Major evidence that low carb diets not needed for long term weight loss/maintenance success

[robblok]

High protein doesn't cause the kidneys to dysfunction, only if you don't supply your body with enough liquid mainly in the form of water. Also, it's all individualized. What is big meal for one man, might be snack for another. Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Only true if followed in the short term, ample evidence now that longer term it has a negative effect on the renal system;

http://www.mayoclinic.org/high-protein-diets/expert-answers/FAQ-20058207

As you said..evidence now. That's what we pursue as truth now because they said it. They always come up with evidence to prove things. Then a bit later they come up with a different one, proving that they were previously wrong.

So there is no evidence, only talking.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

They're your kidneys, do as you wish with them. All I can add is that I was diagnosed with a swelling on my left kidney (forget medical term and can't be arsed to look it up) following a lower carb/higer protein diet lasting about six months. The symptoms are an ache in lower back and decreased urine flow, higher BUN levels are also apparent, test is done by ultrasound exam. Not life threatening or even very dangerous as long as diet is changed but worrying at the time and inconvenient, the nephrologist confirmed diet as cause.

Even for bodybuilders they have proven high protein is not bad for your kidneys. You might have been sensitive, but it is never bad to do tests. I have done test and am arguably high protein (for working out and such) and bun levels are great.

The real question is of course what is high and that might vary per individual.

[chiang mai]

Even for bodybuilders they have proven high protein is not bad for your kidneys. You might have been sensitive, but it is never bad to do tests. I have done test and am arguably high protein (for working out and such) and bun levels are great.

Only true if followed in the short term, ample evidence now that longer term it has a negative effect on the renal system;

http://www.mayoclinic.org/high-protein-diets/expert-answers/FAQ-20058207

As you said..evidence now. That's what we pursue as truth now because they said it. They always come up with evidence to prove things. Then a bit later they come up with a different one, proving that they were previously wrong.

So there is no evidence, only talking.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

They're your kidneys, do as you wish with them. All I can add is that I was diagnosed with a swelling on my left kidney (forget medical term and can't be arsed to look it up) following a lower carb/higer protein diet lasting about six months. The symptoms are an ache in lower back and decreased urine flow, higher BUN levels are also apparent, test is done by ultrasound exam. Not life threatening or even very dangerous as long as diet is changed but worrying at the time and inconvenient, the nephrologist confirmed diet as cause.

The real question is of course what is high and that might vary per individual.

Agreed that the definition of "what is high" plus "age of the candidate" are major factors. A thirty something, lean and mean bodybuilder will be able to tolerate a high protein diet much better than an overweight sixty five year old couch potato, no insults intended in these extremes nor were they meant to excite.

[robblok]

Even for bodybuilders they have proven high protein is not bad for your kidneys. You might have been sensitive, but it is never bad to do tests. I have done test and am arguably high protein (for working out and such) and bun levels are great.

Only true if followed in the short term, ample evidence now that longer term it has a negative effect on the renal system;

http://www.mayoclinic.org/high-protein-diets/expert-answers/FAQ-20058207

As you said..evidence now. That's what we pursue as truth now because they said it. They always come up with evidence to prove things. Then a bit later they come up with a different one, proving that they were previously wrong.

So there is no evidence, only talking.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

They're your kidneys, do as you wish with them. All I can add is that I was diagnosed with a swelling on my left kidney (forget medical term and can't be arsed to look it up) following a lower carb/higer protein diet lasting about six months. The symptoms are an ache in lower back and decreased urine flow, higher BUN levels are also apparent, test is done by ultrasound exam. Not life threatening or even very dangerous as long as diet is changed but worrying at the time and inconvenient, the nephrologist confirmed diet as cause.

The real question is of course what is high and that might vary per individual.

Agreed that the definition of "what is high" plus "age of the candidate" are major factors. A thirty something, lean and mean bodybuilder will be able to tolerate a high protein diet much better than an overweight sixty five year old couch potato, no insults intended in these extremes nor were they meant to excite.

Nope, anyway the research is not clear cut and the best thing you can do is test yourself regularly if you are on high protein. I have been high protein for a while say like 140 grams of it in a day and my tests come out normal. Maybe because I am lean and active. No idea. But the thing I read is that if you have healthy kidneys its ok and if not better worry about it (seems logical)

[robblok]

A bit of information on protein and the Kidney.

