- This topic has 4 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
This study's been out for a while, but it was new to me. More evidence that ULC diet protocols without some introduction of carbs (like CNS/CBL) aren't beneficial to metabolically and psychologically normal people. Here's an article link: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html And, the PubMed link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046Abstract:
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.
problem with many of these studies is they just do body weight which obviously tells you very little.. and obviously CN was designed to try and get passed these metabolic and hormonal problems than can occur in some people who go ULC for very extended periods of time..
They actually tracked a lot of stuff past body weight for this. They measured BW, bf%, BMI, waist measurements, waist to hip ratios, blood analysis, and urinary analysis. I thought it was a pretty thorough study the way it read. Things that stood out to me: out of the 20 adults 16 were female, all of the participents were around 40% body fat levels @~220lbs then put them on sedentary 1500 cal a day diets.It would have been nice to see the results separated by sex but they did not report the results this way. At that level of body fat on a restricted calorie diet weight loss is going to occur at a high rate no matter what your diet composition is. It would have been good to see more samples from subjects w/varying levels of bodyfat.None the less this study does confirm the hormone issues encountered.
study won't load at work so was just going off the abstract he posted.. nice to see they actually went past just weight though as many studies don't seem to do that
yea I always think abstracts are pretty worthless. There is so much information about the study design/results that does not make it into that short summary.
It would have been nice to see the results separated by sex but they did not report the results this way. At that level of body fat on a restricted calorie diet weight loss is going to occur at a high rate no matter what your diet composition is. It would have been good to see more samples from subjects w/varying levels of bodyfat.
I'm not tracking what you mean. The participants were randomly assigned to either group. What would you be looking for?
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.
For this sentence, it's important to note that what they're referring to is the correlation between lipid balance and inflammation. One of the greatest contributors of inflammation in the body and arteries, is a high proportion of 6 or 9 carbon chain fatty acids to 3 chain acids. This is a huge problem in the general population, and the solution is to supplement the diet with quality fish oil, and perhaps with some flaxseed oil. The fish oil is the most important one, though due to limitations in how much flaxseed oil can be broken down into DHA (I hope I got the acronym right). Because CNS and CBL diets require fish oil supplementation, and suggest flax seed oil, neither are in danger of suffering from this effect during ULC periods or days. So, take the requirement to supplement with fish oil, flax seed oil, and to get a variation of fats in the diet seriously.
It would have been nice to see the results separated by sex but they did not report the results this way. At that level of body fat on a restricted calorie diet weight loss is going to occur at a high rate no matter what your diet composition is. It would have been good to see more samples from subjects w/varying levels of bodyfat.
I'm not tracking what you mean. The participants were randomly assigned to either group. What would you be looking for?
Right but I was talking about results reporting where as an example the weight loss results for the males in the KLC group were compared to the males in the NLC group. In terms of seeing more sample subjects I meant that they would have a group of the 40% bf subjects randomly assigned to each type of diet and then a group of 30%bf subjects randomly assigned to each type of diet, and so on. The reason why it would be nice to see more samples like that is @40%bf any calorie restriction is going to cause weight loss. There might be some difference in results with participants of a lower bf%.
I got you. I see what you're saying now. For this study, I don't think that was a problem. My assumption is from this sentence in the abstract:
Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned
I'm interpreting that line to mean that the total variation of the sample BMI was 34.4 +/-1 kg (2.2 lbs), meaning that the participants ranged in BMI from 33.4 to 35.4, which is pretty homogenous. Since they weren't athletes/body builders the BMI would be a generally good way to control for difference in body composition. Is that right?
Did you happen to see the full study? I found it on google scholar and they have a whole table of metrics for the subjects in the two groups. BMI was one of the metrics and you are correct that it is a good way to make sure that all participants are homogenous. If you do manage to see that chart you can see that all participants are relative the same weight, BMI, body fat % etc.What I was really getting at is that everyone in the study was very overweight, probably obese. Any type of calorie restriction would have caused such overweight subjects to lose weight. I would have liked to see how a mildly overweight group and even a relatively good shape group of subjects would have responded to the diets. This would shoot to test if the calorie restriction dictated most of the weight loss vs. the composition of food in the diet.
