The pendulum is starting to swing back 5 years before I thought it would

[Grizzly]

CHICAGO (AP) - In the midst of the low-carb craze, a new study suggests that by eating lots of carbohydrates and little fat, it is possible to lose weight without actually cutting calories - and without exercising, either.

The study was small, consisting of just 34 overweight adults who either ate the recommended diet for three months; ate the recommended diet and exercised regularly; or ate pretty much what they usually eat.

All meals were prepared for participants, who were instructed to eat as much as they wanted. They also were told to return any uneaten food, which the researchers said enabled them to calculate calorie intake.

Many doctors dispute whether people can lose weight without reducing their food intake, and at least one questioned the study's accuracy.

But the diet is more compatible with conventional notions of healthful eating than the fatty, low-carbohydrate Atkins and South Beach diets.

Participants on the recommended diet lost about 7 pounds without cutting calories and without exercise, and almost 11 pounds with 45 minutes of stationary bike-riding four times weekly. The control group lost no weight.

The findings appear in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine.

Gary Foster, clinical director of the University of Pennsylvania's Weight and Eating Disorders Program, said he suspects participants who lost weight ate less than what was reported. He said that while he recommends a low-fat, high carb diet to patients, without calorie reduction it would be ``a public health disaster.''

``The whole idea that you could lose weight without reducing energy intake flies in the face of 100 years of data,'' Foster said.

Lead author William Evans of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences stood by his findings.

``Calories in minus calories out does not always determine the amount of weight loss,'' Evans said. ``This is because we metabolize fats and carbohydrates very differently.''

American Dietetic Association spokeswoman Cindy Moore agreed and said with low-carb diets hogging the spotlight, ``it may be a reminder that we can lose weight in a variety of different ways.''

Foods on the successful diets included high-fiber cereal, vegetarian chili, whole-wheat spaghetti, many fruits and vegetables, and skim milk. Daily calories totaled about 2,400, similar to participants' usual consumption.

The control group also received prepared meals with similar calories, but the foods included sausage, scrambled eggs, macaroni and cheese, French fries, whole milk and fewer fruits and vegetables.

The successful diet was not tested against Atkins and other low-carb regimens, which contain more fat and fewer carbs than the control group diet.


On the Web:

Archives of Internal Medicine: http://www.archinternmed.com

Copyright: Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



The only real problem I see with this study is the 2400 cal/day figure. I don't know any overweight people who only eat 2400cal/day.

 

[ratmonkey]

i don't know any normal person who truely eats below 3000 cals a day normally. all that soda and candy adds up fast.

 

[larinjon]

i don't know any normal person who truely eats below 3000 cals a day normally. all that soda and candy adds up fast.

I have a hard time getting 2500 a day! But I try to make most of mine protein - no candy and sodas for me ...

 

[thick]

just another way for someone to sell a book and make loads of money off the gullible public. I didn't follow the link so I may be mistaken but I am betting a few individuals are going to come out nicely from this

 

[Grizzly]

That's my point, Thick. I really thought it would take another 5 years or so for someone to revive the 80/90's high carb, low fat, med protein craze, but I guess it's happening right now.

It's kind of like the revival of clubbells and kettlebells. There's only so much money to be made off of barbells, so they have to take shit that's been defunct for 50-100 years and make it sound cool again.

 

[jaysmithinwesson]

i bennifit from that diet. my carbs as they stated are complex, not simple like soda and candy. thats where a lot of people get confused on the types of carbs. if i consume as much prot as you guys i just get fat.

 

[Ramstein II]

Low Fat Diet

Interesting study, Grizzly.

I have never bought into low carb diets, except when getting rid of water weight, and then I'd never go past 2 days of low carb.

First, the presence of dietary carbs ensures that your body will not burn its body protein. Carbs spare protein.

Second, the body will always store carbs as carbs (glycogen) or burn them, except when glycogen stores are full. I have found that training with high volume keeps glycogen depleted which decreases the risk of carbs being stored as fat and increases the chances of them being stored as glycogen. It is possible to overeat anything, so calories do count. Ultimately, in the long run calorie balance will determine weight gain or loss. You can supersaturate your muscles with glycogen for short term lean weight gain. THat's what "carbing up" is. The exception to this rule is fructose which is only stored in the liver as glycogen (which fills up fast) or is burned immediately, or is stored as fat.

Third, the supercompensation mechanism for both protein synthesis and for supersaturation of ATP, CP, glycogen, and glyco-proteins is dependant on carbs. Intermuscular glycogen stores make up a great portion of your "lean mass." When you deplete this your muscles flatten.

