is cardio really needed?

[hackskii]

So much for your guys opinions.

Here you go, this reflects exactally what I was talking about.
Now bring your own studies fwd so I can read them.

Fat burning

Lets look at some research that supports the fat burning theory, this time from the Oakland Navel Hospital. Impressed with the Kekwick and Pawan success, Frederick Beoit and his associates decided to compare a 1000 calorie, 10-grams-of-carbohydrate, high-fat diet with fasting. Using seven men weighing between 230 and 290 pounds. They used state of the art body composition technology. After ten days, the fasting subjects lost 21 pounds on average, but most of that was lean body weight; only 7.5 pounds was body fat. However on the controlled carbohydrate regimen over the same period of time, 10 of the 14.5 pounds lost was body fat. Think of it. By eating foods low in carbohydrate and high in dietary fat, subjects burned their fat stores almost twice as fast as when they ate nothing at all!
Benoits other exciting discovery was that on a fat burning regimen, subjects maintained their potassium levels, while subjects who fasted experienced major potassium losses. (potassium depletion can cause heart arrhythmia, which in severe cases, can be fatal.)

Still not convinced? Try this one. Charlotte Young, professor of clinical nutrition at Cornell University, compared the results of overweight young men placed on three diets, all providing 1800 calories, but with varying degrees of carbohydrate restriction. The regimens contained 30, 60, and 104 grams of carbohydrate, and subjects followed them for nine weeks. Young and her colleagues calculated body fat through a widely accepted technique involving immersion underwater.

Those on the 104 grams of carbs lost slightly better than 2 pounds of fat per week out of 2.73 pounds of total weight loss-not bad for 1800 calories.

Those on 60 grams of carbs lost nearly 2.5 pounds of fat per week out of 3 pounds of actual weight loss-better.

But those on 30 grams of carbs, the only situation that produced lipolysis and the secondary process of ketosis lost 3.73 pounds of fat per week approximately one hundred percent of their total weight loss.

Several other studies have shown that you can consume more calories and lose more weight than on low fat programs.

One study done in Glasgow described overweight women who after three months had lost 14.5 pounds on a thirty-five-percent carbohydrate diet of 1200 calories and 12.3 pounds on a fifty-eight percent carbohydrate diet of 1200 calories. Thats fairly slow weight loss and pretty strict caloric deprivation. The advantage went to the lower-carbohydrate diet as always, but the lesson is that stricter carbohydrate control makes for an even more successful weight loss plan.

Two facts should be noted: first, in all cases, the lower carbohydrate group did lose more weight than the higher-carbohydrate group. Second, in two of the studies cardiovascular risk factors improved significantly but only in the subjects who were on a lower carbohydrate intake. The folks who got put on a high-carbohydrate diet showed no significant improvements in these health indicatiors.

That leaves one last study, which was really a blowout. Published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2000, it reported on a group of obese adolescents put on a controlled carbohydrate diet with no restriction on calories for three months and meticulously monitored throughout that period. By design the regimen was based on the Atkins approach. The group was compared with a control group put on a low fat diet.

The results? Well, naturally the adolescents lost significantly more weight on the controlled carbohydrate diet than on the low fat diet. The written records indicated that at the end of the trial the adolescents in the controlled carbohydrate group had averaged 1830 calories daily, while the adolescents in the low fat group had consumed 1100 calories. The controlled carbohydrate group averaged 21.7 pounds lost, compared to 9.1 pounds for the low-fat group, and a significant improvement in body mass index (BMI), compared with the low-fat dieters.

As studies like this become increasingly common, opposition to a controlled carbohydrate nutritional approach should fall away even more quickly than has already been the case in recent years.

 

[dookie1481]

Re: So much for your guys opinions.

Here you go, this reflects exactally what I was talking about.
Now bring your own studies fwd so I can read them.

Fat burning

Lets look at some research that supports the fat burning theory, this time from the Oakland Navel Hospital. Impressed with the Kekwick and Pawan success, Frederick Beoit and his associates decided to compare a 1000 calorie, 10-grams-of-carbohydrate, high-fat diet with fasting. Using seven men weighing between 230 and 290 pounds. They used state of the art body composition technology. After ten days, the fasting subjects lost 21 pounds on average, but most of that was lean body weight; only 7.5 pounds was body fat. However on the controlled carbohydrate regimen over the same period of time, 10 of the 14.5 pounds lost was body fat. Think of it. By eating foods low in carbohydrate and high in dietary fat, subjects burned their fat stores almost twice as fast as when they ate nothing at all!
Benoits other exciting discovery was that on a fat burning regimen, subjects maintained their potassium levels, while subjects who fasted experienced major potassium losses. (potassium depletion can cause heart arrhythmia, which in severe cases, can be fatal.)

