is cardio really needed?

[DLMCBBB]

Re: Oh, what's this another study supporting my arguement?

Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women.

Volek J, Sharman M, Gomez A, Judelson D, Rubin M, Watson G, Sokmen B, Silvestre R, French D, Kraemer W.

Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, 2095 Hillside Road, Unit-1110, Storrs, CT 06269-1110, USA. jeff.volek@uconn.edu.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate ketogenic (VLCK) and low-fat (LF) diets on weight loss, body composition, trunk fat mass, and resting energy expenditure (REE) in overweight/obese men and women. DESIGN: Randomized, balanced, two diet period clinical intervention study. Subjects were prescribed two energy-restricted (-500 kcal/day) diets: a VLCK diet with a goal to decrease carbohydrate levels below 10% of energy and induce ketosis and a LF diet with a goal similar to national recommendations (%carbohydrate:fatrotein = ~60:25:15%). SUBJECTS: 15 healthy, overweight/obese men (mean +/- s.e.m.: age 33.2 +/- 2.9 y, body mass 109.1 +/- 4.6 kg, body mass index 34.1 +/- 1.1 kg/m2) and 13 premenopausal women (age 34.0 +/- 2.4 y, body mass 76.3 +/- 3.6 kg, body mass index 29.6 +/- 1.1 kg/m2). MEASUREMENTS: Weight loss, body composition, trunk fat (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), and resting energy expenditure (REE) were determined at baseline and after each diet intervention. Data were analyzed for between group differences considering the first diet phase only and within group differences considering the response to both diets within each person. RESULTS: Actual nutrient intakes from food records during the VLCK (%carbohydrate:fatrotein = ~9:63:28%) and the LF (~58:22:20%) were significantly different. Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men. Both between and within group comparisons revealed a distinct advantage of a VLCK over a LF diet for weight loss, total fat loss, and trunk fat loss for men (despite significantly greater energy intake). The majority of women also responded more favorably to the VLCK diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. The greater reduction in trunk fat was not merely due to the greater total fat loss, because the ratio of trunk fat/total fat was also significantly reduced during the VLCK diet in men and women. Absolute REE (kcal/day) was decreased with both diets as expected, but REE expressed relative to body mass (kcal/kg), was better maintained on the VLCK diet for men only. Individual responses clearly show the majority of men and women experience greater weight and fat loss on a VLCK than a LF diet. CONCLUSION: This study shows a clear benefit of a VLCK over LF diet for short-term body weight and fat loss, especially in men. A preferential loss of fat in the trunk region with a VLCK diet is novel and potentially clinically significant but requires further validation. These data provide additional support for the concept of metabolic advantage with diets representing extremes in macronutrient distribution.

PMID: 15533250 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Oh, what do we have here?
More energy, more weight and fat loss?
This is getting painfully clear the outcome here.

hackskii,

Again, the volek study, if the food records can be trusted, had the low-carb group eating nearly twice as much protein as the other group and studies have shown that higher PROTEIN helps maintainance of BMR on a diet. But higher protein is not the same set of words as low-carbohdyrate is it?

Question: why can't you understand the differecne between diets that differ in carbohydrates and protein?

 

[DLMCBBB]

hackskii,

We have two identical people, identical weight and body composition, identical resting metabolic rates and activity. We're going to put them both on a diet of 10 cal/lb. Say that they weigh 160 lbs so that's 1600 calories. The diet composition is

diet 1: 30% protein, 60% carbs, 10% fat (a VERY low fat diet)
diet 2: 30% protein, 10% (40 grams) carbs, 60% fat (a ketogenic diet)

Since you're the expert at thermodynamics and I'm a blinded retard (remember I need to go back to school), please quantify for me, on a daily basis, how many calories both individuals will burn in terms of basal energy requirements and TEF (activity will be identical). That is, please quantify the metabolic advantage of diet 2 in terms of kcal (or kilojoules) per day.

Over 12 weeks, what differences in body composition can we expect?

C'mon, hackskii, wow me

 

[Conciliator]

A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia: a randomized, controlled trial.

Yancy WS Jr, Olsen MK, Guyton JR, Bakst RP, Westman EC.

Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27705, USA.

