Singapore Expats Forum

Fat Loss Documentation - An unbias look at fat loss

Discuss about beauty & health. Need some advice or looking for a particular product? Share your beauty and health tips here.

Did you find this informative?

Yes
0
No votes
No
3
75%
I don't know
1
25%
 
Total votes: 4

User avatar
BodyBlitz
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue, 06 Jan 2009
Contact:

Fat Loss Documentation - An unbias look at fat loss

Postby BodyBlitz » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 4:24 am

Fat Loss Documentation - An unbias look at the science of fat loss

Preface -

In the face of modern day science there is a lot of myth and controversy with anecdotal dogmas within the fat loss circles. The question stands before us - Who do believe? What can we believe? Who shall we trust?
With a decades of research and clinical trials under out belt, we have to use science to give us an insight into this rising problem that is prevalent in our society.
Within this, we will dispel myths and re-look into our perspective of what was commonly known as “knowledge”
http://bodyblitz.sg - A new era of fitness.

Answers?
Regular
Regular
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat, 06 May 2006

Postby Answers? » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:15 am

to much writing, most no bother to read. them who do will see that all is guess & opinion only with poor studies signifying nothing. normal person here only want to know how to lose weight without exercise or change. nice try, but effort only taking up bandwidth like poster want only to see name in print. maybe wannabe expert?

User avatar
BodyBlitz
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue, 06 Jan 2009
Contact:

Postby BodyBlitz » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:30 am

Ah i do need practice, better to have opinions about the work and research i do so that i can improve on it.

Again i'm no expert just sharing my findings as a layperson looking into it.
I'm having troubles finding over feeding studies that has a direct relation with weight gain.

If it sucks, just let me know and help me learn.
I'm banking on a wider audience range here with more mature reader to have a look at it and have a discussion.
http://bodyblitz.sg - A new era of fitness.

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:41 am

Far too much waffle and nothing of quality.

Simply put Energy in = Energy out .....Understanding fuel mixture is more important, and genetically we are all so different, so would have to be treated differently.

As an example 50% protein , 30% carbs 20% fat maybe an excellent fuel mix for myself, and not for anyone else, because our metabolic rates are very different, yet science takes the mean average and is generic for the purpose of expression in research terms, depending on the objectives of course, but for commercial purpose generic outcome is the norm for science and medication, until too many deaths occure. Then a new science finds the flaw.

So you would be better to show, that metabolic burning rates and fuel mixtures, must be better understood for that individual, fat's in the mixture are very important, although some burn fat's much more quickly than others, so in that case, maybe the one's that cannot breakdown fat quickly, need to avoid it, then you have the carbs, some may not use up the carbohydrate intake for the day or protein.

Hypothetically if an office worker, is running around from one office to the other for 8 hrs a day...with no active muscle resistance, thenmaybe more carbs and less protein, and fat maybe a better mix, although like i said, it is individual body type.....so the right mixture of foods is the secret to a balanced meal to get maxium milage, synthesis of the 3 types of energy mix, for different body types is required.

Then you have to also take into account any defects and gentic disorders.
Calories in = Calories out for a balanced diet, the problem is most people are not aware of their caloric intake, if they are having to work longer, than usual, so snacking occurs and bigger meals are eaten.

Many restaurants and food stalls, sell larger potions to justify the price, not because we need the food, but making money is about turning over inventory, people don't like to see waste, when they have paid the money for it. So it's better to ask for a doggy bag, than just finish the plate of food.

It's the commercial world we live in, so individuals after be aware of the pro's and cons in business and enjoyable food.

I have my own weaknesses in ice creams, and beer which need to be controlled at times, because i know that excess calories mount up, if i am not active. Non active people really do need to understand their own food mixture for a balanced diet.

It is quite possible that those with very high metabolic rates, who have great difficulty building muscle and increasing weight, need a mixture of more fat like 40% fat or 60% fat calories, so the protein has time to be synthesised and used in the muscle build, then again, some people are just meant to be, the way they are.

