187 replies to this topic

[DukeNukem]

Dr Richard Mackarness died in 1996 at the age of 81. Among other things he studied and warned against food additives which became prevalent during his life, and wrote a book on this, Chemical Victims, in 1980.

But, he was also ahead of the curve in another area: the paleo diet. In 1958 he released a book, Eat Fat and Grow Slim, which presented his "stone age diet." This book is online here: http://ourcivilisation.com/fat/ A quick summary of the diet is here: http://ourcivilisati...m/fat/guide.htm

There's little difference between it and the now recognized paleo diet. It avoids grains and high-starch foods. And, it promotes all animal meats and fats. In the book's first chapter, we have this:

This book explains that there is. To-day a lot more is known about how fat people get fat and why. Many of the facts have been known for years, but because they have not fitted in with current theories on obesity, they have been ignored.

In the last ten years, however, atomic research has given the physiologist enormous help in unravelling the biochemical reactions which go on in the body.

Radio-active isotopes have been used to " tag " chemical substances so that their progress through the body could be followed, in the same way as birds are tagged in order to establish the paths of their migration.

By this means, details of the metabolism of fats and carbohydrates, previously shrouded in mystery, have been clarified and with the new information so gained old experimental findings have been given new interpretations and the jigsaw of seemingly contradictory facts about obesity has clicked into a recognisable picture.

The first thing to realise is that it is carbohydrate (starch and sugar) and carbohydrate only which fattens fat people.

Dr Mackarness also explains something that most doctors even today STILL DO NOT GRASP:

The beauty of this method of slimming is that once you have got the hang of the proportions of fat, protein and carbohydrate in the foods you choose to eat, you can afford to ignore calories altogether. The much publicised diets with emphasis solely on calories are fallacious. It is excess carbohydrates and not calories only that make a fat man fat.

BTW, this was all later explained with far great scientific evidence in the much more recent book, Good Calories Bad Calories.

I know there are still people on ImmInst who refuse to believe that it is NOT calories that make people fat -- it's the TYPE OF CALORIES. Namely: carbs. It's an easy mistake to make, because it's intuitive. But it's dead wrong. And Dr Mackarness knew it 50 years ago, along with many other doctors of his day.

[immortali457]

He died at 81 YO....big deal
Calories DO matter and always have. Carbs are not the devil now no more than fat was the devil in the 70's and 80's
Type of carb being key here.

[tunt01]

He died at 81 YO....big deal
Calories DO matter and always have. Carbs are not the devil now no more than fat was the devil in the 70's and 80's
Type of carb being key here.

y, sugar. simple/high GI carbs. not all carbs are bad. eating excess animal protein is bad.

[oehaut]

Duke, read this.

Is a calorie a calorie?

and this

The Energy Balance Equation

and this

They're all MAD!

A calorie really is a calorie......

Note: I don't necesseraly like the way that Colpo's has of saying things but well, even if he's arrogant like a 15-years-old tough punk ass, what he says still is evidence-based. he has review about every studies in his Fat Loss Bible about low-fat/high-fat and the conclusion is that calorie do matter. And take note that this guy is pro-low-carb. But he still come to the conclusion that a calorie is a calorie and that low-carb diet offer no metabolic advantage what so ever.

Edited by oehaut, 20 December 2009 - 04:31 PM.

[ajnast4r]

It is excess carbohydrates and not calories only that make a fat man fat.

FACEPALM

[VidX]

Well.. I'd like to see someone who got fat eating carbs like buckwheat grains (or a similar quality carbs). Just the pure amount of prepared meal fills a person so quick that it's just impossible to eat a lot of cals (as a bb'er, 220lb, I hardly consume the reguired amount of cals for me, ant that's "just" about 3000.. You'd be surprised the amount of grains I need to eat to get these, keeping in mind I include chicken and vegetables..).

[rwac]

Well.. I'd like to see someone who got fat eating carbs like buckwheat grains (or a similar quality carbs). Just the pure amount of prepared meal fills a person so quick that it's just impossible to eat a lot of cals

Insulin resistance will do that to you. You get hungrier sooner than you should.

[DukeNukem]

Duke, read this.

Is a calorie a calorie?

and this

The Energy Balance Equation

and this

They're all MAD!

A calorie really is a calorie......

