New Low-Carb Diet Study

Yes, there is science that backs it up.
 
wrbix said:
Science to back up these claims?
Click to expand...

Well think about it even without 'science' to back it up. A calorie of sugar is the same as a calorie of protein? Maybe as far as the unit of measure goes, but totally different physiological affects on the body. If you ate 1500 calories of sugar a day as opposed to 1500 calories of protein, it would have the same effect on your body? And the body turns carbs into glucose which is sugar. And it does this by releasing insulin which converts the carbs to sugar (glucose). Which gets to the real root of the health problem, which is hyperinsulinemia, which is too much insulin in the blood on a constant basis from eating carbs/sugar all the time, which leads to inflammation in the body which is a root cause of all sorts of ailments.

Carbs are actually a non-essential macro. You can live without eating any. There are cultures such as the Inuit Eskimos that live on no carbs at all. Many studies have been done on them and their health. But the body has to have protein and fat.
 
Keep in mind that for the body to create glycogen for either fat storage or energy, the food must be broken down all the way to glucose. If it's a simple sugar, it's nearly already there. If it is a complex carbohydrate, it is absorbed and processed the same way, just a little slower. In either case absorption is nearly 100%. The resulting glycogen goes to power the body, and whatever is left over is turned to fat. Protein on the other hand must be broken down to amino acids, which are first utilized by the body for muscle production and cellular regrowth, and those left over then must be broken down to complex carbohydrates, then to sugars and finally to glucose. That is an inefficient process and there are a lot of pass through calories. Same with fats, except you don't have the benefit of amino absorption.
 
You could eat all your calories in glucose tablets and still be rail thin.

There is little difference in the net effect of eating 500calories in the form of super organic quinoa grown by unionized farmers or whether you consume them as glucose pills. A couple of percentage points for the enzymatic processing, thats it. The main reason the straight sugars are such a threat is because they can be hidden in other processed food.

If your overall energy balance is such that you burn your carbs on activity, how you put them in your body doesn't determine whether you get a beer gut or not.
 
weilke said:
You could eat all your calories in glucose tablets and still be rail thin.
Click to expand...

That is true for a short term, but for an extended period you would have another problem. You can't synthesize amino acids from pure glucose, so you would end up malnourished. That would be unsustainable. Your body can synthesize aminos from complex carbohydrates, so you could live on unionized super organic quinoa if you wanted, but you may have issues controlling excess calories because protein synthesis is an inefficient process. This is why pure vegetarians often have trouble controlling weight.
 
Sac Arrow said:
That is true for a short term, but for an extended period you would have another problem. You can't synthesize amino acids from pure glucose, so you would end up malnourished. That would be unsustainable. Your body can synthesize aminos from complex carbohydrates, so you could live on unionized super organic quinoa if you wanted, but you may have issues controlling excess calories because protein synthesis is an inefficient process. This is why pure vegetarians often have trouble controlling weight.
Click to expand...

Yes, you cannot live on glucose pills. You still need a balanced set of amino acids, trace elements and vitamins.

The point was that there is nothing good or evil about any particular source of carbs as part of your energy balance. As long as you don't build a caloric excess, it doesn't matter. Even if you make a bit of glycogen from a easily absorbed sugar, you are going to metabolize that a couple of hours later during a period of fasting. Now of course, if at that point you hit the next box of donuts, your liver will never get rid of that glycogen and bad things happen.
 
Yep, Weikle has it right.
It’s the VERY basic concept of Caloric Balance:
- ingest/absorb/infuse more calories than are “burned off” by BMR and activity, one gains weight.
- “ “. “. fewer “. ..........................................................loses weight.
...over the long term, barring any weight changes attributable to fluid loss/gain, amputation, implants, etc.
A concept taught in High School science - boy, those were the days....

