You know how it is when CarbSane quotes a paper which refutes the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity. You really can't be *rsed to chase it but you also know that there will be a fundamentally flawed approach which needs looking at. CarbSane was my route in to Kathleen Axen's work with transfats, which I've probably not finished with yet, but which markedly ramped up my dislike of these industrial lipotoxins. I really enjoyed digging back through the Axen papers, though it took hours, and there's no way I would have hit on them without CarbSane's dire (and incorrect) opinion of LC eating based on the last of the triad. Cracking.
So it is with Grey and Kipnis' paper on the irrelevance of fasting insulin to weight loss. It leads back to a rat paper (aren't you surprised!). The rat model was developed to allow rats to gain weight under hypoinsulinaemic conditions. So GnK had a high carbohydrate diet and a low carbohydrate diet for their rats, both of which promoted weight gain, but the LC diet did it without raised insulin. Here are the diets:
Nice.
But here's the funny part. They did a whole load of experiments (very interesting, seminal work on pancreatic glucokinase induction/suppression) which required equal calorie intake between a group on the high carbohydrate diet and another group on the zero carbohydrate diet. Let me quote:
"Since the low carbohydrate-high fat diet is less palatable to rats than the high carbohydrate diet, pair feeding was accomplished by determining the caloric intake of the low carbohydrate fed rats and then offering a comparable [ie less than they would have eaten] caloric amount of the high carbohydrate diet the following day to another group of animals."
You just have to admire the palate of those hypoinsulinaemic rats. Of course it's just possible they weren't ratty gourmands, it might actually be that they just weren't hungry because their fasting insulin was low and no one was ordering them to eat more than they felt like................
The giggles that come from following CarbSane's leads! Gotta get them from somewhere.
More on the cited Grey and Kipins 1971 paper when I've finished with the modern studies looking at the same question. There are some nice ones.
Peter
198 comments:
Interesting too that they had a lot fewer scruples about putting their human subjects through the mill in those days - and one of them (2 if you count the 18 year old) a child too!
I'm not sure what you conclusions are about that paper? ARe you saying they didn't feed the rats the low carb diet? I find it hard understanding some of the ways in scientific papers sentences are phrased. This is the first time I have heard of CarbSane.
Imagine that dietary studies had been traditionally performed on cats instead of rats. Scientists would have quickly discovered that low fat diets cause obesity and diabetes and that fibre is really, really unhealthy
Sue,
There was a bit of a to-do in the potato weight loss thread just down the page with 70-odd comments. CS got mentioned by one of her fans and then she showed up with the study in question.
The rat study demonstrates the researchers' deeper knowledge of physiology and shows it is likely they designed their human study to show what they say they wanted: that the obesity-related hyperinsulinism is a reaction to diet instead of intrinsic in obesity itself.
CS sort of paints targets on herself. She talks with a lot of bluster and makes extravagant claims about her education and professional skill (masters degree, research positions, published often in sci/eng journals, etc.) and then does weird things like confusing protein sparing with insulin resistance or claiming she's not pushing an agenda while jumping up and down saying Taubes is a liar.
I had my first look at Carb(In)Sane today. The author is an utter whacko. No wonder she chooses to remain anonymous.
Thanks for that Chris.
No, I was wrong - it was 4 children (13, 14 years old) plus the 18 year old - Well it was late at night.
what kind of thing is amphcoel? and what vegetable produces oil?
Don't discard the possibility that Carbsane is a mole for Big Agro. Her idiotic comments on the Gary Taubes blog show her accusing Taubes of no scientific backing and pushing the typical Gluttony and Sloth argument, even though she admits on her blog to having lost a ton of weight on VLC.
A poser trying to get readers of GCBC to doubt LCHF diets? Big Agro has done much worse in the past to get their way. A fake blogger to confuse dieters and spread false information would cost them peanuts. And they would adore the idea since it's technically legal.
Ah, yes--CarbSane.
I don't think she or James Krieger are working for Big Agro.
Exactly why Gary Taubes makes her froth at the mouth isn't clear. But some people get really angry about whether or not Pluto is called a planet, and some people think Bacon wrote all of Shakespeare. The blogosphere is replete with wackos.
Sue: "ARe you saying they didn't feed the rats the low carb diet? I find it hard understanding some of the ways in scientific papers sentences are phrased."
No kidding.
What they found was that the high-carb rats ate a lot more than the low-carb rats.
So to make it "isocaloric" they had to watch how much the low-carb rats ate and then restrict the high-carb rats to no more than that amount.
One of the unstated conclusions of the study was "Rats on a low-carb diet spontaneously consume less calories than rats on a high-carb diet."
Yes, Krieger is a wacko up there with the best of them.
Here he is telling us how sorry he is for insulin getting such a bad reputation.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
If Big Agro doesn't mind killing millions of people and causing untold amounts of suffering with high fructose corn syrup, don't assume they're somehow above sending out fake bloggers to preach this kind of brazen misinformation.
Someday we will look back on them just like we do the tobacco companies today.
Interesting ideas, and I have no doubts about the benign nature of big Agro. But ultimately there are still enough oddballs out there for me to accept personal quirks as a perfectly reasonable explanation for the hating of Gary Taubes. I keep telling myself, THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY. I keep telling you this too Gunther. I just wish it didn't look so much as if there were!
Peter
Krieger would be much more plausible as a corporate shill, as he looks and writes like a professional.
Carbsane is not, unless you think big agra has some interest in showing that an obsession with tautological observations and Gary Taubes makes you hostile and paranoid.
How can you possibly take seriously someone who insists on anonymity when writing about fat loss?
As if the STASI or KGB are going to get you.
In response to a reader email CarbSane has done on a post on why she low-carbs:
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-i-eat-low-carb-response-to-reader.html#comment-form
Thanks David Isaak for the explanantion.
@Commenters: Having been accused of displaying poor form by quoting something of no consequence from a private email in a blog, I'm disappointed to see displays of even poorer form by slagging off person "A" in person "B"'s blog.
Nigel,
The difference is that in your case it was a private email that was brought into the public discussion on a blog, whereas "CarbSane" is already a public entity and therefore people should feel free to discuss her in any forum they please. It's no different than any other public figure, whether you are talking about her, Taubes, Axen or Gaddafi.
In fact, I would add that by not knowing her actual identity, it frees people to conduct themselves in even "poorer form" based on the perception that "CarbSane" is not a known person, only a known institution.
You can tell it's not a conspiracy because conspiracies tend to fall apart quickly thanks to the economic pressures of self-interest. It's a lot easier to screw a few co-conspirators for huge profit now than to stick together and screw the vast majority of people who aren't your co-conspirators for slightly higher profits until one of your co-conspirators screws you.
At least in the US Big Ag is held together by farm subsidies, primarily on wheat, corn, soy, rice, and cotton. And Big Ag lobbies hard to keep that economic advantage.
Anyway, it just looks like a conspiracy. It's really the result of the unintended consequences of good intentions.
-------------
CS isn't crazy or evil. She's just very certain she's right. Not all that different from a number of us in this thread. Or from Robert Lustig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
I, of course, deny I have any bias at all as I am clearly infallible. ;)
@ kinbrum
Pot calling the kettle black, unless you are referring to CS mocking Peter in a main blog post, or you mocking me in yours....
If you're "disappointed' with any of us making observations of this type about someone who has "slagged", rather viciously, Gary Taubes, Michael Eades, Petro and just about anybody one could name who thinks insulin might be important, maybe you are in the wrong place.
Peter can moderate his own blog without your help as CS's agent, I think.
Oh, I forgot to mention something, NIgel. You are defending a CARTOON. How can you "slag" someone who may not even exist, who literally has no public identity? CS could be a committee project for all we know.
We humans sure do like to gossip and bicker, don't we.
Hey justdoinglife, awesome question: "What vegetable produces oil." WRT diet, the answer should be "none."
@ Kurt Harris - Have you ever seen Nigel and Carbsane in the same place? Has anyone? Anyone?
Krieger claims that hundreds of clients have lost substantial weight over a three month period. How many have maintained the weight loss over five years? None would be probably be correct.
PS. I thought it was unethical to identify clients - eg a Costco VP.
His claim that people can increase fat storage with low insulin levels is utterly hilarious/ludicrous - try telling that to a Type I diabetic.
The person who writes anonymously as carbsane is clearly achieving her primary objective, which is getting lots of attention. She makes gross errors about LC, Taubes, and probably many other things--BUT she gets lots of attention. Sad, really.
I overlooked the obvious: Carbsane acts too much like someone who got either fired or dumped, perhaps the low carb part is not the real issue at all.
Is that Amphocel as in amphotericin b as in antifungal? WTF?
Kurt, you better STFU about other bloggers' behavior. Your own track record is far from spotless.
Anyway, do you have anything on topic to say on Peter's blog? Right now, all I see from you is whine whine whine. Far from spotless I tell you.
Peter, don't you have some kind of crap filter to, eum, filter out crap from the comments? Oh I get it, you allow people to speak their minds so everybody can figure out for themselves who's a fool and who isn't. Ahhh, that's smart.
Back on topic. I agree with David Isaac, we can conclude that the rats on LC spontaneously ate less. But we already knew that with all the other human studies that show exactly that, didn't we.
I am also reminded how food tastes so much better when you're hungry, and becomes rather disgusting when you're not. So, do we eat more because the food is more palatable? Or is the food more palatable because we're more hungry? I realize that these two statements aren't exactly mutually exclusive, but depending on your choice, you'd have to ask the next question, why are we more hungry? To which we could reasonably answer, maybe because we're growing fatter.
Martin, VLC may make you eat less without hunger, but it may not. It depends on the study model, and in any case it has nothing to do with obesity, a la GCBC. Are we really still arguing whether low insulin causes fat loss? This has been known since the 60s.
And I'm still all for "outing" fake bloggers, or those who willingly spread false info. Whether for money or not, they are knowingly hurting people.
Martin, there's hunger and then there's hunger. I prefer the hunger I feel on LC because it's real and food tastes really good until you're satiated, and then you lose interest. On LF you can have a belly so full of stuff it pushes against your ribs and still feel a weird urge to eat, eat, eat. It's not so much hunger as it is an obsession. At least for me. Maybe for the rats too.
Kurt, there's nothing secret about Krieger's background (better would be to say that his disclosed bio explains a lot)
http://weightology.net/?page_id=81
it's obvious from that, that he has to peddle conventional wisdom on the subject, or else his whole career would have been on the wrong side.
As for carbsane, I could only say 1 thing tl;dr (too long; didn't read).
I tried once or twice to read her stuff, but could not, the ratio of verbosity to signal is too high, so I don't bother.
Funny that people are accused of being "big agra" shills if they disagree with the low carb paradigm..
Whats even funnier though is the anonymous blog posters who think they know everything.
It's fine to disagree. Maybe do it with actual facts though.
Hey get wild: maybe even read Taubes' book or actually try VLC before you throw all manner of insults at him?
"I agree with David Isaac, we can conclude that the rats on LC spontaneously ate less. But we already knew that with all the other human studies that show exactly that, didn't we."
Yeah, but what's really interesting there is that they published that (unstated) result in a serious journal back in 1971.
Guess that element didn't have much impact.
BTW, over on a site devoted mostly to hormesis, there is a post where the blogger makes a valiant attmept to reconcile what Taubes, Eades, et al are saying with what CarbSane and Krieger are saying.
http://gettingstronger.org/2011/02/does-insulin-make-you-fat/
@all, I've never moderated comments, there has been one deletion for fully offensive text by someone who turned out to have a serious mental illness. Viagra ads excepted of course.
Poisonguy, if the diet was really was 29% amphotericin the rats would be dead rather than fussy. I'm assuming they used 29% of non digestible alpha cellulose to bind what is otherwise a liquid diet. If they fed this much amphotericin on top of intraperitoneal actinomycin D the paper would be simple toxicology! I'm guessing it was an unfortnately named filler bought 40 years ago, uncheckable now.
Peter
@"Martin Levac"
You seem to be pretty hostile, too, whoever you are.
I'll take orders to shut up from you or anyone else I've never heard of right about when hell freezes over.
Don't read my blog if it bothers you so much. Just use your "parental controls" option.
@Gallier
I agree with Peter that CS's site is a useful place to find papers, but the analysis of most of them is misleading at best.
@Levac
Peter said in the OP:
"You know how it is when CarbSane quotes a paper which refutes the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity. You really can't be *rsed to chase it but you also know that there will be a fundamentally flawed approach "
"The giggles that come from following CarbSane's leads! Gotta get them from somewhere."
So it seems to me any of us commenting on the source of these "giggles" is actually quite on topic.
I'm not defending anyone. Project much? I'm just disappointed by the stench of hypocrisy wafting through these comments.
I have no idea who CarbSane is. She's pointed out that Gary Taubes is making money from the sale of books containing information that he knew to be wrong before publication. If you think that she's got the science wrong, tell her.
Do you know who I am? Are you real people? ;-D
To be fair Nigel, they (i.e. Kurt and Peter - and Stephan) have tried to tell her, but it's like talking to a brick wall.
Oh and in the interests of transparency, Jay is actually Jacqueline but at the moment I can't figure out how to get my google account to switch back to the other ID.
@ Nigel
'I'm just disappointed by the stench of hypocrisy wafting through these comments."
me too ; )
You hear that Kurt? Peter will not interfere with your self-agrandizing crap slinging festival.
You make a compelling argument to keep at it too. You are an internet MD after all. Your opinion is important by definition. You got plenty of crap to sling around by the looks of it.
Oh look what I'm doing. I'm complaining about another blogger, just like you're doing, but I'm doing it right in his face so he can see who's doing it to him. Hypocrisy? Not from me.