Still not convinced? Try this one. Charlotte Young, professor of clinical nutrition at Cornell University, compared the results of overweight young men placed on three diets, all providing 1800 calories, but with varying degrees of carbohydrate restriction. The regimens contained 30, 60, and 104 grams of carbohydrate, and subjects followed them for nine weeks. Young and her colleagues calculated body fat through a widely accepted technique involving immersion underwater.

Those on the 104 grams of carbs lost slightly better than 2 pounds of fat per week out of 2.73 pounds of total weight loss-not bad for 1800 calories.

Those on 60 grams of carbs lost nearly 2.5 pounds of fat per week out of 3 pounds of actual weight loss-better.

But those on 30 grams of carbs, the only situation that produced lipolysis and the secondary process of ketosis lost 3.73 pounds of fat per week approximately one hundred percent of their total weight loss.

Several other studies have shown that you can consume more calories and lose more weight than on low fat programs.

One study done in Glasgow described overweight women who after three months had lost 14.5 pounds on a thirty-five-percent carbohydrate diet of 1200 calories and 12.3 pounds on a fifty-eight percent carbohydrate diet of 1200 calories. Thats fairly slow weight loss and pretty strict caloric deprivation. The advantage went to the lower-carbohydrate diet as always, but the lesson is that stricter carbohydrate control makes for an even more successful weight loss plan.

Two facts should be noted: first, in all cases, the lower carbohydrate group did lose more weight than the higher-carbohydrate group. Second, in two of the studies cardiovascular risk factors improved significantly but only in the subjects who were on a lower carbohydrate intake. The folks who got put on a high-carbohydrate diet showed no significant improvements in these health indicatiors.

That leaves one last study, which was really a blowout. Published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2000, it reported on a group of obese adolescents put on a controlled carbohydrate diet with no restriction on calories for three months and meticulously monitored throughout that period. By design the regimen was based on the Atkins approach. The group was compared with a control group put on a low fat diet.

The results? Well, naturally the adolescents lost significantly more weight on the controlled carbohydrate diet than on the low fat diet. The written records indicated that at the end of the trial the adolescents in the controlled carbohydrate group had averaged 1830 calories daily, while the adolescents in the low fat group had consumed 1100 calories. The controlled carbohydrate group averaged 21.7 pounds lost, compared to 9.1 pounds for the low-fat group, and a significant improvement in body mass index (BMI), compared with the low-fat dieters.

As studies like this become increasingly common, opposition to a controlled carbohydrate nutritional approach should fall away even more quickly than has already been the case in recent years.

This is not a study. Source, please.

 

[Conciliator]

Re: So much for your guys opinions.

This is not a study, this is an article. I thought you said you had studies. Summaries are terrible since they leave all sorts of stuff missing, like the method. Give us the abstracts of the individual studies, or at least the pubmed links.

 

[hackskii]

I dont need to give you anything.
The article/study speaks for itself.
Go ahead and deny the truth, that wont change the fact that lowering insulin during dieting will aid in fat loss.

Carbohydrates are the single biggest source of elevated blood sugars, which spike insulin.

Insulin is a storage hormone.
Insulin will make you fat and it will keep you that way.
This is why calorie restricted diets are not the best approach.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO CARDIO FOR FAT LOSS!
Doing cardio for fat loss is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Think about it... IF weight lifting makes you insulin sensitive then why would you do something of less intensity that makes you burn fat for fuel? all cardio does is send a signal that you are inefficient and it fixes this by lessening energy expenditure. Think muscle car to economy car. The muscle car with its massive engine will burn more fuel at idol than the economy car at full speed.
Another thing... intense exercise increases hgh levels and fuel expenditure for days... whereas cardio teaches the body to burn only when doing cardio.

Diet is how you lose fat.
Cardio is for training the heart and lungs
weight lifting is for strength and muscle building
strechting is for range and flexibility

Don't cross them up.


Cardio is catabolic in large doses, so if you want to keep fit without losing the muscle, address your nutritional needs

Running produces catecholamine hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, these eat muscle for breakfast.


Again if you are going to cut anything out of the diet for fat loss it should be carbohydrates.
Every guy that I know that competes does this.
I guess you say they are wrong too right?


You have showed me nothing to support your arguments other than opinions.
I really doubt you will be able to anyway.
In fact much of your stuff you put on fat was actually incorrect.
Hardly a way to substantiate your arguement.

 

[Conciliator]

I have mounds of studies on this if you want me to take the time to put them here I will.

Give us the abstracts of the individual studies, or at least the pubmed links.

I dont need to give you anything.