Yeah, it seems that obese people are able to lose a massive amount of fat much more quickly. The fatter a person is the more they have to actively maintain their weight, so initial changes are exponential; i.e., for every 0.5 units of effort or change yields 1 unit of change. I work with a guy that lost 130 lbs in a year from just eating less and moving a little more. I'm busting my ass to lose 15 lbs to get my abs back! The closer you get to a baseline equilibrium, the the more effort is required, like 1 unit of effort to get .5 units of change. I think a good way to think about this in terms of physiology are osmotic processes. The closer a metabolic process is to a baseline equilibrium, the more energy it takes to transfer compounds across cellular membranes. That's why this is the first new or fad diet I've ever actually tried. This might be a way to maintain long periods of fat catabolism for energy AND high metabolism, which doesn't happen under normal circumstances without a great deal of effort. Kiefer's wrong that physical activity won't show results for up to 9 months. I'm a former soldier and have seen and experienced rapid physical change in short periods based on physical activity, rather than diet. A lot of effort is required though. If a person thinks they can sit at a desk for 8 hours a day and get much change from a 30 min workout, then they're going to be waiting a long time -maybe the rest of their lives. I've learned that the hard way, since I work at a desk now. It's all relative. There's not much health or evolutionary benefit to go from 20% bf to 10% bf, and there's an evolutionary risk going below 10% bf. The folks who maintained a 15% bf ratio had a greater chance of passing along their genes during crisis of food scarcity than did the really skinny people. That also means that there's not a lot of grant money out there to study normal nutrition. All the money is in clinical nutrition. Our medical culture is slowly shifting towards preventive medicine, but the vast infrastructure is still geared toward treating at-risk and disease states.
Yeah, it seems that obese people are able to lose a massive amount of fat much more quickly. The fatter a person is the more they have to actively maintain their weight, so initial changes are exponential; i.e., for every 0.5 units of effort or change yields 1 unit of change. I work with a guy that lost 130 lbs in a year from just eating less and moving a little more. I'm busting my ass to lose 15 lbs to get my abs back! The closer you get to a baseline equilibrium, the the more effort is required, like 1 unit of effort to get .5 units of change. I think a good way to think about this in terms of physiology are osmotic processes. The closer a metabolic process is to a baseline equilibrium, the more energy it takes to transfer compounds across cellular membranes. That's why this is the first new or fad diet I've ever actually tried. This might be a way to maintain long periods of fat catabolism for energy AND high metabolism, which doesn't happen under normal circumstances without a great deal of effort. Kiefer's wrong that physical activity won't show results for up to 9 months. I'm a former soldier and have seen and experienced rapid physical change in short periods based on physical activity, rather than diet. A lot of effort is required though. If a person thinks they can sit at a desk for 8 hours a day and get much change from a 30 min workout, then they're going to be waiting a long time -maybe the rest of their lives. I've learned that the hard way, since I work at a desk now. It's all relative. There's not much health or evolutionary benefit to go from 20% bf to 10% bf, and there's an evolutionary risk going below 10% bf. The folks who maintained a 15% bf ratio had a greater chance of passing along their genes during crisis of food scarcity than did the really skinny people. That also means that there's not a lot of grant money out there to study normal nutrition. All the money is in clinical nutrition. Our medical culture is slowly shifting towards preventive medicine, but the vast infrastructure is still geared toward treating at-risk and disease states.
I agree with this to an extent. I have seen this myself in a few people, however I am not sure if the person's diet changed. I would also question if your dietary habits changed from being in the military. I think Kiefer was talking about the people who think they can lose 20 lbs of fat by running. Exercise can certainly cause physical changes, especially strength training. But those changes will usually not be decreased weight. Of course this changes when we are talking about very overweight people.
Depends on how much running, what type of running, how much they eat, and a host of other variables. There are just as many fat people lifting weights as there are running on treadmills. Clinical studies on this generally have subjects exercise for about 30 mins, 3 or 4 times a week. To extrapolate from this that the exercise tested in the studies have no greater effect-size if the time is doubled or tripled, especially when paired with diet changes, is a voicing of opinion more than it is fact. There's a difference between extrapolation and interpolation. In the military, especially during training and deployment, I ate without any considerations. I didn't eat a lot of fried food, but I ate a lot.
Depends on how much running, what type of running, how much they eat, and a host of other variables. There are just as many fat people lifting weights as there are running on treadmills. Clinical studies on this generally have subjects exercise for about 30 mins, 3 or 4 times a week. To extrapolate from this that the exercise tested in the studies have no greater effect-size if the time is doubled or tripled, especially when paired with diet changes, is a voicing of opinion more than it is fact. There's a difference between extrapolation and interpolation. In the military, especially during training and deployment, I ate without any considerations. I didn't eat a lot of fried food, but I ate a lot.
You're missing the point. The point is exercise is an extremely inefficient weight loss method. Also the 3-4 30 minute exercise sessions per week are quite typical for those who are trying to lose weight. Hardly anyone goes from being sedentary to doing much more than that. The bottom line is most people who are trying to lose weight by exercise only will not achieve their desired results.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.