My apology Peter, this is the last time I crap on your blog, I won't do it again I promise. But I just couldn't let that idiot just crap on your blog with impunity. Fire with fire and stuff.
Hi Jacqueline!
Peter
I notice that Carb Sane seems obsessed with Gary Taubes to the extent of deliberately misrepresenting him.
Taubes gave a detailed account of how the Pima became fat when they were forced onto a low fat corn-based diet. Yet CS argues the exact opposite - that the Pima became fat because they adopted a high fat Western diet.
Dead and fungus free! Still, it'd be nice to know what that stuff is made of. Thanks for the feedback, Peter.
Each time I see Nigel defend CS on a blog, "Every breath you take" starts humming in my head. Oh, the torture!
Various people said...
*Blah blah blah*
[Yoda]Mmm. In them the cognitive bias is strong mmm.[/y]
P.S. Hi Jacqueline! You seem nice.
P.P.S. I meant to use "permeating" rather than "wafting through" in my previous comment, but dysphasia got the better of me. I may have a really poor memory, but at least I don't have a really poor memory!
Could be CS is just someone who didn't lose all the weight she wanted to lose on VLC (she had a long way to go, if you believe her bio). Or maybe she's finding it too hard to adhere to the diet. Hence, she's disillusioned with low carb in general. We saw this with another poster a year ago who ended up getting banned here.
So "her" obsession with Taubes could be just sour grapes as opposed to an organised racket. Still doesn't make her right, or serve as an excuse to try to derail other dieters' efforts.
Sorry to take us off course with this interest in CS. But calling out misinformation (and being aware of at least the possibility that this is an organised effort to confuse us) is just as important as discovering new scientific facts.
Funny how nobody has addressed:-
"I have no idea who CarbSane is. She's pointed out that Gary Taubes is making money from the sale of books containing information that he knew to be wrong before publication." Carry on swinging!
Peter, can you please explain how the results of Grey and Kipnis in humans lead back to a rat paper thus rendering the results in humans moot?
So just because G&K have also researched rats, their results in humans are not relevant and *I'm* the one who has some "fundamentally flawed approach which needs looking at"??
I didn't discuss that rat paper
I would ask all the snarkey commenters here to go look at my actual blog post or follow this link to the full text of the paper I actually cited and discussed. Poor form there making it seem as if I was analyzing some other paper.
In neither the isocaloric nor hypocaloric states did the obese humans demonstrate a correlation between change in body weight and fasting insulin.
In your potato diet post, you made the following statements:
The ultimate determinant of weight loss is fasting insulin. This determines how much lipolysis occurs during the period before the next meal. No one expects to lose weight during the 4 hours immediately after any meal. The following 8 hours, especially overnight, is when weight loss occurs.
and
So you have to ask whether an almost all potato diet genuinely leads low fasting insulin and subsequent weight loss. For my perspective the answer is yes.
The results of Grey & Kipnis - the human paper I referenced on my blog, not the rat paper you're looking at now - clearly demonstrate the error of your statements.
I'm not going to get into a dick measuring or pissing contest with my detractors here. For one, I lack the necessary equipment.
But I do find it amusing that I'm being accused of paranoia by folks who are speculating that I'm a Big Ag mole or that my bunny eared avatar is actually backed by some sort of group effort. Talk about giggling!
And no. Nigel and I are not the same person. Even ol' Gary knows that!
Now, blogblog, care to revisit my blog and respond to my followup? It helps to have your facts straight when accusing someone of not having their's.
CS, it's very simple if you want to be taken seriously as a blogger giving dietary recommendations that have lasting effects on people's lives and health, while claiming to have all the science to back it up:
Show your own progress. In pics, bloodwork, stats, whatever you like.
This of course isn't necessary when your lazy interpretation of the science isn't continually proven to be BS.
I must be missing something here. Peter proved something I said in that post to be BS?
In the end I could be Kimmer herself and the issue of Taubes' journalistic malfeasance do not go away.
By his own admission, Taubes didn't even read one of his references (Frayn), he blatantly misrepresented what another seminal reference stated (Newsholme & Start), and pulled facts from his nether regions (as much as 30% of carbs in a given meal are converted to fat).
I think you guys are all just upset that someone bothered to read GCBC critically and delve into the references and science past taking Taubes' journalistic word on faith. Kinda makes you angry to be taken for a ride in a way I guess.
I suppose y'all will be blaming me for Gary flubbing up on Oz too.
How do YOU explain the G&K paper *I* cited. Not the rat paper I've not yet even had a chance to read, but the paper that Todd Becker brought to my attention in the course of our "Insulin Wars" discussion on hyperinsulinemia.
Gotta run, my fellow co-conspirators just IM'd me >:)
Don't feed the trolls, even if they happen to have their own blog.
And one more thing... pictures, or it didn't happen.
@ Martin Levac
Remind me again why I should care what you think or obey your directives. Because I forgot already. You are a hostile, tiny little person aren't you? And none too bright, apparently.
Here are the facts:
Like Peter, I've made comments about CS, not you or Nigel. To Peter. On Peter's blog. Not your blog. Not Nigel's blog. Did not mention you or Nigel. Wasn't thinking of you or Nigel, I promise.
The comments I and several others (there are others, or maybe you did not notice...) have made here are not any worse than the ones she makes about friends of mine, including Dr. Eades and Peter, and yes, Gary Taubes, on her blog in nearly every post she writes.
I have no idea who you are. I never addressed you or corresponded with and you have attacked me here for whatever reason. Now you are sputtering in fury and calling me names because I responded to your out-of-left-field demand that I "shut the fuck up". Maybe things are different in the land of the moose, but in the USA that kind of language is perceived to be highly aggressive, or unhinged. Take your pick.
So you can go back to torturing animals or eating wheat, or whatever it is you usually do.
CS dishes it out, and whether anonymous or not, seems to be able to take it as well, unlike some of her presumed sycophants.
Respect to CS.
I've actually enjoyed my exchanges with her there, and you may go read them at her blog if you like.
Books don't get published free of errors. I spent my life in publishing, and it is idiotic to say that because Taubes had a few errors, in what is by any measure a hugely complex book, that it somehow invalidates all the excellent material of the book. Taubes has readily admitted his errors, so to say he is not owning them is simply wrong.
Nigel and Carbsane come across as petty, factually deluded people who simply don't have enough truly meaningful work to do with their lives.
@Chris: Exactly what in the study design caused the subjects' basal insulin to do what it did?
Basal insulin had no correlation to weight maintenance or loss. Period.
Tonya, consider for a moment that I am everything I'm accused of being.
Now ...
What, exactly, "didn't happen"?
Taubes didn't just make errors, he flat out misrepresented his own references. That happened. It wasn't an editorial error Nancan. It wasn't an innocent mistake either.
This is why Taubes got upset back when an obscure anonymous blogger showed the world - with just enough of an audience to reach someone who got concerned - his deceit.
Go read the 2003 Reshef paper. Go read the excerpts from Newsholme. My background is ultimately irrelevant, wouldn't you say?
"Taken for a ride"?? We're all here because we reached our weight lost goals in great health using the knowledge gained from Taubes. Why should we be upset?
You're the one desperately scrounging for reasons to take down Taubes. Upset perhaps that the diet didn't work for you, so you have to make sure no one else succeeds?
It's very juvenile, and very dangerous to others.
CS,
I don't really understand what you're asking. I also think you might not have understood my comment, which is reasonable as it's not as clear as it could be.
That G&K set out to show that diet rather than obesity elevates insulin levels means they needed to do two things: show it was possible to lower insulin without reducing weight, and that it is possible to lower weight without reducing insulin.
That they previously built animal models in other papers to decouple insulin and changes in weight, cited positively studies in this paper that contradict your position, and failed to come to the same conclusions regarding their data that you did suggest that the only conclusion we can actually draw from this study is the one they did: that obesity doesn't intrinsically elevate insulin.
Basal insulin likely had no correlation in this study by design.
Given this along with the nominal sample size, the non-existent information on subject selection, and the general lack of variation among the study's subjects, this study is hardly a definitive a proof of your position.
Dangerous is people too blinded by hero worship to recognize that said hero lied to them. Pass the stevia sweetened Kool Aid please.
Rather than trashing me here, perhaps Kurt could explain to his own readers his apparent turn around on insulin.
Oopa ... there's that ding again. Hope it's my Con Agra funds tranfer alert. That reminds me, General Mills is late with their payment.
nancan said...
"Nigel and Carbsane come across as petty, factually deluded people who simply don't have enough truly meaningful work to do with their lives."
nancan, you come across as a total retard who wouldn't know a fact if you fell over one in the street. I can do insults too, you know!
People like CarbSane & I pay attention to details. If it wasn't for people like us, planes would fall out of the sky on a regular basis and gizmos wouldn't work.
Publishing incorrect information knowing that it's incorrect is just wrong.
I lost 20 lbs and all my pre-diabetic conditions (high trigs, low HDL, etc.), stomach ailments and even a symptoms of preliminary MS went away. He lied to me??
And by the way, we're still waiting to hear the brilliant results you've seen on your own body, based on your impeccable research. I'll even accept some reader testimonies, which I couldn't seem to find on your blog.
gunther,
It is, of course, quite possible that CS is right, though it's unlikely she is as right as she thinks she is.
Taubes is/was undoubtedly wrong about a variety of things. For example, Taubes is already equivocating about the "metabolic advantage" of low CHO diets. Eades thinks he's wrong, but the bulk of the literature appears to support the lack of metabolic advantage.
The glyceroneogenesis paper by Hanson and Reshef is certainly interesting, but it doesn't explain the rapid epidemiological changes in obesity/diabetes rates and sort of waves its hands at insulin's effects on FFA retention--as demonstrated by a variety of hormone perfusion studies--in favor of speculation about PEPCK-C-related lipidystrophy (which also, they assert, causes obesity) as a cause rather than an effect of insulin resistance.
Amusingly, the G&K study we're discussing in this post contradicts some of H&R's assumptions about obesity and insulin, for if obesity caused insulin resistance then weight loss would cause a concomitant drop in basal insulin levels related to improved insulin sensitivity, but it doesn't, as G&K have shown.
I seriously doubt that a well renowned author on controversial subjects (Taubes) would allow to publish known errors in a book that many (be they paid by Big Agro or not) would love to pick to pieces. That would be equal to putting a sticker on his chest saying "shoot me here". I quite think he suspected that each little detail would be checked, rechecked and then checked by a lot of people who would just love to get him for it.
A big book like that is bound to have some factual errors. It just happens. Something I'm much more surprised about is the frequent misinterpretations and (low fat)bias errors that scientists make repetedly even when their own science is staring them in the face.
It seems to have eaten my earlier response to CS. I'll try to reconstruct it.
CS,
I think you might have misunderstood my first post. It's understandable as my post wasn't as clear as it could have been.
G&K's stated goal was to show that elevated basal insulin levels were diet related rather than obesity related. To do this they would need to show two things: that it is possible to lose weight without lowering insulin levels and that it is possible to lower insulin levels without losing weight. From their data, it is clear they were successful in this.
Given that they previously published on animal models of decoupling insulin levels and body weight, they cite in their paper research that contradicts your conclusion, and the fact that they failed to draw the same conclusions from their data that you did suggest that the lack of correlation of weight loss and insulin levels was likely entirely by design.
How they achieved it is beyond my understanding of the reported experimental methods, however.
But, given the nominal sample size, the complete absence of subject selection criteria, and the general lack of variation among the subjects, even if the data does support your position, that support can hardly be called definitive.
Chris, what is my conclusion?
Let me help out. I see that diet can influence basal insulin levels independent of weight changes.
This is counter to what Peter states as fact in his potato post.
QED.
My original comment to Peter seems to have disappeared. Oh well.
Repost..
Peter, can you please explain how the results of Grey and Kipnis in humans lead back to a rat paper thus rendering the results in humans moot?
So just because G&K have also researched rats, their results in humans are not relevant and *I'm* the one who has some "fundamentally flawed approach which needs looking at"??
I didn't discuss that rat paper
I would ask all the snarkey commenters here to go look at my actual blog post or follow this link to the full text of the paper I actually cited and discussed. Poor form there making it seem as if I was analyzing some other paper.
In neither the isocaloric nor hypocaloric states did the obese humans demonstrate a correlation between change in body weight and fasting insulin.
In your potato diet post, you made the following statements:
The ultimate determinant of weight loss is fasting insulin. This determines how much lipolysis occurs during the period before the next meal. No one expects to lose weight during the 4 hours immediately after any meal. The following 8 hours, especially overnight, is when weight loss occurs.
and
So you have to ask whether an almost all potato diet genuinely leads low fasting insulin and subsequent weight loss. For my perspective the answer is yes.
The results of Grey & Kipnis - the human paper I referenced on m blog, not the rat paper you're looking at now - clearly demonstrate the error of your statements.
Yes, I saw that:
"Basal insulin had no correlation to weight maintenance or loss. Period."
I'm saying that in this study it was likely by design. I've given my reasons. Restating your position hardly constitutes a refutation.
@CarbSane these are the two posts which disappeared, the software claims they were deleted by the author, certainly not by me:
Peter, can you please explain how the results of Grey and Kipnis in humans lead back to a rat paper thus rendering the results in humans moot?
So just because G&K have also researched rats, their results in humans are not relevant and *I'm* the one who has some "fundamentally flawed approach which needs looking at"??
I didn't discuss that rat paper
I would ask all the snarkey commenters here to go look at my actual blog post or follow this link to the full text of the paper I actually cited and discussed. Poor form there making it seem as if I was analyzing some other paper.
In neither the isocaloric nor hypocaloric states did the obese humans demonstrate a correlation between change in body weight and fasting insulin.
