Oh please no. Not the carb wars again.
Oh please no. Not the carb wars again.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;930759]Oh please no. Not the carb wars again.[/QUOTE]
* insulin wars.
[QUOTE=Dirlot;930748]Are you saying a high sugar hit, causing a high insulin hit leading to a blood sugar crash and increased hunger is the same as a protein slowly ingested over a prolonged low level insulin rise at a low level?
Oh please explain...[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying that 300 calories of yogurt is no more fattening than 300 calories of chicken, despite that fact that it produces double the insulin response. The glycemic index index isn't always correlated to the insulin response.
[QUOTE=Iron Fireling;930755]How is that irrelevant? Please explain, then, how you could take in EXACTLY the same number of calories on one diet (say low fat, high carb) and gain weight, but on a high fat low carb diet you can lose weight with the same number of calories?? To me the answer is: insulin.
There was a study conducted back in the 50s that put people on 1000 calorie a day diets. One group had 90% fat, one had 90% protein, and one had 90% carb. Those on the carb diet actually put ON weight, while those on the high fat diet lost about 0.9lbs A DAY (those on the protein lost a bit less, about 0.6lbs a day from memory).
Obviously the energy intake was the same BUT the result was very, very different.[/QUOTE]
Some cereals and pastas have the lowest insulin score of any foods. That' doesn't mean they can't be considered fattening. If lower insulin was the only key to fat loss then the insulin lowering drug diazoxide would actually be prescribed for weight loss.
The Pawan and kedwick study from the 1950's was bogus. Even the authors admitted it didn't count for anything because the people they used in the study were unreliable and were cheating and stealing food which was unaccounted for.
The re done those studies several times in actual controlled environments and the studies have shown no statistical significant fat loss when calories and protein have been controlled.
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046]Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no meta... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI[/url]
We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.
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.
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.
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.
Well, if a stick of butter is below your needs for fat and energy, then if you eat enough carbohydrate to stimulate an insulin rise, some of that fat is going to go into storage and some of will be burned but since it was below your needs, you will get hungry again and your body will ask for more. So you'll basically be undereating and getting fat.
But if a stick of butter is below your needs for fat and energy and you eat it with something else, like maybe a big pile of vegetables, then your body has no insulin telling it to send a portion toward fat storage. So since it's less energy than you need, your body will instead burn that stick of butter and then turn to its own fat for the remainder of its energy needs. You won't get hungry because your body will believe it's been fed.
But if a stick of butter is above your needs for fat and energy, no matter what you do, some of it will be stored as body fat.
[QUOTE=sbhikes;931005]Well, if a stick of butter is below your needs for fat and energy, then if you eat enough carbohydrate to stimulate an insulin rise, some of that fat is going to go into storage and some of will be burned but since it was below your needs, you will get hungry again and your body will ask for more. So you'll basically be undereating and getting fat.
I disagree. If you are undereating, then after the fat is stored, it will get burned again because where in the world is your energy going to come from when you're undereating? 400 calories of pure butter will be burned just as much as 400 calories of mixed rice and butter.
[QUOTE=sakura_girl;931116]I disagree. If you are undereating, then after the fat is stored, it will get burned again because where in the world is your energy going to come from when you're undereating? 400 calories of pure butter will be burned just as much as 400 calories of mixed rice and butter.[/QUOTE]
It'll get burned again only if you don't raise up your insulin over and over. That's how you end up in the vicious circle of weight gain. And you can end up there on a calorie deficit. I know because it happened to me.
My n=1 with macros:
High fat + high carb = fat gain.
High fat + low carb = fat gain.
Low fat + high carb = fat loss in a healthy way (my top doesn't look emaciated)
Low fat + low carb = fat loss in a bad way (all from my top, stubborn fat on bottom half remains).
Everybody has a different situation going on, but for me, eating fat with or without carbs means instant fat gain, eating low fat means fat loss, so I really don't think the insulin response is as simple as most people make it out to be.
If your goal is to maintain weight, then adding carbs would mean reducing fat beause you'd have to reduce calories from somewhere, right?
OP, are you asking because you're thinking of changing your diet, or is this more of a theoretical question?
[QUOTE=Forgotmylastusername;930785]* insulin wars.
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, [B]participants were sedentary[/B], and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.
KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, [B]but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects.[/B] [B]The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.[/B][/QUOTE]This study sounds fixed from the start. What kinds of fats were these people using?, was it uniform among the entire group?, from what high/low quality of sources for said fats? Sedentary for 6 weeks on a high fat diet.? C'mon... That is intentionally rigged, imo. Also it sounds like you might have cherry-picked this questionable study to reinforce your personal opinion & bias against ketogenic diets, as there is NOT any other scientifically valid (not rigged or poorly designed/executed), peer-reviewed studies to support this statement they/you are concluding the data analysis with. At least not that I'm aware of... If I'm wrong, please post any such good sources (Gawd, I sound like James...)
Also, if keto diets ellicited negative metabolic &/or emotional effects, then why am I sleeping MUCH better without my normal homeopathic/herbal sleep aids that I normally required on moderate/unrestrained primal carb consumption? Why is my happiness, creativity, productivity & general outlook improved in the past week? And why are others experiencing similar POSITIVE effects on strict primallly oriented keto?
Sigh, so many people still think it's only about calories in/calories out, and that is so obviously not true.
[QUOTE=palebluedots;932652]Sigh, so many people still think it's only about calories in/calories out, and that is so obviously not true.[/QUOTE]
[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]until i turned 42, it was true for me. not anymore.[/siZE][/FONT]
When I first dipped my toe in the primal seas I didn't know what N=1 means. Oh sure, I figured it out but the more I read, the more I listen to the podcasts, the summits, read the various blogs and individual results, the more I came to really understand thee significance and importance of N=1. Recently there has been a surge in various experts - health, fitness, nutrition, paleo - talking about how little the various older studies really tell us. male, female, young, old, metabolically broken, metabolically fit, sedentary lifestyle, active lifestyle, good prior nutrition, poor prior nutrition, supplement taker, non-supplement taker, genetic markers, epigenetics, parental histories, grandparent histories. There's just too many variables. Sure we can't stop looking at studies, but even how those studies are interpreted can be radically different. So what am I trying to say? I'm no scientist, I can barely analyze a lot of these studies people link to, and I do sometimes get swept up in the excitement of some of these experiments/discoveries - but - we're all so very, very different I finally understand the importance of N=1 and understand that what works for ME now might not even work as I come closer to optimal health. So not knowing every detail of the above study make me wonder like Betorq just how much this actually tells us. I only a vague idea of how complicated we each are and how much our parents and grandparents environment and actions affect our health. That said, I'm interested to hear how rations and macros and nutrients affect others, but it all boils down to my needing to discover how they affect me in the here and now.
5 months in I still haven't found a baseline, but I'm starting to get in tune with my body. To the OP, I'd like to think that the ultimate answer is 'it depends on you and what works for you and you'll have to find out for yourself'.