Study - Low-Carb diets don't work the way we thought

[croaker24]

All over the media last week.

http://blogs.webmd.com/breaking-new...=uYTVXyVam6@C2nGo8NRjYOHnVev1imbC0wnF4ZZLaCU=

A sample size of only 19 - however - it looks like to me that they were thorough, having the participants stay at the NIH -

For part of these visits, they lived inside a special room called a metabolic chamber, which captured all the air they inhaled and exhaled as well as their urine. This careful collection of body gasses and fluids allows researchers to precisely measure how many calories people are burning and what those calories come from—carbohydrates, fat, or protein.

People lost more total fat on the low-fat diet than they did when they were eating the low-carb diet. And cutting fat didn’t appear to slow metabolism, while cutting carbs did.

 

[Nelson Vergel]

Too bad they did not show the reference to get the paper.

 

[croaker24]

Too bad they did not show the reference to get the paper.

I went looking - at the NIH site -- a bit more information here:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_154095.html

It's in the August "Cell Metabolism". If you look further on NIH - there's numerous other studies of low-carb on NIH - seemingly contradictory results from scanning the titles; but either side (low-carb/low-fat) could probably cherry-pick to bolster their belief in their particular diet.

 

[croaker24]

How about this (from 2014).
Endothelium and Its Alterations in Cardiovascular Diseases: Life Style Interventionhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955677/

Skip down to Section 7 - Exercise / Diet; and lengthy discussions of red wine and olive oil; vitamins C/E; and melatonin.

I simply searched Endothelium and Fat. Came back with over 40,000 articles.

Now Dr Greger, of Nutritionfacts fame, and a rabid vegan/low fatty guy with a big following of fans - constantly posts negative stuff about saturated fat/olive oil/animal protein, etc.

He posted this week on "Fatty Meals May Impair Artery Function." ( http://nutritionfacts.org/video/fatty-meals-may-impair-artery-function/ )

Looking at his sources, he quotes 11 studies. I bet you I could find a few hundred studies contradicting his conclusion. I am a fan of Science-Based Medicine (SBM) site as a sanity check - and here is a 2013 comment on Dr Greger.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/

Ooops!

The main point of all this - diet science is still rather shallow and a moving target, and anyone telling you they have "the truth" cannot be trusted. That so-called truth only works for them - and very few people stick with any of these fad diets over a long-term. Just about any diet shows promise over the short-term - but very few people talk about how it works for them say over 5, 10, 15 years.

Everything I read though leads me to believe that plant-based is the big key - the question is which fat, and which protein, and how much of each. And I think that depend on the individual, particularly their genetics.

 

[Nelson Vergel]

Thanks Croaker24. I downloaded the paper (28 pages) and will review it. Interesting paper for sure!

 

[Vince]

It’s a never-ending debate. Should you avoid carbs or avoid fat to lose weight? The media loves it.
Unfortunately in later years there’s been many many scientific trials showing a clear winner: low carb results in statistically significantly more weight loss. It’s been shown in more than 20 human studies ranging from 3 to 24 months of duration (list of 18 of the studies). A low-fat diet has won a total of 0 (zero) such studies… so the excitement was sort of waning.
But then a small study this week seemed to show the opposite and the media went crazy over it:
BBC: Low-fat diets ‘better than cutting carbs’ for weight loss
The excitement seems a bit misplaced for at least two reasons. To start with, as a sort of side note, the low-fat diet actually resulted in less weight loss (1.3 kilos compared to 1.85 kilos on low carb). So the “better weight loss” part seems at least up for debate.
Confused? Well there’s an explanation.
[h=2]More Fat Loss[/b]The low-fat diet actually resulted in more fat loss. According to one measurement in the paper a loss of 0.588 kilos (1.3 pounds) of fat compared to a loss of 0.529 kilos (1.2 pounds) in the low-carb group. So the low-carb group lost more weight (presumably more glycogen and water) while the low-fat group lost more body fat.
The two big problem with this study?
First, it was only six days long!
Second, it was conducted in a locked ward, meaning the participants could only eat the food they were served. Thus the reduced appetite on a low-carb diet (the key advantage) was artificially removed as a factor.
[h=2]What Happens After the 6 Days?[/b]I actually think these results are perfectly accurate. If you cut carbs the body will continue to burn your body’s stored carbs in the first few days, while it adapts and ramps up the fat burning. Importantly this is only temporary as the body’s supply of carbs is very small and will only last a few days, like six days or so… hmmm…
If you instead cut out the fat from your diet, well the body will have to immediately start using the fat reserves.
The problem is what happens AFTER six days. Here’s a hint from the study, here’s what happened to the participants’ fat burning:

In the blue reduced carb (RC) group fat burning is going up like crazy. In the red reduced fat (RF) group the fat burning is actually decreasing slightly, even though they are on a semi-starvation diet.
So here’s the situation after six days in the two groups:
The low-fat group has lost slightly more body fat but at the same time reduced their fat-burning capacity.
The low-carb group has lost more weight and more glycogen but slightly less body fat. However their fat burning is speeding up a lot (and their glycogen stores are getting low) so it’s time to really burn the fat.
[h=2]Conclusion[/b]So there we have it. The low-fat group is slightly ahead after six days, when it comes to body fat, but they are burning fat much slower.
The low-carb group is just behind, moving much faster.
Who will you bet on long-term (meaning 3-24 months) when it comes to weight loss? As low-carb has won 20+ studies and low-fat 0 (zero) studies in that time frame I know where I’d place my bet.
[h=2]Earlier[/b]New Major Study: A Low-Carb Diet Yet Again Best for Both Weight and Health Markers!
Swedish Expert Committee: A Low-Carb Diet Most Effective for Weight Loss
[h=2]PS[/b]Of course it’s debatable whether this really was a “low-carb” diet at all, as the diet contained as much as 140 grams of carbs per day. But let’s not even get into that for now.

