| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Mithrandir
United States99 Posts
On September 01 2011 00:09 eshlow wrote: Low carb consistently outperforms low fat in regards to weight loss in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. And is healthy. Please, find me a metabolic ward study where low carb outperfroms low fat. You can't, because they don't exist. But there are a huge number of studies showing why high carb is necessary for lots of high intensity exercise. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On September 01 2011 01:10 Mithrandir wrote: Please, find me a metabolic ward study where low carb outperfroms low fat. You can't, because they don't exist. But there are a huge number of studies showing why high carb is necessary for lots of high intensity exercise. lol? Are you serious? Have you seen anything of what I've seen saying in this thread for the past 500+ pages? Low carb > low fat diets in losing weight, AND improving health. This is an indisputable fact. Low carb diets outperform low fat diets, AND low fat diet gets the benefit of being calorically restricted: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637 See for yourself. Pick any of the 10 studies on the front page (all of which are cited at least 100s of times) and they will all show that lower carbohydrate diets outperform low fat diets in both weight loss, fasting insulin, triglyceride levels, blood lipids, etc. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=low carbohydrate low fat Hell, go down a couple pages and read those too. I'll even throw you this study too on low starch, high sat fat diet in patients with documented heart disease: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/78/11/1331.full.pdf Oh yeah, and since you wanted some specific metabolic ward studies here ya go. Though you have to poke through some of the non-comparison studies. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=metabolic ward "low carbohydrate" "low fat" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002604959290111M -> on fasting insulin, glucose, triglycerides This study demonstrates that a high-MUFA/low-CHO diet has clinical and metabolic benefits in non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients. http://www.ajcn.org/content/77/1/43.short -> LC does not affect DNL, but LF increases DNL which leads to higher triglycerides etc. http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198809293191304 http://www.ajcn.org/content/30/2/160.short http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/276.short --------------------------- Let me ask you a question. Knowing what carbohydrates do to the body and their effects on insulin levels... in what way would it be a good idea to inundate someone with a messed up metabolic profile (e.g. diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, and other metabolic syndrome factors) more glucose in their diet in the form of breads, cereals, grains, etc.? You know their insulin sensitivity is garbate and pancreas are overloaded. You know they likely have non-alcohol fatty liver disease. You know they have high systemic inflammation. You know they have lots of visceral abdominal fat. You know they have lipodystrophy. You know they have high triglycerides. You know their other lipid profile is horribad. In what way would it be good to keep piling more carbohydrates into a metabolic profile such as this? Fruits are a bit debatable. Vegetables have very low carbs compared to fiber blunting absorption and much more vitamins and minerals than the above. | ||
|
Advocado
Denmark994 Posts
This leangains fasting is sure feels like it kicks the crap out of me. I'm figuring it might be cause of me cycling to work which is 7 km back and forth. Along with excessive walking between faculties and some stress I feel kinda fatigued when I get home. Well Im gonna go deadlift 120 kg, squat my measly 70 and try and do something about my pathetic bench press at 42.5 kg which is absolutely horrible. I am losing weight it seems though. Stay sharp people! Been thinking about moving my fast ending to 20 then training at 21 instead. Less people and more freedom to not care about everyone else. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
If anyone is going to read something, I would suggest reading this: http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fulltext There's a reason why industrial countries are continually getting more obese, and it's not because of "fat." | ||
|
Mithrandir
United States99 Posts
And in a calorically restricted diet, your insulin sensitivity will improve. You will be in a less inflammatory state and blood markers will all improve. And I'm not talking about people whose Type-II diabetes has led to complete beta cell death. Is high carb better than low carb? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's situational. I, and many others, don't function well on low carb. Some people function better on low carb. As long as it helps you reach a deficit (and isn't retarded) every blood marker will improve anyway. What you seem to lack is the understanding is the world is not black or white. If I say high carb outperforms low carb for exercise, you'll argue that only drinking soda is bad for you. But it doesn't matter because you've made up your mind and all your little acolytes have made up their minds to follow you. You do a few searches on google scholar and you think you're a researcher. You lack wisdom but you try to make up for it with lots of information. It's not enough to find studies to support you, you have to have a theory that explains all the studies. Whatever, go back to spoon-feeding these guys cherry-picked studies. | ||