BACKGROUND: Low-carbohydrate diets remain popular despite a paucity of scientific evidence on their effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet program with those of a low-fat, low-cholesterol, reduced-calorie diet. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient research clinic. PARTICIPANTS: 120 overweight, hyperlipidemic volunteers from the community. INTERVENTION: Low-carbohydrate diet (initially, <20 g of carbohydrate daily) plus nutritional supplementation, exercise recommendation, and group meetings, or low-fat diet (<30% energy from fat, <300 mg of cholesterol daily, and deficit of 500 to 1000 kcal/d) plus exercise recommendation and group meetings. MEASUREMENTS: Body weight, body composition, fasting serum lipid levels, and tolerability. RESULTS: A greater proportion of the low-carbohydrate diet group than the low-fat diet group completed the study (76% vs. 57%; P = 0.02). At 24 weeks, weight loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate diet group than in the low-fat diet group (mean change, -12.9% vs. -6.7%; P < 0.001). Patients in both groups lost substantially more fat mass (change, -9.4 kg with the low-carbohydrate diet vs. -4.8 kg with the low-fat diet) than fat-free mass (change, -3.3 kg vs. -2.4 kg, respectively). Compared with recipients of the low-fat diet, recipients of the low-carbohydrate diet had greater decreases in serum triglyceride levels (change, -0.84 mmol/L vs. -0.31 mmol/L [-74.2 mg/dL vs. -27.9 mg/dL]; P = 0.004) and greater increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (0.14 mmol/L vs. -0.04 mmol/L [5.5 mg/dL vs. -1.6 mg/dL]; P < 0.001). Changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level did not differ statistically (0.04 mmol/L [1.6 mg/dL] with the low-carbohydrate diet and -0.19 mmol/L [-7.4 mg/dL] with the low-fat diet; P = 0.2). Minor adverse effects were more frequent in the low-carbohydrate diet group. LIMITATIONS: We could not definitively distinguish effects of the low-carbohydrate diet and those of the nutritional supplements provided only to that group. In addition, participants were healthy and were followed for only 24 weeks. These factors limit the generalizability of the study results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet program had better participant retention and greater weight loss. During active weight loss, serum triglyceride levels decreased more and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level increased more with the low-carbohydrate diet than with the low-fat diet.

Oh my say it aint so

You haven't learned. This is another food reporting study. "Diet composition was measured on the basis of food records collected at each visit from a subsample of participants." Accordingly, it didn't control for calories. It didn't control for protein. Brehm taught us something: food reporting is unreliable, particularly when the low-carb group is not calorie restricted and the low-fat group is. He also taught us that THERE IS NO METABOLIC ADVANTAGE. The low carb group simply consumed fewer calories and probably more protein. This study is no better than the first of Brehm's studies, and Brehm's second study explains it.

 

[Conciliator]

Re: Another

A low-carbohydrate as compared with a low-fat diet in severe obesity.

Samaha FF, Iqbal N, Seshadri P, Chicano KL, Daily DA, McGrory J, Williams T, Williams M, Gracely EJ, Stern L.

Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, USA. rick.samaha@med.va.gov

BACKGROUND: The effects of a carbohydrate-restricted diet on weight loss and risk factors for atherosclerosis have been incompletely assessed. METHODS: We randomly assigned 132 severely obese subjects (including 77 blacks and 23 women) with a mean body-mass index of 43 and a high prevalence of diabetes (39 percent) or the metabolic syndrome (43 percent) to a carbohydrate-restricted (low-carbohydrate) diet or a calorie- and fat-restricted (low-fat) diet. RESULTS: Seventy-nine subjects completed the six-month study. An analysis including all subjects, with the last observation carried forward for those who dropped out, showed that subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet (mean [+/-SD], -5.8+/-8.6 kg vs. -1.9+/-4.2 kg; P=0.002) and had greater decreases in triglyceride levels (mean, -20+/-43 percent vs. -4+/-31 percent; P=0.001), irrespective of the use or nonuse of hypoglycemic or lipid-lowering medications. Insulin sensitivity, measured only in subjects without diabetes, also improved more among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet (6+/-9 percent vs. -3+/-8 percent, P=0.01). The amount of weight lost (P<0.001) and assignment to the low-carbohydrate diet (P=0.01) were independent predictors of improvement in triglyceride levels and insulin sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost. This finding should be interpreted with caution, given the small magnitude of overall and between-group differences in weight loss in these markedly obese subjects and the short duration of the study. Future studies evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes are needed before a carbohydrate-restricted diet can be endorsed. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society

Lost more weight, with a relative improvement on insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels.
Oh, that has gotta hurt
Seems pretty conclusive if you ask me.