Kidney function

A common criticism of high protein intakes/diets is the concern that they are damaging to the kidneys. This belief seems to stem from the fact that, in individuals with preexisting kidney damage, protein intake often has to be reduced to prevent further development of the disease. Incorrectly, this has been turned around to suggest that high-protein intakes are damaging to the kidneys (1).

There is at best a weak case to be made for a risk of high protein intakes on kidney function; quite in fact, some research suggesting a beneficial effect of higher protein intakes on kidney function (2). Simply put, the adaptations to kidney function that are often cited as indicating ‘strain’ or damage are more likely to simply be normal adaptive effects of varying protein intake (1).

Unfortunately, very little research has directly examined the impact of high protein intakes on kidney function in athletes. One study examined the impact of 2.8 g/kg protein on the kidney function of bodybuilders, no negative effect was seen (3). To my knowledge, higher intakes have not been studied.

Empirically, it’s worth considering that athletes have been habitually consuming large amounts of protein for at least several decades without any reported increase in the incidence of kidney problems. If such a problem were going to occur, it seems likely that it would have shown up by now. While this certainly doesn’t prove that high protein intakes aren’t potentially detrimental to kidney function, the data in support of that idea would seem to be lacking both from a scientific and real-world point of view.

Interestingly, while it’s always been stated that high dietary protein intakes increases fluid requirements, this idea appears to have originated from a military study examining nitrogen balance under conditions of water and energy restriction (1). There is no indication that individuals who are sufficiently hydrated need to go out of their way to increase fluid intake when they are consuming large amounts of protein.

Source below

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/protein-controversies.html

Edited January 14, 2014 by robblok

[JSixpack]

Hold on to our seats?

The study cited is pretty useless as it's tautological and nothing in the least new. Very standard stuff. Also robblok would find it invalid as it wasn't done in a lab under controlled conditions; I don't know why he didn't point that out in this case, as he's so very careful to do otherwise.

Basically they took a group of successful long-term HCLF (high carb/low fat) dieters and observed that they were successful long-term. DUH!

If weight loss maintenance requires “swimming upstream” against the environment, then these are the best swimmers

The same could be done for any diet for which a group has enjoyed long-term success. Any of the USN&WR "Top Rated" diets would do: http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets.

And then you look at the dieters' secret of success. What did they continue to do?

We found four strategies that were common to a large proportion of NWCR participants.

These were:

1) eating a low-calorie, low-fat diet;

2) eating breakfast almost every day;

3) frequent self-monitoring; and

4) engaging in high levels of physical activity.

Low calorie? "Registry members reported eating 1,381 kcal/d." Whoa!

What's high level of exercise?

This amount of physical activity is comparable to walk-
ing 28 miles per week or about 1 hour per day of moder-
ately intense physical activity. This amount of physical
activity is much higher than the Surgeon General’s physi-
cal activity recommendations for the general public.

Ha. Of course if you can do that--starve and sweat--as few besides our "best swimmers" really can long-term (as most have discovered already), it'll work.

Or, you could not bother to count calories or need to exercise so much (more than the Surgeon General recommends) by following some other diet. Not that I'm against exercise--on the contrary.

Another shock revelation was that if you can do that for 2 years, you're more likely to be able to continue doing it.

You see, the real question, which the study didn't answer, is why could those people continue doing that when the vast majority who try it find that they can't.

The study didn't compare rates of short-term or long-term success of HCLF to those of other diets. THAT would have been interesting. Nor did it go into other measures of health, such as HDL or triglycerides. THAT would have been interesting, too.

When comparisons are done from a range of diets, low-carb seems to be looking pretty good, too--if not indeed better.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9016489

A pretty silly "study," all considered. "Major" is a laugh.

Edited January 18, 2014 by JSixpack

[robblok]

Hold on to our seats?

The study cited is pretty useless as it's tautological and nothing in the least new. Very standard stuff. Also robblok would find it invalid as it wasn't done in a lab under controlled conditions; I don't know why he didn't point that out in this case, as he's so very careful to do otherwise.

Basically they took a group of successful long-term HCLF (high carb/low fat) dieters and observed that they were successful long-term. DUH!

If weight loss maintenance requires “swimming upstream” against the environment, then these are the best swimmers

The same could be done for any diet for which a group has enjoyed long-term success. Any of the USN&WR "Top Rated" diets would do: http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets.