Note: I don't necesseraly like the way that Colpo's has of saying things but well, even if he's arrogant like a 15-years-old tough punk ass, what he says still is evidence-based. he has review about every studies in his Fat Loss Bible about low-fat/high-fat and the conclusion is that calorie do matter. And take note that this guy is pro-low-carb. But he still come to the conclusion that a calorie is a calorie and that low-carb diet offer no metabolic advantage what so ever.

I've seen these arguments before. In the first link, the writer sums up rather vaguely starting with this: "So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this..." Based "my generally feeling"? Give me a break. This guy pretty much admits he's guessing.

In any case, here's what these guys seem to miss: The body deals with certain types of food in different ways. So, forget calories. It's a red-herring. The body deals with fats (especially saturated fats -- a great metabolic fuel) and proteins very differently than how it deals with carbs (aka glucose). Glucose triggers fat storage FAR MORE READILY than fats and proteins. Thus, when too many carbs are consumed, the body merrily stores glucose cals as fat.

And here's another key that calorie-is-a-calorie guys simply haven't figured out: Once cals are stored as fat, they are not readily available for energy. This is why fat people are hungry -- their body cannot break down fat storage fast enough to meet energy needs. (Actually, fat storage comes very close to meeting energy needs, once a person enters a true fasting state -- but as a practically matter, most people do not enter this state--takes about 20 hours to get there.) So, because fat stores don't "melt" fast enough to provide adequate energy, a person feels hungry again, and desires to eat.

This is why people feel hungry much sooner after eating 1000 cals of rice or pasta, than they do after eating 1000 cals of fatty meat.

But, the bottom-line is that carb cals are stored as fat much more quickly than fat and protein cals, which are more readily metabolically exploited, and raise the metabolic furnace (aka: the thermogenic effect).

So, while in one sense it's true that a cal is a cal, what MATTERS is how the body uses different types of foods, and carbs (aka glucose) are the source most effectively converted to inefficient body fat.

[VidX]

Well.. I'd like to see someone who got fat eating carbs like buckwheat grains (or a similar quality carbs). Just the pure amount of prepared meal fills a person so quick that it's just impossible to eat a lot of cals

Insulin resistance will do that to you. You get hungrier sooner than you should.

And probably because you secrete more insulin than it's needed for a healthy person (thus fat deposits grow).

[oehaut]

Duke, read this.

Is a calorie a calorie?

and this

The Energy Balance Equation

and this

They're all MAD!

A calorie really is a calorie......

Note: I don't necesseraly like the way that Colpo's has of saying things but well, even if he's arrogant like a 15-years-old tough punk ass, what he says still is evidence-based. he has review about every studies in his Fat Loss Bible about low-fat/high-fat and the conclusion is that calorie do matter. And take note that this guy is pro-low-carb. But he still come to the conclusion that a calorie is a calorie and that low-carb diet offer no metabolic advantage what so ever.

I've seen these arguments before. In the first link, the writer sums up rather vaguely starting with this: "So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this..." Based "my generally feeling"? Give me a break. This guy pretty much admits he's guessing.

In any case, here's what these guys seem to miss: The body deals with certain types of food in different ways. So, forget calories. It's a red-herring. The body deals with fats (especially saturated fats -- a great metabolic fuel) and proteins very differently than how it deals with carbs (aka glucose). Glucose triggers fat storage FAR MORE READILY than fats and proteins. Thus, when too many carbs are consumed, the body merrily stores glucose cals as fat.

And here's another key that calorie-is-a-calorie guys simply haven't figured out: Once cals are stored as fat, they are not readily available for energy. This is why fat people are hungry -- their body cannot break down fat storage fast enough to meet energy needs. (Actually, fat storage comes very close to meeting energy needs, once a person enters a true fasting state -- but as a practically matter, most people do not enter this state--takes about 20 hours to get there.) So, because fat stores don't "melt" fast enough to provide adequate energy, a person feels hungry again, and desires to eat.

This is why people feel hungry much sooner after eating 1000 cals of rice or pasta, than they do after eating 1000 cals of fatty meat.

But, the bottom-line is that carb cals are stored as fat much more quickly than fat and protein cals, which are more readily metabolically exploited, and raise the metabolic furnace (aka: the thermogenic effect).