Fourth, when you train anearobically, like we do, your body burns carbs for energy. Your body uses two different anaerobic pathways, one involving glycogen and the other involving ATP and CP. WHen carbs are depleted the most abundant source of "food" for is protein, which can easily come from your muscles. When carbs are depleted your anaerobic workout will suffer.

Fifth, your brain is a glucose hound. When on low carb your brain has to rely on ketones which would be like burning wet wood in your fireplace--it's just not as good, hence the brain drain.

Sixth, it is so easy to achieve a calorie deficit when eating low fat. The saying that "carbs make you fat," is only ture if you eat them with dietary fat. When eaten together the insulin response works on the dietary fat to store it. WHen there is little dietary fat the insulin merely stores the carbs as glycogen or shuttles them into working muscles to be used immediately. There is some suggestion also that eating carbs and protein together helps the body shuttle amino acids into muscles for repair. The result is that you can fuel your body all day long with carbs, fuel your muscle repair with protein while achieving a calorie deficit from the lack of calories from fat. The result is that you get through your day with plenty of energy and burn fat while you sleep on a fasted stomach. At night you release GH which promotes fat loss and the body prepares itself for an overnight fast such that muscle loss is minimal. Sleeping is the most aerobic activity you can do. The body becomes completely oxygenated at night which allows for body fat to burn. Remember, fat needs lots of oxygen to burn. It's like a grease fire.

Seventh, eating low fat/high carb/high protein is much easier to comply with. You're not limited to meat and salad all the time.

Carb choice is important, just as protein and fat choices are. Also, fat is important for the production of hormones. Fat will also slow digestion down so that you are full longer. Monounsaturated fat is good for heart. Fish fat/omega 3s are good for a bunch of things, one being your mental health. Some seeds have good vitamin E which are valuable antioxidants. Fat is also important for your natural body oils to keep your skin healthy. So, fat should never be eliminated.

 

[lylemcd]

That's my point, Thick. I really thought it would take another 5 years or so for someone to revive the 80/90's high carb, low fat, med protein craze, but I guess it's happening right now..

And it looks like it'll be 50 years before people realize that there is no single ideal diet for all people under all cirucmstances.

high carb/low fat (depending on interpretation) is the ideal sometimes, moderate approaches (Zone/Isocaloric) are ideal sometimes and low-carb is ideal sometimes. It depends on a lot of variables including types and amounts of activity, bodyfat percentage, maybe gender, food preferences, and others.

The concept of individualization is apparently lost on 99% of the people on this planet. You don't expect one drug or one anything to be ideal for everyone but when it comes to diet, everybody goes retarded.

Lyle

 

[lylemcd]

Interesting study, Grizzly.

Fifth, your brain is a glucose hound. When on low carb your brain has to rely on ketones which would be like burning wet wood in your fireplace--it's just not as good, hence the brain drain.

Some people feel BETTER running on ketones, some people feel WORSE, some people don't care one way or the other. Just FYI.

Sixth, it is so easy to achieve a calorie deficit when eating low fat.

That altogether depends on the types of carbs people are eating.

When fat became evil, food companies rushed tons of lowfat but energy dense foods to market (think Snackwells and shit). There was also a subconscious belief that, as long as something was low in fat, it didn't matter how much you ate; people compensates for the low-fat nature of the foods by eating MORE. Which is why the low-fat movement failed. Humans are crafty fuckers, left to their own devices, they'll find a way to overeat almost no matter what you do.

Seventh, eating low fat/high carb/high protein is much easier to comply with. You're not limited to meat and salad all the time.

As with running on ketones, this depends on the person.
Your statement is only correct if you change it to "Eating low fat/high carb/high protein is much easier for ME to comply with." I know people who far prefer lowcarb diets.

you are making the common mistake of generalizing YOUR experience to EVERYONE'S experience.

Lyle

 

[thick]

I agree and to add to it, when it comes to lifting it is the same way. One time a week is best, no 3 times /wk no every day/ high intensity no low intensity. THis argument is seen almost daily depending on what the pro's say in the newest m and f magazines etc

 

[Bob Smith]

I agree and to add to it, when it comes to lifting it is the same way. One time a week is best, no 3 times /wk no every day/ high intensity no low intensity. THis argument is seen almost daily depending on what the pro's say in the newest m and f magazines etc

But you can say that the majority of people will respond better to 2-3x/wk workouts as opposed to once a week, assuming that some factors are taken into consideration (volume and intensity). How many people follow the muscle rag programs and end up looking the exact same year after year? Almost all of them.