 

[midlifealpha]

Good lord, the keto subreddit general advice is 20 carbs per day. There is no way I could enter Ketosis at 140g per day. If you look at Dr. Peter Attia's site http://eatingacademy.com .

He references somewhere that now that he is at the ideal weight he wanted he eats a lot more carbs because he trains for a distance type event, and he defines that as maybe 50-75 carbs. Meaning a guy who can work out nearly 2-3 hours per day and at the ideal weight still only takes in 50-75 carbs so if they were using 140 I'd have to seriously question whether anyone was even close to Ketosis.

 

[croaker24]

Ah the eternal low-fat vs low-carb religious battle Kind of like Catholics/Protestants in Ireland, Duke vs UNC, Paleo/Vegan and so forth. I bet a lot of the low-carbers are not even low-carb at all, and maybe some of the low-fat are not as low-fat as they think. No matter what - they all have plenty of arguments/excuses as to why the opposite side is wrong or why they are right.

 

[Nelson Vergel]

With so many low-carb trial results rolling in each year, you might think that it's case closed: everything there is to know is known. But there are still a few key pieces missing, and one of those pieces has just been released in the form of a six-day feeding study. Why only six days? That can't tell us anything, right? Read on to see how revealing this study actually was, as well as what it can't show (and likely wasn't designed to show).
Low-carbohydrate diets have become even more popular in the past few years, bolstered by the so-called “carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity”. This hypothesis suggests that carbohydrates are the main culprit of weight gain. Things get complicated here, because there are both practical factors (e.g. going low-carb means limiting your food options, which typically makes snacking on junk food more difficult) and physiological factors at play. For the latter category, advocates claim that you can harness the power of decreased insulin levels (from carb restriction) and lose more fat due to factors such as elevated free fatty acid release from fat cells and increased fat oxidation.

http://examine.com/blog/really-low-...-70218729&mc_cid=de3ea62818&mc_eid=8117b60394

 

[croaker24]

I saw that Examine.com article Nelson. Need to go back and re-read. But as I do not need to lose weight - in fact - it seems I have to really eat to maintain, let alone gain; I don't worry about what carbs or fats I eat. Seems like since I went to an increased dosage of cypionate, my weight has dropped about a pound and stayed there consistently - so I am about 2 pounds under my target and just cannot get there.

From that article linked by Nelson -

"If you need a broad and simple takeaway from this study, here is one: weight loss does not rely on certain carb levels or manipulation of insulin, it relies on eating less. Don't be scared that eating carbs will cause insulin to trap fat inside your fat cells."

 

[Vince]

Why is glycated LDL more sensitive to oxidation than native LDL? A comparative study.

Sobal G, Menzel J, Sinzinger H.
Author information



Abstract

It is well established that oxidative modification of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) plays a causal role in human atherogenesis and the risk of atherosclerosis is increased in patients with diabetes mellitus. To examine the influence of different agents which may influence LDL-glycation and oxidation, experiments including glycation with glucose, glucose 6-phosphate, metal chelators (EDTA) and antioxidants (BHT) were performed. The influence of time dependence on the glycation process and the alteration of the electrophoretic mobility of LDL under diverse glycation and/or oxidation conditions was also investigated. The formation of conjugated dienes and levels of lipid peroxides in these different LDL-modifications were estimated. The copper-induced oxidation of LDL in vitro was determined by measurement of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) and expressed as nmol MDA/mg of LDL protein. We found that glycated LDL is more prone to oxidation than native LDL. Using native LDL, the maximal oxidation effect was found to reach a value of 49.72 nmol MDA/mg protein after 8 h. The maximum oxidation of the 31 days, glycated LDL with glucose was 71.76 nmol MDA/mg protein amounting to 144.33% of the value found for native LDL. In the case of glucose 6-phosphate glycation, the maximum oxidation under the same conditions amounted to 173.77% of the value found for native LDL. To measure the extent of glycation, fluorescence of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) was determined (370 nm excitation and 440 nm emission). The most potent glycation agent was glucose 6-phosphate leading to the formation of very high amounts of AGEs. This process was promoted in the absence of EDTA, which prevents the oxidative cleavage of modified Amadori products (ketoamines) to AGEs. We therefore conclude that both processes, glycation and oxidation, result in the modification of LDL. The lower the glycation-rate (+/- EDTA) as measured by relative fluorescence units RFU (generation of AGEs), the lower the additional oxidation rate after glycation as measured by TBARS (generation of MDA equivalents). Glycation and/or oxidation change the electrophoretic mobility of LDL.
Copyright 2000 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.

 

[Vince]

The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance http://www.amazon.com/Art-Science-Low-Carbohydrate-Performance/dp/0983490716

 

[GA8314]

I still feel that the average American needs to cut down (myself included) on the simple carbs. We simply are eating too much carbohydrate. The problem is INSULIN. Daily large amount of carb intake = lots of sustained insulin in the blood (hyperinsulinemia), which = almost impossible break down fat (lipogenolysis).

Lots of Carbs--->Excess Insulin--->hard to lose fat/increased fat storage

Now, looking at overall activity levels and calorie intake IS important. But, the body doesn't treat all calories the same.