Sounds like you don't have shit then. Summaries are not studies. It's not that hard to realize that a summary leaves all sorts of information out, not to mention that they can report a study incorrectly. If you have studies, then post them. If you don't, then admit you don't have any and stop with your simplistic notions of insulin and fat loss.

 

[hackskii]

If I adheared to my own way of thinking then according to you I would have not won the war on fat loss.

I have news for you. I know what I am talking about and I need nothing more than the mirror to prove my point.
I have lost alot of fat and very minimal if any lean muscle.

How did I do this if I am wrong?

If you are calling me a liar then I know who is.
It is clear that we can not agree, I wanted to take it up a notch but feel that with the pollar opposites it is more distruction than information that could in fact help someone.

Close your mind if you want but that does not change the truth.

Calorie in calorie out is a simple approach, but when diet stalls then you reduce even farther.

The way I am dieting if the diet stalls you toss a cheat day in there (oh yah even more calories) diet resumes.

I have lost no strength, look way better and all doing the approach my way.
Which is not really my way but others before me.

 

[hackskii]

The Dangers of a "Healthy" Diet

'Healthy eating' tells us to eat low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets but in the last few years of the Twentieth Century several papers demonstrated the harm this could do.

Obesity
Back in 1932 obese patients on different diets lost weight thus:

Average daily losses on high carbohydrate/low fat diet - 49g
Average daily losses on low carbohydrate/high fat diet - 205g
Drs Lyon and Dunlop say:

"The most striking feature of the table is that the losses appear to be inversely proportionate to the carbohydrate content of the food. Where the carbohydrate intake is low the rate of loss in weight is greater and conversely."
It's no coincidence that the numbers of people getting fat has risen dramatically since 'healthy eating' was advocated. As long ago as 1863 it was shown that low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets make people fat. The medical world is at last waking up to this fact. In 1994 Professor Susan Wooley of the University of Cincinnati's College of Medicine and David M Garner, Director of Research at the Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research wrote that:

"The failure of fat people to achieve a goal they seem to want and to want almost above all else must now be admitted for what it is: a failure not of those people but of the methods of treatment that are used."
In other words, blaming the overweight for their problem and telling them they are eating too much and must cut down, is simply not good enough. It is the dieticians' advice and the treatment offered that are wrong. Wooley and Garner conclude:

"We should stop offering ineffective treatments aimed at weight loss. Researchers who think they have invented a better mousetrap should test it in controlled research before setting out their bait for the entire population. Only by admitting that our treatments do not work and showing that we mean it by refraining from offering them can we undo a century of recruiting fat people for failure."
In 1997 two more Americans, Drs AF Heini and RL Weinsier noticed the trend and blamed it on low-fat diets saying:

"Reduced fat and calorie intake and frequent use of low-calorie food products have been associated with a paradoxical increase in the prevalence of obesity".
Heart disease and diabetics
Obese people tend to go on to suffer type II diabetes (NIDDM) and diabetics are more prone to heart disease. For this reason patients with NIDDM are counselled to eat a 'healthy' low-fat, high-carb diet. But as a paper in the medical journal, Diabetes Care , pointed out

"Low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets eaten by patients with diabetes (NIDDM) have been shown to lead to higher day-long plasma glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and VLDL-TG, among other negative effects. In general, study has demonstrated that multiple risk factors for coronary heart disease are worsened for diabetics who consume the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet so often recommended to reduce these risks."
In June 1999 the 81st Annual Meeting of The Endocrine Society was told:

" A very high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet has been shown to have astounding effects in helping type 2 diabetics lose weight and improve their blood lipid profiles. The thing many diabetics coming into the office don't realize is that other forms of carbohydrates will increase their sugar, too. Dieticians will point toward complex carbohydrates . . . oatmeal and whole wheat bread, but we have to deliver the message that these are carbohydrates that increase blood sugars, too ."
. . .and postmenopausal women

In 1997 it was discovered that

"Low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets [15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat] increase the risk of heart disease in post-menopausal women."
. . . in fact everyone

Dr. Gerald M. Reaven, of Stanford University School of Medicine in California, and colleagues compared the effects of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet [25% fat, 60% carb, 15% protein] with a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet [45% fat, 40% carb, 15% protein], on blood fats and cholesterol. They found their subjects had significantly higher fasting plasma triglyceride concentrations, remnant lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations, and remnant triglyceride concentrations when they were on the high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet, both after fasting and after breakfast and lunch. The study participants also had significantly lower HDL (the 'good' cholesterol) concentrations on this diet. The authors conclude:

"Given the atherogenic potential of these changes in lipoprotein metabolism, it seems appropriate to question the wisdom of recommending that all Americans should replace dietary saturated fat with [carbohydrate]."
But then, in 1992, from the Framingham study again came:

"In Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol" . . . "we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active."