|
inimenesc
Estonia374 Posts
It was on Dr. Oz show that told me to be aware of "low fat" or "low anything" because it means it is high on something else and usually that something else might not be so good for your health. Yes i watch Dr. Oz as much as i can...it is a woman oriented show but it still contains a lot of good information for everyone. | ||
|
McKTenor13
United States1383 Posts
On August 31 2011 23:54 phyre112 wrote: Actually, for someone who has been lifting less than a year on a structured program, changing things up like that are detrimental to your progress. Your body will make the most consistent and measurable progress by using the same exercises (ideally, a full body routine three days a week) with increasing weight every time you lift. Check out starting strength or stronglifts in the OP. someone who's been lifting for a few years might get more benefit from changing up their exercises, but if you have to ask this question then odds are that you're not in this category. Thank you! yeah I've been lifting for only a couple months now so I don't know too much and am trying to learn more. I just wanted to make sure I was doing it right. | ||
|
Malinor
Germany4732 Posts
On September 01 2011 01:25 eshlow wrote: lol? Are you serious? Have you seen anything of what I've seen saying in this thread for the past 500+ pages? Low carb > low fat diets in losing weight, AND improving health. This is an indisputable fact. Low carb diets outperform low fat diets, AND low fat diet gets the benefit of being calorically restricted: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637 I am very agnostic to whether low-carb or low-fat is better, I just happened to read the study design of the first study: Study Design The two diet groups attended separate two-hour group-teaching sessions each week for four weeks, followed by monthly one-hour sessions for five additional months; all sessions were led by experts in nutritional counseling. Subjects received a diet-overview handout, instructional nutrition labels, sample menus and recipes, and a book on counting calories and carbohydrates.5 No specific exercise program was recommended. The subjects assigned to the low-carbohydrate diet were instructed to restrict carbohydrate intake to 30 g per day or less.6 No instruction on restricting total fat intake was provided. Vegetables and fruits with high ratios of fiber to carbohydrate were recommended.6 The subjects assigned to the low-fat diet received instruction in accordance with the obesity-management guidelines of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,7 including caloric restriction sufficient to create a deficit of 500 calories per day, with 30 percent or less of total calories derived from fat. I would probably bet my life that the first diet with less than 30g carbohydrates a day simply will result in a bigger deficit than 500 calories a day, which will explain the higher weight-loss. I had a big paprika today and that was already 11g of carbohydrates, you basically cannot eat anything but meat and some diary products (exagerating here). edit: after reading further: After six months of dietary counseling, subjects on the low-fat diet reported a decrease in caloric consumption while their macronutrient composition was close to the guidelines of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Table 3Table 3Change from Base Line in the Composition of the Two Diets at Six Months.).7 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). I find that very hard to believe, but I probably should not bet my life so easily without reading further. | ||
|
Malinor
Germany4732 Posts
On September 01 2011 02:12 inimenesc wrote: I have noticed it too, "low fat" is too good of an advertisement right now, people fall for it because they dont know that it contains so much carbs or other worse suppliments. It was on Dr. Oz show that told me to be aware of "low fat" or "low anything" because it means it is high on something else and usually that something else might not be so good for your health. Yes i watch Dr. Oz as much as i can...it is a woman oriented show but it still contains a lot of good information for everyone. I actually learned "low fat" 10-12 years ago. Everything I have ever heard in the media for the last five years is "low-carb". | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
This quotes studies where low carb outperforms low fat in the bodyfat department, at least for obese people. | ||
|
Catch
United States616 Posts
On September 01 2011 02:07 Mithrandir wrote: No, not owned. He didn't provide a single reference with a metabolic ward study where for bodyfat lowcarb outperforms lowfat. Maybe you should actually read what I write, read what he responds, and realize he is completely not answering the question. And in a calorically restricted diet, your insulin sensitivity will improve. You will be in a less inflammatory state and blood markers will all improve. And I'm not talking about people whose Type-II diabetes has led to complete beta cell death. Is high carb better than low carb? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's situational. I, and many others, don't function well on low carb. Some people function better on low carb. As long as it helps you reach a deficit (and isn't retarded) every blood marker will improve anyway. What you seem to lack is the understanding is the world is not black or white. If I say high carb outperforms low carb for exercise, you'll argue that only drinking soda is bad for you. But it doesn't matter because you've made up your mind and all your little acolytes have made up their minds to follow you. You do a few searches on google scholar and you think you're a researcher. You lack wisdom but you try to make up for it with lots of information. It's not enough to find studies to support you, you have to have a theory that explains all the studies. Whatever, go back to spoon-feeding these guys cherry-picked studies. Just kind of wondering what a metabolic ward study is. Don't really know, and couldn't find an adequate explanation on google. Does it just track metabolism, kind of like how they track blood markers? | ||
