Re: does lc cause muscle loss

No, LC if done properly does not "cause" muscle loss.
A small amount of ML can occur with ANY diet, but eating high protein
tends to minimize it.

John Gohde advice causes extreme muscle loss tho'.
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

Doug Freyburger wrote:
:: martin33 wrote:
:::
::: i started atkins 2 yrs back and weighed 240lbs, lost upto 70 lbs in
::: 6 months and maintained it for about a year by gyming regularly.
::
:: Every so often I agree with trader4 on something - Three pounds per
:: week is more than anyone I can recall who actually followed the
:: directions. While I disagree with trader4 on what the directions
:: say exactly, I agree with him that whatever they are you likely
:: didn't follow them.
::
::: a reason for this
::: though could be that because you don't feel hungry and don't consume
::: enought calories.
::
:: Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On
:: Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the
:: appetite suppression to make it easy to "right size" your calories.
:: I don't have a copy with me but I don't remember any permission
:: in it to use the appetite suppression effect of ketosis to make it
:: painless to starve yourself into lean loss.
::
::: Does anyone
::: know if you really lose muscle doing atkins even if you take in a
::: lot of protein ???? pls enlighten
::
:: First, Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that's another sign
:: you haven't read any of the editions of the book. Second, what
:: do you mean by a lot of protein? You aren't pushing towards
:: 200 grams per day I hope and 100-150 is a level many would not
:: call high.
::
:: Second, it's fat that prevents lean loss the best, thought I don't
:: know if anyone has figured out what the mechanism for the fact
:: is.

Not many share this opinion.

One of the original experiments that triggered Dr A to
:: design the process was one that compared 90% fat with 90%
:: protein with 90% carb with a fast. While everyone expected
:: the 90% protein group to have the least lean loss it actually
:: turned out to be the 90% fat group that lost the least lean.
:: Better, the 90% fat group lost more total weight than the fast
:: group.

This is only a single study. Got any corroboration?

Something other than calories-in was working and it
:: made fat loss more and lean loss less. So the simple answer
:: is - no. High fat is better at preventing lean loss than other
:: types including high protein.

I still think the jury is out on this, not that I would get upset if it were
true, mind you. Most people doing Atkins and LC get sufficient protein at
least and I'd venture to say that most don't strictly watch ratios.

Qualified by the fact that if you
:: lose enough fat some luscle will disappear because it's no
:: longer needed to carry the fat.

I completely disagree with this statement. Muscle doesn't disapprear simply
because it isn't needed to carry fat. there are many other factors that
influence this.

Found this article by accident.
<http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e11.htm>

On 17 Mar 2006 11:50:06 -0800, "Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote:

--snip snip--

=>Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On
=>Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the
=>appetite suppression to make it easy to "right size" your calories.
=>I don't have a copy with me but I don't remember any permission
=>in it to use the appetite suppression effect of ketosis to make it
=>painless to starve yourself into lean loss.

Wrong, read "Calories does matter."(Subject: Do Calories Count?)

=>
=>> Does anyone
=>> know if you really lose muscle doing atkins even if you take in a lot
=>> of protein ???? pls enlighten
=>
=>First, Atkins is high fat not high protein, so that's another sign
=>you haven't read any of the editions of the book. Second, what
=>do you mean by a lot of protein? You aren't pushing towards
=>200 grams per day I hope and 100-150 is a level many would not
=>call high.
=>
=>Second, it's fat that prevents lean loss the best, thought I don't
=>know if anyone has figured out what the mechanism for the fact
=>is. One of the original experiments that triggered Dr A to
=>design the process was one that compared 90% fat with 90%
=>protein with 90% carb with a fast. While everyone expected
=>the 90% protein group to have the least lean loss it actually
=>turned out to be the 90% fat group that lost the least lean.
=>Better, the 90% fat group lost more total weight than the fast
=>group. Something other than calories-in was working and it
=>made fat loss more and lean loss less. So the simple answer
=>is - no. High fat is better at preventing lean loss than other
=>types including high protein. Qualified by the fact that if you
=>lose enough fat some luscle will disappear because it's no
=>longer needed to carry the fat.