In your potato diet post, you made the following statements:
The ultimate determinant of weight loss is fasting insulin. This determines how much lipolysis occurs during the period before the next meal. No one expects to lose weight during the 4 hours immediately after any meal. The following 8 hours, especially overnight, is when weight loss occurs.
So you have to ask whether an almost all potato diet genuinely leads low fasting insulin and subsequent weight loss. For my perspective the answer is yes.
The results of Grey & Kipnis - the human paper I referenced on my blog, not the rat paper you're looking at now - clearly demonstrate the error of your statements.
and the other:
I'm not going to get into a dick measuring or pissing contest with my detractors here. For one, I lack the necessary equipment.
But I do find it amusing that I'm being accused of paranoia by folks who are speculating that I'm a Big Ag mole or that my bunny eared avatar is actually backed by some sort of group effort. Talk about giggling!
And no. Nigel and I are not the same person. Even ol' Gary knows that!
Now, blogblog, care to revisit my blog and respond to my followup? It helps to have your facts straight when accusing someone of not having their's.
@all, enjoy,
Peter
Thanks for re-posting. The 1:23 I did delete - it was a duplicate. I didn't delete the first one. Interested in your response.
Oh, I see what you're saying. It's the absolute nature of Peter's recent statement about fasting insulin being the end all is what you're on about. Well, sure. But it would have been far less confusing for us poor simpletons if you had simply noted that amputation results in weight loss and requires no reduction in fasting insulin.
Here I was thinking your position here was as it is on your blog: that insulin has nothing to do with weight loss. Or am I mis-remembering that too?
@CarbSane,
You have made a fundamental mistake about this post.
What on earth makes you think it has anything to do with you? You certainly didn't cite the rat paper. I cited the paper because I blog about whatever I feel like.
The concept of gourmand rats is hysterical to me. I suppose the significance of the observation that rats find fat "unpalatable" is only amusing when you view it from the insulinocentric point of view. So I guess it's wasted on you.
The whole film was amusing but not in the league of the rat paper.
Peter
Tessan said...
I seriously doubt that a well renowned author on controversial subjects (Taubes) would allow to publish known errors in a book that many (be they paid by Big Agro or not) would love to pick to pieces.
I suspect that Taubes thought that nobody would notice and anyone who did notice and mentioned it would be denigrated as a Big Agro shill! ;-p I get a pension from Thales, a multi-national communications company.
@gunther: I'm happy that you've achieved good results by following Taubes' advice. But what about the people who eat all the protein & fat they want and don't lose weight, or even gain weight because they've been misled to believe that calories don't count at all? Everybody is different. You seem to be forgetting that. Misleading people in this way is damaging to LC diets.
An unknown blogger attacks the work of a respected author.
When the unknown blogger is Denise Minger and the respected author is T Colin Campbell, everyone in the paleosphere pats Denise on the back.
When the unknown blogger is CarbSane and the respected author is Gary Taubes, everyone in the paleosphere stabs CarbSane in the back.
What a giggle!
@Peter: I attracted CarbSane's attention to this post as commenters were making personal attacks on her, so you can blame me for her posting here.
OK, CS
"Rather than trashing me here, perhaps Kurt could explain to his own readers his apparent turn around on insulin. "
From the queen of trashing herself no less!
I have not "turned around" on insulin. In fact, I have hardly even blogged about it.
But since you are claiming I have something to "turn around" from, here is a section of this post from one year ago:
From:
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/15/insulin-is-a-doorman-at-the-fat-cell-nightclub-not-a-lock-on.html
".... insulin's action to promote fat storage is always in the context of other factors.
If you have just been released from a POW camp on starvation rations, and you start eating 5000 calories a day of nothing but fat and protein, I can guarantee that you will start to store fat.
Alternatively, if you have lowered your caloric intake due to reduced hunger on a low carb diet, and have plenty of fat stores, and your body is seeing less glucose than it is used to, you will liberate and burn body fat under influence of the Randle cycle and lower insulin levels.
Is insulin involved? Yes. Do higher insulin levels, all other things being equal, shift the equilibrium towards storage and away from fat release? Definitely. Does any of this mean you cannot store fat without eating carbohydrate or that you cannot burn fat with insulin present? Of course not. ...
Insulin levels are an important factor in fat storage but they are not the only factor and IT IS NOT AN ON/OFF SWITCH. Insulin is ONE hormone that affects the storage/release equilibrium."
I think that is still a good summary of my views on insulin. Important, but not the only player. But not practically irrelevant as you claim.
That is not your "Taubes theory" of insulin is it?
Nor does it contradict Peter's potatoes post, does it?
You know I don't ascribe to the idea that the obesity epidemic is attributable to carbs in general. I have always believed insulin is quite important in energy regulation and fat equilibrium and I still do.
And I've talked about wheat, linoleic acid and excess fructose since day one as the most culpable neolithic agents.
But you already know that from the posts I've made on your blog, don't you?
My issue with you and GT - which I never mentioned on your blog - has squat to do with insulin - it is in the realm of theory of mind - you claim to have absolute knowledge that GT knowingly published mistakes in BCBC for financial gain. This claim is not just unknowable by you, it is despicable and not all that plausible, really.
Who spends 7 years writing and researching a difficult-to-market book like GCBC for MONEY - living in NYC on a measly $600 K advance for 7 years? That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, really.
I am really sorry you have to count and measure or "work out" or do triathlons or whatever. Life for you must suck, I am sure. But, many of the rest of us do quite well with GT's (and Michael Eades') insights, even if he erred on details and mechanisms.
@all,
Blogger software keeps putting comments in to spam. I'll keep a closer eye on the spam folder when I'm about.
Peter
@Nigel
OK, I am just asking.
You have confessed that you contacted GT about G3P and went criticizing him around the web based on a video of a lecture - and that you only recently actually read the book he wrote - the one you now claim you are in "99% agreement with" - whether G3P is rate limiting was so important that the whole corpus of GCBC - the history, the demolition of the lipid and diet heart hypotheses - were as nothing compared to to the issue of G3P. And GT is a "liar".
(To use your metaphor, if you really were responsible for airplanes, I see them falling out of the sky, but with impeccably clean windshields...)
So now you are saying that CS is to GT as Denise Minger is to Colin Campbell.
Really? Did you actually READ both books?
I hope not, because to say that GCBC and China Study are remotely equivalent - morally, intellectually, scientifically, journalistically, etc.,
makes you sound, how would a brit say it?
Daft?
I'll admit I missed the joke.
It's an interesting bit of question-begging to refer to reduced consumption as either "more satisfying" or "less palatable" without asking the subjects why they stopped eating.
Vis. "the food was disgusting, I couldn't finish it" vs. "I wish I could have eaten more, but the food was too filling."
------
Nigel,
Taubes' advice on diet--at least in Why We Get Fat--includes something along the lines of "eat until you're satisfied" rather than "eat as much as you possibly can" and has noted that it's inadvisable to do things like go off steroid drugs that keep you alive, even if they make you fat. He also hasn't promised anyone they'll get Brad Pitt's body in 90 days or anything of the sort. Further, he's changed his tune on at least one of his claims regarding LC diets--the metabolic advantage. If anything, he seems like he's aware he's likely to be wrong often and he's doing the good scientist thing and is making slow, methodical changes to his position.
Also, and I may be wrong, Ms. Minger is not claiming Campbell is a fraud or a liar or a con artist who's just trying to sell books and keep himself famous, just that he's wrong and his analysis of his data is flawed and biased.
Arguing against tone is rather weak sort of refutation and tone shouldn't be important in the end, but it is important if someone expects people to listen and it certainly seems to explain why CS' hostility is alienating the people who believe the ideas she opposes.
In other words, Taubes and Minger seem like nice people trying to do/report on good science, CS seems like someone trying to use her certainty and knowledge of Arthur Schopenhauer's methods to bludgeon others with her version of the Truth. Who's right and who's wrong has very little to do with who people listen to, unfortunately.
@Chris
Well, I confess one of the reasons I initially engaged CS on her blog, with no mention of GT, was because I agreed with some of her criticisms of GT - including the idea that carbs per se are a source of the obesity epidemic and MetSyn, etc. I had never read her until after I wrote posts like "No such thing as a macronutrient" - so I thought there might be some value there.
But then I discovered that as with Matt Stone, there is some clever observation mixed in with a bunch of reflexive, poorly thought out contrarianism there.
Like: "The real threat is not hyperglycemia, it is elevated NEFA, and elevated NEFA on VLC may cause diabetes - or give you a heart attack". Which is highly speculative if not completely silly.
Why it is worth arguing with a cartoon now is precisely because the cartoon rabbit-person is promoting a false dichotomy:
The idea that you must believe either HER conception of Taubes ( carbs drive insulin drives fat and nothing else matter) or you must become a nutritional nihilist, retreating to only believing and repeating the useless tautology of calories in = calories out ad nauseum. Like in her response to the potatoes post, where Peter is mocked for even trying to explain something with any complexity.
And perhaps it is useful to challenge the idea that any of us who think it is wrong to call Taubes a liar or fraud or to spell his name Taube$ - are merely, to use Nigel's lovely phrase - "nut swingers" for Gary Taubes.
So Nigel thinks all critics of CS are "nutswingers". He wants you to know that. So he posted that on CS's blog. Because NIgel feels so strongly about saying things to you directly ; )
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nut%20Swinger
Kurt G. Harris MD said...
@Nigel
OK, I am just asking. I'm glad that we're having a civil conversation in public. You've raised a lot of points and it's late, so I'll try to answer them, but I have to be brief as I really need my beauty sleep. ;-)
You have confessed that you contacted GT about G3P and went criticizing him around the web based on a video of a lecture - and that you only recently actually read the book he wrote - the one you now claim you are in "99% agreement with" - whether G3P is rate limiting was so important that the whole corpus of GCBC - the history, the demolition of the lipid and diet heart hypotheses - were as nothing compared to to the issue of G3P. And GT is a "liar". "Confessed?" "went criticizing him around the web"? "Liar"? Hmmm. I wrote a blog post "I have a theory" which I referred to in other posts. Have you read it? Nobody gets things 100% right. I'm not too sure why people are getting so upset over the 1% I think Taubes got wrong.
(To use your metaphor, if you really were responsible for airplanes, I see them falling out of the sky, but with impeccably clean windshields...) I'm glad to see that you haven't lost your sense of humour.
So now you are saying that CS is to GT as Denise Minger is to Colin Campbell. Um... People in the paleosphere don't like Campbell, so attacking him is encouraged. Taubes however is considered a God, so anyone attacking him must be burned at the stake. See Low Carb Talibans.
Really? Did you actually READ both books? Of course not! GCBC is far too long! I kept nodding-off. Toban Weibes' cliff notes are much more easily digestible.
I hope not, because to say that GCBC and China Study are remotely equivalent - morally, intellectually, scientifically, journalistically, etc., makes you sound, how would a brit say it?
Daft? See above. Good night!
Kurt,
As something of a coward and a hypocrite myself, I try not to fault others too much or too quickly if they seem like they're leaning into those behaviors. But I'm not nearly Zen enough, or smart enough for that matter, to find the all the insightful points among a lot of weirdness. Just some of my many failings, I'm sure.
Regarding CS' response to Peter's potato post, I'm a little disappointed it ended up being her calling him to task for generalizing in a way that's not to her taste. Maybe I'm wrong and that's not what she intended. She hasn't responded yet.
Regarding FFAs directly causing diabetes, one thing that's confused me about this position is if FFAs caused insulin resistance (over and above the transient, glycogen/protein sparing kind I mean), why wouldn't fat loss exacerbate it rather than improve it? I mean, losing one lb/week means you're consuming some 500 calories/day largely made from saturated animal fat straight from your own ass.
At the risk of being seen as a nut swinger (and I had no idea that's what it meant. I thought it was someone who swung for the nuts, i.e. took cheap shots) I want to say I rather enjoyed your "no such thing as a macronutrient" articles.
@ Chris
Thanks. I had to avail myself of the urban dictionary for "nutswinger", too. Never been called that before.
A little bitty yellow miata does not look very "urban" does it? Who knew Nigel was so "G"?
FFA metabolism is definitely disturbed in diabetes, and may mediate some negative effects of same, although most of the evidence I've seen suggests it is elevated NEFA in the context of altered cytosolic conditions (lack of beta oxidation to match the NEFA availability) that is more responsible.
The idea that the NEFA elevations seen in fasting, sleeping or simply failing to eat carbs with a meal has anything at all to do with pathology of diabetes is not supported by any evidence I've seen.
Just like a BG of 120 after a baked potato does not have the same meaning - or danger - as having a BG of 120 while fasting.
@ Chris
Yes, the levels CS is concerned with - according to what she has written, are in the 700 nmol range.
With really rapid weight loss, as in starvation, NEFA typically get into the 1500 nmol range.
Which I guess explains why all those liberated from Auschwitz were found to have such out-of control diabetes.
Kurt- I definitely agree with you in that CS posts (at least earlier ones) raised many good points in addition to presenting some interesting papers, but somehow eventually devolved into anti-Taubesian conspiracy rantfests in which extrapolations about complex metabolism are being formulated using piecemeal observations from the likes of Intralipid infusion and rat chow studies etc.
I'm also especially hesitant of using snapshot-in-time FFA concentrations as a specific marker of any pathologic process or ongoing metabolic derangement. It's diabetes 101 as pointed out by Joslin that FFA flux is not anywhere close to linear over the physiologic range, and that in states of high flux (exercise and hypocaloric diets) FFA levels are much, much greater than what would be predicted linearly- indeed, "Thus, although FFA concentrations are a reasonable indicator of FFA release, it is not possible to use concentration values to make quantitative estimates of release rates, and in some circumstances FFA concentrations can be misleading with respect to changes in lipolysis."
