pasta than to eat vegetables. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply :: On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:27:12 GMT, Bob in CT <ctviggen.x@adelphia.net> :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] :: Ah heck, I'll continue. Yet another lie is that it's healtier, a la :: the food pyramid, to eat a plate a pasta than to eat vegetables. Note that many of these "lies" can still be the result of excess. Eating too much pasta is as bad as eating too much fat. I'm not sure if it is possible to eat too many veggies. They seem to have a self limiting effect. [cut] > :: Ah heck, I'll continue. Yet another lie is that it's healtier, a la > :: the food pyramid, to eat a plate a pasta than to eat vegetables. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > possible to eat too many veggies. They seem to have a self limiting > effect. That's true, which is why pasta should not be lower on the food pyramid than vegetables. I never have blood sugar spikes after eating vegetables, but I do after eating pasta (even cooked al dente, which supposedly is low glycemic). Plus, I never want to eat too many vegetables, whereas pasta basically lacks any nutrition and is a highly concentrated source of calories (when's the last time you ate two ounces of pasta? Well, for me, it's been a long time since I've had pasta) and causes me to want more food. I believe that pasta and rice and wheat should be at the top of the food pyramid. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply >[cut] >> :: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That's true, which is why pasta should not be lower on the food pyramid >than vegetables. That may be why the pyramid is about to be overhauled. Have a look at the proposed pyramid: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html >[cut] >> :: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >food. I believe that pasta and rice and wheat should be at the top of the >food pyramid. Doesn't cause me to want more food... pasta is very filling. Two ounces is in fact the amount I fix for a serving of pasta. Usually I eat whole wheat pasta if I'm gonna eat it at all. If I eat it at a restaurant... it's almost a sure bet I will leave a good portion on my plate, because it is that filling. Cynthia > Doesn't cause me to want more food... pasta is very filling. Two > ounces is in fact the amount I fix for a serving of pasta. Usually I > eat whole wheat pasta if I'm gonna eat it at all. This is why you're a low fatter, I suspect. Makes sense since that works for you. For me, pasta sends me into a binge of eating everything in sight. Worse than just making me more hungry, I have some some of addictive reaction to it. And that's why I'm a low carber. Good demonstration of how everyone is different. There are clear trends, even if it's easy to find individual exceptions. The existance of a single exception doesn't disprove a trend. To disprove a trend you need to count many people and gather the data. In general, eating more carbs makes more people more hungry and less people less hungry. In general, eating more fat makes more people less hungry and less people more hungry. (There's an important caveat here that eating both together is a problem for most people. Ice cream, being high in both sugar and fat, is a big problem for most). That trend is why low carbing is currently more popular than low fatting. Both systems work for plenty of people, but many people get very hungry while low fatting and fewer people get very hungry while low carbing (except the tough first week). However you do it, being able to lose weight without being constantly hungry is the way to go. > That trend is why low carbing is currently more popular than > low fatting. Both systems work for plenty of people, but many > people get very hungry while low fatting and fewer people get > very hungry while low carbing (except the tough first week). > However you do it, being able to lose weight without being > constantly hungry is the way to go. Hell, I don't even have to actively "low carb" to get the appetite-suppressing benefits of a high-protein & high-fat diet. My little 1oz serving of smoke-flavored almonds can tide me over for hours now. It may be psychosomatic, but I've found shooting for a 30-30-30 distribution of macronutrients to be really easy to stick to. It probably helps that I exercise at least 6 hrs/week, too. 1500-2000 kcal/day of eating is more than enough headroom to not have to worry about a couple of grams of fat here and there. I *would* starve to death if I were to do my 1000 kcal/day exercise sessions and then tried to live on a low-fat diet, plus I think there is some counter-intuitive physiologic support somewhere that it is best to eat (within reason) some fat when losing fat; my theory is that it keeps the body from panicking about the diet... >>Doesn't cause me to want more food... pasta is very filling. Two >>ounces is in fact the amount I fix for a serving of pasta. Usually I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > a trend. To disprove a trend you need to count many people and > gather the data. I don't really agree with you there. > In general, eating more carbs makes more people more hungry and > less people less hungry. Not really. It depends on the carbs. If you are eating simple sugars that sure, maybe your trend applies. > That trend is why low carbing is currently more popular than > low fatting. For the first six months people seem to take of weight faster. Beyond that???? > Both systems work for plenty of people True Signaturejmk in NC > > There are clear trends, even if it's easy to find individual > > exceptions. The existance of a single exception doesn't disprove > > a trend. To disprove