Obviously we all start to slow down with age, the metabolism decreases at 1% per year, and we need to reduce calorie intake in accordance with our metabolic burning rate.

I think your post would have been better, if most of the waffle was dropped. I also have that problem :lol: But I write it myself.

Have you ever been on a website that pushes crap like, become a millionaire overnight, just give me 6 minutes of your time each day. yet it takes you 1 hr to read the web page. :???: Defeats the objective in my case....and i think why don't they get to the point!

User avatar
BodyBlitz
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue, 06 Jan 2009
Contact:

Postby BodyBlitz » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:08 pm

What do you mean by waffles?
http://bodyblitz.sg - A new era of fitness.

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 9:12 pm

BodyBlitz wrote:What do you mean by waffles?

To waffle is to write cosmetically, dressing everything up, which isn't really significant, it's very time wasting.

Should be straight to the point to get people interested, you tell them, because you want them to believe in you, it doesn't matter that someone critics you...just listen, and if you think they maybe right, then do something about it, if you think they are wrong, don't.

But Ego's are very personal and not easy to change, it's kind of sales talk all the time, that soon gets boring, and those kind of magazines, that write typically in the health branch, maybe right or wrong, but they are too long winded and boring to read. because there is a lot of smoke, and you are looking for a short explanation. Waffle is like verbal diarrhea!

Every since SMS became nostalgic about is youth, he discovered something he believed in...costly but works...Which made me research a little deeper into different things, only to discover that everyone is in fact different, and the fuel mixture must be catered for you to lose fat, through blood testing.

In fact it's a little more complicated than that, but if you understand diabetes and the control of it, then you are on the right track.

Basically it all comes back to sugar intolerance, and the abuse of quick releasing carbohydrates, Calories in = Calories out

Although with diabetes you have to control your intake of foods.

This is where the GI comes in the glycemic index of foods, will indicate which are quick releasing in glucose, which is the energy source we are talking about.

Like i mentioned above, the quality of the fuel is imperative, so any old glucose is no good.

This is where a glycemic load comes in and indicates the quality and the quantity of carbohydrate, using the base line of 100 for Glucose, you can choose your meals based on the glycemic loading, which will ensure you do not get spikes sugar in the blood, and will feel full and satisfied longer, with no craving for foods, you will automatically kick start the fat burning process, the opposite would be high sugar in the blood and insulin resistance of pre diabetes.

Then look for food alergies, which also interfer with metabolism..and actually increase weight. An allergic reaction may well cause the body to store glucose in the fat depot at a ratio of 1 fat to 3 water.

If we look at glucose which as a base of 100, we know that it is absorbed straight into the bloodstream, sugar spikes occur, mostly through fizzy drinks...but oats are more complexes, they have to be digested, before it turns into glucose, so logic tells us that if we are full on quick releasing carbs, then our system is likely to be overloaded, and prediabetes will eventually kick in.

If we look at the sugars in Lactose, (milk sugar)(46) sucrose, (sugar) (68)
Honey (55) fructose, (natural fruit sugar)(19) and maltose (grain sugar)(105) and glucose 100, we can see that fructose is released more slowly to the blood stream, than the other sugars. Xylitol is the best with a rating of 8


So short and sweet

1. control your blood sugar by 2. Glycemic loading, 3checking for food allergies that retain weight, by 1 molecule of fat, to 3 water before starting the plan, with a food allergy tester kit. 4. eat essential fats omega3 and 6 , and ensure you get your amino acids from vinegar. exercise to start the metabolism walking is enough, and the weight should drop of you automatically.

I will be looking at shedding 10 - 15kg this year, from 87kg probably starting in 14 days time, after my angiogram.

It is true to say, that the food pyramid does not guarantee your daily dosage of nutrients, because fruits vary a great deal in how many mg of nutrients in each individual apple or orange, so infact in my opinion the food pyramid sucks big time and is probably responsible for so many people getting it wrong.