And then you look at the dieters' secret of success. What did they continue to do?

We found four strategies that were common to a large proportion of NWCR participants.

These were:

1) eating a low-calorie, low-fat diet;

2) eating breakfast almost every day;

3) frequent self-monitoring; and

4) engaging in high levels of physical activity.

Low calorie? "Registry members reported eating 1,381 kcal/d." Whoa!

What's high level of exercise?

This amount of physical activity is comparable to walk-

ing 28 miles per week or about 1 hour per day of moder-

ately intense physical activity. This amount of physical

activity is much higher than the Surgeon General’s physi-

cal activity recommendations for the general public.

Ha. Of course if you can do that--starve and sweat--as few besides our "best swimmers" really can long-term (as most have discovered already), it'll work.

Or, you could not bother to count calories or need to exercise so much (more than the Surgeon General recommends) by following some other diet. Not that I'm against exercise--on the contrary.

Another shock revelation was that if you can do that for 2 years, you're more likely to be able to continue doing it.

You see, the real question, which the study didn't answer, is why could those people continue doing that when the vast majority who try it find that they can't.

The study didn't compare rates of short-term or long-term success of HCLF to those of other diets. THAT would have been interesting. Nor did it go into other measures of health, such as HDL or triglycerides. THAT would have been interesting, too.

When comparisons are done from a range of diets, low-carb seems to be looking pretty good, too--if not indeed better.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9016489

A pretty silly "study," all considered. "Major" is a laugh.

If not done under labratory supervision then indeed studies can be easily flawed. I am still waiting for a study to counter mine about low carb having NO metabolic advantage. But I guess I can wait for the rest of my life for that as its hard to change facts.

Fact is find something that works for you and stick with it.

Low carb works for some, intermittent fasting for others.. calory counting for again others. Fact is there is no magical diet.

As for 1381 kc cal.. if self reported (and it is) then they were probably eating more as that. Countless studies show self reporting is usually under reporting.

I eat around 2000cals (haven't counted them for a year now)

[Commander Tamson]

Every week, if not every day, some new crackpot publishes his/her research advises the overweight of the world how to diet / how to lose weight. And yet here we are with the overweight slowly but surely becoming the Majority in the developed/developing world.

What's the conclusion? - f*cked if I know!

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[JSixpack]

If not done under labratory supervision then indeed studies can be easily flawed.

And so, since this is one your major insights into the scientific method that you (following Il Tropo) are quick to spout, it's just so surprising you didn't when the "study" appears to support your beloved calories in/calories out.

I am still waiting for a study to counter mine about low carb having NO metabolic advantage.

I'm sorry. In what medical journal was your controlled lab study published?

Does yours counter this one? How exactly?

http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564212/

But I guess I can wait for the rest of my life for that as its hard to change facts.

You mean, your own biased thinking. You see, some things are less in need of a controlled study than others. Does wearing helmets increase survivability rates of motorcycle accidents? Observational studies all say so and the science is behind it. Is a controlled study necessary to prove it? Not really; might be nice.

I think you must have some financial interest in promoting carbs in/carbs out somehow, since you're so irrational about it and continually give out misinformation about low carb--when normally you're pretty intelligent and rational. Maybe a website or two, products, paid advice?

I eat around 2000cals (haven't counted them for a year now)

Funny little red herring of a technicality: in fact, i still weigh my food at home (out of habit an keeping the portions the same)

I don't know and don't need to know how many I eat. Nor do I weigh my food. LOL.

[robblok]

JSixpack,

That is a real interesting study.. really it is is I like that this is what i was asking for and you showed it to me. Thank you.

I give in there is a 67 cals with low fat 29 with low gi difference burn. That is a few percents more and could be explained partly by the higher protein content as protein needs more energy to burn. so a 4% or 2% difference you win.. but that is a far cry from the you can eat all you want and loose weight its vastly superior.

But it is a difference for sure so you win but you loose too as 4% extra burn or 67 calories is hardly a lot.

But I really liked reading that research as that is the kind of research i like. I mentioned before in this thread i like Peter Attia as that is the kind of research i like.

Below from the research.. this is what i mean with no 1 cure it all solution

1. There is enormous variation between subjects by diet type. For example, at least one subject saw a dramatic increase in TEE on the low GI diet versus the other two, while another saw the greatest TEE on the low fat diet. This speaks to a theme I iterate on this blog: be willing to self-experiment until you find what works for you.