One correction to Sac Arrow - anabolism of amino acids and thence proteins does require the availability of a group of compounds known as Essential Amino Acids; the availability of which in addition to other metabolites supplies the N needed for amino acids.
 
wrbix said:
Yep, Weikle has it right.
It’s the VERY basic concept of Caloric Balance:
- ingest/absorb/infuse more calories than are “burned off” by BMR and activity, one gains weight.
Click to expand...

Well, there are some differences. A calorie from fat is not equal to a calorie from protein. But the differences are minor and not nearly as significant as the adherents of this or that diet are trying to claim.

Keto is a whole different thing. It's a form of intentional malnutrition that impairs the bodies ability to use the ingested food. You pee put a lot of energy in the form of urine ketones. Also, the ability of the body to store energy in ketosis is impaired further promoting weight loss. It's a great weight loss tool for those who need it, but it's not the answer to a healthy diet in general.
 
Last edited:
wrbix said:
One correction to Sac Arrow - anabolism of amino acids and thence proteins does require the availability of a group of compounds known as Essential Amino Acids; the availability of which in addition to other metabolites supplies the N needed for amino acids.
Click to expand...

This is true, I oversimplified.
 
weilke said:
Well, there are some differences. A calorie from fat is not equal to a calorie from protein. But the differences are minor and not nearly as significant as the adherents of this or that diet are trying to claim.
.
Click to expand...
Thermic metabolic difference? ...... yeah, but so minor that it’ll just diffuse the basic point we’re trying to make.
Ketosis is not a healthy long term metabolic status.
 
wrbix said:
Ketosis is not a healthy long term metabolic status.
Click to expand...

That depends. Ketosis is a natural state of the body where fat is converted into energy. If you are 600 lbs, long term ketosis is great. If you are 200 lbs, you cannot sustain it.
 
wrbix said:
Seems there is recently, since my training those many years ago, some research into long term effects of ketosis that may indeed be swinging the pendulum - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/.
toward its safety. Not much out there. If you know more, link it here; I’d be interested.
Click to expand...

The conclusion paragraph was this:

The data presented in the present study showed that a ketogenic diet acted as a natural therapy for weight reduction in obese patients. This is a unique study monitoring the effect of a ketogenic diet for 24 weeks. There was a significant decrease in the level of triglycerides, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and glucose, and a significant increase in the level of HDL cholesterol in the patients. The side effects of drugs commonly used for the reduction of body weight in such patients were not observed in patients who were on the ketogenic diet. Therefore, these results indicate that the administration of a ketogenic diet for a relatively long period of time is safe. Further studies elucidating the molecular mechanisms of a ketogenic diet are in progress in our laboratory. These studies will open new avenues into the potential therapeutic uses of a ketogenic diet and ketone bodies.
 
BrianNC said:
The conclusion paragraph was this:

The data presented in the present study showed that a ketogenic diet acted as a natural therapy for weight reduction in obese patients. This is a unique study monitoring the effect of a ketogenic diet for 24 weeks. There was a significant decrease in the level of triglycerides, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and glucose, and a significant increase in the level of HDL cholesterol in the patients. The side effects of drugs commonly used for the reduction of body weight in such patients were not observed in patients who were on the ketogenic diet. Therefore, these results indicate that the administration of a ketogenic diet for a relatively long period of time is safe. Further studies elucidating the molecular mechanisms of a ketogenic diet are in progress in our laboratory. These studies will open new avenues into the potential therapeutic uses of a ketogenic diet and ketone bodies.
Click to expand...
Right - that’s why I posted the link, as science to support your contention; as contrast to my previous training and experience.
You proved you can read....and highlight.;)
 
wrbix said:
Right - that’s why I posted the link, as science to support your contention; as contrast to my previous training and experience.
You proved you can read....and highlight.;)
Click to expand...

I did that as a synopsis for others who might not want to read an article that long. :)
 
bflynn said:
That depends. Ketosis is a natural state of the body where fat is converted into energy. If you are 600 lbs, long term ketosis is great. If you are 200 lbs, you cannot sustain it.
Click to expand...