Vitamin C for example in an orange has been measured at 60mg and 100 mg, but the daily amount needed is 1000mg, and remember that vitamin C cannot be stored in the body. but you would still have to eat 10 oranges a day to get your dosage at 100mg and over 20 at 60mg, highly unlikely, so as a food guide, a little unreliable..

Low GI foods must be the way, to better weight control
Last edited by ksl on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BodyBlitz
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue, 06 Jan 2009
Contact:

Postby BodyBlitz » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 9:25 pm

ah okay.

I'm doing it as a research review more than a sales copy or generic read.
I'm a nerd so in this documentation write like a nerd for the other nerds/people in the know to read and learn.

I take it as a investigative journal using science and clinical studies as the guiding force and being neutral.

This meant for people who already know their stuff, and looking to debunk the fallacies.
http://bodyblitz.sg - A new era of fitness.

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:27 pm

BodyBlitz wrote:ah okay.

I'm doing it as a research review more than a sales copy or generic read.
I'm a nerd so in this documentation write like a nerd for the other nerds/people in the know to read and learn.

I take it as a investigative journal using science and clinical studies as the guiding force and being neutral.

This meant for people who already know their stuff, and looking to debunk the fallacies.


If you are such a nerd, then you wouldn't mind finding the original piece of research, that link below only takes you to body recomposition website, the same link is splatter all over other fitness sites, too, yet there is no original research report i can find, so help me out here!

Bray GA et. al. Hormonal Responses to a Fast-Food Meal Compared with Nutritionally Comparable Meals of Different Composition. Ann Nutr Metab. 2007 May 29;51(2):163-171

and also the body composition website link of Ann Nutr Metaab. 2007 May 29:51: 163-171 is no where to be found :???:

Okay I found it, oh my god! Do you really call this authoritative research, you have to be kidding me :roll:
here check it out on unboundmedicine.com the full citation, probably done in the burger bar, with no significant equipement and probably all from the gym.

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ ... mposition_
Last edited by ksl on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35115
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:41 pm

BB, unfortunately, this board isn't the place for that. You need a health/fitness centric board where like minded individuals "reside". Here you have lots of people but few readers as they just aren't interested in what you are trying to sell. You would be better placed posting it on one of the fitness forums you frequent to do your cut & pastes. I often wonder why you waste your time here as almost nobody really cares here enough to actually read and investigate what you have written. How many different people to you get replying? QRM, ksl, myself and maybe two others occasionally. I am guessing here, but I feel here you can almost "flex" your muscles while on other "fitness boards", you may well be taken to task and find yourself out of your league really quick. At least here, when we take you to task, you feel good as you figure you can put those who disagree with you down as "old men" who are out of date.

As ksl said, I've also learned a lot in the past 1.5 years. And it worked and is still working. Beautifully. But my weight loss methods were specifically designed for me based on my individual body and is not transferable to others as no two bodies are alike. Because no two bodies are alike there is NO generic off the shelf diet that will work for everybody. When you realize that and the fact that there myriad factors why people gain weight (not just the few you listed) then maybe you will start making progress.

User avatar
BodyBlitz
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue, 06 Jan 2009
Contact:

Postby BodyBlitz » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:30 pm

I am on other boards, learn from there where people are smarter.
I share with others where people are not informed.

So i learn from the smarter guys and i learn from teaching and verifying the studies.

Like wise, i might get someone who is like me who likes to look at research and review the data and maybe i can interact and learn even more.

Again, i'm looking at it objectively no ego involve - just sharing information.
If you don't like it, well that's your prerogative but i'll keep on sharing to get more opinion and to learn too.

Dislike vs disagree, i will disagree with opinions but that doesn't mean i dislike you - arguments and debates are fine with me if they're having more reasonable evidence to show the case.

So are you going to throw snide remarks now or are you willing to open up and start having a open mind?