Edited January 18, 2014 by robblok

[robblok]

And Jsixpack as for me weighing my food.. that is only my morning breakfast of oats as i like to keep the milk / oats the same as it is just right then. Other meals i don't weigh but of course i know roughly what i buy meat weight wise.

No actually no low paid advice or website stuff, I am far from good enough to give out advice. (but actually i do have a website and advice clients but that is for accounting and Dutch tax law my job) I do like websites like the one you just gave from Peter Attia (there is a vid of his in a metabolic chamber in this thread). I also like reading the site of Lyle Mc Donald also loads of good research backed up information.

As for our difference of opinion its more that I had the impression you saw low carb as the magical cure it all. I see it as a tool that will help but is nothing magical it for sure wont allow you to eat 50% more as on other diets. Here it shows 2 to 4% better figures (and given a long time that certainly has an impact).

For some reason I was thinking you were one of those guys advertising low carb as eat all you want like 50% more as other food programs and still loose weight. That is clearly something I dont believe in and as proven by your own dug up (real interesting) research is not true. But it DOES show an advantage and i like that.

4% day in day out could be impressive certainly if you think that bodybuilders use stuff like t3 to have a 5% extra burn.

Edited January 18, 2014 by robblok

[kevvy]

We are punished by our bad habits of living and rewarded by our good habits of living. Health and energy are precious ingredients, which cannot be purchased in a bottle or can. They are rewards for living as close to nature laws as possible. The laws which govern man's being are quite simple and very understandable if one takes the time to learn and to observe how he functions from day to day. Paul and Patricia Bragg stated that, they themselves were the best testimonial for the value of their teachings.

"paul brag" the miracle of fasting .

[MrHammer]

Relating to the subject, the dramatic info about the long term successful people always eating breakfast.

I do as well.

I am happy with my breakfasts, mostly lowfat yogurt with limited non-sweet grains, chopped fruit, and some almonds.

I vary it sometimes with sardine or egg based breakfasts.

There was recently a report stating that people who eat EGGS for breakfast are less likely to fat.

This is different than weight loss success stories, similar to news saying people who eat NUTS are less likely to be fat.

Anyway, wondering, what are people doing about eggs for breakfast?

I know eggs are great nutrition, and have been getting much better press recently, but I am still afraid of eating too many of them.

Like two a day daily for breakfast still feels to me too many eggs.

I have one sometimes in other meals as well and they are used in many cooked dishes in restaurants as well.

BTW, to expand on my healthy fats comment before, like almonds, they are good for you but they are very caloric, so you really can't get away with eating too many of them!

I saw this about eggs and how they somehow produce and maintain a feeling of a full stomach for a very long period.

And isn't it true. Scrambled eggs for breakfast and I can happily skip lunch or certainly don't feel like a large lunch.

That's very true.

I like to take my lunch/late breakfast as two scrambled eggs with a good slice of smoked salmon/trout (about 80-100g). The smoked salmon is very delicious but has hardly any calories, but yet is very healthy. The only problem is finding salmon at a reasonable price in Thailand. I asked a question in the general forum asking about which Thai fish are tasty for that reason. Perhaps there is a substitute?

[JSixpack]

The only problem is finding salmon at a reasonable price in Thailand. I asked a question in the general forum asking about which Thai fish are tasty for that reason. Perhaps there is a substitute?

Canned tuna. Get to know and love it. Learn how to spice it up a bit.

[JSixpack]

As for our difference of opinion its more that I had the impression you saw low carb as the magical cure it all.

No reason to think that. I made clear I am suggesting that everyone wanting to lose weight should try it out because the science supports it, not to mention all the testimonials. Besides weight loss, it can have significant other benefits as well. Occasionally I help educate our simple-minded, uninformed calories in/calories out starve-and-sweat weight loss advocates that there IS another way--a much easier way.

For some reason I was thinking you were one of those guys advertising low carb as eat all you want

No low carb advocate implies this, nor did I ever anything about UNLIMITED eating; why would I? That's just your imagination fueled by bias against low carb--which does a disservice by misleading forum members.

