Bookmark and Share

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Carbohydrates Matter, At Least At The Low End (There Is No Such Thing As A "Calorie" To Your Body, Part VII)
Read the original blog post
November 13, 2013
4:00 am
First-Eater
Forum Posts: 2105
Member Since:
February 22, 2010
Offline

Caution: contains SCIENCE!

In previous installments, we've proven the following:

  • A calorie is not a calorie when you eat it at a different time of day.
  • A calorie is not a calorie when you eat it in a differently processed form.
  • A calorie is not a calorie when you eat it as a wholly different food.
  • A calorie is not a calorie when you eat it as protein, instead of carbohydrate or fat.
  • A calorie is not a calorie when you change the type of fat, or when you substitute it for sugar.
  • Controlled weight-loss studies do not produce results consistent with "calorie…
Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
5:05 am
Ash Simmonds
Guest

Ah what a pleasure to find my own silly writings against CICO as your first reference. :D

Pingback from AussieExotics...

http://aussieexotics.com/forum/off-topic/food-glorious-food-1346.msg558481.html#msg558481

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
5:14 am
François "Wizz&
Guest

"It appears that much of the advantage of zero-carb diets is gone at just 10% carbohydrate."

I knew it! I was certain that there was some kind of treshold to trigger the real benefits of low-carbing. I've tried to convince a couple of friends who tried "low" carb and failed, but of course they wouldn't listen.

I guess this treshold must have variations from individual to individual. I know mine is extremely low, close to zero (metabolic resistance blues...).

Would be interesting to have studies on humans rather than laboratory animals... probably won't happen anytime soon.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
5:36 am
pzo
Guest

Must still be dark in the Sierra's, eh? Barely light here on the bayou in Florida.

Empiricism, dontcha love it? It's like what Dr. Eades has posted recently with his TV interviews; how the lipid hypothesis folks keep failing at their experiments but refuse to accept the obvious: They are wrong.

In my many decades on this planet, observing my fellow so-called "homo sapiens" I've concluded that we really should be "homo emotocus," or something. We emote, we react, then we claim a rational basis for those emotions. A further condensation of human "thought" is repeating something often enough makes it true. Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the Nazi's, understood this. And right here in America, disgraced Vice President Spiro Agnew of later disgraced President Richard Nixon, use a phrase I still love: "Nattering nabobs (of negativism)."

So much conversation, especially on Spacebook, Twatter (!!), and on forums is just that, nattering from intellectually vacuous nabobs. And it certainly includes many in the world of nutrition.

Oh, back on topic. If true, this horribly complicates real world carb experiences. When I've tried to practice VLC, I felt "spacey" a lot and could not get any performance on my mountain bike (Yes, it's Florida now but my Trek and I have also done Monarch Pass, Colorado) There was no evidence over a month or more that I would adjust. And I found the diet terribly boring.

I'm at 57% fat, 21% protein and carbs, + a "lot" of wine or distilled spirits, 2000-2100 calories excluding ethyl alcohol, and my weight won't consistently drop below 240 pounds (I'm 6'2".) Four years ago, during my VLC days, drinking just as much, I did lose weight, eventually down to 210. But I was exercising more, too.

Guess I'd lose weight doing VLC again, stop drinking, but then, life would be misery. No mun, no hun, no oral fun.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
6:46 am
Sofie
Guest

No, life is completely enjoyable without drinking. Change can be difficult, but don't pretend your happiness depends on nerga.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
7:35 am
Annlee
Guest

I would love to see the carb better broken out, too - since sucrose is 50% each glucose and fructose. Would the sugar composition matter? I suspect the answer is "yes."

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
8:37 am
Sherwood
Guest

Interesting read. Wonder what the results would be if various long chain carbs were used instead?

While testing on humans is clearly desireable, the next stage would be to replicate with pigs, which are metabolically even closer to people than rats are.

It would appear that at low levels carbs are acting as a catylist, or are an essential starting material for some metabolic process. No carbs means that some process is blocked, and another process is used.

What happens to the extra calories? Are the zero carb rats, despite the surplus of calories burning them -- are they more active, have higher body temps? Or are they excreting them in their waste?

In one sense CICO will be true. As you said it's physics. If it appears otherwise, it means that the biological bookkeepers aren't doing their job. Conservation of mass/energy and all that. Those calories are there somewhere.