Keto starvation is a mechanism to survive a winter by burning off 20lbs of stored energy . When this developed, a 600lb specimen would have either been left behind by the pack or eaten.
 
Btw. 24 weeks is a short time period and if you start with a obese population, your data is only going to be valid for obese people. The study confirms what wrbix and myself have stated. It's a tool for obese people to lose weight.
 
I went back on low-carb when my blood work went all out-of-kilter while following the "balanced" diet a dietician planned for me, based on the ADA guidlines. She got kind of insulted when I told her I was going back to low-carb, but she couldn't argue that my blood work had been lousy since I started the more "balanced" diet.

After six months back on low-carb, my numbers are:

A1C: 6.5
Cholesterol: 133
LDL: 58
HDL: 61
Triglycerides: 138

I don't have the old labs handy, but I do know that my cholesterol was about 208 and my triglycerides just under 400 while on the "balanced" diet. The doctor did say that "everything" had improved this time around, however.

My weight has stayed about the same, but my waist size has gone down. I've been working out, so most likely I'm gaining muscle and losing fat. I didn't really notice the muscle part until I went for the lab work. I had a hard time rolling my sleeve up past my elbow for the blood draw because my bicep got in the way. (Seriously.)

According to conventional wisdom, it doesn't make sense that a higher-fat diet would help my lipid profile. The dietician swears it's just a fluke. I told her that's possible because I never could tell the difference between a fluke and a flounder, so maybe some of the flounder I ate was actually fluke. She just looked at me funny.

The only change I made other than going back to low-carb was that I cut my fish oil in half and added flax seed oil in its place. I doubt that could make that big a difference; but apparently it's not hurting anything, either, so I'll keep doing it.

My personal belief is that I just have some sort of metabolic thing going on that causes me to be rather intolerant of carbs. I'm pretty sure the endocrinologist did every test known to man, however, and nothing seems out of line. In the end, her advice was to just keep doing whatever I'm doing.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
The dietician swears it's just a fluke.
Click to expand...

That's just plain ignorance. A great book to read about this is Protein Power by Michael and Mary Eades (originally published in '96). It was written by a couple of doctors who used low carb/high protein to get their patients healthy. A 'testimony' like yours is the norm for them. They give case after case after case personally supervised by themselves.
 
BrianNC said:
That's just plain ignorance. A great book to read about this is Protein Power by Michael and Mary Eades (originally published in '96). It was written by a couple of doctors who used low carb/high protein to get their patients healthy. A 'testimony' like yours is the norm for them. They give case after case after case personally supervised by themselves.
Click to expand...

I think dieticians in general are stuck in the 1970s, to be honest.

Rich
 
I hesitate to jump in, but I find some of the claims in this thread at odds with the science cited here by Colin Walsh: https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340/rr/700185

Read the comments he attributes to Garth Davis, a bariatric surgeon:

  • There are NO long living high fat consuming people. None. Please do not say the Inuits. They live to 50 at best and actually do have heart disease.
  • The bashing of sugar is backed by this belief that sugar causes insulin to rise and insulin is the real problem, so we should eat steak instead of bananas. Problem is that insulin rises higher after a steak than it does after a banana.
  • THERE ARE NO STUDIES THAT SHOW INCREASING SATURATED FAT DECREASES HEART DISEASE. NONE!!!
And more good stuff.

Me? I'm conflicted. I ate a vegan diet for seven years after being diagnosed with CAD and still wound up with a triple bypass in August. My cardiologist, a vegetarian himself, said in his thirty years of practice he still can't say what the answer is to stopping the progression because there are too many variables, but thinks the diet extended the length of time until the surgery was required. Dr. Esselstyn says I made too many exceptions for oils, like those hidden in bread, candy, like M&Ms Peanuts, etc., even though I held fast on the big hitters, like meat, fish and dairy. I've temporarily gone off the diet in limited fashion while I try to wrap my head around how to proceed, based on changes in lab work vs. dietary changes I make after the first of the year. I'm glad the OP posted this article. For the actual study, click here.
 