With that in mind, everyone should probably be wary of the CS extrapolation that leads to the conclusion that elevated NEFA in in a hypocaloric LC'er is the same as the dangerous elevated NEFA in a frank diabetic.
@kds
"it is not possible to use concentration values to make quantitative estimates of release rates, and in some circumstances FFA concentrations can be misleading with respect to changes in lipolysis"
I agree with you and Joslin's text on this. NEFA levels elevated in the context of elevated consumption - exercise, fasting, no carbs, etc., is not only not dangerous, it is quite necessary.
The consumption rate - and hence the presence or absence of intracellular toxins cannot be inferred from the concentration.
And continually talking about "insulin resistance" without reference to the specific organ or whether it is physiologic regulation or due to pathology is also a big error. There is appropriate IR and inappropriate IR, just as NEFA or BG can elevate in both normal or abnormal states.
If the peripheral IR reversal one got from simply increasing starch in the diet "cured" the pathologic IR of fatty liver in someone with metabolic syndrome, the cure for diabetes would be more bread and potatoes -or DM would never happen in the first place.
Kurt - so physiological insulin resistance would occur so that those cells that run on glucose preferentially get the available glucose they need and the other cells can use FFA and ketones?
It's morning, so here we go!
Chris said...
Nigel,
Taubes' advice on diet--at least in Why We Get Fat--includes something along the lines of "eat until you're satisfied" rather than "eat as much as you possibly can" and has noted that it's inadvisable to do things like go off steroid drugs that keep you alive, even if they make you fat. He also hasn't promised anyone they'll get Brad Pitt's body in 90 days or anything of the sort. Further, he's changed his tune on at least one of his claims regarding LC diets--the metabolic advantage. If anything, he seems like he's aware he's likely to be wrong often and he's doing the good scientist thing and is making slow, methodical changes to his position.
Listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKIhYQZuLZ8. Taubes clearly states 8 minutes and 12 seconds in:- (emphasis mine) "You can basically exercise as much gluttony as you want, as long as you're eating fat and protein". Those words are going to haunt him forever!
Also, and I may be wrong, Ms. Minger is not claiming Campbell is a fraud or a liar or a con artist who's just trying to sell books and keep himself famous, just that he's wrong and his analysis of his data is flawed and biased.
True, but Ms Minger has given Campbell a pretty thorough literary thrashing.
Arguing against tone is rather weak sort of refutation and tone shouldn't be important in the end, but it is important if someone expects people to listen and it certainly seems to explain why CS' hostility is alienating the people who believe the ideas she opposes.
No comment.
In other words, Taubes and Minger seem like nice people trying to do/report on good science, CS seems like someone trying to use her certainty and knowledge of Arthur Schopenhauer's methods to bludgeon others with her version of the Truth. Who's right and who's wrong has very little to do with who people listen to, unfortunately.
That's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it. I agree with Taubes' writings on fats & the diet/heart hypothesis. However, I feel that he's made a big mistake with his carbohydrate hypothesis.
Kurt G. Harris MD said...
Why it is worth arguing with a cartoon now is precisely because the cartoon rabbit-person is promoting a false dichotomy:
The idea that you must believe either HER conception of Taubes ( carbs drive insulin drives fat and nothing else matter) or you must become a nutritional nihilist, retreating to only believing and repeating the useless tautology of calories in = calories out ad nauseum. Like in her response to the potatoes post, where Peter is mocked for even trying to explain something with any complexity.
I disagree. Stating that calories count isn't the same thing as stating that to lose weight, you have to count calories. I can't recall the post to which you refer. Linky?
And perhaps it is useful to challenge the idea that any of us who think it is wrong to call Taubes a liar or fraud or to spell his name Taube$ - are merely, to use Nigel's lovely phrase - "nut swingers" for Gary Taubes.
It is a lovely phrase, as it represents exactly the way in which you hang on his every word (except for the ones that I quoted in the post above).
So Nigel thinks all critics of CS are "nutswingers".
Lovely strawman you just built there. I was referring to the commenters here, not "all critics".
He wants you to know that. So he posted that on CS's blog. Because NIgel feels so strongly about saying things to you directly ; )
O.K. I'll say it here as well. You CS-bashers are Taubes nut-swingers! LOL.
Kurt G. Harris MD said...
@ Chris
Thanks. I had to avail myself of the urban dictionary for "nutswinger", too. Never been called that before.
How did it feel? ;-p
A little bitty yellow miata does not look very "urban" does it? Who knew Nigel was so "G"?
It's a California, actually. I certainly didn't know I was so "G" (whatever that means).
FFA metabolism is definitely disturbed in diabetes, and may mediate some negative effects of same, although most of the evidence I've seen suggests it is elevated NEFA in the context of altered cytosolic conditions (lack of beta oxidation to match the NEFA availability) that is more responsible.
The idea that the NEFA elevations seen in fasting, sleeping or simply failing to eat carbs with a meal has anything at all to do with pathology of diabetes is not supported by any evidence I've seen.
I agree. See, nobody gets things 100% correct. The "funny turn" that CS had on VLC was probably caused by what you wrote in one of your comments on her blog and what I blogged about after Steve Cooksey had one.
Every move you make,
Every vow you break,
Every smile you fake,
Every claim you stake,
I'll be watching you...
If you think that CS & I have been unfair to Gary Taubes, ask Martin Berkhan for his opinions on Taubes. :-D
Nigel,
The gluttony comment you referenced was made in context of discussion of the Atkins trial published by Gary Foster and colleagues two weeks before the interview. The trial compared an ad-lib LC diet (i.e. hooray gluttony) with calorie-restricted LF and Med. diets. The context of the statement becomes a bit more clear if you listen from 6:50 through the end of the video instead of just at 8:12, and the fact that discussion of the study immediately bookends his gluttony comment suggests he didn't digress from discussion of the study to make it.
I've read The Diet Delusion twice. I can't recall Taubes ever claiming that LC was a panacea or giving specific dietary advice.
I am more inclined to believe a Harvard physics graduate and Stanford aeronautical engineering graduate (Taubes) understands the scientific method better than an anonymous blogger.
I have over 20 years experience in food science (BS, research Masters) and a postgrad degree in exercise science. Yet I will willingly admit that I have massive gaps in my knowledge of these areas.
Yet some bozo who has read (but not understood) a few published papers thinks they are an authority.
If Peter and Kurt had read CarbSane or Berkhan they could have saved a lot of effort treating diabetic patients. They could have simply given them some extra food and not worried about about insulin, ketoacidosis or urinary glucose. This is because insulin isn't needed for fat storage and carbohydrates don't make you fat. [sarcasm off]
Nigel, did you read the comments to Berkan's article? The guy got schooled. Majorly.
@Poisonguy
Exactly where is Martin being schooled? The only person being schooled there is Martin Levac. Maybe you're confusing the two?
@blogblog
So you prefere the opinion of someone who spend his days behind a computer not helping anyone to someone who has acutally helped at least a dozen of person getting an insanly great body recomposition? All good to you. I prefer someone who can walk the talk and have actual result to any academic authority. It's a completly different game when you have someone in front of you who pays for results. You better know what you're doing.
@all
Reading the comments here I see you doing exactly what you accuse CS of doing, ie, being really sure that you are right and that she is wrong. I don't see any mind opening, except maybe from Chris and Kurt. This is sad, as the greatest opportunity to learn are within disagreament. I'm on about every blog and forum possible, and I don't subscribe to any ideology. I test with myself and my clients and keep what works. You guys are doing exactly what the low-fat pusher were doing in the 80'. Just at the other extreme.
When you will actually be helping real people losing weight on the long run, you will recognize that it's not as simple as going low-carb with everyone and that this approach has many shortcoming. No wonder why all the greatest coach don't buy into LC. They faced many situation where it failed.
Finally, what's up with completly out of shape individual asking for CS to post picture? Fortunatly for you someone credibility should not be judge on his physic, because you could no be taking any seriously than an anonymous blogger.
I don't get why so many people are holding so hard to the idea that carbs and insulin are evils. Is it because it makes you feel smarter than eveyrone?
As far as I know, not even Stephan from wholehealthsource nor as it looks Kurt seems to believe that carbs are bad per se. Yet you still have people subscribing to blog such as carb war, carbohydrate can kill you, or adhering to the dogmatic stance that carbohydrate are the single source of obesity and all the disease that we are facing. You really believe so?
I said that in all seriousness, Frank. You may not personally find Levac's argumentation to you liking, and it appears he rubs some people the wrong way here too, but judging solely the arguments he presented, I thought he more than held his own. It's obvious that people over there didn't understand, or accept, the importance of the second law of thermodynamics if one wants to invoke the first law--I thought that was his strong point. But he held his own in other areas too. And I too don't subscribe to any ideology or have anything against Berkan. Just saying.
@ Nigel
Don't be so freaking dense. Of course I meant the critics on this blog, like me and the blog author, Peter, the ones you called "nutswingers", twice now.
Only an internet harpie who pestered GT about G3P before even bothering to read his book would claim I hang on GT's every word.
I don't care if you ever read my blog or listen to my podcast with Jimmy Moore, but if you had, you could avoid looking like an ass by making such a clueless statement. I've said I disagreed with him about starch over and over again, and again right here in this thread.
Airplanes are definitely falling from the sky, Nigel.
I hope you aren't representative of all english engineers. ; )
@Poisonguy
I just can't wait for the study showing greater weight loss from LC when protein are matched and caloric intake is controlled, not self-reported.
So far, the bulk of the scientific evidence are proving this to be wrong.
I don't really care about arguments. I care about data. Weight loss data, since this is what we are concern with.
Here is one of the only one well-designed study to date
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046
The mean weight-loss was even greater in the higher-carb group. If you have another study where protein are matched and caloric intake is controlled by design showing different result, please post it. So far there is no hard evidence showing any greater weight loss from LC else than a greater spontaneous reduction in caloric intake.
@Chris: Oh, I see what you're saying. It's the absolute nature of Peter's recent statement about fasting insulin being the end all is what you're on about. Well, sure. But it would have been far less confusing for us poor simpletons if you had simply noted that amputation results in weight loss and requires no reduction in fasting insulin.
Here I was thinking your position here was as it is on your blog: that insulin has nothing to do with weight loss. Or am I mis-remembering that too?
This constitutes a scientific discussion with you Chris?
How did G&K design their human study to obtain whatever the result you say they wanted was? Did they inject the women with insulin before measuring levels, or perform liposuction during the carb feeding phase where basal insulin rose?
Yes, my position is that insulin levels *independently* have no impact on body weight.
In cases such as Lustig describes, hypothalamic damage leads to improper insulin secretion leads to overeating and/or underactivity leads to weight gain. But (and I'm not suggesting this torture) lock em in a setting where they can't overeat carbs, fats or both, and they won't gain weight.
Taubes suggests that this phenomenon seen is a minute segment of the population (kids with and surviving brain cancer are rare enough, the hypothalamic damage Lustig refers to is described as rare amongst this tiny segment) is somehow going on en masse since the early 80's.
G&K is but one study where Peter's claim does not hold up.
So please, do tell me how G&K designed the study so that the basal insulin levels had no relation to body weight changes.
@Chris: Oh, I see what you're saying. It's the absolute nature of Peter's recent statement about fasting insulin being the end all is what you're on about. Well, sure. But it would have been far less confusing for us poor simpletons if you had simply noted that amputation results in weight loss and requires no reduction in fasting insulin.
Here I was thinking your position here was as it is on your blog: that insulin has nothing to do with weight loss. Or am I mis-remembering that too?
This constitutes a scientific discussion with you Chris?
How did G&K design their human study to obtain whatever the result you say they wanted was? Did they inject the women with insulin before measuring levels, or perform liposuction during the carb feeding phase where basal insulin rose?
Yes, my position is that insulin levels *independently* have no impact on body weight.
In cases such as Lustig describes, hypothalamic damage leads to improper insulin secretion leads to overeating and/or underactivity leads to weight gain. But (and I'm not suggesting this torture) lock em in a setting where they can't overeat carbs, fats or both, and they won't gain weight.
Taubes suggests that this phenomenon seen is a minute segment of the population (kids with and surviving brain cancer are rare enough, the hypothalamic damage Lustig refers to is described as rare amongst this tiny segment) is somehow going on en masse since the early 80's.
G&K is but one study where Peter's claim does not hold up.
So please, do tell me how G&K designed the study so that the basal insulin levels had no relation to body weight changes.
Poisonguy said...
Nigel, did you read the comments to Berkan's article? The guy got schooled. Majorly.
You're as deluded as the fruitarian nut-swingers on http://mangodurian.blogspot.com/2011/03/primal-food-meat-etc-vs-predominantly.html. Mango got totally pawned in the comments section of http://freetheanimal.com/2011/03/how-the-paleo-diet-works.html. That cognitive bias just keeps rollin' on!
I wonder if this will end up in the spam filter?
Kurt G. Harris MD said...
@ Nigel
Don't be so freaking dense. Of course I meant the critics on this blog, like me and the blog author, Peter, the ones you called "nutswingers", twice now.
Words mean things. Use them carefully. "All critics" means "everyone who criticises". Would you like me to make it a hat-trick? ;-)
Only an internet harpie who pestered GT about G3P before even bothering to read his book would claim I hang on GT's every word.
You don't. Other commenters seem to. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
I don't care if you ever read my blog or listen to my podcast with Jimmy Moore, but if you had, you could avoid looking like an ass by making such a clueless statement. I've said I disagreed with him about starch over and over again, and again right here in this thread.
See above.
Airplanes are definitely falling from the sky, Nigel.
Is that due to bad design, or bad procedures?