That's gotta hurt? They didn't control for calories hackskii. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD: People consume fewer calories and more protein on a low carb-diet. No one disagrees with this. Low-carb diets fill you up faster and control appetite better. So it's no surprise that they eat less than those on a low-fat diet. But this isn't controlling for calories or protein, because the low-carb group is eating fewer calories and more protein. Of course they get better results.

As this study said, "As compared with the subjects on the low-fat diet, subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet reported a nonsignificantly greater reduction in caloric intake (P=0.33), a significantly greater decrease in the percentage of calories from carbohydrates (P<0.001), and a significantly greater increase in the percentage of calories from protein (P<0.001) and fat (P=0.004)." Yeah, they ate more protein. Congratulations, you've showed us that a higher protein diet is superior.

Control for protein. Control for calories. Don't use unreliable food reporting.
Try again.

 

[Conciliator]

A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity.

Foster GD, Wyatt HR, Hill JO, McGuckin BG, Brill C, Mohammed BS, Szapary PO, Rader DJ, Edman JS, Klein S.

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3309, USA. fosterg@mail.med.upenn.edu

BACKGROUND: Despite the popularity of the low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat (Atkins) diet, no randomized, controlled trials have evaluated its efficacy. METHODS: We conducted a one-year, multicenter, controlled trial involving 63 obese men and women who were randomly assigned to either a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet or a low-calorie, high-carbohydrate, low-fat (conventional) diet. Professional contact was minimal to replicate the approach used by most dieters. RESULTS: Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [+/-SD], -6.8+/-5.0 vs. -2.7+/-3.7 percent of body weight; P=0.001) and 6 months (-7.0+/-6.5 vs. -3.2+/-5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), but the difference at 12 months was not significant (-4.4+/-6.7 vs. -2.5+/-6.3 percent of body weight, P=0.26). After three months, no significant differences were found between the groups in total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. The increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations and the decrease in triglyceride concentrations were greater among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet than among those on the conventional diet throughout most of the study. Both diets significantly decreased diastolic blood pressure and the insulin response to an oral glucose load. CONCLUSIONS: The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society

Most people dont diet for 6 months at a time anyway but none the less greater weight loss by 4% with low carb.

This is talking weight loss, not fat loss, which is why differences seem to disappear after a year. People lose water weight at the onset of a low-carb diet. Did they control for calories? Did they control for protein? Another study that tells us nothing we already know hackskii. You still haven't posted one study that controls for calories and protein and that shows a metabolic advantage.

I, on the other hand, have provided the one by Brehm. THERE IS NO METABOLIC ADVANTAGE. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN REE AND TEF. PEOPLE SIMPLY EAT LESS. IT'S ALL CALORIES HACKSKI. Brehm's second study also explains all of the stupid studies you keep posting. Low-fat groups routinely underreport their food intake. Low-carb groups also eat more protein (your studies by volek, Samaha).

Maybe this is starting to make sense to you. Feel free to say that low-carb diets usually work better than low-fat diets. They do. But don't pretend it's because of some metabolic magic from low insulin. Say it for it is: you'll eat fewer calories and more protein. That's it.

 

[dookie1481]

This hackskii dude is like a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming " LA LA LA!!!!!!". It's pretty obvious he can't decipher the studies his argument is hinging upon.

 

[DLMCBBB]

This hackskii dude is like a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming " LA LA LA!!!!!!". It's pretty obvious he can't decipher the studies his argument is hinging upon.

I agree.

This goes to show eveyone that demonstrating a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[DLMCBBB]

Fat aids in fat burning.
Fat does not make you fat.
Fat supresses insulin.

If insulin is what makes you fat, can I eat as much fat as I want and not get fat?

Jelly beans (anything made of sucrose) are generally lower GI than potatos, are jelly beans better than potatos from a bodyfat standpoint?

Ice cream is very low GI compoared to potatos, is it good for fat loss/avoiding fat gain?

Carrots are very high GI, will they make me fat.

Fructose has a very low GI and little to no insulin response, does that mean it can't make me fat?


Dustin

 

[hackskii]

Re: Oh, what's this another study supporting my arguement?

hackskii,

Again, the volek study, if the food records can be trusted, had the low-carb group eating nearly twice as much protein as the other group and studies have shown that higher PROTEIN helps maintainance of BMR on a diet. But higher protein is not the same set of words as low-carbohdyrate is it?