The choice is yours to learn and be humbled, like i have humbled myself to unlearn everything i've learned previously and admit some of my stuff are wrong and there are better ways of doing things.
Last edited by BodyBlitz on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
http://bodyblitz.sg - A new era of fitness.

User avatar
BodyBlitz
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue, 06 Jan 2009
Contact:

Postby BodyBlitz » Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:36 pm

ksl wrote:
BodyBlitz wrote:ah okay.

I'm doing it as a research review more than a sales copy or generic read.
I'm a nerd so in this documentation write like a nerd for the other nerds/people in the know to read and learn.

I take it as a investigative journal using science and clinical studies as the guiding force and being neutral.

This meant for people who already know their stuff, and looking to debunk the fallacies.


If you are such a nerd, then you wouldn't mind finding the original piece of research, that link below only takes you to body recomposition website, the same link is splatter all over other fitness sites, too, yet there is no original research report i can find, so help me out here!

Bray GA et. al. Hormonal Responses to a Fast-Food Meal Compared with Nutritionally Comparable Meals of Different Composition. Ann Nutr Metab. 2007 May 29;51(2):163-171

and also the body composition website link of Ann Nutr Metaab. 2007 May 29:51: 163-171 is no where to be found :???:

Okay I found it, oh my god! Do you really call this authoritative research, you have to be kidding me :roll:
here check it out on unboundmedicine.com the full citation, probably done in the burger bar, with no significant equipement and probably all from the gym.

http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ ... mposition_


google scholar is your friend =)
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/pr ... tNr=223977

I linked it in my blog, but it doesn't link here. I didn't really dwell into it because i don't have the full paper for scrutiny.

You have better studies to show? Would love to look at it.
http://bodyblitz.sg - A new era of fitness.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35115
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Fri, 24 Apr 2009 9:49 am

BodyBlitz wrote:
So are you going to throw snide remarks now or are you willing to open up and start having a open mind?


Interesting turn of phrase you use there. If I agree with you it a discussion. If I question or disagree without I'm throwing snide remarks? What do you think you statement above is? I believe it's what's also called a snide remark. I was merely pointing out to you that I think your efforts to educate here on this board is primarily falling on deaf ears as nobody is interested and the only people who tend to even give it a glance are us "old men" as you so "snidely" put it. :-k

Had I not had an open mind I wouldn't have found the program I did and I wouldn't have regained my health in the process of losing all my excess weight without having to spend endless hours in a gym trying to become a vain muscle bound gymrat in the process. But having an open mind does not include throwing out common sense as well. :P

User avatar
BodyBlitz
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue, 06 Jan 2009
Contact:

Postby BodyBlitz » Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:35 pm

I don't remember a disagreement based upon empirical evidence but mere personal attacks in the previous discussion.

but let bygones be bygones - and bury the hatchet.

Its pointless to dwell in the past and keep harping. =)
http://bodyblitz.sg - A new era of fitness.

User avatar
BodyBlitz
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue, 06 Jan 2009
Contact:

Postby BodyBlitz » Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:35 pm

Fat Loss Documentation - An unbias look at the science of fat loss: part 2

Prologue -

In the previous article we’ve looked at some concepts with regards to weight/fat gained, we cannot deny the laws of thermodynamics with the calories in vs calories out. With the rise of so many trends in the nutritional/weight loss world there is still so much noise that we need to cut through.

In part 2, we’ve looking at the science of low carb diets; touted to be the most revolutionary method to obesity and to counter it - however is it as effective as it turns out to be?

We explore many studies and concept towards this approach and re-look into the concept of low carb and weight loss and all this health benefits that it claims. We shall leave no stones unturned in the quest for knowledge and leaving behind the biasness of one approach over the other.

Disclaimer - As of now, i’m not a pro low carb person nor a pro high carb person. I was a low carb supporter and have felt the great effects of it, I’ve been experimenting with low carb diets in many aspects for the past 3 years and the results were mixed. I wanted to know why it worked, how it worked and if i could make it work better. My opinions have changed after much digging and experimenting and talking to many people who are smarter than me and have went through the process and studies before me.