RJM62 said:
I think dieticians in general are stuck in the 1970s, to be honest.

Rich
Click to expand...
The 70s? You met one that has a book written after 1960?

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
dtuuri said:
I'm glad the OP posted this article. For the actual study, click here.
Click to expand...

The funny thing about that study is that it doesn't do anything to support either keto or high protein approaches like Atkins.
 
dtuuri said:
I hesitate to jump in, but I find some of the claims in this thread at odds with the science cited here by Colin Walsh: https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340/rr/700185

Read the comments he attributes to Garth Davis, a bariatric surgeon:

  • There are NO long living high fat consuming people. None. Please do not say the Inuits. They live to 50 at best and actually do have heart disease.
  • The bashing of sugar is backed by this belief that sugar causes insulin to rise and insulin is the real problem, so we should eat steak instead of bananas. Problem is that insulin rises higher after a steak than it does after a banana.
  • THERE ARE NO STUDIES THAT SHOW INCREASING SATURATED FAT DECREASES HEART DISEASE. NONE!!!
And more good stuff.

Me? I'm conflicted. I ate a vegan diet for seven years after being diagnosed with CAD and still wound up with a triple bypass in August. My cardiologist, a vegetarian himself, said in his thirty years of practice he still can't say what the answer is to stopping the progression because there are too many variables, but thinks the diet extended the length of time until the surgery was required. Dr. Esselstyn says I made too many exceptions for oils, like those hidden in bread, candy, like M&Ms Peanuts, etc., even though I held fast on the big hitters, like meat, fish and dairy. I've temporarily gone off the diet in limited fashion while I try to wrap my head around how to proceed, based on changes in lab work vs. dietary changes I make after the first of the year. I'm glad the OP posted this article. For the actual study, click here.
Click to expand...

I wonder whether any of the studies, theories, or models give enough consideration to regional and ethnic genetic differences, and individual differences within those populations. Maybe "one size fits all" thinking needs to be tempered to "one side fits most" thinking.

Rich
 
weilke said:
The funny thing about that study is that it doesn't do anything to support either keto or high protein approaches like Atkins.
Click to expand...

It does address basal metabolism, however, which does play a role in weight loss and maintenance and would apply across all of the low-carb approaches.

I've only met one physician who wasn't fanatically opposed to low-carb in general. She's only moderately opposed, and only as a general rule. She does concede that for her own obese patients with DM2, a low-carb diet that is calorically deficient overall but high in fats seems to produce the best results in terms of both weight loss and A1C reduction. She speculates that denying the body of carbs and offering fats instead triggers a metabolic response that favors burning fats; and that as long as the total caloric intake is deficient, that fat burning will extend to the body's own stored fats.

She admits that that's just speculation, and simplistic speculation at that. But her simplistic speculation is rather refreshing compared to the ranting condemnation that I've heard from most other doctors who've treated me, and all except one dietician (who is actually a diabetes educator and who has a similar theory).

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
The only change I made other than going back to low-carb was that I cut my fish oil in half and added flax seed oil in its place. I doubt that could make that big a difference; but apparently it's not hurting anything, either, so I'll keep doing it.
Click to expand...
Flax is estrogenic. So might want to rethink that.
 
Becky said:
Flax is estrogenic. So might want to rethink that.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll look into that some more. It also was something that the diabetes educator mentioned when I read off my list of supplements to her.

In her opinion, the benefits for cholesterol control and diabetes management in men are well-documented, and the prostate risks more speculative; so she suggested I give it a shot. But she did mention the risks, and now you have; so I guess I should look into it again.