Low-fat, high-carb diet and breast cancer
And that's not all:

The largest and most comprehensive study on diet and breast cancer to date found that:

women with the lowest intake of fat had a significantly higher incidence of breast cancer and
women with the highest intake of starch also had a significantly higher incidence of breast cancer.
Saturated fats were not implicated in breast cancer.

The biggest study so far into the relation between breast cancer and fat intake is the Nurses' Health Study, conducted by Harvard University Medical School. A total of 88,795 women free of cancer in 1980 were followed up for 14 years. Comparing breast cancer rates in women who derived more than thirty percent of their calorie intake from fat with women who derived less than twenty percent of calories from fat, they show that those on low-fat diets had a higher rate of breast cancer than those who ate more. They went on to look at the various different types of fats and found that breast cancer rates were lower for all types except one: omega-3 fish oils, which are touted as 'healthy', were the only ones that increased cancer rates. However, the increase was small. Dr Michelle Holmes and colleagues conclude:

"We found no evidence that lower intake of total fat or specific major types of fat was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer" .
Carbohydrates are not healthy
As we have seen so far, the emphasis on increasing carbohydrates at the expense of fats has not been an unqualified success. And there are good reasons for this.

We have known since 1863 that carbohydrates cause obesity; since 1935 that they cause diabetes; since 1941 that they increase aggressiveness and criminality in children; for almost 30 years promote coronary heart disease; and more recently that they increase the risk of cancers. So is it merely coincidence that diseases in whose aetiology carbohydrates are implicated have risen so dramatically since we have eaten more carbohydrates?

No. Healthy eating is becoming something of a disaster. The best advice appears to be that we should:

reduce carbohydrate intake and
increase our intake of animal fats.

To sum up, what emerges from this discussion is:

Fats
The totality of evidence suggests that we should eat animal fats in preference to vegetable oils because:

Polyunsaturated fats found in margarines and cooking oils may lower cholesterol levels but they increase cancer risk.
Trans-fats found in highly processed margarines and oils also increase CHD risk.
'Healthy' omega-3 oils may increase cancer risk.
Monounsaturated fats are no better as far as heart disease is concerned but they may reduce cancer risk.
Saturated fats are healthier in CHD, particularly if you have already had a heart attack. They are not implicated as a cause of cancer.
Conjugated linoleic acid found only in animal fats is a powerful anti-cancer agent.
Animal fats are just under half saturated and just under half monounsaturated, with a small, but sufficient proportion of polyunsaturated fats.
Carbohydrates

Carbohydrate intake from sugars and starches in breakfast cereals, bread, pasta, rice, et cetera, should be reduced because they increase diseases including obesity, cancer, diabetes and CHD.
Bran


Bran (cereal fibre) should be avoided like the plague.

Conclusion
An assessment of all the cholesterol-lowering dietary trials published in 1987 showed an aggregate six percent more deaths in those who adopted a cholesterol-lowering diet over those on a free diet. A similar review of drug trials showed an aggregate of over thirteen percent more deaths in those taking cholesterol-lowering drugs.

More resources, time and money have been spent over the last fifty years on coronary heart disease than any other disease in medical history and all it has proved is that doctors don't know as much as they thought they did. If half a century of serious research has failed to find a causal link between a fatty diet and heart disease, it can only be because there is no link.

To make intelligent decisions you must be given advice that is based on proven facts rather than unfounded assumptions. And the facts at present seem to be that milk, cream, butter, meat and fresh fruit and vegetables are the healthy foods whilst high-in-polyunsaturates spreads and oils, bran flakes and packaged foods are not.

Seventy years after it began we still do not know what caused the dramatic rise in coronary heart disease deaths in the 1920s or why coronary mortality is now falling. But one thing that the last fifty years of studies has demonstrated is that cholesterol has had very little to do with it.

The research has also demonstrated no evidence of a need to endure an unpalatable, fatless, bran-laden diet. Apart from being less pleasurable to eat, it is now clear that 'healthy eating' is not so healthy after all.

 

[Conciliator]

Here's one for you hackskii. Brehm had reported that obese women on low-carbohydrate diets lost more weight than on a low fat diet. He followed up to explain it and this was his conclusion:

The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets.

Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.

R.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu

We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption. We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss. To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- 0.28 kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet. Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects. Forty women completed the trial. The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight (9.79 +/- 0.71 vs. 6.14 +/- 0.91 kg; P < 0.05) and more body fat (6.20 +/- 0.67 vs. 3.23 +/- 0.67 kg; P < 0.05) than the low-fat group. There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ). Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months. The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = 0.017). Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.