Introductions - A Commentary

Low carb diets have seen a surge in recent years with helping to bring obesity down, there are many studies conducted and we’ve revealed some of the mysteries of it. The influx of studies came with the popular Atkins Diet by Dr. Robert Atkins for the common folk and Anabolic Diet by Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale’s. There were many before them but these two individuals rocked the boat with their concepts of eliminating carbohydrates to a minimal to lose weight, build muscles.

There were always two side of the coin, the Pro High Carb camp debated the efficacy of using the low carb because of the health complications which was presented in consuming too much saturated fat and high(er) protein intake. Since there was no studies then to conclude the benefits and to demonstrate the safety of such a diet, the argument went both ways and both camp sought to prove other side wrong.

While the medical world was still debating, the people of the real world were doing the diets themselves and got great results. In my opinion, you can’t really argue with results but still the battle raged on through out the course of history. Soon many test, clincal trials was concluded and many findings did go in favour of the low carb camp but some concepts were lost in transition along the way.

Gary Taubes of the Good Calories, Bad Calories concluded that if carbs were kept low, insulin would be suppressed and fat storage would never be a problem. The Atkin’s diet too touted that Insulin was the root of all obesity and many followed on the bandwagon without much verification as results were still seen in the folks who did do their diet.

So does the calories matter? Are low carb diets really something we must do to lose weight?

We’ll discuss them now.
Evidence in support for the low carb diets -

A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity

Gary D. Foster, Ph.D., Holly R. Wyatt, M.D., James O. Hill, Ph.D., Brian G. McGuckin, Ed.M., Carrie Brill, B.S., B. Selma Mohammed, M.D., Ph.D., Philippe O. Szapary, M.D., Daniel J. Rader, M.D., Joel S. Edman, D.Sc., and Samuel Klein, M.D. ABSTRACT

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.


Gary et al, concluded that there were greater loss in weight for the first 3 months however there was no direct distinctions with the amount of physical activity which gives leads us to question if their diets were because of the nutrition by itself or because of the diet + physical levels of the person that cause them to lose the weight. The dietary outlines itself was very vague and all the person needed to do was keep carbs below 20g per day which is about 80 calories.

This raises many question on how much calories they where actually consuming and if they were restricting their calories due to the fact that they where on a obesity program. So its hard to actually determined the efficacy of the low carb diet and how the guidelines are from the Atkins diet to support their hypothesis.

Still it was interesting to note that the weight loss was accelerated for the first 3 months and later it was the same with the non low carb diet.


Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program☆

Eric C Westman, MD, MHSabCorresponding Author Informationemail address, William S Yancy, MDab, Joel S Edman, DScc, Keith F Tomlina, Christine E Perkins, MSWa

Received 2 April 2001; received in revised form 24 January 2002; accepted 31 January 2002.
Abstract
Purpose

To determine the effect of a 6-month very low carbohydrate diet program on body weight and other metabolic parameters.
Subjects and methods

Fifty-one overweight or obese healthy volunteers who wanted to lose weight were placed on a very low carbohydrate diet (<25 g/d), with no limit on caloric intake. They also received nutritional supplementation and recommendations about exercise, and attended group meetings at a research clinic. The outcomes were body weight, body mass index, percentage of body fat (estimated by skinfold thickness), serum chemistry and lipid values, 24-hour urine measurements, and subjective adverse effects.
Results