---
The more we know, the less we know.
Low carb cures hungry but stop not craving.
k 1 6 8 9 a t h o t m a i l d o t c o m

On 17 Mar 2006 11:50:06 -0800, "Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On
Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the
appetite suppression to make it easy to "right size" your calories.
I don't have a copy with me but I don't remember any permission
in it to use the appetite suppression effect of ketosis to make it
painless to starve yourself into lean loss.

Doublespeak. Not reduce, but "right size"?!?

Yeah, you ARE supposed to reduce your calories on Atkins. If you don't
you won't likely lose any weight. Just because he doesn't have you
counting calories doesn't negate the fact that he expects the appetite
suppression effect of ketosis to result in automatic reduction in
caloric intake sufficient to allow weight loss.

You are right, though, in that if someone eats a semi-starvation level
of calories, on any diet, their body will use a lot of muscle for
fuel. Even on high protein or high fat, if calories are low enough.
The fact that this guy was losing 3 pounds a week is pretty good
evidence that he was just not eating enough.

Quoted message said:

Second, it's fat that prevents lean loss the best, thought I don't
know if anyone has figured out what the mechanism for the fact
is. One of the original experiments that triggered Dr A to
design the process was one that compared 90% fat with 90%
protein with 90% carb with a fast. While everyone expected
the 90% protein group to have the least lean loss it actually
turned out to be the 90% fat group that lost the least lean.
Better, the 90% fat group lost more total weight than the fast
group. Something other than calories-in was working and it
made fat loss more and lean loss less. So the simple answer
is - no. High fat is better at preventing lean loss than other
types including high protein. Qualified by the fact that if you
lose enough fat some luscle will disappear because it's no
longer needed to carry the fat.

That's an interesting study, I agree. But it's very old and to my
knowledge there are no corroborating follow-on studies. I'd be
cautious about building a whole paradigm out of a study like that. Not
appropriate, nor good science. That said, excess protein can be
converted to glucose at about a 50:50 ratio. Fat conversion is 10% or
less. This may make a difference in some people. Anectdotally, lots of
people on this ng have noticed they lose better when they up the fat %
of their diet and reduced protein a bit.

HG

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz said:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

=>Right. Not what the Atkins plan is supposed to be about. On
=>Atkins you aren't supposed to reduce your calories, just allow the
=>appetite suppression to make it easy to "right size" your calories.
=>I don't have a copy with me but I don't remember any permission
=>in it to use the appetite suppression effect of ketosis to make it
=>painless to starve yourself into lean loss.

Wrong, read "Calories does matter."(Subject: Do Calories Count?)

I get that you didn't even slightly understand my point.

Atkins turns down appetite and forbids overeating. Therefore
the sort of overeating discussed in that thread does not apply
to Atkins.

Until the last 10ish pounds for men, 20ish pounds for women, and
the OP is not in that range. Then portion size reduction becomes
necessary to get lower.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:58:10 -0500, Hannah Gruen
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Anectdotally, lots of
|people on this ng have noticed they lose better when they up the fat %
|of their diet and reduced protein a bit.
|
|HG

That's how I am. I've found that the ratio of fat/protein/carbs is
critical to my weight loss. I have to keep fat calories at more than
70%; ideally for me it's fat 75%, protein 25%, carbs 5%. I can't ay
why it works; maybe because of the appetite suppression of the fat?
I guess it's a similar thing to why Dr. Atkins' "fat fast" works for
those who are stalled in their weight loss.

Marengo wrote:
:: On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:58:10 -0500, Hannah Gruen
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
:: Anectdotally, lots of
::: people on this ng have noticed they lose better when they up the
::: fat % of their diet and reduced protein a bit.
:::
::: HG
::
:: That's how I am. I've found that the ratio of fat/protein/carbs is
:: critical to my weight loss. I have to keep fat calories at more than
:: 70%; ideally for me it's fat 75%, protein 25%, carbs 5%. I can't ay
:: why it works; maybe because of the appetite suppression of the fat?
:: I guess it's a similar thing to why Dr. Atkins' "fat fast" works for
:: those who are stalled in their weight loss.