Question: why can't you understand the differecne between diets that differ in carbohydrates and protein?

I do understand.

The original topic was a question if cardio is needed for fat loss correct?
The answer is no you dont have to do cardio for fat loss.

Then the thread took a turn, although it was not my intention of the turn, I was mearly showing that certain ways of eating your macro's will aid in fat loss and support lean muscle mass which is what is preferred.

Clearly I have showed this, without a shadow of doubt.
I had another thread on this board on fats, it is a massive read, chocked with good information, probably 7 pages long. Take a month to read it, but all what is in those articles support my claims.
This was understood back in 1860 when the original Low carbohydrate diet took shape.
None of this stuff is new, it always existed.
Look at the paleolithic diet for one.
Those people were 5 inches taller prior to the agricultural age, read it for yourself.
I cant convince the whole world, but there are a few that do listen and apply and now are also on the side of believers.
I make it my point for the last 10 years to study, understand and apply diets, it is my number one passion (like you couldnt tell), so I am not making anything up.

Here is the link:

Again, I have 3 friends which compete in NABBA, all of them are well ranked and one of them just got Mr. Brittan.
All of them carb cycle when dieting down, every single one of them.

The calorie is a calorie is a farse, it is flawed thinking and using this approach will yield in far less beneficial results.

Is cardio necessary?................NO!!!!!
Does it matter what you eat to lose fat?................Absolutly!!!

 

[hackskii]

hackskii,

We have two identical people, identical weight and body composition, identical resting metabolic rates and activity. We're going to put them both on a diet of 10 cal/lb. Say that they weigh 160 lbs so that's 1600 calories. The diet composition is

diet 1: 30% protein, 60% carbs, 10% fat (a VERY low fat diet)
diet 2: 30% protein, 10% (40 grams) carbs, 60% fat (a ketogenic diet)

Since you're the expert at thermodynamics and I'm a blinded retard (remember I need to go back to school), please quantify for me, on a daily basis, how many calories both individuals will burn in terms of basal energy requirements and TEF (activity will be identical). That is, please quantify the metabolic advantage of diet 2 in terms of kcal (or kilojoules) per day.

Over 12 weeks, what differences in body composition can we expect?

C'mon, hackskii, wow me

The keto diet will yield better results.
Reason being is insulin will be better controlled and less of the meals will be stored as fat, regardless of energy expelled.
Your fat burning stops in the presence of insulin, so does GH production.
Low fat diets yield low testosterone levels.
Being carbohydrate resistance makes matters even worse.

Ketogenic diets can make a person that is carbohydrate resistant to carbohydrate sensitive.

A calorie is not a calorie, my studies above prove this.
For every 1 study you post I will post 10.
For every 1 article you post I will post 10.
There is no way in hell you will ever convince me otherwise, the evidence is overwhelming in my favor.

In simple terms you got your ass kicked in this little debate

 

[hackskii]

This hackskii dude is like a little kid sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming " LA LA LA!!!!!!". It's pretty obvious he can't decipher the studies his argument is hinging upon.

Funny man.
Why have I seemed to get a ton of PM's asking me for help on diets?
Seems some of the guys that want to lose bodyfat need some direction which I will gladly help out with.

In the light of your passion to hold on to your opinions it seems that you have chosen pride over knowledge.

 

[dookie1481]

There is no way in hell you will ever convince me otherwise, the evidence is overwhelming in my favor.

Yeah, this is obvious. Dogma is the crutch of the weak-minded.

In simple terms you got your ass kicked in this little debate

How? Did you not see reconciliator take apart the studies you posted?

Post something relevant, and then we can discuss.

I'll start:

The rate limiting step in [bodyfat mobilization] is an enzyme called homone sensitive lipase (HSL)....The priamry inactivator of HSL is the hormone insulin and it only takes very tiny amounts...to have an effect. Even fasting insulin levels are sufficient to inactivate HSL by nearly 50%. Small increases in insulin (from either protein or carbohydrate intake) inactivate HSL further. Additionally, the mere presence of triglycerides in the bloodstream...alsoinhibits HSL activity so this isn't as simple as just blaming insulin. One way or another, any time you eat, HSL is going to be inactivated...

From The Ultimate Diet 2.0, by Lyle McDonald (33).

 

[hackskii]

If insulin is what makes you fat, can I eat as much fat as I want and not get fat?