So, while in one sense it's true that a cal is a cal, what MATTERS is how the body uses different types of foods, and carbs (aka glucose) are the source most effectively converted to inefficient body fat.

We can speculate all day long on metabolic faith of different substrate, and on the theory that would make low-carb have a metabolic advantage, but this very simple fact remain : As Lyle McDonald points out in the Is a calorie a calorie? article, in every studies where calorie was controlled and protein keep constant, playing with carbs or fat distrubution made no significant difference in weight loss.

The other studies are crap because they either
a) did not controlled calorie
b) did not controlled protein

So in no ways these kinds of studies can be use to prove that low-carb is better than low-fat, if WEIGHT LOSS is concern.


And I think you are wrong on the issue of glucose converted to fat so easily. Unless i'm missing something, de novo lipogenisis is an insignifiant contribution to body fat. Glucose is not easily converted to body fat. The body will try to oxidize as much as possible or he will overload the glycogen store.
De novo lipogenesis will happen only if you grossly overeat calorie which are mostly carbs.

De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women

the bottom-line is that carb cals are stored as fat much more quickly than fat and protein cals

Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage

Both the amount and composition of food eaten influence body-weight regulation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether and by what mechanism excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate. We overfed isoenergetic amounts (50% above energy requirements) of fat and carbohydrate (for 14 d each) to nine lean and seven obese men. A whole-room calorimeter was used to measure energy expenditure and nutrient oxidation on days 0, 1, 7, and 14 of each overfeeding period. From energy and nutrient balances (intake-expenditure) we estimated the amount and composition of energy stored. Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy. Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period.

Fat is more easily and efficiently store as body fat than CHO are.

Edited by oehaut, 20 December 2009 - 07:45 PM.

[Shepard]

Can we cut the rhetoric and stick to biochemistry? I remember a time when the message was quite different, but the tent-revival style speaking was the same. One book came along and recruited some of the flock. Many saw the light and now live to preach the hyperlipid lifestyle and throw rocks at the fools that never veered off the path.

Edited by Shepard, 20 December 2009 - 07:43 PM.

[immortali457]

Duke, read this.

Is a calorie a calorie?

and this

The Energy Balance Equation

and this

They're all MAD!

A calorie really is a calorie......

Note: I don't necesseraly like the way that Colpo's has of saying things but well, even if he's arrogant like a 15-years-old tough punk ass, what he says still is evidence-based. he has review about every studies in his Fat Loss Bible about low-fat/high-fat and the conclusion is that calorie do matter. And take note that this guy is pro-low-carb. But he still come to the conclusion that a calorie is a calorie and that low-carb diet offer no metabolic advantage what so ever.

I've seen these arguments before. In the first link, the writer sums up rather vaguely starting with this: "So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this..." Based "my generally feeling"? Give me a break. This guy pretty much admits he's guessing.

In any case, here's what these guys seem to miss: The body deals with certain types of food in different ways. So, forget calories. It's a red-herring. The body deals with fats (especially saturated fats -- a great metabolic fuel) and proteins very differently than how it deals with carbs (aka glucose). Glucose triggers fat storage FAR MORE READILY than fats and proteins. Thus, when too many carbs are consumed, the body merrily stores glucose cals as fat.

And here's another key that calorie-is-a-calorie guys simply haven't figured out: Once cals are stored as fat, they are not readily available for energy. This is why fat people are hungry -- their body cannot break down fat storage fast enough to meet energy needs. (Actually, fat storage comes very close to meeting energy needs, once a person enters a true fasting state -- but as a practically matter, most people do not enter this state--takes about 20 hours to get there.) So, because fat stores don't "melt" fast enough to provide adequate energy, a person feels hungry again, and desires to eat.

This is why people feel hungry much sooner after eating 1000 cals of rice or pasta, than they do after eating 1000 cals of fatty meat.

But, the bottom-line is that carb cals are stored as fat much more quickly than fat and protein cals, which are more readily metabolically exploited, and raise the metabolic furnace (aka: the thermogenic effect).

So, while in one sense it's true that a cal is a cal, what MATTERS is how the body uses different types of foods, and carbs (aka glucose) are the source most effectively converted to inefficient body fat.

We can speculate all day long on metabolic faith of different substrate, and on the theory that would make low-carb have a metabolic advantage, but this very simple fact remain : As Lyle McDonald points out in the Is a calorie a calorie? article, in every studies where calorie was controlled and protein keep constant, playing with carbs or fat distrubution made no significant difference in weight loss.

