Prev: Abstinence from food - (4 July to 17 July)
Next: Coupons Save Money - long list grows longer
From: Sudden Disruption on 10 Jul 2008 09:40
So, ARE some calories better than others? Is this the magic answer? I
doubt it. Gary Taubes raises some good questions, but answers few in
this book.

Here's a link to my complete review...

http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/

My question is this, what part of the diet community is actually
following his advice? Anyone have any stats? What effects do these
books have on people's lives?

Sudden Disruption

--
Explore the Sudden-Centric Cyberverse...
http://www.sudden.net

From: David Brown on 11 Jul 2008 20:35

'Sudden Disruption[_2_ Wrote:
> ;412591'] Gary Taubes raises some good questions, but answers few in
> this book. My question is this, what part of the diet community is
> actually following his advice? Anyone have any stats? What effects do
> these books have on people's lives?

While I have no information regarding the percentage of over weight
people who are using carbohydrate restriction to control their weight,
here is a recently published comparison study that confirms the
superior effectiveness of low-carb eating for weight loss: The A TO Z
Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial JAMA. 2007;297:969-977.

Here's comment by Dr. John Briffa, a London Physician:

"Today sees the publication of a study in the Journal of the American
Medical Association in which the effectiveness of four diets was
assessed over a year-long period [1]. Researchers at Stanford
University School of Medicine ascribed women to eat either the Atkins�
diet (low carb), Zone diet (carb, protein and fat in the ratio of
40:30:30), LEARN diet (based on standard food pyramid) and the Ornish
diet (low fat, high carb).

At the end of the year it was revealed that the most effective regime
was the Atkins diet, with an average weight loss of 10.4 lbs. Average
weight loss on the Zone, LEARN and Ornish diets were 3.5, 5.7, 4.8 lbs
respectively. Note here that the effectiveness of the Atkins diet was
approximately double that of higher carb diets (Ornish and LEARN).

But that�s not all, because the Atkins� diet ... brought about
significant improvements in one or more health measurements such as
blood triglyceride levels, �healthy� high density lipoprotein (HDL)
cholesterol levels and blood pressure. Taken as a whole, the Atkins�
diet beat the other ones hands down.

This result may come as a surprise to those who continue to tout the
�benefits� of a low fat diet. However, we can be pretty sure these
findings are precisely what individuals who use low and lower-carb
diets in practice would expect. I, personally, have found lower-carb
diets broadly beneficial not just in terms of weight loss, but in
normalizing physiology and biochemistry too."

To learn how Taubes' book has affected people struggling with weight
loss issues, I suggest you Google "Gary Taubes Low-carb forums."




--
David Brown
From: Doug Freyburger on 14 Jul 2008 15:37
Sudden Disruption <sudden....(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, ARE some calories better than others?

Absolutely. If that weren't true there would be no supporters
of either low carb or low fat diet plans.

> Is this the magic answer?

There is no magic answer. The absolute best that can be
acheived is loss without hunger but with immediate regain
trend as soon as the diet is quit. Anyone looking for a
magic answer, no matter what type, is going to fail.

> I doubt it.

That's nice. It doesn't appear that you've read the book
though.

> Gary Taubes raises some good questions, but answers few in
> this book.

Of course. That'sd the *purpose* of his book. His book
is not a scientific work that suggests a solution. It's a
journalistic work that shows exactly how bad the science
used to support low fat diets is.

> Here's a link to my complete review...

A blogspot spammer. I'll pass on the link thanx.

> My question is this, what part of the diet community is actually
> following his advice?  Anyone have any stats?  What effects do these
> books have on people's lives?

Since his advice does not describe an eating system your
questions don't make sense.
From: Kaz Kylheku on 14 Jul 2008 16:29
On 2008-07-12, David Brown <davebnepatyahoo.com> wrote:
> At the end of the year it was revealed that the most effective regime
> was the Atkins diet, with an average weight loss of 10.4 lbs. Average
> weight loss on the Zone, LEARN and Ornish diets were 3.5, 5.7, 4.8 lbs

Losing 10.4 pounds in an entire year is pitifully little, never mind
3.5, keeping in mind that the subjects in this study were all obese.

According to a description of the study, the participants were
``311 free-living, overweight/obese (body mass index, 27-40) nondiabetic,
premenopausal women''.

A woman of typical muscle mass should be at BMI 20, so the worst of these
subjects needed to lose about half their body weight: a hundred pounds or more!

The meagre weight loss over an entire year indicates that during the study,
they didn't get a proper grip on their overeating.