a trend you need to count many people and > > gather the data. > > I don't really agree with you there. Doesn't matter because it isn't something you can agree with and have your opinion matter. Data isn't about agreement and opinion, it is about experiment design and observation. In statistical trends it is the data that matters. In statistical trends there are always counterexamples and the mere existance of those counterexamples are irrelevant to those the understand the nature of statistical trends. The hard part in a statistical trend is having the data to demonstrate that the trend exists in the first place, not the folks who constantly raise up irrelevant counterexamples. There's a reason such folks don't make a living as scientists, engineers, actuaries and so on. In the low-carb debate, the data is coming in that low carbing has a clear-cut short term advantage over low fatting, but that advantage only lasts the first 6 months. Where the data is lacking is among different types of low carb plans. I track postings because it's the only existing data of that type so far, and I await the day real data is generated that compares among low carb plans. > > In general, eating more carbs makes more people more hungry and > > less people less hungry. > > Not really. It depends on the carbs. If you are eating simple sugars > that sure, maybe your trend applies. It's a complex interaction. Consider alcohol consumption. Few who drink small amounts of it end up addicted. More who drink large amounts of it end up addicted. As a trend over-consumption tracks addiction. How much of that trend is a shared-cause rather than a cause-and-effect is unknown. Compare with sugar. When sugar was a rare commodity, when most sugar cane was turned into rum because shipping had such a small capacity that shipping sugar was impractical, did large number of people end up addicted? I bet not. But now with railroads and container ships I can be burried in sugar if I feel like it. And sure enough that excess access has led to excess consumption and that excess consumption has led to addicts. I think over exposure makes many folks more reactive to sugary carb foods. I think that reaction can spread to other carb sources because it is based on insulin rather like insulin plays a big role in alcohol addiction. And as you point out, who ever has problems with a carb source as difuse as cauliflower? ;^) > > That trend is why low carbing is currently more popular than > > low fatting. > > For the first six months people seem to take of weight faster. Beyond > that???? Most folks are in the early phases because there's high drop-out no matter what plan you're on. So in some sense the advantage in the first 6 months is very important. But after the first 6 months I'm more interested in how hard the two options are to stick to. I have to admit my personal bias makes me incapable of objectivity on the topic. I can stick to a low fat plan as long as two weeks then forget it. I can stick to a low carb plan for at least 6 months before having a major falling off. In the case of low fat I find it nearly impossible to get back on the wagon. In the case of low carb I have gotten back on the wagon every time I've fallen off for almost 5 years at this point. I find low fatting pushes me off but on low carbing I have to jump off myself. I am not alone in this. While low fatting works for *many* people, low carbing does appear to work for more because of this. > > Both systems work for plenty of people > > True It takes all types. [snip] thought it funny that I was muching on my lunchtime serving of smoked almonds (140 fat calories, 24 protein calories) and knocking back my afternoon water while reading that well-written post... > :: On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:27:12 GMT, Bob in CT <ctviggen.x@adelphia.net> > :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > too much pasta is as bad as eating too much fat. I'm not sure if it is > possible to eat too many veggies. They seem to have a self limiting effect. Fat has a very strong self-limiting effect. The problem with pasta, bread, potatoes and other starch is that there is basically no satiation feedback. Starch can be consumed until the stomach is stretched to the limit. But with any food consumption moderation is the key. Ideally one would eat only at the point of hunger. People are often surprised to find that if they downsize their meal portions there isn't the expected price paid in hunger. > Fat has a very strong self-limiting effect. The problem with pasta, > bread, potatoes and other starch is that there is basically no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are often surprised to find that if they downsize their meal portions > there isn't the expected price paid in hunger. again today I put in a 2 1/2hr bike ride (4:00 -> 6:30pm) on a bowl of cereal at 7:00AM and 1oz of almonds for lunch at 12:00, plus 40oz of half-strength gatorade during the ride and 1/2 cup of pudding at the turnaround point. Today's intake (so far): Fat: 7g / 63kcal Simple Carbs: 84g / 336 kcal Protein: 16g / 64 kcal Total calories in so far, ~500. I'm not knowledgeable about the science of carbing up before/during exercise (general working theory for me is to maintain enough carbs to handle the BMR while exercising and hopefully body fat and not muscle will get burned for the extra power load of activity -- I'm trying to err on the side of not 'bonking' during cycling, since the idea is to feel energetic not shitty, and I'm riding for fitness rather than straight loss anyway). I'm going to be eating my usual ~1500kcal dinner, but as I type this now I'm not starving at all (certainly hungry, but no stomach growling or discomfort). The caloric deficit is going to be high today (1500 or so), but when I do two hours on the bike I usually skip a day of exercise to not get too far ahead of my intended loss rate (2lb/week). >>>>> The problem with studies like this is that there are so many >>>>> variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >Should I go on? Cynthia >>>>> The problem with studies like this is that there are so many >>>>> variables. Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >grains. For whatever reason, I neglected vegetables (although I did eat >tomatoes, corn, etc.), although I did eat fruits. The fact that you ate more beans and grains than vegetables doesn't make low fat a lie... and low fat doesn't mean you can't have salad dressing... you just have to limit the amount. Low fat is not NO fat... just like low carb is not NO carb. >What I've found is that I feel so much better on low carb than on low >fat. That's another lie -- carbs give you energy. I workout more now [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >saturated fat is bad. Yet another lie is that fat itself is bad. What >about olive oil and nuts? I'm glad it works for you. But if you say that a low fat diet lies to say that fat itself is bad... then what about low carb, which implies that carbs are bad. You know that's not true... veggies have very useful carbs indeed! Also, not everyone has blood sugar swings doing low fat. You did, so it probably wasn't for you. But that's not a problem for everyone. I had olive oil and nuts on a low fat diet... in limited quantity. And saturated fats too, again, in limited quantity. I have them now on a modified carb diet... in limited quantity still. If I eat unlimited quantity... I gain weight, plain and simple. Now, something I've found for myself, is rather the opposite of what most low carb folks experience. When I cut back my carbs too much, I get cravings for sweets like you wouldn't BELIEVE! Cravings that I have *never* gotten doing low or modified fat diets. I normally am much more of a "salty crunchy chips" person than a "sweets" person. And the really odd thing is that sweet stuff... say ice cream, or a candy bar, once eaten, really kills hunger for me, often for hours and hours. I don't like the stuff that much, as it makes me feel TOO full in very small quantity. I can easily self limit on sweets, because I just can't eat much of them at once. Whereas with things like nuts... I can eat tons of them. So I could quite easily claim that low carb LIES about stopping cravings... or that eating sweets brings on hunger is a total lie, but I don't, because this is true for me and not necessarily true for anyone else. Basically, just because something doesn't work for you personally doesn't make it a lie for the rest of the world. Of course we are all entitled to our own experiences, but realize they are just that and be content with your good progress. There's no need to bash others, just because something didn't work out for you. Cynthia > > > > Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I > > > > think low carb is the way to go and low fat is a lie. > > > > Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low fat is > > > "a lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems to work for some. In my opinion it was the claim that low fat must be the only valid way to go no matter the lack of evidence. Certainly low fat is a valid way to go for plenty of folks. But certainty not all folks. When it started to come out that low fat was the only possible healthy way of eating, obesity spread into an epidemic. Clearly it fails to work for some. Heck if crazy doctors all switched to saying low carb was the only possible healthy way of eating I expect teh same would happen just a different set of obese folks. Different strokes for different folks isn't just a corny sounding folk saying. It's valid science. > > I think it does work for some. The problem is that I thought I was one > > of those people. I ate low fat for many years. I developed insulin [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So, I think low fat is a lie because it appears to cause or exacerbate > > insulin resistance and requires one to forego potentially useful fats. And if their hadn't been decades of pressure that low fat must be the only valid answer, you would have tried it for a while and then moved on to something else. Exactly. And in the meantime others tried low fat and it worked for them. Good for those folks. > But couldn't one argue that many low-carb dieters forgo potentially > useful fruits and vegetables? Only those who refuse to follow the directions. > Does that make low-carb "a lie?" No it makes the average IQ be 100. Following the directions is nasty hard work, book stuff. > I don't think that weight management is a one size fits all approach -- > not even close to it. Exactly. ::: On 5/18/2004 2:24 PM, Bob in CT wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: exacerbate insulin resistance and requires one to forego potentially :: useful fats. I think low-fat is a lie in the sense that it leads one to believe that fat is bad. In the same sense, low-carb is a lie if one comes to the conclusion that carbs are bad. Excess carbs are bad as is excess fat. Too much of both is a killer combination. Excessive calorie intake seems to be the real problem. Low-fat is not a lie in the sense that if you reduce calories, you lose fat. In that same sense, low carb is not a lie. As a type 2 diabetic, I was able to lose fat on a low-fat diet. I ate a lot because I had appetitie. However, I also exercised like a maniac (and hurt myself), and as result, lost weight. On low carb, I don't have that appetite, and hence don't have to go overboard on exercise. I feel maintenance will be