Just another gimmick?

Discussion of peer refereed articles and clinical applications

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, darshana, stuward

robertscott
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4424
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm

Post by robertscott » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:53 am

well done nevage, a stone in a month is good going

frogbyte
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm

Post by frogbyte » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:19 pm

Losing weight on a severe calorie deficit is certainly guaranteed - just look at Auschwitz. That's irrelevant though. The real question is not how to lose weight, it's how to be healthier losing fat and gaining/keeping muscle.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6643
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:45 pm

Nevage mentioned that he kept his strength while doing it. I think that was the point. 1 Stone in a couple months is about 2 pounds/wk. I think that's about the limit without losing a lot of muscle. Even then there was probably some (probably half) water loss as that's normal in beginning a low-carb diet. Anyone losing more agressively than this is probably doing more harm than good.

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:35 pm

1. Saying that Nev kept his muscle while losing 2#/week does not prove that he would have lost his muscle at 3#/week. Neither does someone with huge excesses of protein not losing muscle while dieting, prove that he would have with less protein. To argue that point, you need to line up the examples of wastage while on lower protein diets. (And I am at least a singular counterexample to that hypothesis).

2. Here is the Alan Aragon "monster study" addressing this issue, with a large sample size and great controls:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1741 ... d_RVDocSum

FYI: the carb load was 60% in one diet and 30% in the other. No difference on retained muscle or weight loss. Basically this indicates what should be common sense. As long as you get ADEQUATE protein, the excess doesn't matter (it's just calories). What determines weight loss is absolute calories. What determines muscle retention is have a threshold of protein, but above that it's irrelevent. this is what one would intuitively think anyhow, for a human with homeostasis!

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6643
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:57 pm

In that study, both groups lost about 8% over 12 months. That's substantially less than 3#/wk. There's nothing in this study that would support a severe calorie deficit.

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:11 pm

good point. what a bunch of wimps. I dieted harder than them. :lol:

I guess we still need a counterexample though (showing the wastage that concerns people here).

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6643
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:14 pm

The macro nutrients tested were 60,20,20 vs 40,30,30. That's basically a high carb vs Zone diet. This diet did not compare low-carb so all it proves is that high carb and Zone may have been similar in the 12 month weight loss effectiveness under the construct of this experiment.

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:17 pm

Yeah, but if you think that high carb creates muscle wastage, you should see even more of a difference at the high carb to middle carb, than middle to low (diminishing returns).

anyhow...I still want to see the muscle wastage advocates (or magical keeping calories on, when should be starving) bring some proof of their views to the table. Doesn't follow Ockham's razor.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6643
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:43 pm

Muscle wastage is caused by low protein and lack of strength exercises. It's possible to design a very low calorie diet that preserves muscle and I'm sure it's done all the time by bariatric doctors and bodybuilding diet consultants. The problem comes in when average people with incomplete knowledge try it themselves that problems arise, usually from lack of protein, nutrients and resistance exercise. You seem to have dodged the bullet but not everyone does.

As long as protein is high and the right training is done, the proportion of carbs and fats is not that important. However fat carries more of the important nutrients. Reducing carbs will improve your health and is more filling. The big problem with low carb is that we live in a low fat world and there is constant external pressure to revert back to carbs. That's why statistically, there's no difference between low carb or low-fat diets from a long term point of view.

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Mon Jun 14, 2010 6:43 pm

I used mega-veggies to stay full. Was never hungry. Chomping all the time.

Nevage
Member
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 4:31 pm

Post by Nevage » Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:17 pm

Yeah some of it would obviously be water, I only weighed myself last week and found out I lost so much. I've spent so much of my training life putting weight on, I hate to see it go which is why I just used the mirror! This year I gave myself 3 and a half months before my holiday to go very low carb and I've seemed to have adapted well in this time. For example in the gym today I realised all the lethargic, unmotivated feelings I used to get from no carbs haven't happened in weeks! I find it hard to eat and find myself sort of cooking only because it's been so long without a meal. But when I do have the odd carb day I can eat anything and everything! The fact that all my meals are high in protein makes it perfect for losing bodyfat. The only reason I'm going to reintroduce carbs in the winter is purely because I don't get hungry without them so I don't think I'll be able to get the calories in.

p.s Cheers Robert

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:01 pm

ApolytonGP wrote:JD and Ironman, props for losing the weight. My view is that any diet that creates a deficit will work. Your diet did that. Kudos.

BTW if you look at page 14 of AA's second research report, he says that calorie deficit is the most important thing and it is irrelevant whether you do low carb or high provided there is adequate protein. He discusses a survey which was a "monster" in terms of the number of participants and the tight controls (great survey).

Furthermore, energy math is common sense! :razz:

First part is the proof by authority logical fallacy. The deficit has to be in the blood, the actual usable energy the body has absorbed, vs the energy output of all the cells combined. It also has to be a certain amount of time throughout the day where insulin is below a certain level.

Energy math is bollocks. You can't reduce the equation to an addition or subtraction problem. You can't just simplify this to a simple physics theory. There are complex chemical reactions taking place.

Without insulin you can eat millions and millions of calories and it will do fv(k all for you! You will starve to death. How do you think the energy gets stored? By magic? Does it just come to life and burrow it's way into your blood stream? No, moron, you have to have a hormone to make the chemical reactions happen. It can't even get through a cell wall until it breaks the glycerol bond!

Not everything gets absorbed. Input DOES equal output. However output includes taking a crap. So it is the food you eat on one side of the equation. On the other side is exercise just like everyone says. However it's exercise + bowel movement.


F=food E=total energy output P=poop...... let's see....we need heat waste, internal organs..... lets just call it M=metabolic rate. X=fat storage.

F=E+M+P+X absolutely always. X is the only thing that can be 0 or less.

So I have my proof you are wrong everyday when I take a crap.

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:13 pm

A. Appeal to an authority is not logical for a mathematical argument, but is method of plausible argument.

B. You seem to like yourself as an authority....hmm?

C. I think you are defeating a straw man (or putting words in my mouth).

D. Just because a model is not "perfect" does not mean it is not powerfully useful. The octet rules in freshman chem aren't perfect (I'm sure we can come up with some transition metal molecules with more than 4 bonds for instance). Yet, that is no cause to throw up your hands and go back to alchemy and the Druids.

P.s. Hammer don't hurt me. (or ban me.) :evil:

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:17 pm

Oh..and the thing about "I dieted without counting calories" therefore counting calories is bad...IS A LOGICAL fallacy.

And brings up rejoinders like..."I lifted and got strong without writing stuff down or coordinating my program....therefore doing that is bad."

:wink:

Thanks for the comments about my jeans, though. Totally wrong. But still made me feel good.

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:19 pm

Oh...and I don't mind if you get mad and flame me. I sort of like it actually. Just don't ban me. Want to keep getting technical lifting advice here. Even if I deviate from board orthodox religion. :grin:

Locked