Jelly beans (anything made of sucrose) are generally lower GI than potatos, are jelly beans better than potatos from a bodyfat standpoint?

Ice cream is very low GI compoared to potatos, is it good for fat loss/avoiding fat gain?

Carrots are very high GI, will they make me fat.

Fructose has a very low GI and little to no insulin response, does that mean it can't make me fat?


Dustin

If insulin is what makes you fat, can I eat as much fat as I want and not get fat?

Funny thing, there is a study on this that was almost 100 years ago, putting a guy for 1 year on a very high fat diet, where almost all of his calories came from fat and he lost weight.
You can read it for your self in the link I posted, I forget what page it is on there are many

Jelly beans (anything made of sucrose) are generally lower GI than potatos, are jelly beans better than potatos from a bodyfat standpoint?

Sugar gram for gram is lower in the GI than potato and has less response on insulin than potato.
Due to it being half fructose and half sucrose.
Fiber also slows down the spiking of insulin.
Not only that, but 35 grams of fiber will burn 250 calories.
Choosing foods that are high in fiber and low in the glycemic index are superior foods for losing bodyfat.

Ice cream is very low GI compoared to potatos, is it good for fat loss/avoiding fat gain?

Thanks for validating my point with this, you are making my job easier for me, like your study where more people lost weight on the lower carb diet.
I thought your suggestion of only the low carb people didnt report the calories ingested was laughable.
Are you saying that low carb diets make you lie?
Ice cream is lower in the GI due to the fat in it. Its not rocket science here. So much for your idea that fat does not suppress insulin.

Carrots are very high GI, will they make me fat.

If you ate enough of them yes.
Everything in moderation Son, everything in moderation!
There are much lower GI vegetables than carrots.

Fructose has a very low GI and little to no insulin response, does that mean it can't make me fat?

Any food in excess will drive up insulin. So any food eaten in excess can make you fat.
But beings that overfeeding can speed metabolism, it is not calculatable in the way you are making it out.
Calorie for calorie if you ate a carbohydrate compared to fat and overfed both, the carbohydrate person will carry more bodyfat and have insulin resistance.

 

[hackskii]

Lasting improvement of hyperglycaemia and bodyweight: low-carbohydrate diet in type 2 diabetes. A brief report.

Nielsen JV, Jonsson E, Nilsson AK.

Dept of Medicine, Blekingesjukhuset, Karlshamn, Sweden. jorgen.vesti-nielsen@ltblekinge.se

In two groups of obese patients with type 2 diabetes the effects of 2 different diet compositions were tested with regard to glycaemic control and bodyweight. A group of 16 obese patients with type 2 diabetes was advised on a low-carbohydrate diet, 1800 kcal for men and 1600 kcal for women, distributed as 20% carbohydrates, 30% protein and 50% fat. Fifteen obese diabetes patients on a high-carbohydrate diet were control group. Their diet, 1600-1800 kcal for men and 1400-1600 kcal for women, consisted of approximately 60% carbohydrates, 15% protein and 25% fat. Positive effects on the glucose levels were seen very soon. After 6 months a marked reduction in bodyweight of patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group was observed, and this remained one year later. After 6 months the mean changes in the low-carbohydrate group and the control group respectively were (+/-SD): fasting blood glucose (f-BG): -3.4 +/- 2.9 and -0.6 +/- 2.9 mmol/l; HBA1c: -1.4 +/- 1.1% and -0.6 +/- 1.4%; Body Weight: -11.4 +/- 4 kg and -1.8 +/- 3.8 kg; BMI: -4.1 +/- 1.3 kg/m_ and -0.7 +/- 1.3 kg/m_. Large changes in blood glucose levels were seen immediately. A low-carbohydrate diet is an effective tool in the treatment of obese patients with type 2 diabetes.
Same total calories, more weight loss with low carb.
In fact it looks like the higher carb folks consumed more cals. 1800 kcal for men (low carb), 1600-1800 (high carb).
This pretty much sums it up.

 

[hackskii]

10 years ago I went on a Zone type diet of 40/30/30 carbohydrates/fats/protein
I lost 25 lbs and 5” on my waist. I tracked my fat loss by dividing the number of inches on my waist compared to the number of lbs lost. I found that for every 5 lbs of weight loss I lost 1”.
Measurements were taken first thing in the morning at the same time and put on a log.