The other studies are crap because they either
a) did not controlled calorie
b) did not controlled protein

So in no ways these kinds of studies can be use to prove that low-carb is better than low-fat, if WEIGHT LOSS is concern.


And I think you are wrong on the issue of glucose converted to fat so easily. Unless i'm missing something, de novo lipogenisis is an insignifiant contribution to body fat. Glucose is not easily converted to body fat. The body will try to oxidize as much as possible or he will overload the glycogen store.
De novo lipogenesis will happen only if you grossly overeat calorie which are mostly carbs.

De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women

the bottom-line is that carb cals are stored as fat much more quickly than fat and protein cals

Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage

Both the amount and composition of food eaten influence body-weight regulation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether and by what mechanism excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate. We overfed isoenergetic amounts (50% above energy requirements) of fat and carbohydrate (for 14 d each) to nine lean and seven obese men. A whole-room calorimeter was used to measure energy expenditure and nutrient oxidation on days 0, 1, 7, and 14 of each overfeeding period. From energy and nutrient balances (intake-expenditure) we estimated the amount and composition of energy stored. Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy. Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period.

Fat is more easily and efficiently store as body fat than CHO are.

I'm believing Lyle McDonald over Duke everytime on this issue.

[DukeNukem]

I just read McDonald's take on this, and he doesn't really have one, other than: "current studies do not show a "metabolic advantage" for low-carb diets." Take a look at his long yet lacking-meat answer in this interview (question #2):
http://www.thefactsa...search/lyle.htm

Scroll down to this sub-header: Rebuttal: Conservation of Energy
http://entropyproduc...-within-95.html

Also:

Thermodynamics and weight loss
http://www.proteinpo...nd-weight-loss/

Edited by DukeNukem, 20 December 2009 - 11:10 PM.

[Shepard]

Yes, Lyle has one of the few things lacking in the industry: integrity. Makes him a horrible salesman.

[immortali457]

Yes, Lyle has one of the few things lacking in the industry: integrity. Makes him a horrible salesman.

His sales are actually damn good.

[TheFountain]

Duke keeps making the false assertion that carbohydrates are synonymous with glucose. If you are filling up on maltodextrin then essentially that is correct. But otherwise what he is saying is horse shit. SOME carbohydrates are more easily converted into glucose polymers, yes, but only the high GI ones that contribute to significant blood sugar spikes. When duke says 'carbohydrates' he expects us to believe he means every kind of carbs except those found in vegetables. I don't know where he gets this language from. I am guessing the book he keeps citing? I have not read it. But even Gary Taubes does not make the idiotic claim that all carbs have the exact same reaction and are pretty much synonymous with glucose, at least in terms of the interviews I have watched. But then, I have not read his book yet.

[Saber]

If one is on a low-carb diet, manipulating the protein/fat ratio can significantly affect body composition, lean mass and body fat percentage. The level of protein intake is crucial. If we were to speculate about the paleo diet, their protein intake would probably have been much higher according to their much more active lives compared to ours.
From anecdotal experience, upping protein intake raises lean mass and lower body fat percentage. This is because fat intake inevitably lowers while gluconeogenesis raises energy expenditure and thermogenesis.