easier for me on low carb. Low carb doesn't *seem* to support the same volume of exercise for me that low fat did, but then again, I'm more than 10 years older now while doing low carb. > ::: On 5/18/2004 2:24 PM, Bob in CT wrote: > ::: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > again, > I'm more than 10 years older now while doing low carb. I think if you can exercise enough, then low fat might not be bad. I used to walk many miles per day while in college, bike 3-4 days a week, lift weights, play raquetball, etc. Now, I exercise more in terms of volume (I bike a lot more miles now, for instance) for individual exercises, but my overall activity level in college was much higher. For instance, I walked a ton in college but never walk now. The problem comes in when you get hurt, as I did in an African dance class (while biking and taking tennis lessons). My ankle injury basically stopped all exercising. So, you're eating a ton of carbs that have no where to go other than to increase your insulin resistance. If you're Lance Armstrong, you can eat a low fat diet; if you're suddenly an engineer with a desk job and an injury that prevents you from exercising, you can't. I think the problem is that low fat is perceived to be "right." Fat is bad, regardless of the type of fat. That's total BS and the government deserves to be sued for forcing the "food pyramid" on us without a shred of evidence supporting it. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply :: On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:26:07 -0400, Roger Zoul :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] :: if you're suddenly an engineer with a desk job and an injury that :: prevents you from exercising, you can't. That pretty much is exactly my exerience... :: I think the problem is that low fat is perceived to be "right." Fat :: is bad, regardless of the type of fat. That's total BS and the :: government deserves to be sued for forcing the "food pyramid" on us :: without a shred of evidence supporting it. Right. Which, imo, is why the government ought to get out of the business being big brother. Same goes for insurance companies, but that isn't quite as bad since we know they have a vested interest. Government should be neutral and objective. :: -- :: Bob in CT :: Remove ".x" to reply >Right. Which, imo, is why the government ought to get out of the business >being big brother. Same goes for insurance companies, but that isn't quite >as bad since we know they have a vested interest. Government should be >neutral and objective. I would agree about the gubbermint. They really do need to get out of the businesses they don't do very well, which includes almost everything that doesn't involve hurting people and breaking things. I'm not aware of insurance companies pushing any particular diet (I'm a Texas-licensed agent). Insurance companies make their money by being able to accurately predict what will happen in large groups of people, so I would think that they would catch on to trends a bit faster than the gubbermint, if for no other reason than a vested interest in paying attention. The gubbermint doesn't have any reliably accurate feedback mechanism. Howard@FreshCoffee.biz http://www.ryze.com/go/HowardH >I think if you can exercise enough, then low fat might not be bad. One thing that Ornish clearly demonstrated in his 'research' was that exercise is so good for you, it will actually neutralize or even reverse some of the damage done by his unnatural low-fat diet. Having actually experienced "low-fat rage" first-hand, I would *never* go that route again. Plus, once I got rid of the bread and all other grains, my hands quit hurting all the time. The choice to go low-carb is a no-brainer. Howard@FreshCoffee.biz http://www.ryze.com/go/HowardH > > The problem with studies like this is that there are so many variables. > > Granted, I'm glad that low carb showed what it did, as I think low carb > > is the way to go and low fat is a lie. > > Bob, could you please explain this? Why do you think that low fat is "a > lie?" What do you mean by that? It certainly seems to work for some. IF the real cause of hear disease is increased insulin secretion due to metabolic syndrome, which is quite probably right now, then high-carb / low-fat diet is simply the worst imaginable diet for the purpose it is usually recommended. Mirek While I agree with your general philosophy, I am afraid that some numbers became switched in the press release. i > Ignoramus13397 wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > less as you have less to lose, but I thought similar happened > on low fat. Signature---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." > While I agree with your general philosophy, I am afraid that some > numbers became switched in the press release. but you don't know that yet. Steve SignatureSteve http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/ "The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen on television or bought in a shopping mall" :: While I agree with your general philosophy, I am afraid that some :: numbers became switched in the press release. I admit that I find the numbers a bit odd too. I certainly don't think LC is high protein, but I would not have guessed that LC dieters eat less protein than LC dieters, for the reasons you mentioned. If that is true, then what does that mean for the supposed "protein sparing" benefit of LC? LC dieters are thought to retain a greater precentage of muscle mass than LF dieters. There are studies supporting that, aren't there? :: i :: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] :: -- :: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} :: "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." > :: While I agree with your general philosophy, I am afraid that some > :: numbers became switched in the press release. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > than LF > dieters. There are studies supporting that, aren't there? What about that the low carbers ate less saturated fat. How is that possible? While I don't go out of my way to eat saturated fat, on low fat, I ate nothing but skinless white chicken and the leanest meats I could find, and I NEVER added oils to anything. If I used an oil for cooking, it was olive oil, and even then it was a teaspoon. My fat content was less than 10% of my calories. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply :: On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:29:39 -0400, Roger Zoul :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] :: an oil for cooking, it was olive oil, and even then it was a :: teaspoon. My fat content was less than 10% of my calories. Yeah, that seems unlikely too. Sounds like the entire thing is screwed up. >:: On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:29:39 -0400, Roger Zoul >:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Yeah, that seems unlikely too. Sounds like the entire thing is screwed up. one wonders about the conclusions of the study, as well. Something is fishy. i Signature---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." >one wonders about the conclusions of the study, as well. If this 'study' is typical of what passes for research in nutrition, the conclusions were written & approved first. The actual study was an afterthought. Howard@FreshCoffee.biz http://www.ryze.com/go/HowardH > I admit that I find the numbers a bit odd too. I certainly don't think LC > is high protein, but I would not have guessed that LC dieters eat less > protein than LC dieters, for the reasons you mentioned. If that is true, > then what does that mean for the supposed "protein sparing" benefit of LC? > LC dieters are thought to retain a greater precentage of muscle mass than LF > dieters. There are studies supporting that, aren't there? Perhaps it has to do something with protein quality too? I think low-fat means a lot of protein from plant sources, which are incomplete and often can be used only as energy. LC might bring better mix of aminoacids. Mirek ::: I admit that I find the numbers a bit odd too. I certainly don't ::: think LC is high protein, but I would not have guessed that LC [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: incomplete and often can be used only as energy. LC might bring :: better mix of aminoacids. Could be, but did the study break down protein in this way? >> I admit that I find the numbers a bit odd too. I certainly don't > think LC [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mirek compare my typical low carb and low fat days: Low carb: eggs, cheese, meat, salsa for breakfast. Chicken/other meat for lunch. Snack is salad with oil and vinegar. Another snack might be another vegetable. Dinner is yet another type of meat (this week, ground meat), and another vegetable. Usually, onions and tomatoes and salsa but maybe green beans with pine nuts and butter. I usually have nuts, yogurt, and fruit (berries). I generally add light cream to my coffee and sour cream to breakfast or dinner or both. Low fat: oats for breakfast (no milk, no sugar, no nothing). Lunch is pasta with low fat tomato sauce I made myself. If I ate a salad, I ate it plain (absolutely no olive oil -- that's fat). Dinner would be brown rice, beans, corn, tomotoes, onions, and salsa. I might have low fat meat with whole wheat bread. I never added oil or butter to anything, save when I cooked, then I added a tiny amount. I might have chicken breast or tuna in water. For my coffee, I drank it black. If I ate dairy, it was always the "no fat" variety. For instance, I might have skim milk with some high fiber cereal. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply >:: While I agree with your general philosophy, I am afraid that some >:: numbers became switched in the press release. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > LC dieters are thought to retain a greater precentage of muscle mass than LF > dieters. There are studies supporting that, aren't there? Yep... Someone really ought to contact the researchers over this, to see if nothing got mixed up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." Yeah, I'm not sure how helpful this study is without knowing the weights of the people involved. My prior experiences with dieting when I was younger was just to cut back on total consumption, I never did low fat, just eating less worked. I was more active then, of course, and one thing that makes it easier to eat less is to be involved in activities that keep you so busy that you don't think about food so much. In news:7960d3ee.0405181001.6d4ae236@posting.google.com, Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> stated | The fun part is it shows that both low carbing and low fatting | work. If only that were obvious enough to justify a duh, sigh. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] | less as you have less to lose, but I thought similar happened | on low fat. > > Low-carb v. Low-fat: How they stack up after one year* > > Results....................................Low-fat.......Low-carb [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > carb dieters ate less protein. It is contrary to what intuition > suggests. What a pity they did not traced protein sources too, and that way protein quality. I suppose one might find that low-fat dieters ate more protein (because protein is present in many high-carb meals like rice and grains), but less complete protein. Mirek |
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.