Low Carb Diets

[bugged bunny]

You not think that is more down to them being outdoors for longer than the average person ? Not only their jobs but many earn good money and have serious amounts of time in lovely sunny places ?

That's another factor besides extreme oxidative stress!

[ccc]

That's another factor besides extreme oxidative stress!

That one is beyond me !! I may have to venture to google to teach me.

[Scunnered]

There is no evidence to suggest that our ancestors were more physically active than us, there is also no evidence that they had anywhere near the same activity patterns of the typical modern gym junkie or jogging fanatic.

Can you provide any justification for these statements? I'm just about willing to buy the second part, but the bit in bold seems distinctly improbable.

Edit: a moment's googling finds a paper from the Medical Journal of Australia whose abstract says

OBJECTIVE: To compare activity levels between a simulated "historical" lifestyle and a "modern" lifestyle to try to validate earlier estimates of secular changes in activity. DESIGN: Triaxial accelerometers (TRACMORs) were used to measure activity levels in a "historical" group of seven male actors who were paid to live like early Australian settlers at a theme park north of Sydney (eg, minimising the use of modern technology) for a week. Results were compared with those from a group of seven "modern" sedentary office workers. RESULTS: Activity levels were up to 2.3 times greater in the historical group than the modern group. Calculations based on body weight and energy expenditure suggest the difference is the equivalent of walking up to 16 km per day more in the past than today. CONCLUSIONS: These findings accord with two previous estimates of changes in daily activity levels over time and suggest that recent public health guidelines for increasing physical activity may be inadequate.

OK, that's not conclusive, but it's in direct opposition to your statement above. I'm sure that there's plenty of direct evidence as well, such as skeletons from archaeological excavations which show a great deal of wear and tear, consistent with high levels of physical activity.

[Scunnered]

I knew this would get a bite, I'm talking about cave dwellers...................

So am I. What were they doing all day if they weren't out and about?

[Cogs]

Low carb diets do work but really short of ketosis (which you don't want) its calorific restriction one way or another. Same as all other diets that help people lose weight. All you are doing really is restricting your diet, and the net result is you don't stuff as much food down your neck. There isn't any special voodoo going on.

Ultimately quacks and snakeoil salesmen can say what they like, thermodynamics always wins against any and all. Just pick something that isn't going to leave you deprived of nutrients.

[ccc]

So am I. What were they doing all day if they weren't out and about?

I am having the same thoughts. I am getting a distinct feeling from many on this thread. You don't have to exercise more. Short periods of anearobic exercise are best for you. It is your body that makes you lazy and overweight, rather than the other way around. All heading in the same direction as far as I can see....

It's not my fault I am a fat ******* !!

Amazing how many people have this view, simply have enough, get a grip of themself, take up exercise, eat less and lose loads of weight, get far more energy and feel and look much better.

Amazing how simple it all is for many people that can be arsed putting the effort in. IMO people are looking for a complicated solution to a very simple problem.

Eat less* + exercise more = result. Very simple.

* Depending on how much exercise you do of course.

[ccc]

In the old days we needed our health to survive and what tended to get us was environmental factors such as disease ,trauama, predators and childbirth. These factors occured irrespective of our fitness level.

With the rate of technoligical improvements we have managed to puit a bit of distance beteen us and the above factors and our life expectancy has soared in that past century. Advances in meidcation come nowhere near advances in technology and it is technology alone that hasmostly increaaed our life expectancy. What we are seeing now in the lifestyle diseases is that we as humans have not yet adapted to our current environments. As we start to adapt people will start living leven longer 120, 150 who knows but one key will be understanding teh differnece between health and fitness.

I totally agree that we will adapt/evolve. We may become a species that does not require as much exercise to 'keep fit'. However as of today it is clear that general exercising does people more good than bad. As for living longer ? I don't see that as a major benefit myself. Our bodies are living longer but our brains are not keeping up. I really don't think having a population of 120 year old vegetables is any sort of progress.