I hope you aren't representative of all english engineers. ; )
Oh, why?
@Nigel
Yes, words mean things, NIgel. So pay attention to their context. That will help you, I think.
People on the Aspergers spectrum often take things too literally, failing to account for context which is quite obvious to others. Is that you?
"You" can mean singular or plural. I meant plural the first time and singular the second.
I am a nerd. I blogged about it. You don't read my blog, so you remain ignorant about me.
Frank, lowering your insulin levels could help you with your hysteria and anger about people who choose to follow a VLC diet.
Unfortunately it won't raise your intelligence.
I didn't ask specifically for pics, just for any proof at all that readers should believe an anonymous blogger claiming to have a "science background" who won't show her own progress using her own dietary prescriptions for others.
If you don't believe Taubes, why on earth would she somehow be more qualified to give health advice???
@Peter: Pardon my mistake. Seems the first many commenters were under the same impression I was that your post was about me. If it was about the rat paper, why the mention and links at all? You can obviously post on what you like and say what you like. Obviously it tweaked you that I posted about your potato diet post ... at least I commented on what you said when I did. You OTOH go find a rat study and post a video (I can't view videos without crashing this backup I'm on at the moment) so why bother linking to my post at all? Makes no sense to me is all.
Carry on ...
Ooh. Someone's at the door! Yay!! My tinfoil shipment has arrived. Now where's that copy of Curious George?
@Kurt: I have not followed your blog regularly, but had read a post or two including your citing of Taubes as inspiration. Several commenters on my blog mentioned what they perceived as a turn-around on your part. A couple of posters on your own forum seemed puzzled as well. If I have that wrong I apologize.
@Jay: I agree they should have used adults, but what exactly did they "put their human subjects through the mill" with so badly in the study?
I would add that by not knowing her actual identity, it frees people to conduct themselves in even "poorer form" based on the perception that "CarbSane" is not a known person, only a known institution.
... cue Twilight Zone music ...
Maybe PaNu is more than one person! Sure seems that way to me sometimes.
@gunther gatherer: You seem to be under the impression that I didn't read GCBC. Is that right?
Not only did I read it, I reference checked it. Not an easy task at times given his shoddy referencing techniques and citing of out of publication texts. Guess he thought nobody would go check when his claims just didn't sound right.
Come to find out he never even read one of his text references! Five years was it? Six?
If anyone wants to email me a free copy of WWGF I'll read it! The dumbed down version of carbs and insulin make you fat ought to be mighty intellectually stimulating. ;)
CS, for someone who didn't have time to get into a "pissing contest", you sure have a lot to say.
I've asked 4 times now for any evidence at all that your dietary prescriptions and advice for your readers have worked on you yourself.
You've said more by ignoring all of those requests than you have in all of your blog posts and all your comments here.
@Gunther
I'm not aware of CS making any dietary advice. She's claiming that the mechanisms behind LC as explained by Taubes are BS. Why would she need to post pic for that?
Is that really all you can do? Tell me i'm not intelligent? That's all that LC follower have, ad hominem attack? *yawwwnn* Boring, really.
@Gunther
Find me someone in the LC community who has gotten these kind of results
http://www.leangains.com/2011/01/client-update.html
http://www.leangains.com/2010/05/client-update.html
I'll certainly stick with these dietary recommandations, adjusted and contextualised, for my clients and myself over a blanket low-carb diet for everyone, thank you.
Frank, read the Carbsane blog for reference, I don't need to hold your hand. And telling people who get metabolic syndrome because they eat carbs that they can indeed eat carbs is in fact giving dietary advice.
You're right, I don't have to tell you you're unintelligent. One glance at your meathead comments shows us that it's stating the obvious.
@Frank
I am also quite interested in seeing a controlled isocaloric, isoprotein comparison study done, but the following Volek study is certainly food for thought:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15533250
The VLC group was 28% protein vs. 20% protein for the LF group, but the VLC group was eating approximately 300kcal more per day, and yet managed to have a superior change in mass and composition.
CS,
I was admitting you were technically correct to call Peter out on the absolute nature of his insulin statement, and that I did misunderstand that was your point here, but that it would have been easier for me if you'd gone about it in a different way. The tone was meant to be bemused at my own failing rather than hostile toward you.
I've already said I don't know how G&K might have achieved their result given the assumption of insulin as the driving factor in weight loss--there is apparently improved insulin sensitivity in the iso-caloric LC diet as demonstrated by the glucose test, which is unusual given the effect of high FFAs associated with LC diets on glucose uptake--but my lack of ingenuity and knowledge of the researches unstated procedures hardly refutes the notion that--given the context of the study's stated purpose, cited works, and the other research published by G&K--it's possible G&K engineered their results to demonstrate exactly what they claimed to be studying.
Instead of a refutation, you attempt to change the subject to Taubes. Sure, it'd be nice to know why he thinks there isn't as strong a compensatory mechanism against insulin-related weight loss as he believes there is for low-calorie diets, but citing a pathology that exaggerates Taubes' preferred pathway supports rather than refutes Taubes' position--obesity being pathological in his mind, after all--and certainly does nothing to address my suppositions about the G&K study.
@Kurt or anyone else
Curious about Kurt's mention about Auschwitz & diabetes. I tried nosing around Google...starvation, concentration camps, diabetes...and didn't find what I was looking for.
Can someone help me see the connection, or link me?
Many thanks.
CS,
I was admitting you were technically correct to call Peter out on the absolute nature of his insulin statement, and that I did misunderstand that was your point here, but that it would have been easier for me if you'd gone about it in a different way. The tone was meant to be bemused at my own failing rather than hostile toward you.
I've already said I don't know how G&K might have achieved their result given the assumption of insulin as the driving factor in weight loss--there is apparently improved insulin sensitivity in the iso-caloric LC diet as demonstrated by the glucose test, which is unusual given the effect of high FFAs associated with LC diets on glucose uptake--but my lack of ingenuity and knowledge of the researches unstated procedures hardly refutes the notion that--given the context of the study's stated purpose, cited works, and the other research published by G&K--it's possible G&K engineered their results to demonstrate exactly what they claimed to be studying.
Instead of a refutation, you attempt to change the subject to Taubes. Sure, it'd be nice to know why he thinks there isn't as strong a compensatory mechanism against insulin-related weight loss as he believes there is for low-calorie diets, but citing a pathology that exaggerates Taubes' preferred pathway supports rather than refutes Taubes' position--obesity being pathological in his mind, after all--and certainly does nothing to address my suppositions about the G&K study.
@kds
Not to be picky, but the food was self report from dietary journal. We know how bad people are at reporting food. This just can't be use as a solid evidence. The study I presented at least controlled everything the subject ate. The result are also different.
@Gunther
Not much more to say to you.
Spam filters seem to keep eating my responses... Try try agian...
CS,
I was admitting you were technically correct to call Peter out on the absolute nature of his insulin statement, and that I did misunderstand that was your point here, but that it would have been easier for me if you'd gone about it in a different way. The tone was meant to be bemused at my own failing rather than hostile toward you.
I've already said I don't know how G&K might have achieved their result given the assumption of insulin as the driving factor in weight loss--there is apparently improved insulin sensitivity in the iso-caloric LC diet as demonstrated by the glucose test, which is unusual given the effect of high FFAs associated with LC diets on glucose uptake--but my lack of ingenuity and knowledge of the researches unstated procedures hardly refutes the notion that--given the context of the study's stated purpose, cited works, and the other research published by G&K--it's possible G&K engineered their results to demonstrate exactly what they claimed to be studying.
Instead of a refutation, you attempt to change the subject to Taubes. Sure, it'd be nice to know why he thinks there isn't as strong a compensatory mechanism against insulin-related weight loss as he believes there is for low-calorie diets, but citing a pathology that exaggerates Taubes' preferred pathway supports rather than refutes Taubes' position--obesity being pathological in his mind, after all--and certainly does nothing to address my suppositions about the G&K study.
---
Fank,
Just because you don't like the reporting methods in a particular study doesn't discount the study's results any more than noting that Barry Sears of Zone Diet fame ran the study you're touting.
@carbsane
It's just my opinion really (and YMMV) that being locked up for 14 weeks in a clinical research unit, fed a liquid diet of varying composition (not necessarily designed for your clinical benefit, but for experimental purposes) for 12 weeks and being subjected to a weekly glucose tolerance test and a twice a week blood test (after being deprived of food from 7pm the night before) would be a bit arduous, espeically for a juvenile (and all three subjects on the hypocaloric arm of the study were under 18).
These days you have to submit to the scrutiny of an ethics committee for anything involving humans even listening tests on adult university students who probably submit themselves voluntarily to hearing-damaging noise levels on a weekly basis.
BTW, Peter included the rat paper because it was reference no 9 in G&K and they mention it in the introduction.
I also find it interesting that G&K comment (in a manner that suggests 'this is common knowledge and I don't need to put a reference in for that') that
"the markedly obese female ingests a greater absolute amount of carbohydrate ....but also that carbohydrate constitutes a greater percentage of the total calories consumed than in the typical diet of the person of normal weight". This is in reference to % carbohydrate averaging 48% (Table 1).
gunther gatherer said...
...And telling people who get metabolic syndrome because they eat carbs that they can indeed eat carbs is in fact giving dietary advice...
See http://nigeepoo.blogspot.com/2011/02/insulin-resistance-solutions-to.html.
People get metabolic syndrome because they are too sedentary and/or they don't get enough UVB on their skin.
Jin said...
@Kurt or anyone else
Curious about Kurt's mention about Auschwitz & diabetes...
He was being ironic. He should have used a smily.
@ Jin
Sorry for the confusion. People who are starved don't tend to have diabetes from the starvation, even though FFA or NEFA are sky high at least early on.
I was being ironic but came perilously close to fulfulling Godwin's law.
CS-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this link posted up in the comments: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-i-eat-low-carb-response-to-reader.html#comment-form seems to indicate that you were always quite large at around 210 pounds and then lost 40 pounds on a low carb diet. That is expected and for most of us a completely normal response to such a dietary change. So, you then find yourself at 170 pounds due to carb restriction and this is where I get lost. You go "off" of low carb (why?) and start to gain weight fast. You say you then gained 60 pounds total. Wasn't each pound, or even each 10 pound increment a wake-up call sufficiently loud to steer you back toward low carb? I'm trying to understand the "sanity" that occurred with that suspension of disbelief. What did you eat after the low carb phase that caused that weight gain? How many grams of fructose per day? How does one Rip Van Winkle through a 60 pound gain?
Perhaps I can concoct an even better conspiracy theory than those presented here. I imagine CS coming across GCBC, taking it to heart (and to the supermarket) and using it to lose 40 pounds (with ease). She becomes so enamored by Taubes that she starts to contact him, moves into his area, tries to run into him as often as possible etc. She finally works up the courage to ask him out due to her newly acquired human weight but he declines, says he's married etc. She then associates that refusal with GCBC and devotes her life to dissecting it and showing him to be a liar. This explains the jilted lover tone of all of the posts. A short while and many Snackwell's cookies later, she's 230 pounds and gnashing her teeth because deep down she knows that in spite of any semantics, or biochemical minutiae that he may have misinterpreted, he's still ultimately correct and that her personal experience is a strongly compelling affirmation of his theories.
How'd I do?
Peter: never would have thunk a cartoon about a rat could stir up so much venom. Kind of reminds me of the good old days with 'Bruce K.'.
Frank said...
@Gunther
Find me someone in the LC community who has gotten these kind of results.
I will counter with Michael Phelps who lives entirely on junk food.
Body building (and elite sport in general) is all about genetics and doping not diet.
Travis Culp said...
So, you then find yourself at 170 pounds due to carb restriction and this is where I get lost. You go "off" of low carb (why?) and start to gain weight fast.
Have you read any of Atkins' books? You don't stay in induction forever. Jeez!
blogblog said...
I will counter with Michael Phelps who lives entirely on junk food.
[Irony]That's the Michael Phelps who sits on his arse/ass all day long, right?[/i]
@blogblog
How is that a counter evidence? It actually prove that you can be lean while eating carbs & junk.
So you believe that the individual that Martin helped are on drugs?
You guys really have an explanation to every fact that disagree with your hypothesis.
@Chris
No, but my critic of the study is pretty valid, and i've presented a study which adress that problem and did not report the same kind of result. I'm going to go with the stronger design to based my conclusion on.
We're chosing inbetween a study where in one case the caloric intake was controlled by the researcher and in the other case it was self reported by individual, and it's a pretty well known fact in the literrature that people are doing very poor at reporting intake. We all have our standard of what constitue strong evidence I guess.
Frank said...
@blogblog
So you prefere the opinion of someone who spend his days behind a computer not helping anyone to someone who has acutally helped at least a dozen of person getting an insanly great body recomposition?
People like Berkhan only show the handful of successes they have had. They totally ignore the thousands that try their programs and don't get the desired results.
I prefer someone who can walk the talk and have actual result to any academic authority. It's a completly different game when you have someone in front of you who pays for results. You better know what you're doing.
The sport science academic staff at my university trained Olympic athletes and professional sports teams.
Frank said...
@blogblog
How is that a counter evidence? It actually prove that you can be lean while eating carbs & junk.
Phelps burns over 7000KCal per day in training. That is why he is lean. If he stopped training and kept his diet he would be obese and diabetic within a matter of months
So you believe that the individual that Martin helped are on drugs?
Over 90% of professional athletes use drugs. The rate for bodybuilders is even higher.
Elite bodybuilders are only lean at competition time. They semi-starve for several weeks to lose excess body fat. The rest of the time they are quite fat.
Many personal trainers undergo extensive cosmetic procedures including liposuction and breast/chest/calf implants to obtain that "perfect" physique.
You guys really have an explanation to every fact that disagree with your hypothesis.
Qualified people who are actually involved in the diet and exercise field know that less than 1% of people can ever achieve the results that Berkhan claims no matter how they train or what they eat.
Berkhan trains 10,000 people and 10 get the desired results. Does that make him a genius?
The fact is that it is impossible to perform statistically valid nutrition experiments without locking 100,000 randomly selected people up for 20 years and feeding them a controlled diet.
@ Nigel
The one atkins book I read made it pretty clear that when you add back carbs after induction, you are kind of supposed to pay attention to if you start to gain weight back. If so, you adjust accordingly..
@blogblog
The claims that you are making are really making me suspicious that you have any idea what you are talking about.
Well, just look at Martin Berkan facebook and see how many people are doing his program on their own and getting awesome results.
Why should I care what your staff at your university do? How is this revelant of anything?
You probably have not look at the links that i've provided for Martin clients, as clearly none of them are bodybuilder nor athletes. They are regular Joe with average shape, training 3 time a week and starting with BF around 15-20%, getting it down, in most case, to single digit. Some are college student and other are familly dad. Surely they are all on steroids.
1% of individual being able to get to single digit body fat? A lot of personnal trainer having implant?
There are many bodybuilders who are lean year round. They are not as lean as on stage, obviously, as they get down to about 4% and are dehydrated, but they are probably around 12% year round. I'm not sure I consider 12% "quite fat". Old school bodybuilder used to bulk like crazy and getting fat, but it's not the case anymore, especially in the drug-free, as you run a lot of chance of losing muscle mass if you have to much weight to lose before hitting the stage.
You say that it's impossible to get a statistically valid study unless you have 100,000 subjects?
I'm actually thinking that you're trolling. At least i'm hoping so.
@blogblog
Well, just look at Martin Berkan facebook and see how many people are doing his program on their own and getting awesome results.
Don't you know testimonials are meaningless.
It is quite possible that people would have got equal or better results using another programme. You can only tell this by conducting a scientific trial trial.
Why should I care what your staff at your university do? How is this revelant of anything?
It is totally relevant because you claimed that academics sit in front of computer screens rather than training people.
I can assure you no professional sports team or elite athlete would ever consider employing someone like Berkhan as a trainer or nutritionist. They hire university qualified experts for this.
They are regular Joe with average shape, training 3 time a week and starting with BF around 15-20%, getting it down, in most case, to single digit.
Ordinary People lose weight by diet and exercise. Who'd a thunk it?
How many dropped out? How many were
diabetics before starting or had a BMI over 35? How many maintained the weight loss for over five years?
1% of individual being able to get to single digit body fat?
In fact far fewer than 1% of people are able to maintain 10% body fat. Even Olympic marathon runners and professional road cyclist are normally just over 10% body fat. I've tested a national level middle distance runner with 15% body fat - he looked very lean.
There are many bodybuilders who are lean year round. They are not as lean as on stage, obviously, as they get down to about 4% and are dehydrated, but they are probably around 12% year round.
12% body fat is low even by the standards or professional athletes such as soccer players. Any male below 14-15% is considered lean. Most of the low body fat claims are total BS due to incorrect skinfold measurements. The gold standard for body composition measurement is DEXA.
World class professional body builders are 20-40Kg heavier than anyone you are likely to see at a gym. They use steroids ,inuslin, HGH, diuretics and host of other drugs to achieve their goals.
Drug free body building is a myth. For example there are hundreds of anabolic steroids that can't be detected.
You say that it's impossible to get a statistically valid study unless you have 100,000 subjects?
The US national Institutes of Health calculated in the late 1960s that it would take at least 200,000 subjects and a minimum of 20 years to perform a statistically valid dietary trial for heart disease. The cost was over $1 billion (about $10 billion in current terms).
It seems very strange that a lot of unknown bloggers suddenly appear from nowhere to defend CarbSane and attack VLC diets. If I was paranoid I'd say it was a conspiracy.
To quote Richard Nixon:
Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.
@ rpineau, yes, Bruce was the only person I ever deleted a non spam post by. I heard (unconfirmed) that he turned out to be suffering from schizophrenia. I had thought manic depression was his label from his posting, but there's probably some overlap in classification....
@Travis, naughty. I like it. Nothing personal to CS, I just share a warped sense of humour
Peter
A good morning to you, Frank.
I had a 700 word response for you concerning the Barry Sears study. What can I say, I design clinical trials for BigPharma. I got carried away. I looked at things like polyunsaturates in the diet, crp levels, and all that jazz. Did you notice that there are only 10 subject per arm (with one dropout)? Parallel design study? I mean, how can you attain the power on needs on parallel design with 20 subjects? You'd have to expect mimimal intrasubject variability of all the important parameters that affect weight loss. I usually crossover or replicate design studies, and I'm hard press to enroll less than 50-80 subjects most of the time. And I have less intrasubject variability in getting to my endpoints. Do you know how BigPharma sees enlisting fewer subjects than is needed? We call it “producer’s risk.” It’s gambling. When we do it that way, we usually fail to reject our null hypothesis, and we’ve spent all that money on a failed experiment. Bosses don’t like that very much. But sometimes we get lucky and it works out. We fall within the confidence intervals. And then the bosses love us again. However, odds are better in Vegas. So, other than a bunch of this and that, it was a perfectly valid study. Oh, except for the calorie restriction part. Kind of makes you wonder if the restriction might have blunted the overall effect on weight loss of the different macronutrient ratios had it not been restricted. Oh, well. To each his own.
Well said, Travis. Thanks for slogging through the piles of garbage on her blog to find that info. It actually conflicts with her bio, which claims she lost 80 lbs. Things get murky after that.
Stay away from those "net carb" Atkins diet products, CS! They still raise insulin due to the high protein and the cephalic response their sweet taste causes. So if you pig out on them all day long, of course you'll gain weight.
But then of course, it's nothing to do with insulin at all...
Frank,
if you want to see what <10% bodyfat really looks like:
http://munfitnessblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/michael-phelps-low-body-fat-percentage.jpg
btw Phelps is only this lean during competition.
Travis Culp said...
CS-Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
.
.
...and that her personal experience is a strongly compelling affirmation of his theories.
How'd I do?
As a warning to anyone considering trying crystal meth, you did excellently! :-D
Kurt G. Harris MD said...
@ Nigel
The one atkins book I read made it pretty clear that when you add back carbs after induction, you are kind of supposed to pay attention to if you start to gain weight back. If so, you adjust accordingly..
You may find this hard to believe, but I do actually agree with what you write (and say on JM's podcast) 99% of the time. We both agree that you add back carbs after induction. So Travis Culp can go suck one. I think I've been on Lyle's Mean Forum too long!
@Poisonguy.
I would also add that six weeks is a very short period to become physiologically adapted to a VLC diet. Most healthy people take 12-18 months to adapt. It is possible that these severely obese subjects may never adapt to a VLC diet.
blogblog said...
It seems very strange that a lot of unknown bloggers suddenly appear from nowhere to defend CarbSane and attack VLC diets. If I was paranoid I'd say it was a conspiracy.
You're not paranoid. You're just a retard.
1) I'm not defending CS. I don't agree with everything that she writes/says. I have my own opinions and a lot of them just happen to coincide with CS'. A lot of them also coincide with Peter's, GT's & KGH's etc etc.
2) Neither CS nor I are attacking VLC diets. We're attacking the shoddy science that's used to support them which misleads people into thinking that they can "basically exercise as much gluttony as you want, as long as you're eating fat and protein". I will use that Taubes quote as often as I like.
Calories count. Just don't bother counting them! K?
@ Nigel
basically exercise as much gluttony as you want, as long as you're eating fat and protein
Care to give a reference for that quote?
Nigel, I think that quote is applicable to healthy individuals without a broken liver or insulin receptors completely out of whack from 30 years eating the SAD. Obviously if you are already pre-diabetic or with frank diabetes, there will be varying shades of success.
And regardless or your starting metabolic environment, lowering insulin does not imply you will become a ripped, muscle-bound freak. Using results from trainers devoted to beauty contests such as Berkhan and McDonald as some kind of measuring stick for a diet is completely unrealistic and unfair for those just trying to look and feel normal again.
Here's Nigel's "sage" advice from his personal webpage http://www.myspace.com/nigeepoo :
Here are some dietary guidelines for losing body-fat healthily that I have cobbled together. These guidelines have not been evaluated by any health agency and somewhat conflict with dietary recommendations on the Harvard School of Public Health web-site...
Summary: eat six times a day, add lots of fibre and overdose on fish oil yadda yadda...
Our brilliant and intrepid scientist Nigel spends years of painstaking personal research before regurgitating a grossly simplistic version of Barry Sears pseudo-scientific The Zone Diet.
Hooray for Nige!
@blogblog, re: gluttony
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/09/gary-taube-shai-ster.html
Warning - if $ and plays on words offend you, just go to the video Nigel linked to already.
Hi Gunther,
as I have repeatedly said getting a beauty contest physique is mostly about choosing your parents carefully (along with dangerous drug abuse and plenty of help from a cosmetic surgeon).
@gunther gatherer: The pissing contest I won't engage in is defending my personal story, choice to remain anonymous, and these ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Why interfere when y'all are making fools of yourselves. Wouldn't want to stop you!
But it is ironic that I'm being pestered on such matters by someone going by gunther gatherer. Unless there's some cosmic coincidence of surname serendipity and prophetic parental humor, I'm taking that's not your real name. Your profile shows a picture that could be from any brochure. You claim you lost 20 lbs - where's your before/after? How do we know that's even you?
How is ANY of that same info relevant to the issues with Taubes' works I've discovered and shared? If I weighed 500 lbs and lived on Twinkies & Coke, would that change the wording on p. 218 of Newsholme & Start (Taubes' seminal reference on G3P in GCBC)???
How does one go from:
"there is no evidence that the concentration of glycerol phosphate is limiting for the process of esterification." ~ Newsholme & Start
to
In fact, the rate at which fatty acids are assembled into triglycerides, and so the rate at which fat accumulates in the fat tissue, depend primarily on the availability of glycerol phosphate. ~Taubes in GCBC
How does he cite 2003 Reshef and not look into future works by this group to make sure that he is presenting things correctly?
Do you have an explanation for the outright misrepresentations of the science he perpetuates to this day?
"Your profile shows a picture that could be from any brochure. You claim you lost 20 lbs - where's your before/after? How do we know that's even you?"
Uhh... Do I have a blog claiming to "refute" the science? That gives dietary advice to sick and overweight people? Am I suggesting that 100 years of research on insulin is wrong? Am I accusing the author responsible for many people's newfound health and vitality, some of whom are getting off insulin and losing tons of weight, is lying, cheating and deceiving the public for some unknown reason which only he and you seem to know?
You're the one slinging this trash around, so you're the one with the burden of proof.
How's yer 80, or 40 or 60 lbs weight loss holding up? We're still waiting on those stats, by the way. If you respected your readers, you would supply this info. Or write your own book and show us all just what a brilliant researcher you are...
@Travis: I have some tinfoil left over if you want some. I'll even make you a hat. Would an 8 be big enough?
I'm not going to discuss my weight or diet here. It is irrelevant. But anyone interested can go to my personal blog and search on weight history to learn more. If you still have legitimate questions, ask me over there. I'm happy to discuss this.
But for those who think I'm some sort of mole, shill, etc., please tell me how my weight struggles make me any different than the overweight, yo-yo dieting and downright obese women advocating this miraculously healthy WOE all the while getting diagnosed prediabetic and with PCOS despite a decade or more of advising and advocating for others to follow their lead.
That is the reality I was faced with after finding the low carb web AFTER losing the bulk of my weight this time.
One of these days there will hopefully be some formerly obese women my age who have gotten truly lean eating this way (not former male professional triathletes who were never overweight let alone obese) AND maintain it within normal water weight fluctuations. There's exactly ONE over at Jimmy's forum, but even she was never obese to the degree I would see relating to my case.
I doubt we'll see each other again, but my blog door's open.
@blogblog
[i]It is quite possible that people would have got equal or better results using another programme. You can only tell this by conducting a scientific trial trial.[/i]
fair enough.
Most coach that I know of are not Ph. D. But you are right that some of them are coaching. Most of them only have a B. Sc or a MS usually. That's quite irrevelant to our subject tho'.
You are right that when one use the gold standard (which is CT-scan or MRI, btw, not DXA) the BF% are much higher since we're no longer talking only about subcutaneuous fat. To me, someone lean is someone to whom we can see the abs. They usally are, by skinfold measurement, under 12%. But again, this is completly irrevelant to our subject and our whole conversation has nothing to do with LC actually hehe.
[i]The US national Institutes of... [/i]
Then about every study our there is useless and we're spending billion in research every year for nothing?
@poisnguy
Good morning too!
Yes, indeed, the number of subject is small and a cross-over design would have been much better with as little as 20 subjects. You would have wanted an eucaloric or an hypercaloric diet and see the result? i've never seen an overfeeding study where people lost weight, even when they were overfed fat. The problem with LC is that it's all based on mechanistic speculation that, first, don't make that much sens from a physiological standpoint (carbs have a higher TEF value, fat is much easier to be store as fat, fat can be store without insulin, etc) and second, ost study don't find what you are talking about. So how is one suppose to buy easiky into this? I don't have any bias. I'm looking for the better tool to use. If LC was magic i'd be the first one to jump on it. But I want my intervention to be science based and I can hardly back-up these magic claim with science so far.
I won't be convince by a self-reported study either. Then we both don't have strong scientific evidence to support our case. We're left with anecdoct, and there's plenty of anecdoct of individual losing weight on LC but also on LF. It might just be easier on LC, and you have your reason to believe so and I have mine. Actually there are other studies under control setting where LC did not produce a bigger weight loss, but no one here seem open to at least considering that they might be wrong so it's kind of worthless.
After I read GCBC 3 years ago I was sure about his stuff. But I was still new to science and to nutrition. I realised that the bulk of the evidence is not in favor of him, and that LC has many shortcoming. I might be wrong, but i'm still waiting for convincing evidences. And i've seen enough individual who have gotten great result without going low-carb per se to know that it's unecessary in many case. But I keep an open mind. I just think that if there would be a metabolic advantage, it would be obvious and the study for Sears would have found it too, and the other older study would have found it too.
Sorry for the long msg.
I'll leave you with this systematic review that you probably know of already and you certainly must have reasons as to why it's not valid, but if one try to be evidence-based, this is what we come up with
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12684364
blogblog said...
@Nigel
basically exercise as much gluttony as you want, as long as you're eating fat and protein
Care to give a reference for that quote?
I already did, retard. Read my comments.
blogblog said...
Here's Nigel's "sage" advice from his personal webpage http://www.myspace.com/nigeepoo :
Here are some dietary guidelines for losing body-fat healthily that I have cobbled together. These guidelines have not been evaluated by any health agency and somewhat conflict with dietary recommendations on the Harvard School of Public Health web-site...
Summary: eat six times a day, add lots of fibre and overdose on fish oil yadda yadda...
Our brilliant and intrepid scientist Nigel spends years of painstaking personal research before regurgitating a grossly simplistic version of Barry Sears pseudo-scientific The Zone Diet.
Hooray for Nige!
Why are you quoting years-out-of-date shit from my ancient MySpace page when there's bang-up-to-date information in my blog? See http://nigeepoo.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-to-lose-body-fat-healthily.html
It's clearly stated in my blog that I'm a retired Electronic Engineer, not a Scientist.
You really are a total retard! :-D
@gunter
The LC crowd are the one going agaisnt the mainstream and the one making the extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is clearly on YOU, non on CS & others. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences, and being hostile and spitting venom won't help your case much further.
Frank, the burden is on ME? A blog reader and personal health enthusiast trying to find out what works for him after years of bad advice such as CS' and yours?
I think I can speak for many readers on this blog that we're doing VLC precisely in order to heal from the years we followed your bullshit Gluttony and Sloth argument that's responsible for all of our ailments today. You have a lot to answer for.
What claims am I making, exactly? That VLC worked for me? That there is over 100 years of proven evidence that LC dieting works? I don't have to prove that, since it's all there for you to look up, if you'll drop the barbells for a second.
You and CS burst onto someone else's blog to proselytize your beliefs, none of which are born out by good science, misinterpreting the results and the facts, and I have the burden of proof?
Lay off the 'roids pal. Or at least cycle them with ground up horse testicles or whatever it is you guys do...
@gunther
Haha you're one funny d00d, really. By YOU I meant the LC crowd, obviously, I don't expect much from you else than whinning and screaming. I could be anyone, actually, but you've decided that i'm an unintelligent meathead on roids who weight iron all day. Funny.
100 year of proven evidence that LC work? You mean 100y of proven evidence that reducing calories and upping protein work, don't you? Some other author who have reviewed the litterature on different diet as far as 1930 would have a different opinion than you do.
We're all stupid and all bullshitter because we're not convince by what a science journalist wrote in a book.
Sure enough the only good science out there is the one made by LC researchers and interpret by LC blogger. Everyone else is stupid. Actually what we say is supported by the vast majority of the scientific evidence and can easily be found in many review on the subject on pubmed. We can't say that much for you (ie, not you, but LC crowd).
You (you) really have proven to be much more intelligent than me. Wait while I try to catch my self-esteem before it runs away from me in shame.
Frank, after hogging the comments for the last 3 days, I think we GET by now that you don't believe the low carb approach.
We also get that you have zero interest in knowing much else.
But let's remember that as a personal trainer, you make lots of money when your clients come back a year later fat and depressed as ever. Weird how they just keep coming back. Sometimes much fatter than they ever were. But why question your beliefs? Yo-yo clients are a cash cow for you.
Pushing the Gluttony and Sloth argument has been a great racket for you and your industry, so congratulations to you. The rest of us have chosen not to buy that crap anymore, with much more lasting benefits, if you choose to read the literature. Sorry that you're losing customers to the truth. That would piss me off too!
@gunther
Did I ever say that I believe LC is not working? I think it works pretty well and is obviously very effective in glucose intolerant individuals.
I just think it's not necessary for everyone and that many claims are not valid ( more insulin is making us more fat, calorie don't matter, you can eat more on a LC diet than on any other iso-caloric diet, carbs are responsible of insulin resistance, obesity, met synd, etc.) To me, that extreme and reductionnist view is counter productive and is leading us nowhere. The truth is always in the grey area, never in the extreme.
I'm reading the litterature, thank you. My master degree paper which is going to be published soon is on the effect of low-carb meal on insulin sensitivity in elderly people after a bout of exercice. I've read the litterature about it, you can be sure of this.
You're right about something, tho', gunther, and this shall be my last answer here. At the end of the day, it all comes down to what work for one individual, and debating who's right or wrong and why/how it works is actually pretty useless. I'm glad you had the results you were after by using this method.
Now, i'm off making money with my clients by telling them to drink olive oil and put butter on their bacon :) hehe, just kidding.
Thanks for the exchange, and sorry to anyone who feel like i've hi-jack this comment section. My apologize gunther if i've been rude. I actually wish we could have had a civilised debate and learn from our different perspective and experience.
"At the end of the day, it all comes down to what work for one individual, and debating who's right or wrong and why/how it works is actually pretty useless."
You said it perfectly. Ultimately on a personal level, it's the results that count, whether insulin takes you there or whatever else we discover in the future.
No need to apologise! I love the debate because it helps me solidify some of my knowledge and of course complement it with new stuff from others. Low carb really isn't a cult for me, just a working procedure until something more convincing comes along.
Much luck on your masters' degree paper, Frank. Make us proud! :-)
Okay, duh, Kurt's irony went ==whoosh== right over my head. Had to look up Godwin's law, too! :)
Listen, one reason the (ironic) Auschwitz + diabetes statement caught my attention was that years ago, when I was but a child, a Serb friend of the family who survived the concentration camps, told us that they had to be very, very careful when refeeding the rescued, starved survivors or they could die from the refeeding.
I never understood it as a child, and quite frankly, I'm not sure I understand the meaning now, either.
O.K. you Taubes nut-swingers (Dr Harris, you're excused!), does the name Richard Nikoley ring any bells?
See http://freetheanimal.com/?s=%22Martin+Berkhan%22
Who's going to tell him their opinion of Martin Berkhan? Good luck with that. :-D
@NIgel
Although you have excused me, I will say I have no problem believing Berkhan gets good results. For him to do so does not contradict anything I believe, even if it is more proprietary and costly than a much simpler protocol that is free. IF, fasting workouts and lifting heavy weight can get you to very low body fat and high strength. I've done it myself. It does take some discipline, of course.
Whether we would agree on exactly how his results work or not is besides the point.
Obesity and thinness are physical signs, not diseases per se, and so there is certainly more than one way to skin a cat when losing fat, getting "ripped" etc.
There is in my mind no conflict between believing insulin mediates some of the effects of a low carb diet and believing that high carb refeeds combined with IF and weight training is also highly effective.
And shame on you for not updating everything you ever wrote on the internet in real time ; )
LOL. Another tidal wave of immaturity which only "Carbsane" can provide. Gotta love it.
Someone ought to hook her up to a blood pressure monitor, say the word "Taubes", and see how many points her BP rises. We could even place bets beforehand. :-)
Schwarzeneggar looked great, but is sporting a pig's aorta now which he has to get changed every 10 years or so. Mike Mentzer bit the dust at 50.
Not saying Richard shouldn't follow Berkhan's routine or anyone else's, just that longevity profiles don't show muscles (at least bodybuilder style) having anything to do with long life or good health. Many centenarians don't even exercise.
@ Gunther
Exercise works via hormesis, whether it is "cardio" or weight lifting. If we accept this, then two things follow
1) Planned exercise (versus just physical activity) is not NECESSARY to health, but may enhance it. In my view diet and sleep are way more important
2) Excessive exercise, whether weight training or running, or whatever, may do more harm than good. I think Arnold had a congenital bicuspid valve, AFAIR, so he might be excused. And I think cardio is more a source of ox stress than resistance, but you can overdo anything. Certainly weight lifting and cross fit have a non-trivial injury rate. I had an AC joint separation while weight lifting in college. There is still a bone spur there from the injury. And no, I was not "doing it wrong" : )
Kurt, yes hormesis is the best explanation for why exercise has beneficial effects on insulin resistance, mitochondrial function, etc.
Using that logic, would other hormetic tools (things as mundane as chili powder, cocoa, bacteria from fermented foods, etc.) be just as useful? I admit it, I'm trying to wriggle my way out of exercising.
Simply for health and longevity, not for muscle tone, looks, etc., then one could conceivably set up a hormetic routine which would confer the benefits of hormesis without the strain and possible injury risk of exercise.
@gunther
If you are a rock climber that looks like perfect exercise to me. I was one in my younger days and it beats the gym in every way/
Kurt G. Harris MD said...
@NIgel
.
.
...And shame on you for not updating everything you ever wrote on the internet in real time ; )
My bad! I forgot about MySpace, as I haven't used it since I switched to Facebook. There's another page out there with out-of-date information on it, but there's sweet-FA I can do about it as the BBC changed my ID number.
Finally, shame on you for starting a sentence with "And" ;-D
Frank said:
I'm reading the litterature, thank you. My master degree paper which is going to be published soon is on the effect of low-carb meal on insulin sensitivity in elderly people after a bout of exercice. I've read the litterature about it, you can be sure of this.
Dozens of similar studies have already been performed before eg:
Diabetes Care. 2010 May;33(5):969-76. Epub 2010 Feb 11.
A high-protein diet with resistance exercise training improves weight loss and body composition in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes.
Ann Nutr Metab. 2009;55(4):326-33. Epub 2009 Oct 16.
Exercise training and dietary glycemic load may have synergistic effects on insulin resistance in older obese adults.
Low carb diets are more effective according to these studies.
Kurt,
enlightened exercise physiologists now use very low weights.
The neuromechanical principle of orderly recruitment means that an exercise performed very slowly using a light weight will still fatigue all the muscle fibres.
There is also no need to exercise a muscle over the full range of movement. A 25-50% range of movement is just as effective and far safer.
Recent science also suggests that resistance training should only be performed once every 7-14 days.
@Blogblog
you said:
"enlightened exercise physiologists now use very low weights."
Well, they may use them, but there is no way in heck they will get you to be maximally strong without lifting heavy.
When I benched only my body weight (155), I got to where I could do 18 or so reps but my 1RM was only 185 or so.
About an hour ago I did 7 reps at 195 and 5 at 200 lbs. I've done 3 at 210 before. My 1RM did not go from 185 to an estimated 220 until I went to fewer reps with more weight. I am going to have to go with Jones, McGuff etc on this one. And I still weigh only 158 lbs.
"Recent science also suggests that resistance training should only be performed once every 7-14 days."
Well, that depends, too. If you don't go to complete failure, which is actually much harder than people think, 2x per week is much better than once a week to increase strength. I definitely agree that 5 days a week is overkill, though.
@Kurt,
have you read anything published in the scientific literature in last 20 years on resistance training eg biomechanics and neuromechanics?
Well, they may use them, but there is no way in heck they will get you to be maximally strong without lifting heavy.
Not true. As long as the correct neuromuscular adaptations occur you will get strong. It doesn't matter whether this occurs with light or heavy weights. Your motor cortex can't remember the actual weights involved.
Most gym heavy lifting actually involves kinetic energy, muscular coordination and "cheats" using additional muscle groups rather than actual strength. Most bodybuilders can lift far less weight when they are required to perform an exercise "strictly" eg performing a benchpress without jerking, arching their back or lifting their of the floor.
When I benched only my body weight (155), I got to where I could do 18 or so reps but my 1RM was only 185 or so.
The first 15-16 reps only fatigue some of the fibres. That is because you are doing the reps too fast.
If you had done the 155lb sufficiently slowly you still would still have only been able to do one rep. In fact you can fatigue yourself using only 20lbs (or less) if you do one extremely slow fully controlled rep. I suggest you try it one day.
Well, that depends, too. If you don't go to complete failure, which is actually much harder than people think, 2x per week is much better than once a week to increase strength. I definitely agree that 5 days a week is overkill, though.
If you perform 5-10 reps very slowly eg 10sec up and 20sec down you will completely fatigue your muscles. In fact you will barely be able to move afterwards.
Olympic lifters only do 1-3 reps to gain maximal strength.
Partial reps are far more biomechanically efficient than full reps because all muscles have maximal strength over only a limited range of movement. Using a 45 degree range of movement in a biceps curl is far more effective than using a full range because you can use a much heavier weight or a slower rep.
Super Slow, the Matrix Method and similar techniques all rely on actual published science (low weights, slow reps and limited ROM) not locker room gossip by uneducated steroid-crazed meatheads.
Incredible comment thread.
@CarbSane
I'm not a woman, but I have always had problems with fat. I got fat running the two mile and cross country events in high school (while eating low-fat at the recommendation of my doctor since my mom had high cholesterol). My cholesterol got worse and I got fatter, in spite of taking up triathlons and doing a half iron man where I ran 6 or 7 minute miles. My BMI was nearly 30 at this point.
Then I stumbled across this Arthur Devany fellow talking this strangely reasonable "evolutionary" diet and its only gotten better from there.
While I never lost weight on paleo I dropped my cholesterol from 256 (scans here http://www.geekbeast.com/2011/03/25/how-far-weve-come-part-2/)
down to 196 (60 point drop, +20 HDL, -80 LDL). My triglycerides went from 128 to 59.
Yet I still did not lose weight. Only recently have I hit a two year low of 225 during my experiment, where I have been consuming 5000 calories a day (>~60% fat). I don't intend to keep this up forever as forcing myself to drink heavy cream and eat 2 lbs of lamb in one sitting for 2 months on end is almost as hard as calorie restriction on a high carb diet.
CS you maybe the one person a high-fat diet doesn't work for weight loss, but there's so many people that have dramatically improved their health as a result of Taubes that at most all you are accomplishing is preventing someone who might benefit from ever pursuing an avenue of investigation that might change their life.
@ Kurt, Chris, Peter keep up the good fight!
@blogblog
Just saw your post arguing with Kurt. As a competitive powerlifter with a shot at setting the state record for raw squat this July-- all I can say is you are arguing about the wrong thing. I don't see an established metric for "maximal strength". High intensity training using super slow methods causes an entirely different type of development and adaptation than say olympic lifts. Muscle fibers can adapt (and there is some limited conversion between type 2a and 2b, but don't quote me on that).
and convert If you don't build enough fast twitch fiTry doing super slow for a year then try doing a 200 lb or 300 lb snatch. I incorporate super slow into my workout routines, but try doing super slow for a 315 squat... I had a friend who used to do world's strongest man competitions that tried and he can't squat anymore, because he blew out his knee.
As a powerlifter you train with good form, because even shifting your foot in a competition during a lift will disqualify you. So I understand your statement of most heavy lifters in a gym can't do nearly as much weight with good form. However, just because there's a few idiots who don't know what they're doing doesn't mean that high intensity training will build "maximal strength".
I want to see someone doing super slow at 225 ever lift 475 or 500.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKTzWFmSD-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQRcqlMXU4g
As a foreigner in the USA, I really enjoy the variety of verbal choices during your heated exchange. No irony. While working for the hovercraft building company , I mostly encountered heated conversations (never directed at me) between guys retired from the Navy . In language sense it was boring - all adjectives and most noons started with the letter "F". The nutritional crowd is much more creative in that regard.
@blogblog
Those studies are short term. Show me the study that says the light and slow lifter is stronger after years.
If I max out in 3 weeks and want to do my best, I'm not going to prepare with high intensity every week.
If you perform 5-10 reps very slowly eg 10sec up and 20sec down you will completely fatigue your muscles. In fact you will barely be able to move afterwards.
His set lasts 30 seconds, your set lasts 30 seconds, you both use 155, and you both reach fatigue. Please help me understand how your set is superior.
Regardless, If I want to improve my 40 I'm not going to run a marathon. Just because the marathon would create greater soreness and fatigue doesn't mean it's going to make me more powerful. 1RM and applications of high power are done over a very short peroid of time. Ask any successful olympic thrower of the value of training with heavy implements. Heavier weights build specific strength relative to the target.
Most gym heavy lifting actually involves kinetic energy, muscular coordination and "cheats" using additional muscle groups rather than actual strength. Most bodybuilders can lift far less weight when they are required to perform an exercise "strictly" eg performing a benchpress without jerking, arching their back or lifting their of the floor.
So you lift less weight if you use less muscle. Wow. However, I didn't know that you could lift without creating kinetic energy. You must be refering to the exercise where you stand there and do nothing.
Super Slow, the Matrix Method and similar techniques all rely on actual published science (low weights, slow reps and limited ROM) not locker room gossip by uneducated steroid-crazed meatheads.
This sounds good. I'll keep listening to the athletes that actually get strong and you can keep listening to the pencil and paper pushers. When it comes to "actual published science" I consider a stronger athlete to be the gold standard.
@Blogblog
Settle down, for Christ's sake.
I don't want to argue about it but you know damned well - unless you YOU'VE never read any papers at all -there are plenty of experts and opinions on every side of every issue in exercise and there is plenty of research that supports what i said, as well as my own exprerience, which is what really matters anyway, isn't it?
I bench press 220 at a weight of 158. I got there with heavy weights. Plenty of people support the way I did it, including MCGuff and Drew Baye. Are you saying they know nothing? My results are what happened. Period.
And how the hell do you know how fast I did anything? Were you watching me? Another uninvited diagnosis over the internet...
Yes, I've read papers on exercise science. And no, I don't care to get into a pissing match with you about it here. I disagree with you. The end.
How come anytime someone gives an opinion on exercise, it has to be treated as a throw-down? Christ, the diet world is all love and flowers compared to you exercise freaks.
I had Fred Hahn (Mr superslow or slowburn or whatever the gimmick is now) attack me on my own blog for having the balls to actually perform snatches. Didn't I know I would ruin my shoulders? I also eat potatoes now and then. I am still slim and my shoulders work perfectly.
I am not Lyle McDonald and neither are you - I hope.
@ Frank:
"Find me someone in the LC community who has gotten these kind of results."
Well, I'm not a bodybuilder, so I wasn't trying to be Martin Berkhan.
Also, as far as I know, Martin has never been obese, has he? So exactly what "results" are you talking about?
Low-carb plus some exercise took me down 60 pounds in weight--down 70 pounds of fat and up 10 pounds of lean--and left me at 12% body fat. Measured by multiple hydrostatic weighings. Hydrostatic isn't perfect, but it's as good as anything around (it's one of the ways they calibrated DEXA.
To tell the truth, I think I got BETTER results than Martin. I was overweight, ill, and, on the day I started eating low-carb, had a blood pressure measurement in the doctor's office of 181/111. I am now normotensive, a healthy weight, and in pretty good shape...at 57.
And I did that while eating as "gluttonously" as I wanted. Note the key phrase "as I wanted." I never deliberately ate more food than I wanted, which for some reason has become the definition of "gluttony" for those upset with Taubes.
In first year biochemistry (way back in 1987) I was taught that the assigned caloric values for protein (4Cal/g), fat (9Cal/g) and carbohydrate (4Cal/g) are only very crude approximations not exact values.
The idea that a a calorie is a calorie is simply a myth perpetuated by nutrition researchers who don't really understand chemistry or physics.
So-called "isocaloric" diets in practice rarely contain the same usable energy. Each individual fatty acid, amino acid or carbohydrate molecule has a (significantly) different energy value when metabolised. This is not the same as the calculated value.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 52, 770-776, Copyright © 1990 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc
Energy content of diets of variable amino acid composition.
ME May and JO Hill
Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37232-2230.
Variation in the distribution of dietary nitrogen among the different amino acids is one factor that can modify the calorie equivalent per weight of amino acid or protein. This is important to consider when experimental diets with different amino acid compositions are compared and when indirect calorimetry is used to determine substrate oxidation rates. We developed a computer program to compute the energy content, oxygen equivalent, and respiratory quotient for arbitrary mixtures of amino acids and representative carbohydrates and fats. The calorie content of individual free amino acids was calculated by correction of the heat of combustion for the incomplete oxidation of amino acids characteristic of humans. Although these computations were presented before, we not report the limit of applicability of published values and the availability of the computer program to do these calculations.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 42, 769-777, Copyright © 1985 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc
Whole body oxidation of dietary fatty acids: implications for energy utilization
PJ Jones, PB Pencharz and MT Clandinin
Whole body oxidation of dietary stearic, oleic, and linoleic acid was measured in males consuming a test diet of normal foods at a level commensurate with energy requirements for 16 days. Labeled stearic, oleic or linoleic acid was consumed with the breakfast meal on either day 8, 11, or 14. Breath samples were analyzed for total CO2 content and 13CO2 abundance. Breath enrichment of 13CO2 after ingestion of labeled substrate was calculated over background 13C abundance with diet only and expressed as fraction of substrate dose absorbed. Fecal excretion of labeled and diet fatty acids was determined for pooled stool collections. Stearic, oleic, and linoleic acids were separated from fecal fat extracts and combusted to determine 13CO2 enrichment over background. Both dietary and labeled stearic acid were less well absorbed than either oleic or linoleic acids. At hours 7-9 after ingestion of the labeled breakfast, significant differences in percent of absorbed dose excreted in breath were observed between all three fatty acids. Significant differences were observed in apparent amounts of labeled oleate, linoleate, and stearate oxidized after 3 to 9 h. This difference in fatty acid oxidation challenges the assumption that dietary fat is oxidized at a rate independent of its long chain fatty acid composition.
@Kurt Harris:
No one with any expertise in exercise science would consider McGuff an expert. Body By Science is deceptively titled. It should have been called Just Another Book About Exercise Written By A Physician. It is full of extremely basic errors such as the non-existent Type IIAB muscle fibres. Many of his references are outdated and of poor quality.
I accept that McGuff has some good ideas but he also spouts a lot of nonsense. He should have had his work fact-checked by real experts before publication.
@gunther: We're talking 3 different periods. 40 the first, 60-70 the second, and 80+ (probably 100) this last time. I have maintained and lost a little more slowly for going on 3 years now. My about me deals just with this last weight loss effort. But I still would like to lose more.
@Jay: I see your point, but I don't think any of that is really that stressing on a teenager. Still, should have used adults and I'm surprised as well.
I know why Peter referenced the rat paper, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the human study.
So it is with Grey and Kipnis' paper on the irrelevance of fasting insulin to weight loss. It leads back to a rat paper (aren't you surprised!).
So???? How does the rat paper change the results of the human study?
I often skip over the introductions and such (and come back to them later) because I think reading bias ahead of time can skew one's view of the science. I'm interested in if the methods are sound and what they show.
Todd Becker of Getting Stronger brought this paper to my attention in his defense of eating carbs -> hyperinsulinemia. But those graphs practically leap off the page at you. How can anyone look at them and still conclude that "fasting insulin determines weight loss". That was the intended purpose of my post on Peter's potato diet post: That one should make the hypothesis or whatever you want to call it fit the evidence, not have to massage the evidence to fit a hypothesis.
Peter and Chris say that G&K designed a study to get their desired result. I ask how? They seem to have controlled the intake pretty well, measured the fasting insulin levels and weight. They didn't manipulate the insulin levels pharmaceutically and there were no amputations or liposuctions involved so the logical conclusion based on the evidence is that fasting insulin levels have nothing independently to do with weight loss.
@blogblog: Considering how Atwater factors were determined (in 3 people if memory serves) it is remarkable how well they seem to hold up "on average". There are certainly tweaks that can have one eating basically the same foods and extracting different amounts of calories from them. Most of these seem to relate to digestion/absorption, however, and less (though not all) due to metabolism. Different amino acids when used for energy enter the "engine" at different places (http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/06/protein-for-energy.html) so obviously there are subtle differences in the energy requirement to feed them in and what point they enter (that determines how many ATP's are ultimately generated), but it seems to average out for those eating a variety of proteins. Whey isolate alone might well be different from both a digestion and amino acid profile of whole steak or salmon.
Same goes for fat. If someone SUBSTITUTES coconut oil for the long chain fats in their diet, they might lose a little. More if they substitute MCT oil. Why? MCT oil is somewhere closer to 8 cal/g vs. 9.
There IS something to the "whole" food thing. We even get more (slightly) from ground beef burgers than from a steak.
@CarbSane
I went to your site and read your post on Gary Taubes linked further up the page.
If I recall GCBC correctly he presents data points of folks who consume an extremely large amount of protein/fat calories and lose weight.
I'm wrapping up on my 5000 calorie a day overfeeding experiment where I've lost twenty pounds. I'm obviously only a sample size of 1, but I'm really curious as to what your explanation for what I'm experiencing.
I'm not a marathon runner and I work 1 to 2 days a week for thirty minutes to an hour.
Carbsane said
I know why Peter referenced the rat paper, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the human study.
So it is with Grey and Kipnis' paper on the irrelevance of fasting insulin to weight loss. It leads back to a rat paper (aren't you surprised!).
So???? How does the rat paper change the results of the human study?
It doesn't change the results but it illuminates them. It lets the rat out of the bag by showing that the attempt to make the lowcarb/high fat rats eat the same amount as the highcarb rats failed - so they had to do it the other way around: i.e. give the high carb rats only as much as the lowcarb rats were hungry enough to eat.
It also explains how they got the idea for the human experiment. They mention again in the discussion part of the rat paper about how they think the hyperinsulinaemia of obesity is due to all the carbs eaten by the obese rather than a consequence of being obese and then they set out to prove it in the human experiment.
And they do this by locking up teenagers and only allowing them a liquid diet for the best part of 3 months. And they show this because they FIX calories. When the liquid diet is only 1500 kcal the girls lose weight because they are given nothing else to eat - they have two options -drink their 1500 calories or drink even less than 1500 calories. I imagine they were pretty hungry on at least one of those diets....
@Blogblog
I am with you on the impossibility of knowing the exact caloric value of food. It is possible to eat too much or little, but it is nonsense to think you can ever know what you eat precisely enough for that alone to account for fat mass over time.
Fat mass is regulated within environmental parameters, only one of which is caloric intake, which is IMPOSSIBLE to know with enough precision for that alone to account for stability of fat mass.
That is why it is not only a tautology to talk about CICO, it is literally unknowable what is happening on either side of the equation with more than about 10% precision in the real world.
22-year old gorgeous RawFoodSOS.com lady does apparently-obsessive shock-and-awe attacks against poorly-concealed lies by a Vegan; receives massive homage from the LC blogosphere.
(self-identified) post-menopausal chubby lady does the same against poorly-concealed lies by Gary Taubes; receives a firestorm of hatred.
CS, you should have done your schtick 30 years ago when you still had your looks; Dr KGH would be begging for a date, not crying that you hurt the feeling of his friend.
Post a Comment