Re: Only calories matter?

Ignoramus5937 said:

In article said:

Ignoramus5937 said:

What an amazing find, as I am reading more about low carbing.

Obese children who were fed a low carb diet lost weight and improved
blood lipids. These children also ate 66% more calories than controls,
who ate "heart healthy" starches and whole grains. What a surprise.

Medline ID 15148063

Sondike S, Jacobson, Copperman. The ketogenic diet increases weight
loss but not cardiovascular risk: A randomized controlled trial. J
Adolescent Health Care 2000; 26: 91.

Schneider Children?s Hospital in New Hyde Park, N.Y

This study was conducted on overweight children aged 12 to 18. They
were between 20 and 100 pounds overweight. The children were split
into two groups. One group ate a conventional low-fat, carbohydrate
based "slimming" diet composed of whole grains, fruits and vegetables
with fat-free dairy products, low-fat meats, poultry and fish. Their
total intake was limited to 1,100 calories per day. The other group
ate a high-fat, low-carb diet in which they were allowed to eat as
many calories as they wanted in the form of untrimmed meat, cheese,
eggs, poultry and fish. Their carbohydrates came from two salads a day
and minimal other carbs.
RESULTS Despite consuming on average 66% more calories per day, after
12 weeks the children consuming the low-carbohydrate diet lost more
weight than those following the low-fat, high-carb plan:
Low-carb Low-fat
Calorie intake 1830 1100
Weight loss 19 lbs 8.5 lbs
HDL Increased Decreased
Triglycerides -52% -10%

As high-protein/fat diets are thought to have adverse effects on
kidneys and liver, kidney and liver functions were regularly
monitored. They were found to be unaffected by this diet.

COMMENT: Six to twelve months later, most of the low-carb dieters had
maintained their new lower weight. This study provides additional
evidence for the efficacy of a low-carb weight loss programme
specifically for the most vulnerable group ? teenagers.

I think this is a great result (and in line with every other result
regarding low carb), but unless they counted calories for the kids
before
putting them on the diet then counted calories for the kids after they
put
them on the diet, the calorie difference isn't really scientific.

Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That low carb children could eat more, surprised me.

i

Actually, almost every study that looks at calories and low carb comes up
with the same results. However, some people are adamant (sp?) that if you
took these people and put them in chambers to measure every calorie,
there's no difference in low carb and high carb. There was one study that
used twins and did this and determined no difference between low and high
carb. However, most studies support the "low carb = more weight loss"
hypothesis. Have you seen these:

Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in
Adult Women during Weight Loss (Journal Abstract) Added on: 4/29/2003
Hits: 263
From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Journal of
Nutrition, 2003: In this study, researchers placed two groups of women on
two diets, each of which was equal in calories and fat. One group was on a
high protein, low carbohydrate diet and the second was on the USDA's low
protein, high carbohydrate diet. The researchers noted that both groups
lost 16 pounds on average, but the low carbohydrate, high protein group
lost more body fat and less lean body mass than did the USDA food pyramid
group. The researchers also noted that women in the high protein group had
more stable glucose levels,lower insulin levels, and lower cholesterol
levels.

High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets
(Magazine Article) Added on: 12/27/2002 Hits: 1145
From the Arizona State University and the the Doctor's Guide, 2002: This
team of researchers compared the thermogenic effects of two different low
fat diets. The first low fat diet was high in protein and the second was
high in carbohydrate. The researchers found that the study participants'
body temperature and resting energy expenditure was 100% greater after
eating high protein meals that after eating high carbohydrate meals. They
concluded that the thermogenesis that occurs after high-protein meals may
partially explain the effectiveness of high-protein diets for weight loss.

(From http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=199)

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Ignoramus5937 said:

In article said:

Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in
Adult Women during Weight Loss (Journal Abstract) Added on: 4/29/2003
Hits: 263
From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Journal of
Nutrition, 2003: In this study, researchers placed two groups of women
on
two diets, each of which was equal in calories and fat. One group was
on a
high protein, low carbohydrate diet and the second was on the USDA's low
protein, high carbohydrate diet. The researchers noted that both groups
lost 16 pounds on average, but the low carbohydrate, high protein group
lost more body fat and less lean body mass than did the USDA food
pyramid
group. The researchers also noted that women in the high protein group
had
more stable glucose levels,lower insulin levels, and lower cholesterol
levels.

interesting

Quoted message said:

High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets
(Magazine Article) Added on: 12/27/2002 Hits: 1145
From the Arizona State University and the the Doctor's Guide, 2002:
This
team of researchers compared the thermogenic effects of two different
low
fat diets. The first low fat diet was high in protein and the second was
high in carbohydrate. The researchers found that the study participants'
body temperature and resting energy expenditure was 100% greater after

they had 100% greater body TEMPERATURE???