Fast fwd, 10 years later I have gone on a lower carb approach and higher fat. I am taking in more protein than I was before due to the restricted nature of the other macro (carbs), I lost 25.5 lbs and 6.5” on my waist.
I think that is significant beings I am 46 years old and am losing more inches in regards to weight loss on a lower carb diet. So for every 4 lbs I lost an inch, compared to 5 lbs an inch on a higher carb diet.

All done with no cardio, both times. The first time I dropped the cardio due to losing too many lbs a week and felt it was cutting into some muscle so I decided to drop it.

Scott

 

[winger]

hi i have a simple question. To burn fat and get cut is cardio really needed, or can i acheive my goal with lifting and dieting only??

It depends on the individual.

IMO, the carbs you choose determines the way your body looks.
Even Arnold didn't go over 125 grams of carbs a day.

 

[hackskii]

The national cholesterol education program diet vs a diet lower in carbohydrates and higher in protein and monounsaturated fat: a randomized trial.

Aude YW, Agatston AS, Lopez-Jimenez F, Lieberman EH, Marie Almon, Hansen M, Rojas G, Lamas GA, Hennekens CH.

Agatston Research Institute, Miami Beach, FL, USA.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, obesity is a major clinical and public health problem causing diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as increasing cardiovascular and total mortality. Dietary restrictions of calories and saturated fat are beneficial. However, it remains unclear whether replacement of saturated fat with carbohydrates (as in the US National Cholesterol Education Program [NCEP] diet) or protein and monounsaturated fat (as in our isocaloric modified low-carbohydrate [MLC] diet, which is lower in total carbohydrates but higher in protein, monounsaturated fat, and complex carbohydrates) is optimal. METHODS: We randomized 60 participants (29 women and 31 men) to the NCEP or the MLC diet and evaluated them every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. They were aged 28 to 71 years (mean age, 44 years in the NCEP and 46 years in the MLC group). A total of 36% of participants from the NCEP group and 35% from the MLC group had a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) greater than 27. The primary end point was weight loss, and secondary end points were blood lipid levels and waist-to-hip ratio. RESULTS: Weight loss was significantly greater in the MLC (13.6 lb) than in the NCEP group (7.5 lb), a difference of 6.1 lb (P = .02). There were no significant differences between the groups for total, low density, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, or the proportion of small, dense low-density lipoprotein particles. There were significantly favorable changes in all lipid levels within the MLC but not within the NCEP group. Waist-to-hip ratio was not significantly reduced between the groups (P = .27), but it significantly decreased within the MLC group (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the NCEP diet, the MLC diet, which is lower in total carbohydrates but higher in complex carbohydrates, protein, and monounsaturated fat, caused significantly greater weight loss over 12 weeks. There were no significant differences between the groups in blood lipid levels, but favorable changes were observed within the MLC diet group.


Significantly greater weight loss over 12 weeks

 

[Conciliator]

The national cholesterol education program diet vs a diet lower in carbohydrates and higher in protein and monounsaturated fat: a randomized trial.

Aude YW, Agatston AS, Lopez-Jimenez F, Lieberman EH, Marie Almon, Hansen M, Rojas G, Lamas GA, Hennekens CH.

Agatston Research Institute, Miami Beach, FL, USA.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, obesity is a major clinical and public health problem causing diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as increasing cardiovascular and total mortality. Dietary restrictions of calories and saturated fat are beneficial. However, it remains unclear whether replacement of saturated fat with carbohydrates (as in the US National Cholesterol Education Program [NCEP] diet) or protein and monounsaturated fat (as in our isocaloric modified low-carbohydrate [MLC] diet, which is lower in total carbohydrates but higher in protein, monounsaturated fat, and complex carbohydrates) is optimal. METHODS: We randomized 60 participants (29 women and 31 men) to the NCEP or the MLC diet and evaluated them every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. They were aged 28 to 71 years (mean age, 44 years in the NCEP and 46 years in the MLC group). A total of 36% of participants from the NCEP group and 35% from the MLC group had a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) greater than 27. The primary end point was weight loss, and secondary end points were blood lipid levels and waist-to-hip ratio. RESULTS: Weight loss was significantly greater in the MLC (13.6 lb) than in the NCEP group (7.5 lb), a difference of 6.1 lb (P = .02). There were no significant differences between the groups for total, low density, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, or the proportion of small, dense low-density lipoprotein particles. There were significantly favorable changes in all lipid levels within the MLC but not within the NCEP group. Waist-to-hip ratio was not significantly reduced between the groups (P = .27), but it significantly decreased within the MLC group (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the NCEP diet, the MLC diet, which is lower in total carbohydrates but higher in complex carbohydrates, protein, and monounsaturated fat, caused significantly greater weight loss over 12 weeks. There were no significant differences between the groups in blood lipid levels, but favorable changes were observed within the MLC diet group.