I think appetite suppression comes from lack of carbs, not because of more
fat or protein. 🙂

Note, research says protein suppresses appetite and people here seem to
think it's fat. We know that fat slows digestion in the gut so when eaten
with carbs it can delay spikes in BG. But what really suppresses appetite?
Maybe nothing. Maybe what's really happenning is that appetite is simply
not being throttled up due to excessive carbs in those who are metabolically
off kilter?

Perhaps to suppress, one needs to take something away, not add something.

Marengo said:

Hannah Gruen wrote:

| Anectdotally, lots of
| people on this ng have noticed they lose better when they up the fat %
| of their diet and reduced protein a bit.

Which is a part of the Atkins process in editions 1972 through
1999 that isn't as present in the 2002 edition. Extra protein
isn't encouraged but extra fat is. Whether this is to overcome
prior anti-fat bias or because it works better, that's a matter
of knowing the underlying mechanisms.

Quoted message said:

That's how I am. I've found that the ratio of fat/protein/carbs is
critical to my weight loss. I have to keep fat calories at more than
70%; ideally for me it's fat 75%, protein 25%, carbs 5%. I can't ay
why it works; maybe because of the appetite suppression of the fat?
I guess it's a similar thing to why Dr. Atkins' "fat fast" works for
those who are stalled in their weight loss.

The underlying mechanism is known.

Dietary carbs directly trigger insulin release. Insulin moves fat
into storage. Dietary fat indirectly triggers glucagon release.
Glucagon moves fat out of storage. So once you've found your
best carb level for loss (CCLL in Atkins) then further improvement
comes from working the fat-to-protein ratio.

So while the lean loss aspect is up in the air, the fat loss benefit
of more dietary fat isn't. Fat may be unpopular to folks who
haven't studied the hormones involved, but learn the underlying
mechanism and it isn't unpopular any more.

Insert standard caveat that overeating fat still doesn't work.
Glucagon improves fat withdrawal but it is no magic antedote to
overeating.

Interesting that both extremes tend to break stalls - Going to
almost all fat because it increases the glucagon, going to
almost all low glycemic index carbs because it resets the
leptin. No wonder folks get confused - they want only one
answer to be correct.

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

I think appetite suppression comes from lack of carbs, not because of more
fat or protein. 🙂

I think it's both.

Quoted message said:

Note, research says protein suppresses appetite and people here seem to
think it's fat.

Research also says it's fat and less carbs.

We know that fat slows digestion in the gut so when eaten

Quoted message said:

with carbs it can delay spikes in BG. But what really suppresses appetite?
Maybe nothing. Maybe what's really happenning is that appetite is simply
not being throttled up due to excessive carbs in those who are metabolically
off kilter?

Perhaps to suppress, one needs to take something away, not add something.

We know that ketosis lowers metabolism and suppresses hunger. Ketosis
results from either very low calories or from low carb. We also know
that protein is a significant source of glucose, but it's slow to
convert to glucose, so slow that it doesn't raise bg, so it doesn't
cause a rapid insulin spike with resultant hunger. Fat slows digestion
of all it's eaten with. It stimulates neither insulin nor glucagon, and
it causes a feeling of fullness very quickly.

It's all the above, I believe, but to different degrees in different
people. When I was extremely insulin resistant (before metformin) I
never got the appetite suppression of low carb; I had less intense
hunger, but not appetite suppression. This may be an important variable
for other folks, too.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Doug Freyburger said:

The underlying mechanism is known.

Dietary carbs directly trigger insulin release. Insulin moves fat
into storage. Dietary fat indirectly triggers glucagon release.
Glucagon moves fat out of storage.

According to the Eades in Protein Power, dietary fat is hormonally
neutral, stimulating neither insulin nor glucagon. Protein stimulates
glucagon, though.

Quoted message said:

So once you've found your
best carb level for loss (CCLL in Atkins) then further improvement
comes from working the fat-to-protein ratio.

And the calories.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: I think appetite suppression comes from lack of carbs, not because
::: of more fat or protein. 🙂
::
:: I think it's both.
::
:::
::: Note, research says protein suppresses appetite and people here
::: seem to think it's fat.
::
:: Research also says it's fat and less carbs.

I'm not sure if I've seen this. Do you have a link handy? If not, don't
trouble.