ABSTRACT
Background: High-protein diets have been shown to increase energy
expenditure (EE).
Objective: The objective was to study whether a high-protein,
carbohydrate-free diet (H diet) increases gluconeogenesis and
whether this can explain the increase in EE.
Design: Ten healthy men with a mean (6SEM) body mass index
(in kg/m2) of 23.0 6 0.8 and age of 23 6 1 y received an isoenergetic
H diet (H condition; 30%, 0%, and 70% of energy from protein,
carbohydrate, and fat, respectively) or a normal-protein diet (N
condition; 12%, 55%, and 33% of energy from protein, carbohydrate,
and fat, respectively) for 1.5 d according to a randomized
crossover design, whereas EE was measured in a respiration chamber.
Endogenous glucose production (EGP) and fractional gluconeogenesis
were measured via infusion of [6,6-2H2]glucose and
ingestion of 2H2O; absolute gluconeogenesis was calculated by
multiplying fractional gluconeogenesis by EGP. Body glycogen
stores were lowered at the start of the intervention with an exhaustive
glycogen-lowering exercise test.
Results: EGP was lower in the H condition than in the N condition
(181 6 9 compared with 226 6 9 g/d; P , 0.001), whereas fractional
gluconeogenesis was higher (0.95 6 0.04 compared with
0.64 6 0.03; P , 0.001) and absolute gluconeogenesis tended to
be higher (171 6 10 compared with 145 6 10 g/d; P = 0.06) in the
H condition than in the N condition. EE (resting metabolic rate) was
greater in the H condition than in the N condition (8.46 6 0.23
compared with 8.12 6 0.31 MJ/d; P , 0.05). The increase in EE
was a function of the increase in gluconeogenesis (DEE = 0.007 ·
Dgluconeogenesis 2 0.038; r = 0.70, R2 = 0.49, P , 0.05). The
contribution of Dgluconeogenesis to DEE was 42%; the energy cost
of gluconeogenesis was 33% (95% CI: 16%, 50%).
Conclusions: Forty-two percent of the increase in energy expenditure
after the H diet was explained by the increase in gluconeogenesis. The
cost of gluconeogenesis was 33% of the energy content of the produced
glucose. Am J Clin Nutr doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27834.

If given the choice, I would choose fat calories over carbs, but you can still definitely get fat on low-carb diet. The disparity is all down to protein intake. A gram of protein is not the same as a gram of carbs or fat, and protein is something low-carbers inevitably eat so much more, which is most likely the reason why they have difficulty gaining weight even with hyper-caloric intake.

I guarantee that if a person has hyper-caloric intake on a low-carb/no-carb diet with what we consider the standard amount of protein 1g/kg of body weight and the rest of the calories going toward fat, they will get fatter over time and may even see some muscle atrophy.

Attached Files

•  ajcn.2009.27834v1.pdf   97.38KB   62 downloads

Edited by Saber, 21 December 2009 - 02:09 AM.

[DukeNukem]

Duke keeps making the false assertion that carbohydrates are synonymous with glucose. If you are filling up on maltodextrin then essentially that is correct. But otherwise what he is saying is horse shit. SOME carbohydrates are more easily converted into glucose polymers, yes, but only the high GI ones that contribute to significant blood sugar spikes. When duke says 'carbohydrates' he expects us to believe he means every kind of carbs except those found in vegetables. I don't know where he gets this language from. I am guessing the book he keeps citing? I have not read it. But even Gary Taubes does not make the idiotic claim that all carbs have the exact same reaction and are pretty much synonymous with glucose, at least in terms of the interviews I have watched. But then, I have not read his book yet.

You said, "SOME carbohydrates are more easily converted into glucose polymers, yes, but only the high GI ones that contribute to significant blood sugar spikes." This does not in any way refute what I've been saying: carbohydrates are poly-glucose chains, and ALL--except for fiber--become glucose in the body. The time it takes for these carbs to become glucose doesn't matter--they still become glucose. Done. Next.

Here's where you may be confused: There are three macro-nutrients: fats, proteins, carbohydrates. Plant-based foods contain all three. The carbohydrate portion of all foods become glucose in our body. The longer chain carbohydrates take longer to get broken down, but sure enough, they still become glucose.

Even the carb portion of salad-type plant foods become glucose, but the KEY is that salad-type plant foods and colorful vegetables are most water, by weight. And therefore, even though the carbohydrate within these foods becomes glucose, the total mass of glucose (relative to the volume consumed) is quite low, and therefore of no real health concern.

Low-water mass plant foods like the starchy vegetables and grains are the primary health concern, because the relative load of glucose they deliver is significantly higher relative to volume consumed.

[TheFountain]

Duke keeps making the false assertion that carbohydrates are synonymous with glucose. If you are filling up on maltodextrin then essentially that is correct. But otherwise what he is saying is horse shit. SOME carbohydrates are more easily converted into glucose polymers, yes, but only the high GI ones that contribute to significant blood sugar spikes. When duke says 'carbohydrates' he expects us to believe he means every kind of carbs except those found in vegetables. I don't know where he gets this language from. I am guessing the book he keeps citing? I have not read it. But even Gary Taubes does not make the idiotic claim that all carbs have the exact same reaction and are pretty much synonymous with glucose, at least in terms of the interviews I have watched. But then, I have not read his book yet.

You said, "SOME carbohydrates are more easily converted into glucose polymers, yes, but only the high GI ones that contribute to significant blood sugar spikes." This does not in any way refute what I've been saying: carbohydrates are poly-glucose chains, and ALL--except for fiber--become glucose in the body. The time it takes for these carbs to become glucose doesn't matter--they still become glucose. Done. Next.

Here's where you may be confused: There are three macro-nutrients: fats, proteins, carbohydrates. Plant-based foods contain all three. The carbohydrate portion of all foods become glucose in our body. The longer chain carbohydrates take longer to get broken down, but sure enough, they still become glucose.

Even the carb portion of salad-type plant foods become glucose, but the KEY is that salad-type plant foods and colorful vegetables are most water, by weight. And therefore, even though the carbohydrate within these foods becomes glucose, the total mass of glucose (relative to the volume consumed) is quite low, and therefore of no real health concern.

Low-water mass plant foods like the starchy vegetables and grains are the primary health concern, because the relative load of glucose they deliver is significantly higher relative to volume consumed.

My understanding is that simple carbs, because of their molecular structure, break down more easily in the intestines than complex carbs, and are thus much more easily converted into glucose than the latter and that the latter includes starches, like potatoes and other low water carbohydrate foods. Also, all kinds of food get converted into glucose, not just carbohydrates. And for some reason glucose is still considered the 'preferred fuel' of the body by 'athletic types'. What you say about water volume relative to glucose conversion is not being said anywhere else as far as I know.

[DukeNukem]

My understanding is that simple carbs, because of their molecular structure, break down more easily in the intestines than complex carbs, and are thus much more easily converted into glucose than the latter and that the latter includes starches, like potatoes and other low water carbohydrate foods. Also, all kinds of food get converted into glucose, not just carbohydrates. And for some reason glucose is still considered the 'preferred fuel' of the body by 'athletic types'. What you say about water volume relative to glucose conversion is not being said anywhere else as far as I know.

There are plenty of athletes NOT relying on carbs anymore.

I've not said anything about "water volume relative to glucose conversion". The water retaining property of carbs is likely irrelevant to the key topic of this thread.

[Saber]

Duke keeps making the false assertion that carbohydrates are synonymous with glucose. If you are filling up on maltodextrin then essentially that is correct. But otherwise what he is saying is horse shit. SOME carbohydrates are more easily converted into glucose polymers, yes, but only the high GI ones that contribute to significant blood sugar spikes. When duke says 'carbohydrates' he expects us to believe he means every kind of carbs except those found in vegetables. I don't know where he gets this language from. I am guessing the book he keeps citing? I have not read it. But even Gary Taubes does not make the idiotic claim that all carbs have the exact same reaction and are pretty much synonymous with glucose, at least in terms of the interviews I have watched. But then, I have not read his book yet.

You said, "SOME carbohydrates are more easily converted into glucose polymers, yes, but only the high GI ones that contribute to significant blood sugar spikes." This does not in any way refute what I've been saying: carbohydrates are poly-glucose chains, and ALL--except for fiber--become glucose in the body. The time it takes for these carbs to become glucose doesn't matter--they still become glucose. Done. Next.

Here's where you may be confused: There are three macro-nutrients: fats, proteins, carbohydrates. Plant-based foods contain all three. The carbohydrate portion of all foods become glucose in our body. The longer chain carbohydrates take longer to get broken down, but sure enough, they still become glucose.

Even the carb portion of salad-type plant foods become glucose, but the KEY is that salad-type plant foods and colorful vegetables are most water, by weight. And therefore, even though the carbohydrate within these foods becomes glucose, the total mass of glucose (relative to the volume consumed) is quite low, and therefore of no real health concern.

Low-water mass plant foods like the starchy vegetables and grains are the primary health concern, because the relative load of glucose they deliver is significantly higher relative to volume consumed.

My understanding is that simple carbs, because of their molecular structure, break down more easily in the intestines than complex carbs, and are thus much more easily converted into glucose than the latter and that the latter includes starches, like potatoes and other low water carbohydrate foods. Also, all kinds of food get converted into glucose, not just carbohydrates. And for some reason glucose is still considered the 'preferred fuel' of the body by 'athletic types'. What you say about water volume relative to glucose conversion is not being said anywhere else as far as I know.

Carbs intake does allow you to recover and refill glycogen faster but a person being on low-carb doesn't mean their glycogen will be empty. If anything, their body will be much more efficient at utilizing fat and sparing glycogen, hence greater endurance. Protein and the sparse carbs present in the low-carb diet is sufficient for refilling glycogen. There is less difference than most people think in person well-adapted to the diet.
Glycogen storage has a limit in everyone regardless on what diet they're on and when it runs out, you have to eat.
Endurance runners hit a wall when their body is depleted of glycogen. Someone on low-carb can theoretically keep going indefinitely if their body is well-adapted and intensity is kept low.
Humans just weren't made for continuous high-intensity exertion. Carbs is a double-edge sword when it comes to athletic activities, you run out of steam eventually and fat utilization is nowhere near the level of efficiency of someone on low-carb. The difference in endurance is incomparable.
So carbs intake only leave the advantage of faster glycogen refill, but there aren't many people who needs refilling when they're sitting on the couch watching TV.

Edited by Saber, 21 December 2009 - 04:40 PM.

[Shepard]

Athlete is a general term, and doesn't describe anything. It's pointless to talk about an "athletic diet" without describing the sport of the athlete, the training regimen, and a ton of other variables. The fact that one diet does well for one athlete means absolutely nothing compared to another.

[Saber]

Athlete is a general term, and doesn't describe anything. It's pointless to talk about an "athletic diet" without describing the sport of the athlete, the training regimen, and a ton of other variables. The fact that one diet does well for one athlete means absolutely nothing compared to another.

For athletes like sprinter, it's not a good idea for them to be on low-carb, but that more the fault of the sport more than the diet.
But for long distance endurance runners, they would probably reap the advantage if training in keto for prolong period then resting a week before the race to refill their glycogen.

I was surprised recently when I started doing cardio again. Keeping it at a low-intensity jog, it feels like you can go forever without tiring out and running low on glucose. This is probably the way our paleo ancestor went at it since there's not a lot of opportunity to carb-up.

[TheFountain]

My understanding is that simple carbs, because of their molecular structure, break down more easily in the intestines than complex carbs, and are thus much more easily converted into glucose than the latter and that the latter includes starches, like potatoes and other low water carbohydrate foods. Also, all kinds of food get converted into glucose, not just carbohydrates. And for some reason glucose is still considered the 'preferred fuel' of the body by 'athletic types'. What you say about water volume relative to glucose conversion is not being said anywhere else as far as I know.

There are plenty of athletes NOT relying on carbs anymore.

I've not said anything about "water volume relative to glucose conversion". The water retaining property of carbs is likely irrelevant to the key topic of this thread.

Well what you say about vegetables and water volume and how they compare to other carbs is not being said exactly the way you are saying it as far as I know. Everyone knows vegetables have a high water volume but I don't know of anyone else saying that the effects of this on glucose metabolism is as you say it is. I don't think other low GI foods would be alot worse than vegetables in terms of glucose conversion. Tell me, for example, why chick peas would be worse than broccoli in terms of glucose conversion. Water volume? But what about the anti-glycation flavanoids they contain? Could the latter be the reason they are considered low GI?

Edited by TheFountain, 21 December 2009 - 05:04 PM.

[TheFountain]

Athlete is a general term, and doesn't describe anything. It's pointless to talk about an "athletic diet" without describing the sport of the athlete, the training regimen, and a ton of other variables. The fact that one diet does well for one athlete means absolutely nothing compared to another.

For athletes like sprinter, it's not a good idea for them to be on low-carb, but that more the fault of the sport more than the diet.
But for long distance endurance runners, they would probably reap the advantage if training in keto for prolong period then resting a week before the race to refill their glycogen.

I was surprised recently when I started doing cardio again. Keeping it at a low-intensity jog, it feels like you can go forever without tiring out and running low on glucose. This is probably the way our paleo ancestor went at it since there's not a lot of opportunity to carb-up.

According to recent findings, this may not actually be the case. Be careful what you adhere to.

[oehaut]

Ok i'm gonna tell you why I think the carbohydrate-induced-obesity is wrong and if this is not enough well I don't know what else to say.

First, why do I think it is important not to fall into this? Because I've counsiled a bunch of people so far at loosing weight and two years ago, after reading GCBC I also thought that calorie did not matter as long as carbs intake was kept low (around 50-80g). What happened to people I told not to care about how much they eat? They binge on cream, dark chocolate, nuts, cheeze and bacon. What happened to their weight? At first they lost about 2-3 pounds (which certainly was only water) and then weight loss plateau. And it was not moving, even if carbs was kept low. When I realised about 1 years ago that this was foolish, I started couting the calorie intake of my client for 1 week, and then having them trying to eat about the same amount of food. And now what is always happening to their weight if they track calorie adequatly? It's always moving down (even if they have 100-200g of carbs).

That's actually in line with this post of Eades, where he says at the end ­

So, if you keep carbs low and keep calories in check you will lose weight. If you keep carbs low and don’t worry about the calories you will maintain

Now, the carbohydrate hypothetis put forward by Taubes is that cabrs drive insulin up and insulin makes it impossible to loose fat, and is a powerful fat accumulation messenger. He also says that calorie/in/out are not independant one from another. So if you move more you're likely to eat more and if you eat less you likely to move less (homostatis at work).

The main point of this thread is that carbohydrate drives insulin up and that insulin makes it easy to gain fat/and hard to loose it. How true is this?

First, we can ask ourself if it's an all or nothing mechanism. I mean, is it the more insulin the more fat stored and the less weight lost? If it's the case, that means
a) that any level of insulin would impairs fat loss (and insulin is never at 0, there's always some around in the blood) so it would physiocally be impossible to loose weight and
b) the more high GI the diet, the less weight that would be loss.

a) is pretty easy to understand as not true.
b) let's look at studies.

Many studies have look at the effect of diffrent glycemic index diet on weight loss, and many did not find a difference on weight loss. (1,2,3, 4, 5, 6)

Note that weight loss in these studies was not influence even if there was great variance in insulin level. So caloric restriction is much more important than simply lowering insulin for weight loss.

Now, is it true that a) insulin is the major fat sotring hormone and b) that it really impairs fat loss? Doesn't look like it.

a) Acylation stimulating protein is an hormone that the ONLY role (compare to insulin that has many many) is promoting fat storage. Is role is at least as important as insulin
There's also Fat-specific protein 27 that promote fat storage independently of insulin level.

So while it's true that insulin is a big player in fat accumulation, it's certainly not the only one as Taubes implies in his book.

b) Some studies investigated the effect of diazoxide, a drug that inhibits insulin secretion, on weight loss (1) No effect was seen between the control group and the experimental one. (once again, less insulin doesn't mean more weight lost)

And now, the last question, if there's a metabolic advantage of low-carb diet. As pointed out by Lyle McDonald and Anthony Colpo already, even if on paper it looks like there could be a metabolic advantage, it is worthless to speculate so when we have good studies that have investigated the question and that found it is not the case.

So, as someone pointed out here already, PROTEIN seems to be making a difference. Playing only with carbs and fat don't.

I'll leave you with this excellent study that controlled protein intake and calorie intake and was seeking for a metabolic advantage from low-acrb and that did not find any.

Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets

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/m(2)): 34.4 +/- 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with approximately 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; approximately 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 beta-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 beta-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum gamma-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.

That's in line with many others studies that did not find any difference when protein and calorie are controlled.

I'm not denying Taubes work. He did an awesome job at explaining the political aspect of the low-fat craze. But I don't think the carbohydrate-obesity-hypothesis is supported by current evidence.

Edited by oehaut, 21 December 2009 - 06:13 PM.

[Shepard]

Real, controlled studies are worthless because Calories aren't Calories, words don't mean things, and the laws of thermodynamics have no place in science.

[TheFountain]

Real, controlled studies are worthless because Calories aren't Calories, words don't mean things, and the laws of thermodynamics have no place in science.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but if you are being serious it only serves to corroborate my theory that many of you are just pinpointing so called flaws in every series of studies that refutes your dietary approach while at the same time relying on flawed science to prove your own elusive points. This glaring contradiction, while allowed, can only go so far. I know I do it too, just to be a cynical asshole, but it has its limits as does cynicism.

[Shepard]

I give up. The internet has beaten me.

[kismet]

I give up. The internet has beaten me.

Yeah, me too, just in another subforum.