Rich
 
dtuuri said:
I hesitate to jump in, but I find some of the claims in this thread at odds with the science cited here by Colin Walsh: https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340/rr/700185

Read the comments he attributes to Garth Davis, a bariatric surgeon:

  • There are NO long living high fat consuming people. None. Please do not say the Inuits. They live to 50 at best and actually do have heart disease.
Click to expand...
How can anyone, let alone an educated doctor, make an absolute statement like that? I'd like to introduce him to several of my living relatives.
 
dtuuri said:
I hesitate to jump in, but I find some of the claims in this thread at odds with the science cited here by Colin Walsh: https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6340/rr/700185

Read the comments he attributes to Garth Davis, a bariatric surgeon:

  • There are NO long living high fat consuming people. None. Please do not say the Inuits. They live to 50 at best and actually do have heart disease.
Click to expand...
Sac Arrow said:
How can anyone, let alone an educated doctor, make an absolute statement like that? I'd like to introduce him to several of my living relatives.
Click to expand...
In the link I provided you can see that the quote refers to the "Blue Zones" identified by Dan Buettner for the National Geographic. I don't think by "people" he meant individuals.
 
dtuuri said:
In the link I provided you can see that the quote refers to the "Blue Zones" identified by Dan Buettner for the National Geographic. I don't think by "people" he meant individuals.
Click to expand...

You are linking to the site of a vitamin peddler. Is that what you intended to do ?
 
weilke said:
You are linking to the site of a vitamin peddler. Is that what you intended to do ?
Click to expand...

Here is the rather long and very interesting video of Dan Buettner describing blue zones among other factors:
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100

I do not recall if this was covered in his TED talk, but his approach is rather interesting. Find societies which live longer than the rest of the nearby culture and then look for common and different factors.
Only from there, do you check if any of the data matches current theories.

Tim
 
Everyone is looking for that magic factor that explains longevity and wants to put it in a bottle. That way their target customer can pop their pills while sitting on a recliner with a laptop on which they solve the worlds problems.
 
RJM62 said:
I think dieticians in general are stuck in the 1970s, to be honest.
Click to expand...
Haha, my mom was a dietician, and she had those 70s ideas. Granted, she was trained in the 40s and retired in the 70s. She thought butter was bad and margarine was good. She also ate dessert for every meal, until she died at 97; never overweight or diabetic.

I have no dietary or medical training, but my opinion that an individual's physiology plays a large part in how they react to certain foods. I'm sure you can make statistical generalizations, but an individual is not a statistic. I love and eat pasta of all kinds. I'll eat dessert, but I don't crave sweets. I eat a moderate amount of meat and vegetables. I'm also not overweight, diabetic, or young, so I may have inherited my mom's way of processing food.
 
Everskyward said:
Haha, my mom was a dietician, and she had those 70s ideas. Granted, she was trained in the 40s and retired in the 70s. She thought butter was bad and margarine was good. She also ate dessert for every meal, until she died at 97; never overweight or diabetic.

I have no dietary or medical training, but my opinion that an individual's physiology plays a large part in how they react to certain foods. I'm sure you can make statistical generalizations, but an individual is not a statistic. I love and eat pasta of all kinds. I'll eat dessert, but I don't crave sweets. I eat a moderate amount of meat and vegetables. I'm also not overweight, diabetic, or young, so I may have inherited my mom's way of processing food.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Searching for common factors is fine, but there will always be those who don't fit the mold.

I've lost track of how many times doctors and dieticians have convinced me to "give the ADA diet another try" since I was diagnosed with DM2. On every occasion, I've gained weight, my A1C has skyrocketed, and my lipids have gone off the chart. That doesn't reflect poorly on the diet. I'm sure it works well for many people. But it doesn't work for me. At some point I had to simply accept that and do what does work for me.

Unfortunately, I still lust in my Italian-American heart for pizza, pasta, and pastries. Such is life. But I'm finding ways to more or less approximate those foods. Whole-grain Lavash bread, for example, has very low net carbs and makes a passable-enough pizza crust or calzone wrapper. No, it's not perfect. But it's better than nothing.

Rich
 
Btw. The serving size for pizza is a slice, not a pie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top