Forty-one (80%) of the 51 subjects attended visits through 6 months. In these subjects, the mean (± SD) body weight decreased 10.3% ± 5.9% (P <0.001) from baseline to 6 months (body weight reduction of 9.0 ± 5.3 kg and body mass index reduction of 3.2 ± 1.9 kg/m2). The mean percentage of body weight that was fat decreased 2.9% ± 3.2% from baseline to 6 months (P <0.001). The mean serum bicarbonate level decreased 2 ± 2.4 mmol/L (P <0.001) and blood urea nitrogen level increased 2 ± 4 mg/dL (P <0.001). Serum total cholesterol level decreased 11 ± 26 mg/dL (P = 0.006), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 10 ± 25 mg/dL (P = 0.01), triglyceride level decreased 56 ± 45 mg/dL (P <0.001), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level increased 10 ± 8 mg/dL (P <0.001), and the cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio decreased 0.9 ± 0.6 units (P <0.001). There were no serious adverse effects, but the possibility of adverse effects in the 10 subjects who did not adhere to the program cannot be eliminated.
Conclusion

A very low carbohydrate diet program led to sustained weight loss during a 6-month period. Further controlled research is warranted.


Looking at the studies, I’m finding it really weird that no researcher actually thought about measuring the calories during the trials. I’ve read a few others and still there was no mention on calorie consumption, and this puzzles me as to why didn’t they just take this important factor into consideration and measure the caloric intake of the low carb diet when they have the means to do it?

Isn’t the design flawed of its effectiveness if we do not measure caloric intake of the low carb diet? Can it be justified with the concepts that was expounded with the diets of low carb?

Has science failed us this time to determine the efficacy of a low carb diet in terms of weight loss and weight gain?

The low carb camp has then argued that they can eat as much as they want to get a weight loss effect due to the metabolic effects of proteins which has a higher Thermal Effect of Feed - TEF and without the presence of insulin. Is it really the case?

Again we look into science to verify such findings and more recent studies was designed so much more intelligently - read common sense, to actually look into measuring calories of the diet and leave nothing to self-reporting and controlled the dietary intake.
Evidence Against - Which is actually quite neutral in my honest opinion -

Effects of Low-Carbohydrate vs Low-Fat Diets on Weight Loss and Cardiovascular Risk Factors

A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Alain J. Nordmann, MD, MSc; Abigail Nordmann, BS; Matthias Briel, MD; Ulrich Keller, MD; William S. Yancy, Jr, MD, MSH; Bonnie J. Brehm, PhD; Heiner C. Bucher, MD, MPH

Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:285-293.

Background Low-carbohydrate diets have become increasingly popular for weight loss. However, evidence from individual trials about benefits and risks of these diets to achieve weight loss and modify cardiovascular risk factors is preliminary.

Methods We used the Cochrane Collaboration search strategy to identify trials comparing the effects of low-carbohydrate diets without restriction of energy intake vs low-fat diets in individuals with a body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) of at least 25. Included trials had to report changes in body weight in intention-to-treat analysis and to have a follow-up of at least 6 months. Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility and quality of randomized controlled trials.

Results Five trials including a total of 447 individuals fulfilled our inclusion criteria. After 6 months, individuals assigned to low-carbohydrate diets had lost more weight than individuals randomized to low-fat diets (weighted mean difference, –3.3 kg; 95% confidence interval [CI], –5.3 to –1.4 kg). This difference was no longer obvious after 12 months (weighted mean difference, –1.0 kg; 95% CI, –3.5 to 1.5 kg). There were no differences in blood pressure. Triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values changed more favorably in individuals assigned to low-carbohydrate diets (after 6 months, for triglycerides, weighted mean difference, –22.1 mg/dL [–0.25 mmol/L]; 95% CI, –38.1 to –5.3 mg/dL [–0.43 to –0.06 mmol/L]; and for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, weighted mean difference, 4.6 mg/dL [0.12 mmol/L]; 95% CI, 1.5-8.1 mg/dL [0.04-0.21 mmol/L]), but total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values changed more favorably in individuals assigned to low-fat diets (weighted mean difference in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol after 6 months, 5.4 mg/dL [0.14 mmol/L]; 95% CI, 1.2-10.1 mg/dL [0.03-0.26 mmol/L]).

Conclusions Low-carbohydrate, non–energy-restricted diets appear to be at least as effective as low-fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing weight loss for up to 1 year. However, potential favorable changes in triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values should be weighed against potential unfavorable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values when low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss are considered.