like, 194 degrees fahrenheit as opposed to normal 97????

they were very "well done" by that time, huh... Yummy, well done, low
carb dieters. Were they served with gravy?

must be some mistake somewhere.

i

Quoted message said:

These are interpreted by the lady who keeps up the site, but she provides
the links so that you can go read the actual study. I think she means
that there was an elevated temperature and 100% greater resting energy
expenditure.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Based on my own experience. I did notice right away that on the lo-carb
diet, I wasn't feeling cold like I had been on regular low fat/low cal.
diets. Perhaps there is a metabolic advantage with higher protein.
Tom
210/180/180
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ignoramus5937" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in
Adult Women during Weight Loss (Journal Abstract) Added on: 4/29/2003
Hits: 263
From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Journal of
Nutrition, 2003: In this study, researchers placed two groups of women

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

two diets, each of which was equal in calories and fat. One group was on

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

high protein, low carbohydrate diet and the second was on the USDA's low
protein, high carbohydrate diet. The researchers noted that both groups
lost 16 pounds on average, but the low carbohydrate, high protein group
lost more body fat and less lean body mass than did the USDA food

pyramid

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

group. The researchers also noted that women in the high protein group

had

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more stable glucose levels,lower insulin levels, and lower cholesterol
levels.

interesting

Quoted message said:

High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets
(Magazine Article) Added on: 12/27/2002 Hits: 1145
From the Arizona State University and the the Doctor's Guide, 2002:

This

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

team of researchers compared the thermogenic effects of two different

low

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fat diets. The first low fat diet was high in protein and the second was
high in carbohydrate. The researchers found that the study participants'
body temperature and resting energy expenditure was 100% greater after

they had 100% greater body TEMPERATURE???

like, 194 degrees fahrenheit as opposed to normal 97????

they were very "well done" by that time, huh... Yummy, well done, low
carb dieters. Were they served with gravy?

must be some mistake somewhere.

i

Quoted message said:

eating high protein meals that after eating high carbohydrate meals.

They

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

concluded that the thermogenesis that occurs after high-protein meals

may

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

partially explain the effectiveness of high-protein diets for weight

loss.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(From http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=199)

Ignoramus5937 generously shared with us this little ditty:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob in CT
wrote:
Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That low carb children could eat more, surprised me.

Why?

--
revek
The probability of forgetting something is directly proportional to
..... to .... uh ....

Bob in CT said:

Ignoramus5937 said:

In article said:

On 11 Aug 2004 18:52:25 GMT, Ignoramus5937
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> What an amazing find, as I am reading more about low carbing.
>
> Obese children who were fed a low carb diet lost weight and improved
> blood lipids. These children also ate 66% more calories than controls,
> who ate "heart healthy" starches and whole grains. What a surprise.
>
> Medline ID 15148063
>
> Sondike S, Jacobson, Copperman. The ketogenic diet increases weight
> loss but not cardiovascular risk: A randomized controlled trial. J
> Adolescent Health Care 2000; 26: 91.
>
> Schneider Children?s Hospital in New Hyde Park, N.Y
>
> This study was conducted on overweight children aged 12 to 18. They
> were between 20 and 100 pounds overweight. The children were split
> into two groups. One group ate a conventional low-fat, carbohydrate
> based "slimming" diet composed of whole grains, fruits and vegetables
> with fat-free dairy products, low-fat meats, poultry and fish. Their
> total intake was limited to 1,100 calories per day. The other group
> ate a high-fat, low-carb diet in which they were allowed to eat as
> many calories as they wanted in the form of untrimmed meat, cheese,
> eggs, poultry and fish. Their carbohydrates came from two salads a day
> and minimal other carbs.
> RESULTS Despite consuming on average 66% more calories per day, after
> 12 weeks the children consuming the low-carbohydrate diet lost more
> weight than those following the low-fat, high-carb plan:
> Low-carb Low-fat
> Calorie intake 1830 1100
> Weight loss 19 lbs 8.5 lbs
> HDL Increased Decreased
> Triglycerides -52% -10%
>
>
> As high-protein/fat diets are thought to have adverse effects on
> kidneys and liver, kidney and liver functions were regularly
> monitored. They were found to be unaffected by this diet.
>
> COMMENT: Six to twelve months later, most of the low-carb dieters had
> maintained their new lower weight. This study provides additional
> evidence for the efficacy of a low-carb weight loss programme
> specifically for the most vulnerable group ? teenagers.

I think this is a great result (and in line with every other result
regarding low carb), but unless they counted calories for the kids
before
putting them on the diet then counted calories for the kids after
they put
them on the diet, the calorie difference isn't really scientific.

Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That low carb children could eat more, surprised me.

i

Actually, almost every study that looks at calories and low carb comes
up with the same results. However, some people are adamant (sp?) that
if you took these people and put them in chambers to measure every
calorie, there's no difference in low carb and high carb. There was one
study that used twins and did this and determined no difference between
low and high carb. However, most studies support the "low carb = more
weight loss" hypothesis. Have you seen these:

Increased Dietary Protein Modifies Glucose and Insulin Homeostasis in
Adult Women during Weight Loss (Journal Abstract) Added on: 4/29/2003
Hits: 263
From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Journal of
Nutrition, 2003: In this study, researchers placed two groups of women
on two diets, each of which was equal in calories and fat. One group was
on a high protein, low carbohydrate diet and the second was on the
USDA's low protein, high carbohydrate diet. The researchers noted that
both groups lost 16 pounds on average, but the low carbohydrate, high
protein group lost more body fat and less lean body mass than did the
USDA food pyramid group. The researchers also noted that women in the
high protein group had more stable glucose levels,lower insulin levels,
and lower cholesterol levels.

High-Protein Beats High-Carbohydrate for Weight Loss in Low-Fat Diets
(Magazine Article) Added on: 12/27/2002 Hits: 1145
From the Arizona State University and the the Doctor's Guide, 2002:
This team of researchers compared the thermogenic effects of two
different low fat diets. The first low fat diet was high in protein and
the second was high in carbohydrate. The researchers found that the
study participants' body temperature and resting energy expenditure was
100% greater after eating high protein meals that after eating high
carbohydrate meals. They concluded that the thermogenesis that occurs
after high-protein meals may partially explain the effectiveness of
high-protein diets for weight loss.

(From http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=199)

Sounds like it should have been stated as:

The researchers found that the study participants' body temperature was
greater after eating high protein meals compared to those eating high
carb meals. They also found that after eating high protein meals the
resting energy expenditure was 100% greater for the low carb group than
the high carb group.

The temptation to save a few words in an abstract created a potential
for confusion.

Nice article....

Thanks for drawing attention to it.

Jim

"Ignoramus5937" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much lower
than what I ate before!).

Lictor said:

"Ignoramus5937" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well, these were two groups of children dieters, assigned
randomly. The low carb kids ate a lot more calories than the
conventionally dieting kids.

That might also be a problem. 1100 calories is very low. You don't always
have a linear rate of loss. Like, the rate is faster with VLC diets than
with pure fasting, because the body doesn't go as hard into economy mode.
Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other. It would have been better if they had only
changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining at constant caloric level. It
would
also have been nice to have a balanced diet thrown in the sample, in
order
to better discriminate between the diets. I'm still wondering if the good
results of low carbing are because they lower the carbs (compared to a
normal diet) or just because they don't cut the fats beyond the level of
a
normal diet. Having a normal low-caloric diet in the sample might have
shown
that.
During my initial weight loss, I had a pretty fast curve, like 6kg the
first
month. I was on a normal diet (that is, eating the normal food for my
country - around the same amount of calories from fats and carbs) with
hunger control, so it's hard to know the exact number of calories, but I
would say I was around 1800 a day. So, it was possible to get a good
rate of
weight loss, at least during the first couple of months, without cutting
the
carbs and without getting the calories very low (though certainly much
lower
than what I ate before!).

Plus, when you're talking kids between those age ranges, randomly
assigning them might not be a great idea. When I was teen and I was on
the football team, I ate a ton. One 17 year old male who's physically
active (even if overweight) could really skew the results. One would
think the authors of the study took this into consideration, but you never
know.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Having the low-fat sample on such a low calorie diet while the low-carb
sample is not could introduce a bias, like one sample being in starvation
mode and not the other.

Starvation mode, IIRC the Medline research correctly, kicks in at about 800
calories per day. Ketosis and very low calorie diets have similar effects on
metabolism, as evidenced by their effects on free T3 and rT3 thyroid hormones.

Quoted message said:

It would have been better if they had only changed
one parameter, the diet, while remaining >at constant caloric level.

Not really, IMO, because that's not what happens IRL. Folks can eat more
calories on LC, and lose weight. Food consumption is naturally limited by that
factor, which is one of the most important factors of the diet. It's how each
works in real life, not calorie matching that matters.

That wouldn' t have helped, necessarily, since balance isn't what's
conventionally prescribed by clinical dieticians, low fat/high carb is.

Susan

[email hidden] (Susan ) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Starvation mode, IIRC the Medline research correctly, kicks in at
about 800 calories per day.

Susan, do you have a cite for that? I'm curious about whether it changes
for differing BMI.

Chakolate

--
When people show you who they are, believe them.
--Maya Angelou

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Susan, do you have a cite for that? I'm curious about whether it changes
for differing BMI.