You've allowed yourself to fall victim to a common misunderstanding. There are limitations and distinctions that've been lost on you, partly because you don't know much at all about the diet (and so shouldn't be offering your erroneous opinions about it). It IS a diet. Your hero and guru, Lyle McDonald,

I also like reading the site of Lyle Mc Donald also loads of good research backed up information.

explained it for you clearly in his book The Ketogenic Diet: A Complete Guide For The Dieter And Practitioner, so I don't know why you didn't pay attention. Lyle says on pp. 93-94, and implicitly agrees:

Calories and the Atkins diet: a misconception

A misconception, and commonly heard criticism, surrounding the Atkins diet is the

(apparent) claim that fat can be lost with an unrestricted caloric intake, which contradicts

basic thermodynamics (8). Strictly speaking, Atkins claimed that one could lose weight eating as

much fat and protein as they liked meaning they could eat until they were full without worrying

about counting calories.

Atkins based this claim on the established fact that individuals on a diet restricted in

carbohydrate but with unlimited fat and protein will tend to automatically restrict calories. The

mechanism behind the appetite suppressing effect of ketogenic diets is addressed in more detail in

chapter 7.

. . .

Setting calories for fat loss

Generally speaking, most dieters restrict calories too much when dieting for fat loss. The

logic is that a greater caloric deficit will yield faster and greater fat loss, but this is not always the

case. Excessively low caloric intakes are countered in the body by a reduction in metabolic rate

which slows fat loss (9,10).

And the above, as interpreted by none other than THE Lyle McDonald, is what you find ALL the low carb authorities saying, without exception.

In Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution: "Eat when you are hungry; stop when you are full. The diet works best on a demand feeding basis; that is, eat whenever you are hungry; try not to eat more than what will satisfy you. Learn to listen to your body. . . . You are not counting calories. Enjoy losing weight comfortably, without hunger or cravings." Andreas Eenfeldt, MD: "Eat when you're hungry until you are satisfied. It's that simple. You do not need to count calories or weigh your food." Dr. Eric Westman, Duke University LC Clinic: "You do not have to limit quantities deliberately, but you should stop eating when you feel full."

So, unless you can find any recognized LC expert saying otherwise, you should stop your little disinformation campaign and silliness on this completely non-existent argument you THINK you have.

Edited January 20, 2014 by JSixpack

[robblok]

As for our difference of opinion its more that I had the impression you saw low carb as the magical cure it all.

No reason to think that. I made clear I am suggesting that everyone wanting to lose weight should try it out because the science supports it, not to mention all the testimonials. Besides weight loss, it can have significant other benefits as well. Occasionally I help educate our simple-minded, uninformed calories in/calories out starve-and-sweat weight loss advocates that there IS another way--a much easier way.

For some reason I was thinking you were one of those guys advertising low carb as eat all you want

No low carb advocate implies this, nor did I ever anything about UNLIMITED eating; why would I? That's just your imagination fueled by bias against low carb--which does a disservice by misleading forum members.

You've allowed yourself to fall victim to a common misunderstanding. There are limitations and distinctions that've been lost on you, partly because you don't know much at all about the diet (and so shouldn't be offering your erroneous opinions about it). It IS a diet. Your hero and guru, Lyle McDonald,

I also like reading the site of Lyle Mc Donald also loads of good research backed up information.

explained it for you clearly in his book The Ketogenic Diet: A Complete Guide For The Dieter And Practitioner, so I don't know why you didn't pay attention. Lyle says on pp. 93-94, and implicitly agrees:

Calories and the Atkins diet: a misconception

A misconception, and commonly heard criticism, surrounding the Atkins diet is the

(apparent) claim that fat can be lost with an unrestricted caloric intake, which contradicts

basic thermodynamics (8). Strictly speaking, Atkins claimed that one could lose weight eating as

much fat and protein as they liked meaning they could eat until they were full without worrying

about counting calories.

Atkins based this claim on the established fact that individuals on a diet restricted in

carbohydrate but with unlimited fat and protein will tend to automatically restrict calories. The

mechanism behind the appetite suppressing effect of ketogenic diets is addressed in more detail in

chapter 7.

. . .

Setting calories for fat loss

Generally speaking, most dieters restrict calories too much when dieting for fat loss. The

logic is that a greater caloric deficit will yield faster and greater fat loss, but this is not always the

case. Excessively low caloric intakes are countered in the body by a reduction in metabolic rate

which slows fat loss (9,10).

And the above, as interpreted by none other than THE Lyle McDonald, is what you find ALL the low carb authorities saying, without exception.

In Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution: "Eat when you are hungry; stop when you are full. The diet works best on a demand feeding basis; that is, eat whenever you are hungry; try not to eat more than what will satisfy you. Learn to listen to your body. . . . You are not counting calories. Enjoy losing weight comfortably, without hunger or cravings." Andreas Eenfeldt, MD: "Eat when you're hungry until you are satisfied. It's that simple. You do not need to count calories or weigh your food." Dr. Eric Westman, Duke University LC Clinic: "You do not have to limit quantities deliberately, but you should stop eating when you feel full."

So, unless you can find any recognized LC expert saying otherwise, you should stop your little disinformation campaign and silliness on this completely non-existent argument you THINK you have.

Mea culpa.

I know of Lyle Mc Donald his books and interpretation. I support those. It was also his site that said not caloric advantages. Now this study says otherwise and is done well so I accept its findings.

I have not read the ketogenic diet book of him, read 3 others.. next time ill read that book. I also agree on not going to low in calories. I recently even started to eat more in cycles (carb / caloric cycling). I was always afraid of eating too much, but slowly changing a bit.

But I always stop eating before I am full as I eat fast.. it usually takes my body a bit of time to feel full.

[tominbkk]

Eating a low-carb diet naturally decreases the appetite. I find that it also increases the amount of vegetables that I want to eat.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

Eating a low-carb diet naturally decreases the appetite. I find that it also increases the amount of vegetables that I want to eat. Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Or you could look at it another way. Eating more vegetables fills your stomach so that you can get by eating less unhealthy carbs, especially processed ones.

Of course, vegetables have carbs too!

http://www.weightlossforall.com/carbohydrates-vegetables.htm

I am not a true believer in low carb but I think it's obviously desirable to cut processed/refined carbs like white rice, pasta, etc.

[robblok]

Eating a low-carb diet naturally decreases the appetite. I find that it also increases the amount of vegetables that I want to eat. Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Or you could look at it another way. Eating more vegetables fills your stomach so that you can get by eating less unhealthy carbs, especially processed ones.

Of course, vegetables have carbs too!

http://www.weightlossforall.com/carbohydrates-vegetables.htm

I am not a true believer in low carb but I think it's obviously desirable to cut processed/refined carbs like white rice, pasta, etc.

Actually JT low carb often means higher proteins and they are really good at filling people up... but so are large amounts of veggies so yes it could work. But again its not for everyone, but it is one of the more successful things out there so its worth a try.

But again with just cutting out processed refined carbs your already ahead of the game and maybe you don't even have to take it one step further. In the end its not only about what is effective its also about what is something you can live with long term.

These things differ for many people and all the advice I can give try the ones that work for many people and see how they suit you.

- Intermittent fasting.

- Low carb

- High protein

- Just cutting out refined carbs and sugars .... though i think everyone should do that

- Carb / calorie cycling (trying that one out myself will report back later)

I am not talking about trying out fad diets and stuff.. but the things that are tried.

[Jingthing]

I am probably on a lower carb eating style anyway. I just eschew labels, diets, and fads. I probably eat less protein than a person consciously on a low carb plan, but of course I do eat some protein daily (eggs, yogurt, chicken, fish, nuts, legumes, occasional red meat which I consider unfortunate). The idea of no carb I think is RADICAL. I can see how some might see my thing with Garcinia Cambogia as a fad. I don't do it because it's become trendy, I do it because it seems to be helping me.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Jingthing

[robblok]

I am probably on a lower carb eating style anyway. I just eschew labels, diets, and fads. I probably eat less protein than a person consciously on a low carb plan, but of course I do eat some protein daily (eggs, yogurt, chicken, fish, nuts, legumes, occasional red meat which I consider unfortunate). The idea of no carb I think is RADICAL. I can see how some might see my thing with Garcinia Cambogia as a fad. I don't do it because it's become trendy, I do it because it seems to be helping me.

I tried to go no carb.. but i dont think they are advertising that. No carb is hard.. and when you start you will feel a bit tired in the head as your body needs to switch over. I know i was lethargic when that happened.. so i took carbs again. Maybe i should have gone on but i had a busy schedule so i could not.

But I am also quite low in in carbs in general too and what i eat is healthy.

[MrHammer]

Technically speaking, a lot of vegetables are carbs. When I think of no carb I also include stuff like potatoes. A real hardcore no carb would basically be Atkins which people swear by and has a lot of succes stories, probably not a good idea long term though.