[Scunnered]

I guess it is difficult to answer this with concrete evidence which was partly the point I was trying to make. Sure We do know that we evolved as an orgnaism that had to expend energy to aquire energy. Mostly worked based for shelter and food which required a minimal level of activity with short bursts of high energy and intensity muscular exertion. A balance was struck to provide for our survival.

That's more like it. I was rather put out by your statement that there is "no evidence to suggest that our ancestors were more physically active than us". I think there's plenty of evidence, and it all points towards high levels of physical activity throughout human history. For instance, you can look at people's bones. The more active you are, the denser your bones become (and conversely: think about osteoporosis); you can also look at things like joint wear and so on, and all of this suggests that the majority of people were highly active in the past. This is even more true in the distant past, when you had to spend a huge amount of time just obtaining enough food to stay alive. There's plenty of other evidence as well: in palaeolithic times it seems pretty clear that the majority of the human population were nomadic, moving from place to place to take advantage of seasonal availability of plants and animals, and they had to travel long distances taking all their stuff with them (this is where caves come in: I think that these were mostly used for temporary shelter when people happened to be in the area (this is confirmed by the fact that most of the debris is seasonal), but they weren't permanent residences). There's plenty of anthropological evidence from "primitive" societies as well (Australian aboriginals for example), who uniformly spend a lot of their time doing stuff. You can also look at the behaviour patterns of other species, and so on.

It doesn't matter anyhos as its all about adapting to our current lifestyle which I think we all agree is diffrent from then.

Absolutely. I'm with you 100% on that one.

[dgj]

Low carb or zero carb is a good way to start burning fat but on its own without exercise all you will do is lose water retention.

So a low or zero carb diet IMO will work when combined with exercise as you'll be burning more fat as opposed to the usual carbs

[swissy_fit]

Why wouldn't you want ketosis ?

Hard to believe that anything that smells/tastes that bad can be good for you.

I'll leave it to the chemists to explain what's happening exactly, preferably not in Atkins-style pseudoscience.

[swissy_fit]

I am having the same thoughts. I am getting a distinct feeling from many on this thread. You don't have to exercise more. Short periods of anearobic exercise are best for you. It is your body that makes you lazy and overweight, rather than the other way around. All heading in the same direction as far as I can see....

It's not my fault I am a fat ******* !!

Amazing how many people have this view, simply have enough, get a grip of themself, take up exercise, eat less and lose loads of weight, get far more energy and feel and look much better.

Amazing how simple it all is for many people that can be arsed putting the effort in. IMO people are looking for a complicated solution to a very simple problem.

Eat less* + exercise more = result. Very simple.

* Depending on how much exercise you do of course.

+1

Eat less.

Do more.

Stop whining.

[King Stromba]

I have thought about it. You are still talking nonsense. People are not controlled by their bodies. They are controlled by their minds. If you want to NOT eat more ? Up to you. Your brain is afterall in control of this. If you want to maximise physical exercise ? Again. Up to you.

I am afraid you are wrong. Lazy people are often fat and non lazy people are often not fat. End of story. Facts speak for themselves I am afraid. No detailed explanation of biochemistry will change this.

You are simply blinkered by the propaganda that you have been brought up with. Fat people who are insulin insensitive have a medical condition. Their carbohydrate metabolism doesnt function in a normal way, doctors would say they have a pathology. This pathology is the cause, not the result of their eating habits. The brain uses a system of feedback mechanisms to control weight, appatite and metabolisms. When insulin levels are artificially elevated due to pathology, this system stops working.

The old paradigm stated that:

If you eat it and dont burn it, you store it.

This is wrong.

The new paradigm states that:

If you store it and the body wont let you burn it, then you must eat it.

If you want me to show you the resaerch that proves that weight gain leads to overeating and apathy, then i can. There are some good studies that show that if you overeat and dont have a pathology, the body simply lowers your apatite and increases your metabolism, preventing you from gaining weight. In some people this regulation doesnt work, because of a genetic disorder.