You hear that? There is NO difference in resting energy expenditure or the thermic effect of food (in fact, the TEF was slightly higher in the group that had carbs)! Brehm was forced to conclude that the low-carb group lost more weight simply because they underreported their food consumption, because they ate less! Low carb diets confer no additional metabolic advantage, or else you'd see a difference in REE or TEF, but you don't.

 

[Conciliator]

If I adheared to my own way of thinking then according to you I would have not won the war on fat loss.

I have news for you. I know what I am talking about and I need nothing more than the mirror to prove my point.
I have lost alot of fat and very minimal if any lean muscle.

How did I do this if I am wrong?

You really want to know? It's not because your low-carb diet did something magical. It's not because super low insulin gave you some magic fat burning advantage. It's because you ate less. It's much easier to control hunger and get full on a low-carb diet. You ate fewer calories then you were burning, and you lost weight. It's that simple. The mirrior simply says you lost weight, which I beleive. It says nothing about low carb diets being more effective metabolically.

It is clear that we can not agree, I wanted to take it up a notch but feel that with the pollar opposites it is more distruction than information that could in fact help someone.

Hackskii, you're stupid if you think were going to fall for a cop out like this. Take it up a notch, please. You don't have anything to say. You don't have any studies. All you have are your little reviews that you found on the internet. Run away if you want, but we're all here ready to discuss it. So take it up a notch. Throw out those mounds of studies or put your head down and shut your mouth.

The way I am dieting if the diet stalls you toss a cheat day in there (oh yah even more calories) diet resumes.

A refeed; so cutting edge. At best, you'll reset the adaptive component a little, but no matter what, your metabolism is going drop on a diet due to a decrease in body mass. If you stall, then it means you're not creating a large enough caloric deficit. You can try to burn more by resetting the adaptive component, but the surefire way is to just cut calories more.

 

[jasthace]

Here's one for you hackskii. Brehm had reported that obese women on low-carbohydrate diets lost more weight than on a low fat diet. He followed up to explain it and this was his conclusion:

The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets.

Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.

R.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu

We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption. We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss. To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- 0.28 kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet. Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects. Forty women completed the trial. The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight (9.79 +/- 0.71 vs. 6.14 +/- 0.91 kg; P < 0.05) and more body fat (6.20 +/- 0.67 vs. 3.23 +/- 0.67 kg; P < 0.05) than the low-fat group. There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ). Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months. The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = 0.017). Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.

You hear that? There is NO difference in resting energy expenditure or the thermic effect of food (in fact, the TEF was slightly higher in the group that had carbs)! Brehm was forced to conclude that the low-carb group lost more weight simply because they underreported their food consumption, because they ate less! Low carb diets confer no additional metabolic advantage, or else you'd see a difference in REE or TEF, but you don't.

This study supports what hackskii is trying to tell you,A low carb diet results in more fat loss than a low fat diet.
I's all about training your body to use fat as an energy souce instead of carbs.

 

[hackskii]

Here's one for you hackskii. Brehm had reported that obese women on low-carbohydrate diets lost more weight than on a low fat diet. He followed up to explain it and this was his conclusion:

The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets.

Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.

R.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu

We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption. We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss. To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- 0.28 kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet. Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects. Forty women completed the trial. The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight (9.79 +/- 0.71 vs. 6.14 +/- 0.91 kg; P < 0.05) and more body fat (6.20 +/- 0.67 vs. 3.23 +/- 0.67 kg; P < 0.05) than the low-fat group. There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ). Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months. The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = 0.017). Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.

You hear that? There is NO difference in resting energy expenditure or the thermic effect of food (in fact, the TEF was slightly higher in the group that had carbs)! Brehm was forced to conclude that the low-carb group lost more weight simply because they underreported their food consumption, because they ate less! Low carb diets confer no additional metabolic advantage, or else you'd see a difference in REE or TEF, but you don't.

First of all I have read this before and thanks for posting it.

Thanks for confirming what I have been saying, you argued my point for me.
These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar.

Or they stored more fat than the low carb eating.
Brehm concluded and didnt prove this with medical evidence. So, here we have the proof you actually are looking for.

One problem with studies between men and women is men tend to lose more bodyfat than women on ketogenic diets.
Man have more lean muscle mass than women too.
Adding this into the equation that low fat, high carb diets tend to lower testosterone production which further takes you away from where you are going.
You can not compare women to men in diets.

Fat loss has more to do with hormones that restricting the food intake:

Any meal or snack high in carbohydrates generates a rapid rise in blood glucose. To adjust for this rise, the pancreas secretes the hormone insulin into the bloodstream, which lowers the glucose. Insulin is, though, essentially a storage hormone, evolved over those millions of years of humans prior to the agricultural age, to store the excess calories from carbohydrates in the form of fat in case of famine.