|
Razith
Canada431 Posts
On September 01 2011 00:09 eshlow wrote: Regular meals to stoke metabolism is a myth. See the studies here: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html High fiber does very little for weight loss compared to low carb. Low carb consistently outperforms low fat in regards to weight loss in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. And is healthy. Wow that pretty much shows that I knew nothing. So basically the only thing that matters is that calories out is more than calories in, and that the amount you eat isn't ridiculously low? I feel completely lost after reading this article.. can anyone explain to me whats the best thing to do then? or link me to good resources? | ||
|
sJarl
Iceland1699 Posts
Feeling awesome. also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/ Research design and methods Eighty-four community volunteers with obesity and type 2 diabetes were randomized to either a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet (<20 g of carbohydrate daily; LCKD) or a low-glycemic, reduced-calorie diet (500 kcal/day deficit from weight maintenance diet; LGID). Both groups received group meetings, nutritional supplementation, and an exercise recommendation. The main outcome was glycemic control, measured by hemoglobin A1c. The low fat group were not limited in their caloric intake. The diet lower in carbohydrate led to greater improvements in glycemic control, and more frequent medication reduction/elimination than the low glycemic index diet. Lifestyle modification using low carbohydrate interventions is effective for improving and reversing type 2 diabetes. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
On September 01 2011 03:46 Razith wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 01 2011 00:09 eshlow wrote: Regular meals to stoke metabolism is a myth. See the studies here: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html High fiber does very little for weight loss compared to low carb. Low carb consistently outperforms low fat in regards to weight loss in the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. And is healthy. Wow that pretty much shows that I knew nothing. So basically the only thing that matters is that calories out is more than calories in, and that the amount you eat isn't ridiculously low? I feel completely lost after reading this article.. can anyone explain to me whats the best thing to do then? or link me to good resources? Well it all depends on your goals. Calories in < Calories out is what you need to lose weight. To lose bodyfat quickly go low carb, but that is expensive if you go the paleo route and if not, pretty damn boring. | ||
|
Malinor
Germany4732 Posts
 | ||
|
Razith
Canada431 Posts
On September 01 2011 03:58 glurio wrote: Well it all depends on your goals. Calories in < Calories out is what you need to lose weight. To lose bodyfat quickly go low carb, but that is expensive if you go the paleo route and if not, pretty damn boring. Uh.. what? I've lost about 15-20lbs from running 5 miles / 4-5 days a week and eating clean and not too much. But from what I read apparently everything I've been trying to do, like eat breakfast, eat smaller meals through out the day etc. isn't even needed. Now I just feel lost. | ||
|
glurio
Germany597 Posts
If it stops working you can always change up stuff. | ||
|
Malinor
Germany4732 Posts
On September 01 2011 04:03 Razith wrote: Uh.. what? I've lost about 15-20lbs from running 5 miles / 4-5 days a week and eating clean and not too much. But from what I read apparently everything I've been trying to do, like eat breakfast, eat smaller meals through out the day etc. isn't even needed. Now I just feel lost. You have been active and you have been eating cleaner, and lost 15-20lb. That sounds pretty good to me. But yes, it does not make a difference whether you eat breakfast or not or how many meals you eat per day. But if that is working for you (in the sense that it helps you control you appetite), then why change a working system? And if you don't want to eat like this, you now have a reason to stop doing it. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On September 01 2011 02:07 Mithrandir wrote: No, not owned. He didn't provide a single reference with a metabolic ward study where for bodyfat lowcarb outperforms lowfat. Maybe you should actually read what I write, read what he responds, and realize he is completely not answering the question. And in a calorically restricted diet, your insulin sensitivity will improve. You will be in a less inflammatory state and blood markers will all improve. And I'm not talking about people whose Type-II diabetes has led to complete beta cell death. Is high carb better than low carb? That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's situational. I, and many others, don't function well on low carb. Some people function better on low carb. As long as it helps you reach a deficit (and isn't retarded) every blood marker will improve anyway. What you seem to lack is the understanding is the world is not black or white. If I say high carb outperforms low carb for exercise, you'll argue that only drinking soda is bad for you. But it doesn't matter because you've made up your mind and all your little acolytes have made up their minds to follow you. You do a few searches on google scholar and you think you're a researcher. You lack wisdom but you try to make up for it with lots of information. It's not enough to find studies to support you, you have to have a theory that explains all the studies. Whatever, go back to spoon-feeding these guys cherry-picked studies. This is laughable. 1. First of all, if I was cherry pick studies. How come all of the studies on the first page (and subsequent pages) of "low carbohydrate" "low fat" search are in favor of low carbohydrate? That's what the research is which you say I am cherry picking, but how come there isn't any in support of "low fat" in any of the various populations? How exactly am I cherry picking when all of them say that low carbohydrate is superior in an UNBAISED search? 2. I provide severeal metabolic ward studies in the previous post. To say that I didn't is HILARIOUS when I specifically say I provided some metabolic ward studies. 3a. For endurance, you need significantly more carbohydrates. Straw man. No one is debating this; I agree that endurance athletes need more carbohydrates. I specifically said that low carbohydrates diets are best for weight loss. Endurance has nothing to do this. 3b. Additionally, carbs themselves are not bad in populations without significant metabolic syndrome or cardiovascular disease symptoms. I agree with this. However, this is not what I said in my statement about weight loss. 4. Ahh, yes, so there's tons of studies that support what I have to say, but you still disagree without providing any scientific support to your position. I'm sure that will convince people to believe what you are saying. And there is a theory to back up what I say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_endothelial_injury_hypothesis ------------------------------- Here is a summary of my position (including all of the stuff you were straw manning about): A. In populations that need to lose weight and/or improve metabolic markers from the disease of civilization (e.g. heart disease, stroke risk, autoimmune, neurodegenerative diseases, infertility, inflammatory bowel issues, etc.): low carb, ketogenic, or paleo style diets work the best. B. In populations that are healthy, there are various styles of eating that work well. High carbohydrates via non-processed foods (e.g. sweet potatoes, white potatoes, rice, etc.) tend to be fine. There are no markers of diseases of civilization such as cardiovascular disease in populations that consume up to around 70% of energy via carbohydrates (such as the Kitavins) or populations that consume up to 70-80% fat via animals such as indiginous eskimo populations. This means that macronutrients themselves are not bad in HEALTHY populations. Quality of food matters much more than macronutrient profile. C. However, in unhealthy and diseased populations, quality of food matters extremely significantly as well does macronutrient profile. THIS is specifically why in overweight/obese populations with significant metabolic issues low carbohydrate/ketogenic/or low carb Paleo diets tend to work extremely effectively in reducing the amount of metabolic dysfunction in the body. D. Long term viability of low carbohydrate and/or ketogenic diets is unsustainable once metabolic markers are fixed. There are very few populations who can thrive -- not just live -- on high fat diets (and when I'm talking high fat I mean 55%+ percentage of kcals), especially athlete populations. E. For athletes, higher carbohydrate percentages are likely needed with increase in high intensity or extreme duration activities.. This is an obvious duh. Personally, I think that you and I agree on most points. But the fact of the matter is that low carbohydrate/ketogenic diets ARE in fact superior for populations with metabolic dysfunction whether you choose to believe that or not. The studies above support this, even the metabolic ward once I referenced. | ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
On September 01 2011 04:03 Razith wrote: Uh.. what? I've lost about 15-20lbs from running 5 miles / 4-5 days a week and eating clean and not too much. But from what I read apparently everything I've been trying to do, like eat breakfast, eat smaller meals through out the day etc. isn't even needed. Now I just feel lost. All the nutritional weight loss studies out there can be overwhelming when weight loss is actually really simple: using more energy than you consume. Think about running: you're carrying your weight 5 miles, in pure physics this takes an X amount of energy (your body also burns more energy after the exercise, but we'll disregard that for now for simplicity sake). As long as you're eating less than your daily maintenance + X, you will lose weight. When you eat doesn't matter. In terms of how much: as long as you're calories out > calories in, your body has no choice but to burn fat. It's good to understand the basics of dieting, but please don't go to leangains for that advice. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