The takeaway though is that the body and brain CAN survive without carbs at all from ketogenesis. As my understanding, we need basically 4 things, water, minerals and vitamins, glucose and protein. Glucose is brain fuel and the easiest source of glucose is carbs, but if you stop eating carbs, the process of ketogenesis begins converting fat into glucose.

That makes sense if we consider that people can survive for very long without food, just going on fat deposits. If carbs were so important, that wouldn't be possible.

I'd probably supplement low carb with leafy greens like spinach, sprouts and the like.

[robblok]

Technically speaking, a lot of vegetables are carbs. When I think of no carb I also include stuff like potatoes. A real hardcore no carb would basically be Atkins which people swear by and has a lot of succes stories, probably not a good idea long term though.

The takeaway though is that the body and brain CAN survive without carbs at all from ketogenesis. As my understanding, we need basically 4 things, water, minerals and vitamins, glucose and protein. Glucose is brain fuel and the easiest source of glucose is carbs, but if you stop eating carbs, the process of ketogenesis begins converting fat into glucose.

That makes sense if we consider that people can survive for very long without food, just going on fat deposits. If carbs were so important, that wouldn't be possible.

I'd probably supplement low carb with leafy greens like spinach, sprouts and the like.

When I went real low i got a bit fuzzy in the brain.. and lethargic.. but most people say it will pass. At that point i needed a sharp brain so i added carbs.

[h90]

Technically speaking, a lot of vegetables are carbs. When I think of no carb I also include stuff like potatoes. A real hardcore no carb would basically be Atkins which people swear by and has a lot of succes stories, probably not a good idea long term though.

The takeaway though is that the body and brain CAN survive without carbs at all from ketogenesis. As my understanding, we need basically 4 things, water, minerals and vitamins, glucose and protein. Glucose is brain fuel and the easiest source of glucose is carbs, but if you stop eating carbs, the process of ketogenesis begins converting fat into glucose.

That makes sense if we consider that people can survive for very long without food, just going on fat deposits. If carbs were so important, that wouldn't be possible.

I'd probably supplement low carb with leafy greens like spinach, sprouts and the like.

Small things to add: brain can switch to 70-80 away from glucose to ketone bodies.

Ketogenesis is converting fat into ketone bodies. Which can be used INSTEAD of glucose. The glucose that is still needed can be generated from proteins and small amounts from they glycerin which comes with the fat acids.

The point of the ketone bodies is that they are water solvable, so they are easier to transport than fat.

[MrHammer]

Technically speaking, a lot of vegetables are carbs. When I think of no carb I also include stuff like potatoes. A real hardcore no carb would basically be Atkins which people swear by and has a lot of succes stories, probably not a good idea long term though.

The takeaway though is that the body and brain CAN survive without carbs at all from ketogenesis. As my understanding, we need basically 4 things, water, minerals and vitamins, glucose and protein. Glucose is brain fuel and the easiest source of glucose is carbs, but if you stop eating carbs, the process of ketogenesis begins converting fat into glucose.

That makes sense if we consider that people can survive for very long without food, just going on fat deposits. If carbs were so important, that wouldn't be possible.

I'd probably supplement low carb with leafy greens like spinach, sprouts and the like.

When I went real low i got a bit fuzzy in the brain.. and lethargic.. but most people say it will pass. At that point i needed a sharp brain so i added carbs.

Yes I get the same and that's a problem if you're working with your brain, but maybe that is exactly because ketogenesis takes a while to kick into effect or that's what the 'bro science' says.

I still don't know if low carb is even worth doing if you don't go into a ketogenic state, because the whole point is to have a caloric deficit while not consuming carbs, which will then simply force the body to consume fat for energy. I am also not sure about how fast it happens, because I had the best results with weightloss on some kind of intermittent fasting diet like the Warrior Diet, where you only eat once a day in the evening.

[robblok]

Technically speaking, a lot of vegetables are carbs. When I think of no carb I also include stuff like potatoes. A real hardcore no carb would basically be Atkins which people swear by and has a lot of succes stories, probably not a good idea long term though.

The takeaway though is that the body and brain CAN survive without carbs at all from ketogenesis. As my understanding, we need basically 4 things, water, minerals and vitamins, glucose and protein. Glucose is brain fuel and the easiest source of glucose is carbs, but if you stop eating carbs, the process of ketogenesis begins converting fat into glucose.

