tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post3955834398985731742..comments2024-02-18T15:43:14.717-05:00Comments on Moved to LivinLaVidaLowCarb.com/Blog: Why Is There Such Trivial Weight Loss In Low-Carb Diet Studies?Jimmy Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-35558346196980550542007-08-23T12:02:00.000-04:002007-08-23T12:02:00.000-04:00Mr. Low: First, congrats on getting to beyond wher...Mr. Low: First, congrats on getting to beyond where I want to go. The thing is, we know more than straight calorie in/calorie out already. We know about resting metabolism. We know about metabolic flux. We know about protein burning less efficiently that carbs. Who knows what we don't know. And we all know that lab studies are pale imitations of real life. <BR/><BR/>Last thing on calories: I think calories are only estimable, on both sides of the equation. Now, a calorie here and there is probably not a lot of fudge in our fudge factor, but I dunno that it's even that small.<BR/><BR/>As to Charles's comments, I think we (even Dr. Eades) is in agreement that at some point, calories count. It's pretty well documented that folks who eat fat lose more body fat. And really, if I had to weigh 209 forever, I'd rather shed fat and build muscle and be a more muscular 6'2" 209#. So, yes and no to Charles. Will have to review Dr. Eades posting.Pot Kettle Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01991982631209306178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-19036951657710179992007-08-22T22:30:00.000-04:002007-08-22T22:30:00.000-04:00Here's my 2 cents worth. Maybe what is considered...Here's my 2 cents worth. Maybe what is considered a low carb study just isn't low carb enough. Everybody's ability to burn carbs is different. As to calories, while I think they count (and I'm not really sure of the mechanism) I don't think all calories are created equal. Carbs are the most available to the body for convertion to glucose, followed by protein, and then dietary fat. I believe dietary fat may be utilized using a different pathway. The point is, it's not as simple as calories in vs. calories out. I think it's more like regular, high octane, and diesel. Just depends on the engine.DD Jamesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02474031050858948887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-51365643146436455012007-08-22T19:24:00.000-04:002007-08-22T19:24:00.000-04:00Pot Kettle Black: First of all, I love your handl...Pot Kettle Black: First of all, I love your handle. LOL! Yes, there are other factors that have to be considered; however, the energy balance equation, which includes the calorie out part you mentioned, is at the top. While I agree that there are still things we are learning about this process, the metabolic ward studies done show that the simplistic calories in/calories out equation is pretty spot on when it comes to weight gain and loss, and it's a good place for people to start.<BR/><BR/>Charles: As someone who has lost more than 130 lbs and have reduced his body fat from 44% to 7%, my goal is 5%, I'm at a lost for words that you would even suggest that calories don't count in weight loss. So, what counts? Also, the study you cite talks about "body composition" during weight loss, not simply weight loss itself. If I follow your logic, then a person eating fat would lose more weight than a person who fasts?Muatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16209630079415529943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-36033516916455115852007-08-21T14:05:00.000-04:002007-08-21T14:05:00.000-04:00Calories still do not count in weight loss, even w...Calories still do not count in weight loss, even when you reach your goal weight! I can't believe how many people continue to repeat this dogma despite the fact that there are ZERO studies confirming this. Dr. Mike Eades has a wonderful blog post on this issue that he wrote yesterday at www.proteinpower.com. <BR/><BR/>Starving your metabolism will only make your body store fat, not burn fat. Eating fat will cause your body to burn fat at twice the amount than if you ate nothing. Benoit, F.L. et al. "Changes in Body Composition During Weight Reduction in Obesity: Balance Studies Comparing Effects of Fasting and a Ketogenic Diet," Annals of Internal Medicine, 63, 1965, pp. 604-612.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679266571603526922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-53717895921502694972007-08-21T11:08:00.000-04:002007-08-21T11:08:00.000-04:00The problem with studies, version 12.To "food cop"...The problem with studies, version 12.<BR/><BR/>To "food cop" on test subjects for an entire year is costly. Cost is a factor, especially since funding for LC research is at a premium. I don't think you can cop people too hard. On the upside, compliance in the JAMA study was a lot better than the other three diets, and they were looking more like Atkins lc dieters, hence the good results. But like in a lot of studies, they hit a 6-month wall, and then compliance/carb creep became an issue. <BR/><BR/>Mr. Low Fat: Yeah, total consumption is an issue. But at the top end of the weightloss, carb reduction is sufficient to move the scale significantly for many. It's only as you get closer to goal weight (for most people) that calories count more significantly. But also, I would suggest there are other things to factor. Calories out. Calorie quality. Insulin response. Alcohol. Digestion efficiency. Spacing for metabolic response. Cal in/Cal out is an overly simplistic model that doesn't account for a lot of factors. Our knowledge and understanding simply isn't there yet.Pot Kettle Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01991982631209306178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-20452088309321553282007-08-21T10:23:00.000-04:002007-08-21T10:23:00.000-04:00Good post Jimmy, and you know what I'm going to sa...Good post Jimmy, and you know what I'm going to say right? LOL! It's the calories, not the carbs. I honestly believe that until the LC community wraps its head around the idea that calories are more important in <B>weight loss</B> than carbs, then we are going to continue to have a lot of frustrated folks doing _______ (fill in the low carb diet) and wondering why they can't lose any more weight. I've been there, so have you, as well as many of your readers.Muatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16209630079415529943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-22554690348768464872007-08-21T09:07:00.000-04:002007-08-21T09:07:00.000-04:00Good points, Fritz! And that's why I think they n...Good points, Fritz! And that's why I think they need to describe the diet (without putting a label on it) telling the potential participants the foods they can eat ahead of time and let them CHOOSE which diet they want. That would give them ownership of the diet and would likely make them MORE successful in the end. Something for researchers to think about.Jimmy Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-46974968743246788262007-08-21T08:04:00.000-04:002007-08-21T08:04:00.000-04:00a big problem with a lot of these studies is that ...a big problem with a lot of these studies is that the subjects are randomly assigned to the diet. Motivation and belief in your particular diet are big factors. I'd imagine a lot of the folks assigned to low carb diet carry around the same negative notions about the diet that we in the media and hear from our less informed friends and family, so it's no suprise that they don't comply. <BR/><BR/>Imagine if you participated in a study, Jimmy, and were asked to follow Weight Watchers for 3 months, hahaaa...<BR/><BR/>Also, the study subjects are often provided diet instructions by nutritionists who actively believe the diet is dangerous, how effective is that gonna be? <BR/><BR/>Try to imagine Jimmy giving low fat instructions to a group of subjects and maybe you'll see what I mean.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15606061098538457496noreply@blogger.com