[King Stromba]

Low carb diets do work but really short of ketosis (which you don't want) its calorific restriction one way or another. Same as all other diets that help people lose weight. All you are doing really is restricting your diet, and the net result is you don't stuff as much food down your neck. There isn't any special voodoo going on.

Ultimately quacks and snakeoil salesmen can say what they like, thermodynamics always wins against any and all. Just pick something that isn't going to leave you deprived of nutrients.

Ketosis is perfectly normal. You make high levels of ketones every morning after a 8-10 hour fast. What is damaging is ketoacidosis, which is a dangerously high level of ketones which results in acidosis of the blood and a lowering of pH. Doctors confuse the two, either on purpose to scare people, or by accident because of ignorance.

In a non-diseased person ketoacidosis will not develop. The body will quite happily flip into and out of ketosis as and when it needs to. The brain will quite hapily use ketones as a substrate for energy, as will all neurones.

High fat. low carb diets dont work because of calorific restriction. The literature is quite clear on this. Restricting calories causes the body to reduce metabolism and wont result in weight loss. High fat, low carb diets work by removing the underlying pathology that caused the weight gain, ie insulin insensitivity.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Why wouldn't you want ketosis ?

There was a TV program on in the UK a few years ago which explored the Atkins diet and in particular the claim that being in ketosis helped weight loss. Adult male twins were used in an experiment where one ate normally and the other went into ketosis having followed the Atkins Plan. There was no difference in the speed at which calories were burnt between the two (tested in lab conditions).

I agree that lo-carb is a good idea for losing weight, but IMO this has nothing to do with ketosis.

[King Stromba]

I am having the same thoughts. I am getting a distinct feeling from many on this thread. You don't have to exercise more. Short periods of anearobic exercise are best for you. It is your body that makes you lazy and overweight, rather than the other way around. All heading in the same direction as far as I can see....

It's not my fault I am a fat ******* !!

Amazing how many people have this view, simply have enough, get a grip of themself, take up exercise, eat less and lose loads of weight, get far more energy and feel and look much better.

Amazing how simple it all is for many people that can be arsed putting the effort in. IMO people are looking for a complicated solution to a very simple problem.

Eat less* + exercise more = result. Very simple.

* Depending on how much exercise you do of course.

If you actually analyse how many calories you burn during exercise it becomes very clear that exercise itself is not what causes weight loss. Running for 10 minutes at 12 minute mile pace burns about 90 calories. Even if you ran 10 minutes everyday you would only burn an additional 630 calories in a week.

The main problem with this is that it has been proven time and agin in studies that exercise stimulates appetite. So the more you exercise the more you eat. Burn an extra 630 calories and your body will make you eat them.

Go to any gym and you will see fat people running and they will look the same this year as they did last year. Exercise doesnt reduce weight. What does reduce weight is speeding your metabolism. The speed of which is related to your muscle mass, and your bodies perceived fuel input.

In other word, to speed your metabolisms and lose weight you have to EAT MORE, and increase LEAN MUSCLE MASS via ANAREOBIC exercise. The thing is people with insulin insensitivity have a condition that makes the fuel enter fat cells and not muscle cells, so the body thinks they have less fuel and LOWERS metabolism if they eat more and it is carbohydrate. They must first cut carbs, to allow mobilisation of free fatty acids for muscle fuel. Once the body detect adeqyuate fuel in the muscle it will increase metabolic rate in response to additional fuel take in the form of food. The anaerobic exercise will also allow more tolerance of carbohydrate foods because anaerobic exercise improves insulin receptor function and glucose transport into myocytes.