::
::
:: We know that fat slows digestion in the gut so when eaten
::: with carbs it can delay spikes in BG. But what really suppresses
::: appetite? Maybe nothing. Maybe what's really happenning is that
::: appetite is simply not being throttled up due to excessive carbs in
::: those who are metabolically off kilter?
:::
::: Perhaps to suppress, one needs to take something away, not add
::: something.
::
:: We know that ketosis lowers metabolism and suppresses hunger.
:: Ketosis results from either very low calories or from low carb. We
:: also know that protein is a significant source of glucose, but it's
:: slow to convert to glucose, so slow that it doesn't raise bg, so it
:: doesn't cause a rapid insulin spike with resultant hunger. Fat
:: slows digestion of all it's eaten with. It stimulates neither
:: insulin nor glucagon, and it causes a feeling of fullness very
:: quickly.
::
:: It's all the above, I believe, but to different degrees in different
:: people. When I was extremely insulin resistant (before metformin) I
:: never got the appetite suppression of low carb; I had less intense
:: hunger, but not appetite suppression. This may be an important
:: variable for other folks, too.
::
:: Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

:: Research also says it's fat and less carbs.

I'm not sure if I've seen this. Do you have a link handy? If not, don't
trouble.

You haven't seen research about lower carb, higher fat being more satiating?

The research of fat alone is all over the map, but so much of the
research that allegedly finds it's less satiating finds that high carb
is confirmed as moreso that I find it untrustworthy.

The only experiments with fat alone involve gastric infusion, and the
fat infusions are associated with less appetite.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::::: Research also says it's fat and less carbs.
:::
::: I'm not sure if I've seen this. Do you have a link handy? If not,
::: don't trouble.
::
:: You haven't seen research about lower carb, higher fat being more
:: satiating?

Well, I'm saying if you remove the carbs (taking one to LC) then that alone
is what kills appetite (doing nothing else, including replacing calories).
I've seen papers claiming that protein has some special property (I think
Lyle even basis one of his diets on it). However, I've not seen a paper
talking specifically about fat. I've heard claims, though.

::
:: The research of fat alone is all over the map, but so much of the
:: research that allegedly finds it's less satiating finds that high
:: carb
:: is confirmed as moreso that I find it untrustworthy.

yes.

::
:: The only experiments with fat alone involve gastric infusion, and the
:: fat infusions are associated with less appetite.

hmmm...haven't read that stuff.

Well, what I've heard is that fat is satiating, but I'm not sure if I
believe that. I think simply removing the carbs does the trick, if the
trick is going to happen. I, for one, can over eat fat easily. Tub of
almonds....

Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either, since
that's easy to abuse.

As you said, removing the carbs brings on ketosis, and that suppresses
appetite.

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

Well, I'm saying if you remove the carbs (taking one to LC) then that alone
is what kills appetite (doing nothing else, including replacing calories).

Okay, maybe we misunderstood one another. I agree that this alone will
reduce appetite. I just added that other factors also suppress hunger.

Quoted message said:

I've seen papers claiming that protein has some special property (I think
Lyle even basis one of his diets on it). However, I've not seen a paper
talking specifically about fat. I've heard claims, though.

They're there, though there are more of the "fat is bad, carbs and fiber
are satiating" from the old school of What Was Never True But Everyone
Says It Is."

Quoted message said:

::
:: The research of fat alone is all over the map, but so much of the
:: research that allegedly finds it's less satiating finds that high
:: carb
:: is confirmed as moreso that I find it untrustworthy.

yes.

::
:: The only experiments with fat alone involve gastric infusion, and the
:: fat infusions are associated with less appetite.

hmmm...haven't read that stuff.

It's done with an infusion emulsion of triglycerides, apparently.
YECCH. I also found one in that search demonstrating hunger resulting
from an aspartame load; the degree of sweetness triggered more hunger.

Quoted message said:

Well, what I've heard is that fat is satiating, but I'm not sure if I
believe that. I think simply removing the carbs does the trick, if the
trick is going to happen. I, for one, can over eat fat easily. Tub of
almonds....

That's the issue with fat; high caloric density for volume eaten.