A calorie-controlled diet, if adhered to properly, would have had much better
results. The subjects in the study were all fat enough that a loss of
/at least/ two pounds per week would have been realistic.

> respectively. Note here that the effectiveness of the Atkins diet was
> approximately double that of higher carb diets (Ornish and LEARN).

Someone on the Atkins diet would be depleted of glycogen, which makes
an obvious weight difference, since glycogen is hydrated.
Supposedly, the difference can be several pounds.

Just by eating less, you can lose weight without losing any body fat, lean mass
or glycogen. By queuing less material for digestion, within a few days, your
gut will be more empty. The digestive system can hold a lot, supposedly.

The abdomens of people who stuff themselves carry many pounds of material at
various stages of processing. Reduce the stuffing, and within a couple of
days, the abdominal inventory will dwindle, translating to pounds shed.

> But that?s not all, because the Atkins? diet ... brought about
> significant improvements in one or more health measurements such as

Which is it? One, or more? If one, which one?

> blood triglyceride levels, ?healthy? high density lipoprotein (HDL)
> cholesterol levels and blood pressure. Taken as a whole, the Atkins?
> diet beat the other ones hands down.

On average, the subjects were still obese at the conclusion of the study.
Quite probably, they didn't improve their body compositions; they only emptied
their guts and lost some body water, by somewhat toning down the voraciousness
of their overeating.

To lose fat, you must reduce calories to below your maintenance range. For
people who have adapted their bodies to an exorbitant calorie intake, this
reduction has to be quite severe before anything will happen. A metabolism
that had been demanded to deal with 6000 calories per day for years will gladly
take a breather if given a chance.

> This result may come as a surprise to those who continue to tout the
> ?benefits? of a low fat diet.

The results are no surprise to people who understand energy.

Someone at BMI 40, who manages to lose only a couple of pounds in an entire
year, cannot really said to have been on any kind of diet.

> However, we can be pretty sure these
> findings are precisely what individuals who use low and lower-carb
> diets in practice would expect.

At best, all you can say is that stuffing your face with low-carb food seems
to be less dangerous than stuffing your face with high-carb food.

Carbohydrate material, particularly the refined kind, is potentially harmful
due to its rapid absorption. This rapid absorption can create an emergency
state within the body, the response to which is the storage of fat.
But this is caused by overeating; it's not an inherent problem with
carbohydrate. You can in fact safely eat a lot more carbohydrate in a day than
what the low-carb nutcases propose, as long as you don't overeat, and as long
as you don't consume it all at once.

There are healthy, slim populations in the world, who eat remarkably
differently from each other; what they all have in common is that they don't
stuff themselves.

If you don't eat more than 1600 calories per day (man) or 1200 (woman), and
your nutritional needs are met, it doesn't matter if the bulk of the energy
comes from fat, protein or carbohydrate material.
From: Sudden Disruption on 14 Jul 2008 19:15
> Doug Freyburger

> Absolutely. If that weren't true there would be no supporters
> of either low carb or low fat diet plans.

That's naive! The history of food and medicine is FULL of ineffective
solutions supported by large groups. Do I really need to name a few?

> There is no magic answer.

Not YET. But counting calories and stomach-limiting technologies are
getting close.

> That's nice. It doesn't appear that you've read the book
> though.

I struggled through ALL 460 pages.

> A blogspot spammer. I'll pass on the link thanx.

And you accuse ME of judging without reading!

> Kaz Kylheku

Excellent response to David above, but you missed a very important
point which may actually be key to the problem.

If you look at humans as rats in a cage, you'll discover our behavior
is similar. We eat more and gain weigh as more food is thrown in the
cage. The last fifty years has seen "available" food more than double
with food available at more places, in more forms and in larger
quantities. We have more food in our cage.

Since the Atkins diet is also the most restrictive of these four
(carbs AND to some degree fat), it decreases the available food
"thrown in the Atkins cage" and has a more dramatic effect of limiting
actual calories. And like you say, none of these diets are very
effective and 311 subjects if far to small a study to be useful.

> A calorie-controlled diet, if adhered to properly, would have had much better
> To lose fat, you must reduce calories to below your maintenance range.

I agree completely.

> For people who have adapted their bodies to an exorbitant calorie intake, this
> reduction has to be quite severe before anything will happen.

Which Taubes seems to have ignored.

Thanks for the excellent defense.

We are desperately in need of good science.

Even if some refuse to read it.

Sudden Disruption
--
Explore the Sudden-Centric Cyberverse...
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Abstinence from food - (4 July to 17 July)
Next: Coupons Save Money - long list grows longer