Measuring the metabolic activity of a rat would require different cages to trap and measure the CO2. Measuring the energy in the crap would be fairly easy. Dry it, and do the calorimeter thing.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
9:11 am
Paul Lee
Guest

From my own experiences I agree with this. I've lost wait rapidly on low carb but it tends to stall after a while (though this might be carbs creeping back in). Begs the question of how to loose weight on high carb without starvation/fasting or spending hours on a treadmill. For example I know Indonesians who are wafer thin, yet seem to exist on several rice meals a day with a little fish etc.. If you are largely an inactive coach potato then zero/vlc will be the only way to go

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
11:30 am
MargaretRC
Guest

That explains nicely why my husband was able to lose a fair amount of fat when he went very low carb and exercised a lot, but gained it all back as soon as he reduced exercise and allowed a relatively small amount of carbs (mostly wheat, not sugar) back in. He still doesn't eat near as many carbs as most or as he did before, yet has as much fat around his middle as he did before he ditched the wheat and sugar. And yes, he has all the indicators of being insulin resistant. Wish I could convince him that even the little bit of carbs he's eating is affecting him, but he's resistant to change. Loves his bread and pasta. :( I suspect the only thing that will bring about a change in attitude is if he is diagnosed as actually diabetic.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
11:33 am
MargaretRC
Guest

Thank you for this, by the way.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
12:43 pm
Paleobird
Guest

This article should be brought to the attention of the "Sugar Bees" over at Mark's Daily Apple. They are the ones nattering on about the gospel according to R@y P##t so loudly and so long that most of the dedicated low carbers have given up and gone elsewhere.

You don't win an argument by being the loudest and last one standing. You win it with actual scientific fact.

Thanks JS

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
1:16 pm
Chris Highcock
Guest

What about the Calories Out side of the equation?

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
1:32 pm
Jacquie
Guest

I'm confused, sorry. Are you conflating sugar and carbs?? (I'm still on my healing quest, trying to make sense of how to lose weight and fix an ailing body.) Are you saying that more than 10% carbs from non-sugary/non-starchy sources is still going to be a problem??

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
1:40 pm
Sean
Guest

Reducing energy efficiency by relying on fat for metabolism can be really bad for your health, and your heart's ability to pump blood: "Alterations in cardiac energy metabolism can profoundly affect cardiac efficiency. Excessive use of FAs has been shown to be especially important, either by decreasing the efficiency of producing ATP, or by decreasing ATP availability for contractile function." http://www.heartandmetabolism.com/download/53/8.pdf

[This is wrong, but understandably so and in an interesting way...make sure read my reply several comments below -JS]

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
2:47 pm
Renaud
Guest

Did they measure fat going strait to poop ?
Did they mesure physical activity ?
AFAIK rats grows for about 12 weeks (experiment started at 6)... so, do we observe healthy stabilisation of weight or stunted growth ?

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
2:49 pm
Sean
Guest

Renaud, great points there about growth vs stunted growth.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
3:14 pm
Johnnyv
Guest

Interesting although as you say rats a very different to humans.
If only there were some more metabolic ward studies with decent dietary compositions.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
3:48 pm
con
Guest

This confirms my experience,
I lost 95 lbs. no exercise at all, on a zero carb diet. When I added in a cup of fruit weight loss stopped. I maintain this loss without much effort by eating high fat, moderate protein and one carb daily ie. 1 salad, 2 c. kefir,1 fruit etc. Occasionally(1x month) a high carb chocolate bar, burrito or other fabulous favorite.

Boring? not hardly! It represents freedom from obesity.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
3:48 pm
con
Guest

This confirms my experience,
I lost 95 lbs. no exercise at all, on a zero carb diet. When I added in a cup of fruit weight loss stopped. I maintain this loss without much effort by eating high fat, moderate protein and one carb daily ie. 1 salad, 2 c. kefir,1 fruit etc. Occasionally(1x month) a high carb chocolate bar, burrito or other fabulous favorite.

Boring? not hardly! It represents freedom from obesity.

Bookmark and Share
November 13, 2013
4:04 pm
BawdyWench
Guest

I'm with Jacqui. Is this total carbs, or just the sugar part of the carbs? For example, if the total carbs of a food total 13 grams, but the pure sugar carbs are only 5 grams, do you count the 13 grams or the 5 grams?

As Jacqui said, "Are you saying that more than 10% carbs from non-sugary/non-starchy sources is still going to be a problem??"

Can someone respond, please?

Bookmark and Share
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 86

Currently Online:
4 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2456

Members: 3435

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 2

Topics: 247

Posts: 8433

Administrators: J. Stanton: 2105