Significantly greater weight loss over 12 weeks

You've got to be pretty dense to still be posting studies where the low-carb group is consuming more protein. This is not controlling for protein, is it? All you're showing is that a higher protein diet is superior. And guess what, no one disagrees. So stop posting stupid studies acting like they prove some point about low-carb diets per se. The low-carb group in every one you've posted is either lower in caloires or higher in protein. It's funny you claim to be such a lover of the truth in light of your dogmatism.

 

[Conciliator]

Here's a non-retarded study for you Hackskii. I've included a link to the full text. I hope you read it.

A randomized trial comparing low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets matched for energy and protein.

Segal-Isaacson CJ, Johnson S, Tomuta V, Cowell B, Stein DT.

Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA. isaacson@aecom.yu.edu

Several recent studies have found greater weight loss at 6 months among participants on a very-low-carbohydrate (VLC) weight-loss diet compared with a low-fat (LF) weight-loss diet. Because most of these studies were not matched for calories, it is not clear whether these results are caused by decreased energy intake or increased energy expenditure. It is hypothesized that several energy-consuming metabolic pathways are up-regulated during a VLC diet, leading to increased energy expenditure. The focus of this study was to investigate whether, when protein and energy are held constant, there is a significant difference in fat and weight loss when fat and carbohydrate are dramatically varied in the diet. The preliminary results presented in this paper are for the first four of six postmenopausal overweight or obese participants who followed, in random order, both a VLC and an LF diet for 6 weeks. Other outcome measures were serum lipids, glucose, and insulin, as well as dietary compliance and side effects. Our results showed no significant weight loss, lipid, serum insulin, or glucose differences between the two diets. Lipids were dramatically reduced on both diets, with a trend for greater triglyceride reduction on the VLC diet. Glucose levels were also reduced on both diets, with a trend for insulin reduction on the VLC diet. Compliance was excellent with both diets, and side effects were mild, although participants reported more food cravings and bad breath on the VLC diet and more burping and flatulence on the LF diet.

 

[Conciliator]

Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels, and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Boden G, Sargrad K, Homko C, Mozzoli M, Stein TP.

Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, New Jersey.

BACKGROUND: It is not known how a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet causes weight loss or how it affects blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To determine effects of a strict low-carbohydrate diet on body weight, body water, energy intake and expenditure, glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and lipid levels in obese patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Inpatient comparison of 2 diets. SETTING: General clinical research center of a university hospital. PATIENTS: 10 obese patients with type 2 diabetes. INTERVENTION: Usual diets for 7 days followed by a low-carbohydrate diet for 14 days. MEASUREMENTS: Body weight, water, and composition; energy intake and expenditure; diet satisfaction; hemoglobin A1c; insulin sensitivity; 24-hour urinary ketone excretion; and plasma profiles of glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin. RESULTS: On the low-carbohydrate diet, mean energy intake decreased from 3111 kcal/d to 2164 kcal/d. The mean energy deficit of 1027 kcal/d (median, 737 kcal/d) completely accounted for the weight loss of 1.65 kg in 14 days (median, 1.34 kg in 14 days). Mean 24-hour plasma profiles of glucose levels normalized, mean hemoglobin A1c decreased from 7.3% to 6.8%, and insulin sensitivity improved by approximately 75%. Mean plasma triglyceride and cholesterol levels decreased (change, -35% and -10%, respectively). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by the short duration, small number of participants, and lack of a strict control group. CONCLUSION: In a small group of obese patients with type 2 diabetes, a low-carbohydrate diet followed for 2 weeks resulted in spontaneous reduction in energy intake to a level appropriate to their height; weight loss that was completely accounted for by reduced caloric intake; much improved 24-hour blood glucose profiles, insulin sensitivity, and hemoglobin A1c; and decreased plasma triglyceride and cholesterol levels. The long-term effects of this diet, however, remain uncertain.


This study showed that people left to eat at will on a low-carb diet spontaneously ate 1000 calories less per day. Like I've been saying, this is one of the reasons people do well on low-carb diets. It's because they're eating fewer calories and more protein, plain and simple. There is no metabolic advantage.