 

[Ramstein II]

Individualization

Of course idiosyncratic circumstances and individualization determine optimum nutrition. High carb/low fat/high protein is ideal IMO for those who conduct high volume anaerobic training for the reasons I’ve stated, but namely that you burn carbs during this exercise and your glycogen is rarely full. One engaging in low volume activity or who is sedentary would have full glycogen levels very easily and could get fat very easily on high carbs. For those people a more balanced diet, such as Zone or a cyclical keto might be ideal. The key is your glycogen storage level.

 

[Grizzly]

I have agreed with you, Ramstein and currently do agree with Lyle.

Prior to a month ago, I hate ketogenic diets with a passion. I hated them for all the reasons you mentioned, Ramstein. Hence, I used to agree with you.

About a month ago, I decided to try the keto diet just to see what all the fuss was about. Now I agree with Lyle. For me, I really like it. For one, I really like the results I've seen. On top of that, it's the easiest diet I've ever done. Sure, sometimes I feel like shit(probably due to the ephedrine) but it's easy to follow.

If I get a hankering for something tastey, I can always just cook up an omelette. Piece of cake and then I'm satisfied. Beef jerky also comes in handy. Today, I saw some bratwurst at the store and decided that I felt like eating them. Are they the ideal food? I doubt it, but they fit in the parameters of this diet, so I don't feel so bad.

Previously, I would diet on high protein/low fat/med-low carbs. I never could have eaten bratwurst or omelettes on that diet and, inevitably, it would cause a binge.

When following a good CKD as opposed to the pedestrian Atkin's bullshit, the diet works very well and is a piece of fucking cake to follow. The massive carb ups every 7 or so days make it very, very tolerable. I mean, for 36 hours, I'm damn well overeating. It works with the diet, though. For fat fuckers like me, this is perfect. I just wish I could find a way to fit Key Lime pie into the diet.

 

[Bob Smith]

A carb load is very important psychologically for most people, particularly athletes who also have to take performance into consideration. Knowing that you only have to go LC for 3-5 days before you can pack in the carbs makes it much easier to handle. I dont mind low carb, but I hate cooking and most LC meals need to be cooked. Thats where Jewel comes in very handy. She lovesto cook and doesnt mind making me chicken and broccoli 3 days a week. The light at the end of the tunnel makes the journey a little bit easier.

 

[Grizzly]

Hey, look, now this thread is hopping! Good deal. I figured it would be a good discussion starter, but for a while it was dead.

I'm just waiting for Desi to come on here and tell us all about how keto diets are the only good diets to be found and that you should even employ them to bulk.

 

[Bob Smith]

A few tweaks with your diet Grizz, and you can mass without packing on a ton of fat. Lyle can go more into detail about it. Ill probably give it a try over the summer once I get down to a decent bf%.

Thinking of Desi, he'll probably say that since Dorian did it, it must be the only way to do things. Oh yeah, and that Paki women are hot.

 

[Grizzly]

I can already see where the tweaks would be, I think. I'd just dump the copious consumption of olive oil and replace it with grains. I really like the 40/40/20 method of bulking.

He is silly with that Paki crap, ain't he? It is a genetic thing, though. I'm white, so I like white women and Asians and Hispanics, since one group is simply tanned white people and the other is white people with funny eyes and flat faces.

On the other hand, I hate black women that don't look like white women (skinny, long hair, narrow noses, etc) and I ESPECIALLY hate Indian and Paki women. My genetic programming tells me that those bitches are repulsive. Might as well fuck a bald eagle. The nose looks the same, but the bird isn't as fat.

 

[Grizzly]

Here's a looker from Desi's site. Bear in mind that this is one of the better looking ones.

 

[Bob Smith]

I can already see where the tweaks would be, I think. I'd just dump the copious consumption of olive oil and replace it with grains. I really like the 40/40/20 method of bulking.

It would probably end up being about that %. Similar setup to now, but keep carbs at maybe 100-125g instead ot 50-75g, have a nice refeed, and so on.

Grizz, have some compassion for us white boys. That Paki chick was nasty.

 

[thick]

I do agree that the majority respond well to 2-3 times/week if other factors are ideal. The only correlation i am referring to is how the people who train 1/wk say that is the only way and most that train 2-3x/wk do the same regardless of each individuals circumstances and response to training

But you can say that the majority of people will respond better to 2-3x/wk workouts as opposed to once a week, assuming that some factors are taken into consideration (volume and intensity). How many people follow the muscle rag programs and end up looking the exact same year after year? Almost all of them.