In sumary, if people with insulin insensitivity exercise more:

this causes increased appetite

Increased food intake gets stored as fat because of insunlin insensitive muscle tissue

Which makes the body think its starving as the muscles have too little fuel

Which causes reduced metabolism, lethargy, and stimulation of appetite

Which causes snacking on carbohydrate foods

Which further worsens insulin resistance

So the more they exercise the lower the metabolism gets

The only way to break this cycle and increase metabolisms and reduce appetite is to stop carbs.

[swissy_fit]

Still wondering why the other poster says that you dont want ketosis.

Because it makes your mouth smell/taste like someone has left a dead rat in it?

[King Stromba]

Low carb or zero carb is a good way to start burning fat but on its own without exercise all you will do is lose water retention.

So a low or zero carb diet IMO will work when combined with exercise as you'll be burning more fat as opposed to the usual carbs

Ecercise is a means to an end. You lose weight when you exercise because you generally build lean mass which raises metabolic rate. Even aerobic exercise will build a small amount of lean mass. The exercise itself is meanigless unless its savage and back breaking, in which case youll die of a heart attack due to stress.

Go on a bike for 10 minutes and you will burn off the equivalent calories of a low fat yoghart. That is insignificant when you compare it to the amount of calories the body uses for normal cellular processes during the course of a day. Increase the cellular turnover by allowing the body to speed its own metabolism and you can burn thousands of calories more in a day.

I once calulated that i was eating 2000 additional calories every day, after increasing my lean mass by 20 lbs. The actual exercise i was doing was only weight training 3 times a week for 30 mins, or a total of 1.5 hours ecxercise a week and three quartres of that time was rest between sets. Not everyone will be the same, but it gives you an indication of the calories that your body can turn to heat during normal metabolism is far higher than it needs to sit on a bike for 30 min every day.

[King Stromba]

Because it makes your mouth smell/taste like someone has left a dead rat in it?

Ive never come acorss this in 15 years.

[ccc]

You are simply blinkered by the propaganda that you have been brought up with. Fat people who are insulin insensitive have a medical condition.

I am talking about fat people in general. Sure some will have a medical excuse. However the majority do not. They are simply lazy and eat too much.

As for exercising, using calories, eating etc. ?

I eat what I want, when I want, because I exercise loads. Simple. It works. And it works for everyone else I know who follows the same plan.

Maybe we are all just extra lucky..

[King Stromba]

There was a TV program on in the UK a few years ago which explored the Atkins diet and in particular the claim that being in ketosis helped weight loss. Adult male twins were used in an experiment where one ate normally and the other went into ketosis having followed the Atkins Plan. There was no difference in the speed at which calories were burnt between the two (tested in lab conditions).

I agree that lo-carb is a good idea for losing weight, but IMO this has nothing to do with ketosis.

If you base your opiniuon on a tv show you can only remember the bare details of years ago, id say you probably should get yourself into the argument for or against ketosis as a weight control system.

[swissy_fit]

If you actually analyse how many calories you burn during exercise it becomes very clear that exercise itself is not what causes weight loss. Running for 10 minutes at 12 minute mile pace burns about 90 calories. Even if you ran 10 minutes everyday you would only burn an additional 630 calories in a week.

Go to any gym and you will see fat people running and they will look the same this year as they did last year. Exercise doesnt reduce weight. What does reduce weight is speeding your metabolisms. The speed of which is related to your muscle mass, and your bodies perceived fuel input.

In other word, to speed your metabolisms and lose weight you have to EAT MORE, and increase LEAN MUSCLE MASS via ANAREOBIC exercise. The thing is people with insulin insensitivity have a condition that makes the fuel ener fat cells and not muscle cells, so the body thinks they have less fuel and LOWERS metabolism if they eat more and it is carbohydrate. They must first cut carbs, to allow mobilisation of free fatty acids for muscle fuel. Once the body detect adeqyuate fuel in the muscle it will increase metabolic rate in response to additional fuel take in the form of food. The anaerobic exercise will also allow more tolerance of carbohydrate foods because anaerobic exercise improves insulin receptor function and glucose transport into myocytes.