So now the researchers placed more brains and measured the caloric intake for both diets and kept it fairly constant - The only changes made with the diet was to adjust the carb/fat intake accordingly.

The low carb side got 15% carbs to their diet of their total calories, the higher carb side has 45% carbs to their diet. Everything was kept constant through out the study and weight loss was about the same, so we have now calories do matter in this sense and even with suppressed presence of insulin the weight loss was the same after at the 12th month mark - which is towards the end of the diet.

However we must note that again the same phenomena of low carb diets experienced with accelerated weight loss within the 6 months trial but both diets even out at the 12 months mark - towards the end of the study. Still it leaves out the metabolic advantage of low carb diets as oppose to high carb which could explain the accelerated weight loss for the 6 months mark. The question still is hanging in the air with this study with the physical activity, as there was no control what the participants were doing outside of the study on their own.

Ketogenic Low-Carbohydrate Diets have no Metabolic Advantage over Nonketogenic Low-Carbohydrate Diets - Research Review

Title and Abstract

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

Background:Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Objective:We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet. Design:Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled. Results:Mean (±SE) weight losses (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood ß-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood ß-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum -glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet. Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.


This has placed the nail in the coffin for the Low Carb Talibans affectionately termed by Martin Birkin of Leangains.com - one of the experts in Intermittent Fasting.

So with this study, it was the turn of what we once knew of the low carb generation. Everything was controlled, no physical activity no self reporting and everything was measured and strictly control with randomized testing. There’s nothing much to comment on this study because the researchers had covered all angles and discrepancy with regards of the physical and nutritional aspect to measure the advantages but it is interesting to note that for the nutrition was adjusted to 70% of their maintenance - which mean that at all times they’ll be in 30% caloric deficit.

No difference was seen within the low carb or low fat diet within a deficit and both were as good to curb insulin resistance.

So what now? Low carb? High carb? - Quit Confusing me!

So now we know that calories count and are extremely important to weight/fat loss on the whole, and not to beat a dead horse - we need to be more accountable with it.

Lets explore some facts about carbohydrates - Do we need them to survive? No. Theoretically, one can do away without carbohydrates altogether in their life and there are many people who are diabetic who stay this course to control their insulin spikes.

I’ve been on a low carb diet for a very long time, and even now I’m still using low carb diet but once a week, I’ll stuff myself silly with carbohydrates just to re-feed my muscles. This is to ensure my performance and intensity can be kept high and not too sluggish all the time. Some people do better with lower carbohydrates and some people just cannot function without carbs.

They’ve experience mental fuzziness and down turn in mood, usually the start of a low carb diet is very much tough as the adaptation towards using fats as fuel.

Choosing which kind of diet is purely up to one’s physical activity, body composition and their goals in mind. Lets break down the different factors and put into perspective of each one mentioned.

Physical Activities -

Carbohydrates is often used by endurance athlete and there is many research to support the use with regards of performance. Carbohydrates usage is also another tool for gym rats to spike their insulin to usher nutrients into their muscles when they ingest protein, this has been documented well in recent research and studies with regards to protein synthesis and recovery as well as muscle building.

Body Composition -

Body composition dictates the amount of muscles mass vs fat mass on one’s body and that affects some hormones in the body, particularly insulin. Insulin is a ushering hormone which ushers nutrients to your muscles or bodyfat to store the nutrients. When people are diabetic they get insulin resistant, and the insulin doesn’t work the same way as it used to - that is why there is a need for external insulin injection.

Body composition will determine the compatibility of the diet - People who are leaner; lower body fat will find it hard to function properly on a low carb diet because they don’t have “ready fuel”
http://bodyblitz.sg - A new era of fitness.

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Tue, 28 Apr 2009 1:16 am

Well the PX90X seems to do it for some!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d1KrHIIyf0


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Beauty, Health & Fitness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests