94 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

One of the papers McDougall draws from is available in full text- the page linked below has the data on efficiency of converting various macronutrients to body fat. I don't see any justification in calling Mcdougall a quack either.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....C424278/?page=4

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

The above "reference" is not a reference, it's a blog post by a quack doctor. Refutations have been presented in these forums, but accepting them might require you to rethink tightly held beliefs.

Thanks for the reference, Application. It appears to take the stance that "a calorie is not a calorie", claiming that fat leads to more weight gain than carbohydrate. That may well be true when precise dosages of fat and CHO are administered in a controlled setting. However, in a "free feeding" environment, i.e. the real world, fat and CHO have very different effects. Specifically, fat increases satiety, and fructose interferes with satiety mechanisms. (See the Lustig lecture that's been posted here numerous times.) Thus fat induces people to eat fewer calories, and sugars induce people to eat more calories. I'm well aware that "good carbs" exist, but they are not prominent in the average American junk diet. I found this quote from page 1023 of the energy storage paper that you linked to be somewhat telling:

A number of our subjects had great difficulty gaining in spite of an increase in fat intake and a reduction in carbohydrate intake.

I call McDougall a "quack" not because I think he isn't a doctor. I don't doubt that he is. There are a lot of doctors who are fools. On the basis of his blog, he appears to be emotional, biased, and not possessing great judgment regarding nutrition. That is my impression, and my basis for the use of the shorthand term "quack".

The issue is more complicated than you are painting it. You are talking about the nixon administrations implication of a corn subsidy and then somehow arriving at 'carbs are the problem'. No, carbs are not the problem. Bad carbs are a small part of the problem but overall dietary stupidity is the problem. The typical western diet consists of bad carbs, bad fats, high sodium, high sugar, artificial sweeteners and nutritionally deficient foods. And you and other's are relating it as 'they eat a mostly grain based diet thus they are fat'. This is so not the case. When I took the picture I showed earlier my diet was high specific grains like rice, pasta (what I assumed was healthy pasta at the time) and legumes like lentils. Of course I consumed vegetables. But my fat intake was no more than around 30 grams a day for about 2 years straight on said diet. I think I looked pretty lean. I look the same now but guess what? More visceral fat since I added higher fat (and lower carb) intake to my diet. I am not blaming all fats like MUFAs with good amount of oleic acid, but the point is the low fat, higher carb diet did not make me gain weight at all. Let us stop being extremists because we don't know everything as we so arrogantly presume we do. You do not begin at 'this is what the data says so those who experience different are kooks'. You start at 'experience varies, therefor there must be more to this than we think we know or that the data shows'.

How can anyone have a coherent discussion with you if you just make shit up? Did you even read what I wrote? Do you not get the connection between cheap corn and cheap HFCS, which is MADE FROM CORN? Do you not get the connection between HFCS drinks that are cheaper than water and their overconsumption? Do you hear me dissing good carbs? Do you know what "satiety" means? I'm not talking about "everyone". I'm talking about population averages. Your quack doctor seems to be talking about "everyone", though. You seem to think that "everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy". Who's the extremist?

I'm not making anything up. People jump from nixons subsidy to implicating low fat diets in the same paragraph. You did that. Let me clarify how that is irrelevant as a position. It indirectly presupposes that a low fat diet ultimately must include High fructose corn syrup or high sugar content and that this is the reason for weight gain on low fat diets (I know you didn't state this but what else could you have meant?). As stated many other times I consider this approach to dieting the 'junk foodetarian' method. In no way does it reflect healthy vegetarianism or even correctly executed low fat dieting. If you weren't implying this then you must have been implying that high carb intake is the cause of weight gain on low fat diets. And again, my macros were reversed, much of my energy was coming from healthhy carbs and I did not gain a ounce of weight from them (I am not making any of this up). I honestly don't know where people get 'carbs are the problem' from as white carbs, sugar and bad fats are equally to blame. Regarding that doctor. I never heard of him before Application gave a reference (which I am grateful he did because it adds some possible clarity to the situation). I can't count the times I read people on this forum saying 'everyone should do well on low carb, high fat diets' or that 'genetic variation is a myth'. Every other post I read from a paleo extremist is pretty much implicating carbs in general for weight gain. There are too many other factors in the western diet that contribute as much or more than carbs. Well, processed carbs to be specific. The ultimate point being that the combination of all the above are the real issue. Not one over the other.

Edited by TheFountain, 04 March 2010 - 08:56 AM.

[TheFountain]

Re: Why does a high fat, low carb diet not work for me?


Because low carb diet makes you fat...

http://cnn.com/video...carb.vs.fat.cnn

They're just going to make up reasons why the study was bad.

[EmbraceUnity]

I'm not making anything up. People jump from nixons subsidy to implicating low fat diets in the same paragraph. You did that. Let me clarify how that is irrelevant as a position. It indirectly presupposes that a low fat diet ultimately must include High fructose corn syrup or high sugar content and that this is the reason for weight gain on low fat diets (I know you didn't state this but what else could you have meant?). As stated many other times I consider this approach to dieting the 'junk foodetarian' method. In no way does it reflect healthy vegetarianism or even correctly executed low fat dieting. If you weren't implying this then you must have been implying that high carb intake is the cause of weight gain on low fat diets. And again, my macros were reversed, much of my energy was coming from healthhy carbs and I did not gain a ounce of weight from them (I am not making any of this up). I honestly don't know where people get 'carbs are the problem' from as white carbs, sugar and bad fats are equally to blame. Regarding that doctor. I never heard of him before Application gave a reference (which I am grateful he did because it adds some possible clarity to the situation). I can't count the times I read people on this forum saying 'everyone should do well on low carb, high fat diets' or that 'genetic variation is a myth'. Every other post I read from a paleo extremist is pretty much implicating carbs in general for weight gain. There are too many other factors in the western diet that contribute as much or more than carbs. Well, processed carbs to be specific. The ultimate point being that the combination of all the above are the real issue. Not one over the other.

There seems to be a lot of miscommunication here, but you seem to have the general idea. Too many calories of any type will cause problems, and certain carbs create cravings for more carbs, but not all do.

Fats are more calorie dense, and that alone should tell you that it should theoretically be easiest to gain weight with fat. Perhaps you were taking in more than you realized? I find it very easy to get absurdly high amounts of fat, practically without realizing it, and maybe you do too. Satiety is not the same in everyone, and furthermore it takes a little while for your brain to recognize that you are full.

Perhaps, regardless of diet, just eating slower would help you to recognize when you are full. If you are someone who needs to eat in a hurry, for some reason, then one could make a case that a higher carb diet makes sense for that reason alone.

I would also recommend increasing protein as others have mentioned. Aim for a Mediterranean style macronutrient ratio, and see how that works.

Edited by progressive, 04 March 2010 - 01:45 PM.

[TheFountain]

I would also recommend increasing protein as others have mentioned. Aim for a Mediterranean style macronutrient ratio, and see how that works.

I plan to incorporate a little more protein in the form of hemp powder. I do not want to go too high in protein because of the implications to longevity there. Right now i'm not even sure I should continue eating coconut oil/milk. Maybe for cooking sometimes but daily consumption? Not sure.

[niner]

One of the papers McDougall draws from is available in full text- the page linked below has the data on efficiency of converting various macronutrients to body fat. I don't see any justification in calling Mcdougall a quack either.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....C424278/?page=4

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

The above "reference" is not a reference, it's a blog post by a quack doctor. Refutations have been presented in these forums, but accepting them might require you to rethink tightly held beliefs.

Thanks for the reference, Application. It appears to take the stance that "a calorie is not a calorie", claiming that fat leads to more weight gain than carbohydrate. That may well be true when precise dosages of fat and CHO are administered in a controlled setting. However, in a "free feeding" environment, i.e. the real world, fat and CHO have very different effects. Specifically, fat increases satiety, and fructose interferes with satiety mechanisms. (See the Lustig lecture that's been posted here numerous times.) Thus fat induces people to eat fewer calories, and sugars induce people to eat more calories. I'm well aware that "good carbs" exist, but they are not prominent in the average American junk diet. I found this quote from page 1023 of the energy storage paper that you linked to be somewhat telling:

A number of our subjects had great difficulty gaining in spite of an increase in fat intake and a reduction in carbohydrate intake.

I call McDougall a "quack" not because I think he isn't a doctor. I don't doubt that he is. There are a lot of doctors who are fools. On the basis of his blog, he appears to be emotional, biased, and not possessing great judgment regarding nutrition. That is my impression, and my basis for the use of the shorthand term "quack".

The issue is more complicated than you are painting it. You are talking about the nixon administrations implication of a corn subsidy and then somehow arriving at 'carbs are the problem'. No, carbs are not the problem. Bad carbs are a small part of the problem but overall dietary stupidity is the problem. The typical western diet consists of bad carbs, bad fats, high sodium, high sugar, artificial sweeteners and nutritionally deficient foods. And you and other's are relating it as 'they eat a mostly grain based diet thus they are fat'. This is so not the case. When I took the picture I showed earlier my diet was high specific grains like rice, pasta (what I assumed was healthy pasta at the time) and legumes like lentils. Of course I consumed vegetables. But my fat intake was no more than around 30 grams a day for about 2 years straight on said diet. I think I looked pretty lean. I look the same now but guess what? More visceral fat since I added higher fat (and lower carb) intake to my diet. I am not blaming all fats like MUFAs with good amount of oleic acid, but the point is the low fat, higher carb diet did not make me gain weight at all. Let us stop being extremists because we don't know everything as we so arrogantly presume we do. You do not begin at 'this is what the data says so those who experience different are kooks'. You start at 'experience varies, therefor there must be more to this than we think we know or that the data shows'.

How can anyone have a coherent discussion with you if you just make shit up? Did you even read what I wrote? Do you not get the connection between cheap corn and cheap HFCS, which is MADE FROM CORN? Do you not get the connection between HFCS drinks that are cheaper than water and their overconsumption? Do you hear me dissing good carbs? Do you know what "satiety" means? I'm not talking about "everyone". I'm talking about population averages. Your quack doctor seems to be talking about "everyone", though. You seem to think that "everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy". Who's the extremist?

I'm not making anything up. People jump from nixons subsidy to implicating low fat diets in the same paragraph. You did that. Let me clarify how that is irrelevant as a position. It indirectly presupposes that a low fat diet ultimately must include High fructose corn syrup or high sugar content and that this is the reason for weight gain on low fat diets (I know you didn't state this but what else could you have meant?). As stated many other times I consider this approach to dieting the 'junk foodetarian' method. In no way does it reflect healthy vegetarianism or even correctly executed low fat dieting. If you weren't implying this then you must have been implying that high carb intake is the cause of weight gain on low fat diets. And again, my macros were reversed, much of my energy was coming from healthhy carbs and I did not gain a ounce of weight from them (I am not making any of this up). I honestly don't know where people get 'carbs are the problem' from as white carbs, sugar and bad fats are equally to blame. Regarding that doctor. I never heard of him before Application gave a reference (which I am grateful he did because it adds some possible clarity to the situation). I can't count the times I read people on this forum saying 'everyone should do well on low carb, high fat diets' or that 'genetic variation is a myth'. Every other post I read from a paleo extremist is pretty much implicating carbs in general for weight gain. There are too many other factors in the western diet that contribute as much or more than carbs. Well, processed carbs to be specific. The ultimate point being that the combination of all the above are the real issue. Not one over the other.

Progressive is entirely correct that there is miscommunication here. I'm addressing the obesity epidemic and the "extremist" doctor who thinks that fat is the problem for everyone. "Low fat" diets as they are implemented for the majority of Americans, i.e., a little less fat and a lot more sugar, ARE a problem for almost everyone who eats that way. Nixon's corn subsidies and government diet recommendations led to this national average diet. TheFountain does not eat that way. TheFountain eats good carbs. When TheFountain ate more fat, possibly too much fat, combined with inadequate protein, he developed what appeared to be more subcutaneous fat. The appearance of subcutaneous fat was probably aggravated by loss of muscle due to inadequate protein intake, though you seem hesitant to even accept this as a possibility. I am not a proponent of High Fat Paleo diets. I am a proponent of adequate protein, good carbs, and a reasonable amount of good fat, which somewhat exceeds the current dietary recommendations. And yes, genetic variation exists, as do variations in gut microbiomes. We are not all identical and one diet will not be perfect for everyone. I never said that was the case, and if you look, you will find very few if any instances of anyone claiming that here.

[TheFountain]

One of the papers McDougall draws from is available in full text- the page linked below has the data on efficiency of converting various macronutrients to body fat. I don't see any justification in calling Mcdougall a quack either.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....C424278/?page=4

This is getting interesting. Thanks for the reference application. It is very interesting. My current view is that either source of energy from macros needs to be moderate to medium. Too much of either will result in damage to the arterial system, disease and early death and however much of either you consume it has to be the healthy variety. There is far too much extremism going on in the dietary field. One man comes out with a book that makes some interesting points and suddenly everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy. Bad judgment! I would still like to hear what the refutation on the above reference would be. If there is any.

The above "reference" is not a reference, it's a blog post by a quack doctor. Refutations have been presented in these forums, but accepting them might require you to rethink tightly held beliefs.

Thanks for the reference, Application. It appears to take the stance that "a calorie is not a calorie", claiming that fat leads to more weight gain than carbohydrate. That may well be true when precise dosages of fat and CHO are administered in a controlled setting. However, in a "free feeding" environment, i.e. the real world, fat and CHO have very different effects. Specifically, fat increases satiety, and fructose interferes with satiety mechanisms. (See the Lustig lecture that's been posted here numerous times.) Thus fat induces people to eat fewer calories, and sugars induce people to eat more calories. I'm well aware that "good carbs" exist, but they are not prominent in the average American junk diet. I found this quote from page 1023 of the energy storage paper that you linked to be somewhat telling:

A number of our subjects had great difficulty gaining in spite of an increase in fat intake and a reduction in carbohydrate intake.

I call McDougall a "quack" not because I think he isn't a doctor. I don't doubt that he is. There are a lot of doctors who are fools. On the basis of his blog, he appears to be emotional, biased, and not possessing great judgment regarding nutrition. That is my impression, and my basis for the use of the shorthand term "quack".

The issue is more complicated than you are painting it. You are talking about the nixon administrations implication of a corn subsidy and then somehow arriving at 'carbs are the problem'. No, carbs are not the problem. Bad carbs are a small part of the problem but overall dietary stupidity is the problem. The typical western diet consists of bad carbs, bad fats, high sodium, high sugar, artificial sweeteners and nutritionally deficient foods. And you and other's are relating it as 'they eat a mostly grain based diet thus they are fat'. This is so not the case. When I took the picture I showed earlier my diet was high specific grains like rice, pasta (what I assumed was healthy pasta at the time) and legumes like lentils. Of course I consumed vegetables. But my fat intake was no more than around 30 grams a day for about 2 years straight on said diet. I think I looked pretty lean. I look the same now but guess what? More visceral fat since I added higher fat (and lower carb) intake to my diet. I am not blaming all fats like MUFAs with good amount of oleic acid, but the point is the low fat, higher carb diet did not make me gain weight at all. Let us stop being extremists because we don't know everything as we so arrogantly presume we do. You do not begin at 'this is what the data says so those who experience different are kooks'. You start at 'experience varies, therefor there must be more to this than we think we know or that the data shows'.

How can anyone have a coherent discussion with you if you just make shit up? Did you even read what I wrote? Do you not get the connection between cheap corn and cheap HFCS, which is MADE FROM CORN? Do you not get the connection between HFCS drinks that are cheaper than water and their overconsumption? Do you hear me dissing good carbs? Do you know what "satiety" means? I'm not talking about "everyone". I'm talking about population averages. Your quack doctor seems to be talking about "everyone", though. You seem to think that "everyone is filling up on lard, bacon and dairy". Who's the extremist?

I'm not making anything up. People jump from nixons subsidy to implicating low fat diets in the same paragraph. You did that. Let me clarify how that is irrelevant as a position. It indirectly presupposes that a low fat diet ultimately must include High fructose corn syrup or high sugar content and that this is the reason for weight gain on low fat diets (I know you didn't state this but what else could you have meant?). As stated many other times I consider this approach to dieting the 'junk foodetarian' method. In no way does it reflect healthy vegetarianism or even correctly executed low fat dieting. If you weren't implying this then you must have been implying that high carb intake is the cause of weight gain on low fat diets. And again, my macros were reversed, much of my energy was coming from healthhy carbs and I did not gain a ounce of weight from them (I am not making any of this up). I honestly don't know where people get 'carbs are the problem' from as white carbs, sugar and bad fats are equally to blame. Regarding that doctor. I never heard of him before Application gave a reference (which I am grateful he did because it adds some possible clarity to the situation). I can't count the times I read people on this forum saying 'everyone should do well on low carb, high fat diets' or that 'genetic variation is a myth'. Every other post I read from a paleo extremist is pretty much implicating carbs in general for weight gain. There are too many other factors in the western diet that contribute as much or more than carbs. Well, processed carbs to be specific. The ultimate point being that the combination of all the above are the real issue. Not one over the other.

Progressive is entirely correct that there is miscommunication here. I'm addressing the obesity epidemic and the "extremist" doctor who thinks that fat is the problem for everyone. "Low fat" diets as they are implemented for the majority of Americans, i.e., a little less fat and a lot more sugar, ARE a problem for almost everyone who eats that way. Nixon's corn subsidies and government diet recommendations led to this national average diet. TheFountain does not eat that way. TheFountain eats good carbs. When TheFountain ate more fat, possibly too much fat, combined with inadequate protein, he developed what appeared to be more subcutaneous fat. The appearance of subcutaneous fat was probably aggravated by loss of muscle due to inadequate protein intake, though you seem hesitant to even accept this as a possibility. I am not a proponent of High Fat Paleo diets. I am a proponent of adequate protein, good carbs, and a reasonable amount of good fat, which somewhat exceeds the current dietary recommendations. And yes, genetic variation exists, as do variations in gut microbiomes. We are not all identical and one diet will not be perfect for everyone. I never said that was the case, and if you look, you will find very few if any instances of anyone claiming that here.

Unfortunately I have to repeat myself here. I was taking in about the same amount of protein on the low fat diet as I am now but my body fat was lower on said diet and I was a little more defined. What about higher protein consumption regulates muscle to fat ratio when consuming a high fat diet? Are you saying because muscle burns fat that my low protein consumption was not allowing my body to burn away excess fat stores from the high fat diet? If so then why was this not the case on the high carb diet where carbs cause insulin responses and are immediately stored as fat?

[stephen_b]

I do not want to go too high in protein because of the implications to longevity there. Right now i'm not even sure I should continue eating coconut oil/milk. Maybe for cooking sometimes but daily consumption? Not sure.

I find I get the runs if I overdo it with the coconut milk. Doesn't MCT oil (a large component of coconut milk) have some antibacterial properties? It seems as though I end up pummeling my gut flora with large servings of coconut milk.

No issues with butter though -- it's my saturated fat of choice now.

Edited by stephen_b, 14 March 2010 - 04:59 AM.

[oehaut]

No issues with butter though -- it's my saturated fat of choice now.

Butter is the greatest AGEs dietary source by far

[oehaut]

Re: Why does a high fat, low carb diet not work for me?


Because low carb diet makes you fat...

http://cnn.com/video...carb.vs.fat.cnn

Interesting. I had not see this paper. I'm wondering what low-carb guru have to say about it

Long-Term Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Versus Low-Fat Diets in Obese Persons

Results: At 36 months, persons in the low-carbohydrate group weighed 2.2 kg (SD, 12.3) less than at baseline compared with 4.3 kg (SD, 12.2) less in the low-fat group (Figure). The difference in weight change between groups was not significant (2.1 kg [95% CI, 2.1 to 6.4 kg]; P  0.323 before and P  0.411 after adjustment for baseline variables). From months 12 to 36, the mean difference in weight change was not significant (P  0.071), although the low carbohydrate group regained weight and the low-fat group did not. Changes in lipids, glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and dietary intake did not differ significantly.

Discussion: A recent large, 2-year randomized trial that compared weight loss with similar diets (3) found no significant differences between the diets. We observed similar findings at 36 months, but the pattern of weight change from 12 to 36 months differed. Although participants in the low-carbohydrate group lost more weight at 12 months, they regained more weight during the next 24 months. In contrast, participants in the low-fat group maintained their weight loss. The difference in weight regain between groups probably reflects initial weight loss, because greater weight loss from baseline to 12 months was associated with greater weight regain from 12 to 36 months (P  0.001). Carbohydrate restriction during the first 12 months did not cause detrimental effects on lipid levels or renal function at any time during the 36 months.

Edited by oehaut, 14 March 2010 - 08:07 PM.

[kismet]

Can anyone access the paper? (I really just want to see the changes in biomarkers) Or is it one of the papers we already discussed?

[oehaut]

Can anyone access the paper? (I really just want to see the changes in biomarkers) Or is it one of the papers we already discussed?

It's a small letter, with no data of the biomarkers reported.

I'm PM you the paper.

[DukeNukem]

Can anyone access the paper? (I really just want to see the changes in biomarkers) Or is it one of the papers we already discussed?

It's a small letter, with no data of the biomarkers reported.

I'm PM you the paper.

It's impossible to comment on this study without knowing the specifics. For example, many studies claiming to compare "low-carb" with something are not really using a low-carb diet (carbs can be above 200 grams in some studies, and still be called "low-carb"). Fructose plays a huge role in getting fat, so it's necessary to know the amounts for each group. The types of fats and proteins also play a big role.

Keep in mind, there's a world of difference between a paleo diet and a low-carb diet. A paleo diet is a natural foods diet, while a low-carb diet can be full of industrial foods (like the Atkin's diet), unhealthy oils (like the Atkin's diet), and still include gluten (like Atkins).

[Sillewater]

Can anyone access the paper? (I really just want to see the changes in biomarkers) Or is it one of the papers we already discussed?

It's a small letter, with no data of the biomarkers reported.

I'm PM you the paper.

It's impossible to comment on this study without knowing the specifics. For example, many studies claiming to compare "low-carb" with something are not really using a low-carb diet (carbs can be above 200 grams in some studies, and still be called "low-carb"). Fructose plays a huge role in getting fat, so it's necessary to know the amounts for each group. The types of fats and proteins also play a big role.

Keep in mind, there's a world of difference between a paleo diet and a low-carb diet. A paleo diet is a natural foods diet, while a low-carb diet can be full of industrial foods (like the Atkin's diet), unhealthy oils (like the Atkin's diet), and still include gluten (like Atkins).

If there are biomarkers based on them we should be able to tell broadly what the diet is like.

[stephen_b]

No issues with butter though -- it's my saturated fat of choice now.

Butter is the greatest AGEs dietary source by far

Take a look at this post by Michael. Does this mean that butter might be far less glycated than reported in PMID 15281050 (I believe it was)?

[oehaut]

No issues with butter though -- it's my saturated fat of choice now.

Butter is the greatest AGEs dietary source by far

Take a look at this post by Michael. Does this mean that butter might be far less glycated than reported in PMID 15281050 (I believe it was)?

Both papers are looking only at CML? Weird result. I had seen that post already, but I had kept in mind only the table present in the 2004 paper, in which butter has, and by far, the highest AGEs content.

What could explain the difference? That's a good new if butter is not that high, I had cut it out quite a bit because of this.

[oehaut]

Can anyone access the paper? (I really just want to see the changes in biomarkers) Or is it one of the papers we already discussed?

It's a small letter, with no data of the biomarkers reported.

I'm PM you the paper.

It's impossible to comment on this study without knowing the specifics. For example, many studies claiming to compare "low-carb" with something are not really using a low-carb diet (carbs can be above 200 grams in some studies, and still be called "low-carb"). Fructose plays a huge role in getting fat, so it's necessary to know the amounts for each group. The types of fats and proteins also play a big role.

Keep in mind, there's a world of difference between a paleo diet and a low-carb diet. A paleo diet is a natural foods diet, while a low-carb diet can be full of industrial foods (like the Atkin's diet), unhealthy oils (like the Atkin's diet), and still include gluten (like Atkins).

I agree. Unfortunatly this is a weird study report. It's only a one page long letter and there's no report of the biomarkers.

But it's a follow-up from this PMID: 12761364 and then this PMID: 15148064

The diet really was low-carb tho, well as described, 30g/day or less. Low-fat is 30% or less from fat.

[TheFountain]

I have no doubt at all that some people lose body fat and gain muscle on a low carb, high fat diet. What I need to know is what is the specific biophysical situation under which someone would gain visceral fat when consuming higher levels of dietary fat on a lower carb diet as opposed to loss of body fat which is SUPPOSE to be the case according to 'the science'? Is it entirely possible that I am 'fat sensitive' if such a condition actually exists? Again, I GAIN body fat when consuming more than 50-60 grams of fat daily for any lengthy period of time, despite how low my carb intake would be (there have been times when it has been sub-50 grams a day for weeks and I still seemed to gain visceral fat). But when my fat and carb consumption are both moderate I lose visceral fat. I don't get it. Any information on the possible biophysical cause?

[HaloTeK]

I have no doubt at all that some people lose body fat and gain muscle on a low carb, high fat diet. What I need to know is what is the specific biophysical situation under which someone would gain visceral fat when consuming higher levels of dietary fat on a lower carb diet as opposed to loss of body fat which is SUPPOSE to be the case according to 'the science'? Is it entirely possible that I am 'fat sensitive' if such a condition actually exists? Again, I GAIN body fat when consuming more than 50-60 grams of fat daily for any lengthy period of time, despite how low my carb intake would be (there have been times when it has been sub-50 grams a day for weeks and I still seemed to gain visceral fat). But when my fat and carb consumption are both moderate I lose visceral fat. I don't get it. Any information on the possible biophysical cause?

Take a look at this:

http://www.thinkmusc...edon/diet02.htm

It's possible that a <50 carbohydrates a day leaves you with sub-optimal testosterone. Maybe that describes what is going on with you?


P.S. HERE IS A SIDE ANOUNCEMENT: EAT MEAT/FISH/VEGGIES FRUIT DIET <----- PROVEN!
EGGS/BUTTER/CHEESE DIET <--------------- NOT PROVEN!

Edited by HaloTeK, 28 March 2010 - 09:35 PM.

[TheFountain]

I have no doubt at all that some people lose body fat and gain muscle on a low carb, high fat diet. What I need to know is what is the specific biophysical situation under which someone would gain visceral fat when consuming higher levels of dietary fat on a lower carb diet as opposed to loss of body fat which is SUPPOSE to be the case according to 'the science'? Is it entirely possible that I am 'fat sensitive' if such a condition actually exists? Again, I GAIN body fat when consuming more than 50-60 grams of fat daily for any lengthy period of time, despite how low my carb intake would be (there have been times when it has been sub-50 grams a day for weeks and I still seemed to gain visceral fat). But when my fat and carb consumption are both moderate I lose visceral fat. I don't get it. Any information on the possible biophysical cause?

Take a look at this:

http://www.thinkmusc...edon/diet02.htm

It's possible that a <50 carbohydrates a day leaves you with sub-optimal testosterone. Maybe that describes what is going on with you?


P.S. HERE IS A SIDE ANOUNCEMENT: EAT MEAT/FISH/VEGGIES FRUIT DIET <----- PROVEN!
EGGS/BUTTER/CHEESE DIET <--------------- NOT PROVEN!

I tried several variations of this, including one which included fish and excluded dairy (I still do not consume dairy). I do not and will not eat animal meat because I am convinced it is pro-aging through the science I have read. I have played with carb levels quite a bit actually, going from sub-50 to about 80-100 grams a day to a little more than this. In any of the above cases consuming more than 60 grams of dietary fat daily gained me visceral fat. And I have also controlled for fructose just 'in case' there is anything to the notion that fructose consumption leads to weight gain. Ate no fruits for months besides berries in moderation and still gained visceral fat. Anyone have any logic to add here?

Edited by TheFountain, 29 March 2010 - 01:17 AM.

[Application]

I have no doubt at all that some people lose body fat and gain muscle on a low carb, high fat diet. What I need to know is what is the specific biophysical situation under which someone would gain visceral fat when consuming higher levels of dietary fat on a lower carb diet as opposed to loss of body fat which is SUPPOSE to be the case according to 'the science'? Is it entirely possible that I am 'fat sensitive' if such a condition actually exists? Again, I GAIN body fat when consuming more than 50-60 grams of fat daily for any lengthy period of time, despite how low my carb intake would be (there have been times when it has been sub-50 grams a day for weeks and I still seemed to gain visceral fat). But when my fat and carb consumption are both moderate I lose visceral fat. I don't get it. Any information on the possible biophysical cause?

I think this has been referenced in other threads but this study provides additional evidence that your experience is not idiosyncratic.

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.

Edited by Application, 29 March 2010 - 02:10 AM.

[niner]

I have no doubt at all that some people lose body fat and gain muscle on a low carb, high fat diet. What I need to know is what is the specific biophysical situation under which someone would gain visceral fat when consuming higher levels of dietary fat on a lower carb diet as opposed to loss of body fat which is SUPPOSE to be the case according to 'the science'? Is it entirely possible that I am 'fat sensitive' if such a condition actually exists? Again, I GAIN body fat when consuming more than 50-60 grams of fat daily for any lengthy period of time, despite how low my carb intake would be (there have been times when it has been sub-50 grams a day for weeks and I still seemed to gain visceral fat). But when my fat and carb consumption are both moderate I lose visceral fat. I don't get it. Any information on the possible biophysical cause?

I think this has been referenced in other threads but this study provides additional evidence that your experience is not idiosyncratic.

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.

This study looked at overfeeding, but was TheFountain overfeeding? Maybe he was overfeeding on the high-fat diet, as others have suggested. All of his dietary experiments were performed under an extremely low protein regime, which may have contributed to the problem. A diet that is very low in protein while simultaneously being sub-50 g CHO is going to be a very weird diet. It seems like it would have to involve eating large quantities of pure fat in order to get the necessary Calories.

[Application]

Since the thread topic is TheFountain's accumulation of additional body fat on high fat diets, isn't it fair to assume some degree of over-feeding?

This study looked at overfeeding, but was TheFountain overfeeding? Maybe he was overfeeding on the high-fat diet, as others have suggested. All of his dietary experiments were performed under an extremely low protein regime, which may have contributed to the problem. A diet that is very low in protein while simultaneously being sub-50 g CHO is going to be a very weird diet. It seems like it would have to involve eating large quantities of pure fat in order to get the necessary Calories.

[niner]

This study looked at overfeeding, but was TheFountain overfeeding? Maybe he was overfeeding on the high-fat diet, as others have suggested. All of his dietary experiments were performed under an extremely low protein regime, which may have contributed to the problem. A diet that is very low in protein while simultaneously being sub-50 g CHO is going to be a very weird diet. It seems like it would have to involve eating large quantities of pure fat in order to get the necessary Calories.

Since the thread topic is TheFountain's accumulation of additional body fat on high fat diets, isn't it fair to assume some degree of over-feeding?

Yeah, like I said, maybe he was. There seems to be an implication that he wasn't, from what he said. We don't really know if he was gaining weight or was looking at a change in body composition. With both protein and carbs at very low levels, it seems like it might actually be hard to consume too many calories, short of drinking out of the deep fat fryer and eating lardsicles.

[Skötkonung]

Back to the inadequate protein intake -- I believe this is what was happening to TheFountain.

1. Vegetable protein and fat are different than animal protein and fat. Very little is known about vegetarian low-carb diets. This could be a confounding factor. For instance, even two saturated fats (coconut milk v beef fat) have widely different ratios of saturated fatty acids. Vegetable based diet could include more nuts (n-6) and less fish / wild game (n-3). Even ALA is not the same as EPA or DHA.
2. When on a low-carb diet, dietary protein is scavenged for gluconeogenesis. A high-carbohydrate diet spares more dietary protein than a low-carb diet. More protein will need to be consumed on a low-carb diet than a high-carb diet. Without proper planning, usable levels of dietary protein could have fallen and compromised lean body mass.
3. He could have been suffering from nutritional deficiencies. Was the diet logged using CRON-o-meter? With a properly planned keto diet, I can get adequate intake of my necessary vitamins and minerals.

I always lose body-fat and increase lean body mass on low-carb, but I also take my protein and fat from beef, fish, heavy cream, pork, organ meat, cod liver oil, etc. My protein intake also increases.

[Application]

In your #2, you are saying that under conditions of carb shortage, the body will use dietary protein for fuel before it burns fat?

Back to the inadequate protein intake -- I believe this is what was happening to TheFountain.

