Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › a guide to debunking bad science
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

a guide to debunking bad science - Page 2

post #16 of 25
5/30/11 at 2:00am
Thread Starter 
^i liked the article. ill read the actual study when i haveh some time the fat head movie has a big low carb bias (ie typical only insulin can make fat, constant high insulin levels lead to hyperinsulinemia, starches turn immediately to glucose and immediately to fat). he also cites eades and taubes as scientific authorities at the end of the documentary he's like watch me go on a low carb diet and get my numbers down. the thing is cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, etc improve on a caloric deficit and low carb diets have been shown to be very successful in reducing caloric intakes.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 25
5/30/11 at 3:00am
Isn't any calorie restrictive diet technically a low cab diet when one factors in the energy from fat reserves?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 25
5/30/11 at 3:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by shibbel View Post
Isn't any calorie restrictive diet technically a low cab diet when one factors in the energy from fat reserves?

Exactly.

Put simply, low-fat diets that also cut significant calories will cut carbohydrates significantly as well, and often by more than they cut fat.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 25
5/30/11 at 3:42pm
Thread Starter 
i dont understand what this statement "any calorie restricted diet has to be a low carb diet" has to do with "when factoring in energy from fat reserves" i eat 75 to 100g carbs every day along with 200+g of protein and 30g or so of fat, which ends up being around 1600 calories or so. i mean i guess it really depends on what low carb means to you. some studies put the upper limit at 100g, but i've seen studies that say low carb and then put it at 150, 200g. -_- i think what you were trying to say is that carbs and fats go together in foods? but thats not necessarily true i'm tired of belaboring this point, but low carb diets are effective at losing weight for normal americans who dont want to count calories, who dont want to put it effort, and who want to eat ad libidum. it works wonders. when it comes to athletes however it's a different story. you need glucose for your brain to function optimally. you need glycogen for your muscles to function optimally. yes your body can function without carbs (glucose is not an essential nutrient), but it doesnt function optimally without it. if you can look past all the inflammatory remarks anthony colpo dissects a few low carb studies here (http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=1535)
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 25
5/30/11 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
i dont understand what this statement "any calorie restricted diet has to be a low carb diet" has to do with "when factoring in energy from fat reserves" i eat 75 to 100g carbs every day along with 200+g of protein and 30g or so of fat, which ends up being around 1600 calories or so. i mean i guess it really depends on what low carb means to you. some studies put the upper limit at 100g, but i've seen studies that say low carb and then put it at 150, 200g. -_- i think what you were trying to say is that carbs and fats go together in foods? but thats not necessarily true
I think what he might have been trying to say is that even low fat, calorie restricted diets are, by virtue, low carbohydrate diets. By cutting your total calories, you are, in effect, lowering your total carbohydrate intake as well.
Quote:
i'm tired of belaboring this point, but low carb diets are effective at losing weight for normal americans who dont want to count calories, who dont want to put it effort, and who want to eat ad libidum. it works wonders. when it comes to athletes however it's a different story. you need glucose for your brain to function optimally. you need glycogen for your muscles to function optimally. yes your body can function without carbs (glucose is not an essential nutrient), but it doesnt function optimally without it. if you can look past all the inflammatory remarks anthony colpo dissects a few low carb studies here (http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=1535)
Making this distinction is key; the dichotomy in lifestyle between professional athletes and the general population is important when considering diet composition. The athlete who is looking for maximum performance as their goal and the 40 pound, overweight, middle aged woman will obviously possess some discrepancies in which diet works best for them and their desired outcomes.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 25
5/30/11 at 4:50pm
Thread Starter 
^i'm still not sure why a calorie restricted diet has to be by virtue a low carb diet.

i guess if you severely restrict calories and are of the mind that protein is absolutely necessary then yeah it would be a low carb diet and a low fat diet.

but at a more moderate restriction you can eat good amount of carbs and still maintain the restriction.


whew. glad we agree about athletes.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 25
5/30/11 at 4:55pm
I guess a more accurate way of putting it is that any calorie restricted diet would be a lower carbohydrate diet as well.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 25
5/30/11 at 5:07pm
Thread Starter 
that i would agree with.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 25
5/30/11 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
I guess a more accurate way of putting it is that any calorie restricted diet would be a lower carbohydrate diet as well.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I was saying. I guess the term "low carb diet" doesn't have a set level of carbs defining it....I would say that low carb is any diet where fat is the predominate macro is low carb (fat reserve calories included). MMM, I wonder though, people who have carbs dialed in as their top macro while dieting, and improve their blood lipids- do the improvements in lipids remain when they switch to a maintenance diet (and thereby actual consuming a higher percentage of carbs)?
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 25
5/30/11 at 7:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by shibbel View Post
MMM, I wonder though, people who have carbs dialed in as their top macro while dieting, and improve their blood lipids- do the improvements in lipids remain when they switch to a maintenance diet (and thereby actual consuming a higher percentage of carbs)?
When you speak of "people who have carbs dialed in as their top macro while dieting", I'm assuming you are speaking of those who are focusing on limiting carbohydrates as a means to lose weight? In that case, you are asking: when they do successfully lose weight, simultaneously improving their blood lipids in the process, and are at a "maintenance phase" diet-wise, once they start consuming more carbohydrates, does the effect of improved blood lipids somehow reverse? My answer is probably not, with one important caveat: the quality of the carbohydrates they are consuming. Just because they are now able to maintain their weight loss with a higher level of carbohydrates in their diet, does not mean that they will necessarily maintain the improved health biomarkers and lipid profiles they achieved by cutting out sugars and refined starches at the start of their diet (the foods that got them fat and sick in the first place). To put it simply: if you can stay lean with 100g of carbohydrates per day, make those carbohydrates whole and fibrous, as opposed to refined and processed. The improvements in your VLDL particle size, HDL/LDL ratio will all thank you for doing so.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Health & Body › a guide to debunking bad science