It's true, it is more rapid and efficient to increase muscle mass first with some weights/exercises before losing fat, most amateur sportspeople/athletes could testify to this. Don't see the need to change diet though.

Are you absolutely and completely sure our other organs can cope with high fat and high-protein diets?

The body is a complex machine. I knew someone with a low cholesterol count who gorged on meat, cream and sugar all the time. Low cholesterol, not too much extra weight and apparent good health. Then the gallstones started, after that a bowel cancer....

Have you considered the fact that hunter-gatherers lived strong, fit, healthy but SHORT lives?

[swissy_fit]

Ive never come acorss this in 15 years.

Well you have now, because this is what it did to both me and my then girlfriend when we did the Atkins diet a while back(before I started getting more sceptical). A truly disgusting taste, with the breath to match.

[King Stromba]

I am talking about fat people in general. Sure some will have a medical excuse. However the majority do not. They are simply lazy and eat too much.

As for exercising, using calories, eating etc. ?

I eat what I want, when I want, because I exercise loads. Simple. It works. And it works for everyone else I know who follows the same plan.

Maybe we are all just extra lucky..

How do you know the majority arn't insulin insensitive? It is a very common condition. Have you tested people or can you link to a study that has empirically measured the proportion of the polulation with insulin insensitivity?

And no. You exercise loads, because your body allows you too because it is correctly fuelled. How would you be able to exercise if both fatty acids and glucose was prevented from entering your muscles?

You wouldn't be able to. Instead you wouls sit on the sofa and rest.

The trouble with many people is that they think that because they dont suffer from a medical condition it doesnt exist. You are wrong, science proves you are wrong and anecdotally people who have lowered their carbs know you are wrong.

Were concentration camp victims just lazy? Is that why they sat around resting and had incredibly low metabolisms? Or perhaps their bodies told them to because their muscles didnt have adequate fuel? Insulin insensitive people might carry around extra apidose tissue, but if they cant tap into that tissue and release the fuel they are no different metabolically to people starving to death.

The body responds with apathy, lethargy and a desire to try to eat.

[swissy_fit]

I am talking about fat people in general. Sure some will have a medical excuse. However the majority do not. They are simply lazy and eat too much.

As for exercising, using calories, eating etc. ?

I eat what I want, when I want, because I exercise loads. Simple. It works. And it works for everyone else I know who follows the same plan.

Maybe we are all just extra lucky..

Funny - I'm like that as well. This in a family full of insulin/diabetes problems and therefore ideal candidates for this diet pseudoscience, and no I wasn't adopted!

[ccc]

How do you know the majority arn't insulin insensitive? It is a very common condition. Have you tested people or can you link to a study that has empirically measured the proportion of the polulation with insulin insensitivity?

And no. You exercise loads, because your body allows you too because it is correctly fuelled. How would you be able to exercise if both fatty acids and glucose was prevented from entering your muscles?

You wouldn't be able to. Instead you wouls sit on the sofa and rest.

The trouble with many people is that they think that because they dont suffer from a medical condition it doesnt exist. You are wrong, science proves you are wrong and anecdotally people who have lowered their carbs know you are wrong.

Were concentration camp victims just lazy? Is that why they sat around resting and had incredibly low metabolisms? Or perhaps their bodies told them to because their muscles didnt have adequate fuel? Insulin insensitive people might carry around extra apidose tissue, but if they cant tap into that tissue and release the fuel they are no different metabolically to people starving to death.

The body responds with apathy, lethargy and a desire to try to eat.

Now you are getting a little ridiculous. Concentration camp victims !!?? Not really the best comparison as to why a lot of people are lazy and fat today is it...

Look I am no expert in this matter. Never pretended to be. However I know one thing. A LOT of people make lame excuses for their weight laziness. There is no reason for their situation - apart from their own doing. If you disagree with this you clearly live in some fantasy World.