Insulin, stimulated by the excess carbohydrates in our overabundant consumption of grains, starches and sweets, is responsible for all those bulging stomachs and fat rolls in thighs and chins.

Even worse, high insulin levels suppress two other important hormones - glucagons and growth hormones - that are responsible for burning fat and sugar and promoting muscle development, respectively. So insulin from excess carbohydrates promotes fat, and then wards off the body's ability to lose that fat.

Everything I have read: Enter the Zone by Barry Sears, Dr. Atkin's Diet Revolution by Robert C. Atkins, Natural Hormonal Enhancement by Rob Faigin, Eat Fat Lose Weight by Ann Louise Gittleman, and many other books I have read suggest just the opposite.

Surely the bodybuilders that are carb cycling, the keto diets that are so popular, the books above, myself, all cant be wrong.


Are you suggesting a diet that contains 2000 calories of mostly carbs (regardless of which ones) will have the same weight loss, weight gain as a diet that has 2000 calories that are mostly fat and protein and little carbohydrates will have the same effect?

Are you also saying that insulin spiking due to high blood sugars has no effect on fat gain or inhibit fat burning?

Beings that you yourself admit diet controls fat loss, do you want to change your tune on cardio not being needed?

 

[hackskii]

What is funny about his study is that it was conclusive that:
These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar.

But yet his statement of:
The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.

This study had 50 healthy, moderately obese women that dieted for 4 months and only the low carb ladies underreported?
Yah right

Again there are other reasons they did in fact lose more bodyfat.
The ones on the lower carb diets stored less bodyfat.
How in the hell is that so hard to believe?


Or this one you left out at the same site:
J Fam Pract. 2003 Jul;52(7):515-6.

A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.

University of Cincinnati and Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu

Untested alternative weight loss diets, such as very low carbohydrate diets, have unsubstantiated efficacy and the potential to adversely affect cardiovascular risk factors. Therefore, we designed a randomized, controlled trial to determine the effects of a very low carbohydrate diet on body composition and cardiovascular risk factors. Subjects were randomized to 6 months of either an ad libitum very low carbohydrate diet or a calorie-restricted diet with 30% of the calories as fat. Anthropometric and metabolic measures were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Fifty-three healthy, obese female volunteers (mean body mass index, 33.6 +/- 0.3 kg/m(2)) were randomized; 42 (79%) completed the trial. Women on both diets reduced calorie consumption by comparable amounts at 3 and 6 months. The very low carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 1.0 kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 +/- 0.67 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.75 kg; P < 0.01) than the low fat diet group. Mean levels of blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and insulin were within normal ranges in both groups at baseline. Although all of these parameters improved over the course of the study, there were no differences observed between the two diet groups at 3 or 6 months. beta- Hydroxybutyrate increased significantly in the very low carbohydrate group at 3 months (P = 0.001). Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

I like this part the best
Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

Seems to sum that up pretty good eh?
Seems you are getting behind here some from the way I am seeing things.

Articles, studies, books, my own diet, all point in the direction that support what I have been saying and not what you have said.

 

[Conciliator]

First of all I have read this before and thanks for posting it.

Thanks for confirming what I have been saying, you argued my point for me.
These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar.

No, you didn't even understand the study. This did not confirm anything except that the low-fat group UNDERREPORTED what they were eating. So calories were NOT controlled for... They thought they were, but the low-fat group was actually eating more food. This is why the low-carb group lost more weight. Not because low-carb diets burn fat better at the same calorie intake, but because the low-fat group consumed MORE calories. The study explains that it was NOT due to an increase in REE or TEF... that the low-carb diet doesn't give you any metabolic advantage. This study didn't confirm anything you've been saying.

Brehm concluded and didnt prove this with medical evidence. So, here we have the proof you actually are looking for.

This makes no sense.

Fat loss has more to do with hormones that restricting the food intake:

Any meal or snack high in carbohydrates generates a rapid rise in blood glucose. To adjust for this rise, the pancreas secretes the hormone insulin into the bloodstream, which lowers the glucose. Insulin is, though, essentially a storage hormone, evolved over those millions of years of humans prior to the agricultural age, to store the excess calories from carbohydrates in the form of fat in case of famine.

We'll just stop here. Carbs are rarely converted to fat. De novo lipogenesis hardly contributes anything to total fat balance... Dieting is not all about insulin hackskii. Get over it and realize it has to do with calorie balance.

Surely the bodybuilders that are carb cycling, the keto diets that are so popular, the books above, myself, all cant be wrong.

They're not wrong, you're wrong... Low-carb diets work. I'm not contesting that. But they work because they fill people up, stabilize blood sugar, and suppress appetite. People eat fewer calories on low-carb diets. That's why they work.