Chakolate

Not that I've saved, but IIRC, I was able to find them pretty easily at the
time I was looking. It was when I went very low carb and became hypothyroid as
a result.

I know there was no mention of differing BMI in any of the cites I read,
though.

Susan

[email hidden] (Susan ) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Susan, do you have a cite for that? I'm curious about whether it
changes for differing BMI.

Quoted message said:

Not that I've saved, but IIRC, I was able to find them pretty easily
at the time I was looking. It was when I went very low carb and
became hypothyroid as a result.

I know there was no mention of differing BMI in any of the cites I
read, though.

I looked on PubMed for starvation mode calorie threshold and lots of
variations of those, but didn't see anything.

I'll keep it in the back of my head though. I'm interested because I think
I ran into a problem with starvation mode at about 1500 calories.

Chakolate

--
When people show you who they are, believe them.
--Maya Angelou

You think you're starving with 1500 calories?

--
Now [censored]. You cannot possibly be this stupid and remember to
breathe. You must be trolling. -- Carmen

"Chakolate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Susan ) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Susan, do you have a cite for that? I'm curious about whether it
changes for differing BMI.

Quoted message said:

Not that I've saved, but IIRC, I was able to find them pretty easily
at the time I was looking. It was when I went very low carb and
became hypothyroid as a result.

I know there was no mention of differing BMI in any of the cites I
read, though.

I looked on PubMed for starvation mode calorie threshold and lots of
variations of those, but didn't see anything.

I'll keep it in the back of my head though. I'm interested because I

think

Quoted message said:

I ran into a problem with starvation mode at about 1500 calories.

Chakolate

--
When people show you who they are, believe them.
--Maya Angelou

JC Der Koenig said:

You think you're starving with 1500 calories?

Somewhere in Bizzaro Sudan this conversation is going on.

Kofi: Rafi, you look great while everyone else is withered and
dying. How do you do it?

Rafi: The trick is I eat too little. Then I go into starvation mode
and stop losing weight.

Kofi: So you think I eat too much?

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

I'll keep it in the back of my head though. I'm interested because I think
I ran into a problem with starvation mode at about 1500 calories.

Chakolate

1500?? Kind of doubtful, in my lay opinion, but who knows how much YMMV.

Maybe a protracted plateau? Often, folks plateau for weeks or months, then
experience a whoosh. Or they're just at a set point, hard to get past.

I believe I found the info when searching on "ketosis and thyroid." Something
like that, anyway.

Susan

Chakolate said:

I think
I ran into a problem with starvation mode at about 1500 calories.

Not a chance.

[email hidden] (Susan ) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

I'll keep it in the back of my head though. I'm interested because I
think I ran into a problem with starvation mode at about 1500
calories.

Chakolate

1500?? Kind of doubtful, in my lay opinion, but who knows how much
YMMV.

Maybe a protracted plateau? Often, folks plateau for weeks or months,
then experience a whoosh. Or they're just at a set point, hard to get
past.

It was 1500/day for many days, and what happened was that I got cold all
the time - even exercise couldn't warm me up. That's very, very unusual
for me, if I'm comfortable, everybody else is reaching for their coats.

I did hit a plateau at that time, but that wasn't what made me think of
starvation mode.

So now I'm wondering whether it was or not, and if not, what it was. There
was no sign of illness.

Chak, pondering

--
When people show you who they are, believe them.
--Maya Angelou

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

It was 1500/day for many days, and what happened was that I got cold all
the time - even exercise couldn't warm me up. That's very, very unusual
for me, if I'm comfortable, everybody else is reaching for their coats.

I did hit a plateau at that time, but that wasn't what made me think of
starvation mode.

So now I'm wondering whether it was or not, and if not, what it was. There
was no sign of illness.

Chak, pondering

Were your carbs particularly low at that point? My free T3 had been very low
normal, and the drop in it brought on by very low carbs/ketosis put me into
hypothyroidism, of which feeling cold is a symptom.

Susan

[email hidden] (Susan ) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Were your carbs particularly low at that point? My free T3 had been
very low normal, and the drop in it brought on by very low
carbs/ketosis put me into hypothyroidism, of which feeling cold is a
symptom.

I think around 40-60/day, which I don't think it particularly low, is it?

Chakolate

--
When people show you who they are, believe them.
--Maya Angelou

"Bryan Schwerer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JC Der Koenig said:

You think you're starving with 1500 calories?

Somewhere in Bizzaro Sudan this conversation is going on.

Kofi: Rafi, you look great while everyone else is withered and
dying. How do you do it?

Rafi: The trick is I eat too little. Then I go into starvation mode
and stop losing weight.

Kofi: So you think I eat too much?

It's time to send Chakolate to Sudan to teach the stupid Africans how to
harness the power of the starvation mode.