1. Vegetable protein and fat are different than animal protein and fat. Very little is known about vegetarian low-carb diets. This could be a confounding factor. For instance, even two saturated fats (coconut milk v beef fat) have widely different ratios of saturated fatty acids. Vegetable based diet could include more nuts (n-6) and less fish / wild game (n-3). Even ALA is not the same as EPA or DHA.
2. When on a low-carb diet, dietary protein is scavenged for gluconeogenesis. A high-carbohydrate diet spares more dietary protein than a low-carb diet. More protein will need to be consumed on a low-carb diet than a high-carb diet. Without proper planning, usable levels of dietary protein could have fallen and compromised lean body mass.
3. He could have been suffering from nutritional deficiencies. Was the diet logged using CRON-o-meter? With a properly planned keto diet, I can get adequate intake of my necessary vitamins and minerals.

I always lose body-fat and increase lean body mass on low-carb, but I also take my protein and fat from beef, fish, heavy cream, pork, organ meat, cod liver oil, etc. My protein intake also increases.

[Application]

"Lardsicles", LOL

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Coconut milk is not quite lard, but eating low carbs and low protein vegan does make make for some unusual possibilities.

This study looked at overfeeding, but was TheFountain overfeeding? Maybe he was overfeeding on the high-fat diet, as others have suggested. All of his dietary experiments were performed under an extremely low protein regime, which may have contributed to the problem. A diet that is very low in protein while simultaneously being sub-50 g CHO is going to be a very weird diet. It seems like it would have to involve eating large quantities of pure fat in order to get the necessary Calories.

Since the thread topic is TheFountain's accumulation of additional body fat on high fat diets, isn't it fair to assume some degree of over-feeding?

Yeah, like I said, maybe he was. There seems to be an implication that he wasn't, from what he said. We don't really know if he was gaining weight or was looking at a change in body composition. With both protein and carbs at very low levels, it seems like it might actually be hard to consume too many calories, short of drinking out of the deep fat fryer and eating lardsicles.

Edited by Application, 31 March 2010 - 05:48 AM.

[The Immortalist]

I would say the current macronutrient break down is probably something like 60% fat, 30% carb and 10% protein.

This is just a speculation, but at 10% protein, maybe you are catabolizing muscle excessively, and what looks like a visceral fat increase is more of a shift in body composition from muscle to fat. I would try upping protein to about 20% for a while, combined with some moderate resistance exercise. That might firm you up. If you want to maintain reasonable muscle, you probably don't want to go as low as 10.

the building blocks of fat are presumably carbs.

fat is made of free fatty acids.

IMHO I think your trying too hard. Just forget diets. If you want a healthy way of living just eat like the worlds longest lived people the okinawans. http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/0609607472 It makes sense right? Eat like the longest lived healthiest people on the planet and you may get some of their benefits too.

Edited by The Indefinite Lifespaner, 31 March 2010 - 09:58 AM.

[The Immortalist]

Re: Why does a high fat, low carb diet not work for me?


Because low carb diet makes you fat...

http://cnn.com/video...carb.vs.fat.cnn

They're just going to make up reasons why the study was bad.

What about a lowfat lowcarb high protein diet made up of natural non-manmade food?

Edited by The Indefinite Lifespaner, 31 March 2010 - 10:33 AM.

[Skötkonung]

In your #2, you are saying that under conditions of carb shortage, the body will use dietary protein for fuel before it burns fat?

Back to the inadequate protein intake -- I believe this is what was happening to TheFountain.

1. Vegetable protein and fat are different than animal protein and fat. Very little is known about vegetarian low-carb diets. This could be a confounding factor. For instance, even two saturated fats (coconut milk v beef fat) have widely different ratios of saturated fatty acids. Vegetable based diet could include more nuts (n-6) and less fish / wild game (n-3). Even ALA is not the same as EPA or DHA.
2. When on a low-carb diet, dietary protein is scavenged for gluconeogenesis. A high-carbohydrate diet spares more dietary protein than a low-carb diet. More protein will need to be consumed on a low-carb diet than a high-carb diet. Without proper planning, usable levels of dietary protein could have fallen and compromised lean body mass.
3. He could have been suffering from nutritional deficiencies. Was the diet logged using CRON-o-meter? With a properly planned keto diet, I can get adequate intake of my necessary vitamins and minerals.

I always lose body-fat and increase lean body mass on low-carb, but I also take my protein and fat from beef, fish, heavy cream, pork, organ meat, cod liver oil, etc. My protein intake also increases.

Portions of the body will always require glucose. In gluconeogenesis, protein is converted to glucose using stored / dietary fat as energy. Ketones are produced as a byproduct.

[JLL]

Re: Why does a high fat, low carb diet not work for me?


Because low carb diet makes you fat...

http://cnn.com/video...carb.vs.fat.cnn

They're just going to make up reasons why the study was bad.

What about a lowfat lowcarb high protein diet made up of natural non-manmade food?

I think the maximum amount of protein is something like 40% of calories. Health bloggers always say "high protein diets don't exist", but if your protein/fat/carb ratio is 40/30/30, isn't that a high protein diet?