Quoted message said:

Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either, since
that's easy to abuse.

True, though it will at least slow the spike.

Quoted message said:

As you said, removing the carbs brings on ketosis, and that suppresses
appetite.

But feeding folks nothing but fat satiates more than feeding with carbs
in the infusion studies; folks were less hungry later on, IIRC. Then
there's protein, with its long lasting, slow supply of energy from glucose.

I think that cutting carbs will reduce hunger/cravings a LOT; I think
replacing carbs with protein staves off cravings with a steady, but slow
supply of glucose (no rebound hunger) and fat creates more feeling of
fullness, so the combination is hunger suppressing. If you were to ask
me which is most important, especially in IR folks, I'd say carb cutting.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Well, I'm saying if you remove the carbs (taking one to LC) then
::: that alone is what kills appetite (doing nothing else, including
::: replacing calories).
::
:: Okay, maybe we misunderstood one another. I agree that this alone
:: will reduce appetite. I just added that other factors also suppress
:: hunger.
::
::: I've seen papers claiming that protein has some special property (I
::: think Lyle even basis one of his diets on it). However, I've not
::: seen a paper talking specifically about fat. I've heard claims,
::: though.
::
:: They're there, though there are more of the "fat is bad, carbs and
:: fiber are satiating" from the old school of What Was Never True But
:: Everyone Says It Is."
::
:::
:::::
::::: The research of fat alone is all over the map, but so much of the
::::: research that allegedly finds it's less satiating finds that high
::::: carb
::::: is confirmed as moreso that I find it untrustworthy.
:::
::: yes.
:::
:::::
::::: The only experiments with fat alone involve gastric infusion, and
::::: the fat infusions are associated with less appetite.
:::
::: hmmm...haven't read that stuff.
::
:: It's done with an infusion emulsion of triglycerides, apparently.
:: YECCH. I also found one in that search demonstrating hunger
:: resulting from an aspartame load; the degree of sweetness triggered
:: more hunger.
::
::: Well, what I've heard is that fat is satiating, but I'm not sure if
::: I believe that. I think simply removing the carbs does the trick,
::: if the trick is going to happen. I, for one, can over eat fat
::: easily. Tub of almonds....
::
:: That's the issue with fat; high caloric density for volume eaten.
::
::: Apparently, fat in the presence of carbs isn't so sating, either,
::: since that's easy to abuse.
::
:: True, though it will at least slow the spike.
::
:::
::: As you said, removing the carbs brings on ketosis, and that
::: suppresses appetite.
::
:: But feeding folks nothing but fat satiates more than feeding with
:: carbs
:: in the infusion studies; folks were less hungry later on, IIRC. Then
:: there's protein, with its long lasting, slow supply of energy from
:: glucose.
::
:: I think that cutting carbs will reduce hunger/cravings a LOT; I think
:: replacing carbs with protein staves off cravings with a steady, but
:: slow supply of glucose (no rebound hunger) and fat creates more
:: feeling of fullness, so the combination is hunger suppressing. If
:: you were to ask
:: me which is most important, especially in IR folks, I'd say carb
:: cutting.

Thanks. I think that pretty much sums it up.

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Susan wrote:
::
::: But feeding folks nothing but fat satiates more than feeding with
::: carbs
::: in the infusion studies; folks were less hungry later on, IIRC.
::: Then there's protein, with its long lasting, slow supply of energy
::: from glucose.
::
::
:: Here's a couple of cites, the emphases are mine:
::

Thanks. You must be very organized to enable you to keep up with all of
these articles! Good show.

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

Thanks. You must be very organized to enable you to keep up with all of
these articles! Good show.

I wish I were more organized!

I'm just an information junkie.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Roger Zoul said:

Thanks. I think that pretty much sums it up.

For some of us. I suspect that the degree to which extreme carb cutting
is the most critical to appetite suppression *may* relate to the degree
to which one is insulin resistant or hyperinsulinemic.

Susan

Susan wrote:
:: x-no-archive: yes
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Thanks. You must be very organized to enable you to keep up with
::: all of these articles! Good show.
:::
:::
::
:: I wish I were more organized!
::
:: I'm just an information junkie.

and good at it!