Are you suggesting a diet that contains 2000 calories of mostly carbs (regardless of which ones) will have the same weight loss, weight gain as a diet that has 2000 calories that are mostly fat and protein and little carbohydrates will have the same effect?

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. If you control for protein on both diets, it's not going to make any difference if one is low-carb and the other is isocaloric or low-fat. And this is what the studies show. Studies that show otherwise either don't control for protein, don't control for calories (like the Brehm study), or make statements about weight loss and not fat loss.

Are you also saying that insulin spiking due to high blood sugars has no effect on fat gain or inhibit fat burning?

No, I've never said this. But I do contend that it doesn't make any difference if there is. You can have a high-carb intake, lots of insulin, lots of carbs stored as glycogen, all those carbs burned (since you're dieting), and then body fat burned (since there's a caloric deficit). Or you can have a high-fat intake, low insulin, no carbs stored, all that fat burned (since you're dieting), and then body fat burned (since you're dieting). Either way, it makes no difference. If there's a caloric deficit, you will lose bodyfat. To say otherwise is just ridiculous. Of course you can get lean with an isocaloric or low-fat diet.

Beings that you yourself admit diet controls fat loss, do you want to change your tune on cardio not being needed?

Being that I haven't said anything about cardio, do you want to retract your nonsense?


WHERE ARE THE MOUNDS OF STUDIES HACKSKII? I'VE PRESENTED ONE ALREADY THAT SHOWS 1) NO METABOLIC ADVANTAGE FROM A LOW-CARB DIET AND 2) THAT THE REASON STUDIES OFTEN DO SHOW A DIFFERENCE IS BECAUSE FOOD REPORTING IS INACCURATE AND THE LOW-FAT GROUPS ARE EATING MORE CALORIES.

Put up or shut up.

 

[hackskii]

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]

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

 

[hackskii]

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.

 

[Conciliator]

The older study you put up was the first one that Brehm did. He did the second study to find out why the low-carb group was losing more weight than the low-fat group. You'd do well to read it and actually understand that it supports my position: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/90/3/1475

In part, it says:

This study was designed primarily to determine whether a difference in energy expenditure could explain the greater weight loss in the low-carbohydrate group. Our results demonstrate that the primary components of daily energy expenditure do not differ substantially between healthy women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets and cannot account for significant differences in weight loss. This raises the possibility that there were, in fact, significant differences in energy intake in the two groups that were not detected in the 3-d food records

We embarked on this study in an attempt to determine whether the greater weight loss observed in women on low-carbohydrate diets compared with those on low-fat diets could be the result of greater energy expenditure. In our previous trial, food records of subjects on these regimens showed differences in the reported intake of macronutrients but not in energy intake (5). Therefore, holding strictly to the reported intake data, we could not ascribe the greater amounts of weight loss in the low-carbohydrate group to a greater restriction of food intake. In the present study, the subjects in both groups reported similar energy intake before initiating the diet and throughout the intervention. Again, we did not predict a similarity in energy consumption, because the low-carbohydrate dieters were given no restrictions in energy intake, whereas the low-fat dieters were instructed to limit their intake to approximately 1200 kcal (5024 kJ) per day. Based on the subjects food records, there was a reduction in energy of approximately 850 kcal (3559 kJ) per day at 2 months and 700 kcal (2931 kJ) per day at 4 months in both the low-fat and low-carbohydrate groups. To account for the approximately 3.6 kg difference in weight loss between the groups over 4 months, with similar energy intake, the low-carbohydrate group would have to expend approximately 225 kcal (942 kJ) per day more than the low-fat group (9, 10). However, we could not account for differences of this magnitude in measurements of REE or TEF or estimates of physical activity.

...The lack of significant differences between the groups in terms of REE does not support the hypothesis, or the claim by proponents of low-carbohydrate diets (8), that an enhanced metabolic rate is responsible for the increased weight loss associated with this dietary strategy.

...Although each of the measurements of energy expenditure that were used in this study has limitations, there was no evidence of even a trend for greater energy expenditure in the low-carbohydrate group.