That makes sense if we consider that people can survive for very long without food, just going on fat deposits. If carbs were so important, that wouldn't be possible.

I'd probably supplement low carb with leafy greens like spinach, sprouts and the like.

When I went real low i got a bit fuzzy in the brain.. and lethargic.. but most people say it will pass. At that point i needed a sharp brain so i added carbs.

Yes I get the same and that's a problem if you're working with your brain, but maybe that is exactly because ketogenesis takes a while to kick into effect or that's what the 'bro science' says.

I still don't know if low carb is even worth doing if you don't go into a ketogenic state, because the whole point is to have a caloric deficit while not consuming carbs, which will then simply force the body to consume fat for energy. I am also not sure about how fast it happens, because I had the best results with weightloss on some kind of intermittent fasting diet like the Warrior Diet, where you only eat once a day in the evening.

As far as i know its still worth it as there is a metabolic advantage (you saw the research) though higher protein might have the same effect as protein costs more energy to burn. But that was not tested there.

But low carb is good if your insulin resistant.

I think you will go into ketose if you take less as a certain amount of carbs (the amountt he brain burns for glucose). But i can't say for sure as I never really studied the subject too much. I like carbs for my workouts for hard workouts you need glucose not ketones (that is better for endurance sports.

[chiang mai]

An interesting essay here, confirming the OP's views:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2546975/One-twin-gave-sugar-gave-fat-Their-experiment-change-YOUR-life.html

[Jingthing]

Another interesting link about best "diet" choices specifically about carbs.

This quote makes excellent sense to me. Keep in mind, all along, I am more interested in the idea of HEALTH PROMOTING food choices (with weight control hopefully as a side effect) rather than strictly focusing only on temporary, non-sustainable weight loss tactics which often involve "diets" that are the opposite of health promoting:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/

They also found carbohydrate-selective diets to be better than categorically low-carbohydrate diets, in that incorporating whole grains is associated with lower risks for cancers and better control of body weight. Attention to glycemic load and index is "sensible at the least." Eating foods that have high glycemic loads (which Katz says is much more relevant to health outcomes than glycemic index—in that some quality foods like carrots have very high indices, which could be misleading) is associated with greater risk of heart disease.

Also this article disses Paleo diets for the same reason I have brought up in another thread. Our modern meat is not remotely the same as ancient meat sources:

Finally, in a notable blow to some interpretations of the Paleo diet, Katz and Meller wrote, "if Paleolithic eating is loosely interpreted to mean a diet based mostly on meat, no meaningful interpretation of health effects is possible." They note that the composition of most meat in today's food supply is not similar to that of mammoth meat, and that most plants available during the Stone Age are today extinct. (Though it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Paleo extremists are crowd-funding a Jurassic Park style experiment to bring them back.)

Edited March 25, 2014 by Jingthing

[hanno]

I always thought the Paelo diet was BS.

I eat lots of carbs as I run a fair bit, but I try and get my carbs from fruit, veggies, whole grains, nuts, and seeds as opposed to processed grains, fried or fatty items.

[h90]

I always thought the Paelo diet was BS.

I eat lots of carbs as I run a fair bit, but I try and get my carbs from fruit, veggies, whole grains, nuts, and seeds as opposed to processed grains, fried or fatty items.

I think specially the mix of: no exercise, a lot processed carbs (sugar) and fat is the killer.....

change any of the 3 things and all looks a lot better.

I try to avoid the word diet....as people think you do something for a limited time and than you can go back to "normal".

On very low carbs you loose weight very easily without being hungry and of course you can still do sport. But I doubt it is the right thing for someone who has just a few kg too much.

[robblok]

I always thought the Paelo diet was BS.

I eat lots of carbs as I run a fair bit, but I try and get my carbs from fruit, veggies, whole grains, nuts, and seeds as opposed to processed grains, fried or fatty items.

I think specially the mix of: no exercise, a lot processed carbs (sugar) and fat is the killer.....

change any of the 3 things and all looks a lot better.

I try to avoid the word diet....as people think you do something for a limited time and than you can go back to "normal".

On very low carbs you loose weight very easily without being hungry and of course you can still do sport. But I doubt it is the right thing for someone who has just a few kg too much.

I agree about the word diet not sure how to call it otherwise but your in it for life if you want to keep your weight.