Another possible explanation of the results of our two trials comparing low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets is reporting bias. We propose that the women randomized to the low-fat diet systematically underreported their energy intake. Such an error could account for the apparent paradox in the estimates of energy balance in groups of subjects with significantly different amounts of weight loss. Based on the low-carbohydrate dieters reported energy intake at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months, the expected weight loss was 6.8 kg and 11.8 kg at 2 and 4 months, not substantially different from their actual weight loss of 6.7 kg and 9.8 kg, respectively. In contrast, the weight loss predicted from the diet records of the low-fat group was 6.5 kg and 12.4 kg at 2 and 4 months, overestimates compared with the measured results of 4.8 kg and 6.1 kg. Thus, actual weight loss approximates the expected weight loss for the low-carbohydrate group but is less than expected for the low-fat group. One reason for underreporting by the low-fat dieters may have been that they were following a prescribed energy restriction and so were faced with a limit in daily energy intake. Because we did not restrict energy intake in the low-carbohydrate group, it is plausible that they felt less pressure to meet any goals for energy intake. If we had given a prescribed energy restriction to the low-carbohydrate group, they too might have underreported their daily intake. In addition, because the low-carbohydrate group followed a diet that differed dramatically from their usual intake, with more limited food choices that were likely easier to catalogue and record, we think that it is probable that their reporting was more accurate. Consistent underreporting of energy intake by nonobese subjects, and even greater underreporting by obese subjects, has been noted in previous studies (25, 26, 27), and we believe this is the most likely explanation for our results even though we cannot directly prove it. To our knowledge, this would be the first report of biased reporting of intake because of differences in macronutrient content of the diet and instructions regarding energy restriction. These results have important implications for future clinical research in that randomization of subjects with similar BMIs is not sufficient to ensure equivalent reporting of energy intake between diet groups.

In summary, we have demonstrated that women consuming a low-carbohydrate diet lose more weight than women consuming a low-fat diet over several months. The more pronounced weight loss in the low-carbohydrate dieters is not explained by increased REE, TEF, or physical activity and cannot be accounted for by their reported energy intakes. However, we believe that the best explanation for the difference in weight loss between the groups is a difference in energy intake that was not apparent in their self-reported 3-d food records. The reason for decreased energy intake in the low-carbohydrate group, even in the face of no restrictions on energy, remains to be explained. Some have speculated that this self-restriction is a result of the effect of circulating ketones on appetite or other satiating effects of low-carbohydrate diets, but this remains unproven. The major point is that the principal means of voluntarily shifting energy balance to promote weight loss is restriction of intake and increase in expenditure. At present, the best methods for accomplishing these lifestyle changes for prolonged periods of time remain elusive.

 

[hackskii]

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.

 

[Conciliator]

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.

Are you a moron? Did you even read the abstract? Had you done so, you'd know that the low-carb group consumed nearly TWICE as much protein as the other group! No wonder they had better results. It's not because they were on a low-carb diet, but because they were on a high protien diet. I thought it was clear any non-retarded study would control for protein. Which makes me wonder why you would post this.

So like you asked, "oh, what do you have?"
More energy, TWICE THE PROTEIN, and then more weight and fat loss.
Control for protein. Try again.

 

[hackskii]

Very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets affect fasting lipids and postprandial lipemia differently in overweight men.

Sharman MJ, Gomez AL, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS.

Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-1110, USA. matthew.sharman@uconn.edu

Hypoenergetic very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets are both commonly used for short-term weight loss; however, few studies have directly compared their effect on blood lipids, with no studies to our knowledge comparing postprandial lipemia, an important independently identified cardiovascular risk factor. The primary purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a very low-carbohydrate and a low-fat diet on fasting blood lipids and postprandial lipemia in overweight men. In a balanced, randomized, crossover design, overweight men (n = 15; body fat >25%; BMI, 34 kg/m(2)) consumed 2 experimental diets for 2 consecutive 6-wk periods. One was a very low-carbohydrate (<10% energy as carbohydrate) diet and the other a low-fat (<30% energy as fat) diet. Blood was drawn from fasting subjects on separate days and an oral fat tolerance test was performed at baseline, after the very low-carbohydrate diet period, and after the low-fat diet period. Both diets had the same effect on serum total cholesterol, serum insulin, and homeostasis model analysis-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Neither diet affected serum HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) or oxidized LDL (oxLDL) concentrations. Serum LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) was reduced (P < 0.05) only by the low-fat diet (-18%). Fasting serum triacylglycerol (TAG), the TAG/HDL-C ratio, and glucose were significantly reduced only by the very low-carbohydrate diet (-44, -42, and -6%, respectively). Postprandial lipemia was significantly reduced when the men consumed both diets compared with baseline, but the reduction was significantly greater after intake of the very low-carbohydrate diet. Mean and peak LDL particle size increased only after the very low-carbohydrate diet. The short-term hypoenergetic low-fat diet was more effective at lowering serum LDL-C, but the very low-carbohydrate diet was more effective at improving characteristics of the metabolic syndrome as shown by a decrease in fasting serum TAG, the TAG/HDL-C ratio, postprandial lipemia, serum glucose, an increase in LDL particle size, and also greater weight loss (P < 0.05).

There are many more, probably 100 of these studies to varify what I am saying and Disprove your argument.

I am going to go have some beer and a cheat meal today to keep the metabolism reved up and T3 production going
Its been real fun bro