Oh well here's my two bob's worth. I consider myself to be on a "low" carb diet yet I don't count anything and I'm certainly not on an Atkins diet.

I DO eat my vegetables. I LIKE vegetables! I don't eat grains or much in the way of starches although I have recently added a little fresh fruit back into my diet such as blueberries, grapefruit and the occasional banana.
I do eat fresh meat, animal fats, plenty of homemade bone broth, full fat dairy and in my case most of it is unpasturized.

I've been losing plenty of weight lately and I can go out and ride for 2 hours powered by dairy and chicken liver pate without bonking. If I'm going out for longer than 2 hours I will take some dried fruit with me.

Will this work for everyone? NO

I have a protein/fat metabolic type so it suits me. If your a carbohydrate type it wont work. You need more carbohydrates. See http://www.mercola.com and look into the metabolic type diet. Also see my favorite reference, http://www.westonaprice.org Nothing wrong with saturated fats even if your a carbohydrate type. Saturated fats ARE the healthy fats despite everything you've heard or read. If anyone has any real science to dispute this I would like to see it because to this date it doesn't exist.

Regards, Anthony

Where are your studies proving that saturated fats are the healthy type?

Maybe from the 1950's?

Looking at the earth from your own house, you might think that the earth is flat but try looking at it "from a different angle" and things quickly change. :D

Where are your studies proving that saturated fats are unhealthy? They just don't exist. The point is that you and billions of others believe in something you don't understand and that there's no scientific evidence in existence to back. Honestly its a religious following of "Scientific" food laws. Just as Muslims and Jews don't eat pork as well as many other food laws they share and Hindi's don't eat beef it's just another food law in the name of science and that's the embarrasing thing. The scientific theory that saturated fats are harmfull is a flawed one with no scientific evidence in existence to back it but we have believed it for soo long and we have taken it so deeply into our culture that it's just too embarrasing to admit we were wrong.

My alternative view is backed by tradition. See my reference, http://www.westonaprice.org

Now tradition isn't the be all and end all of scientific evidence although to its credit its actually a VERY strong scientific position to start from. Its called CONTROL. If you ever intend to do ANY science then you need to have conducted a control study to start with.

We've had many posts on this subject so do a search.

Regards, Anthony

Huh ?
Nutrition as a science is not that old. Its not like certified nutritionists were telling Ceaser to cut back on saturated fat were they ? Heck look at old TDF posters with the guys lighting each others smokes before the hill climb, to increase their lung capacity. Old theories and ideals are not always the best, some 'new' thinking is sometimes correct.

Nutrition as a science is not that old, its still evolving, and many things are coming to light that were not known previous and are making nutritionists change their ideas. 10 years ago I never heard a single word about trans fat. Now its on almost every food packaging as a big advertising label. So is that so ingrained into our history it cant be changed also ?

I have not done the research you have, so im not about to argue one way or the other, but I do disagree that the whole saturated fat is bad idea is only carried on because its so ingrained into our history.

Correct. This whole saturated fats is bad theory is only 50 years old but its ingrained itself pretty well in that time. The best theory as to why it took off is that it stems from middle class puritanism. Consuming lots of animal fats is gluttony and therefore a sin which leads to heart disease as Gods punnishment. Scientists are trying to save our souls by encouraging a more self denying sort of diet. An alternative view is that its a conspiracy driven by the seed oil industry but I don't realy believe in this conspiracy and the gluttony/denial view is a stronger, if slightly off the wall theory.

Regards, Anthony

I will be 60 this year and I won't touch a low-carb diet with a 10 foot pole. I eat whole foods (fresh fruits,veggies,whole grains and some fish) that is much lower in cost than meat and feel great. You could lose weight on crack cocaine too.

Food for thought...

I did not originally hear about low carb dieting from a book, or TV, or a magazine, or the web. My primary care physician Dr. Samuel J Fern in Jacksonville Beach Florida had recommended I take a low carb approach to dieting when I asked him for a help. He said that it is not for everyone, but that I was a perfect candidate (for whatever reason)

I think that in time, all of you that compare low carb dieting to crack, bulimia, anorexia, and other eating disorders are going to made a fool of.

Here is a crazy idea.... how about we look at some studies instead of everyone talking SHT.

The Effects of Varying Dietary Fat on Performance and Metabolism in Trained Male and Female Runners

Horvath, P.J., Eagen, C.K., Fisher, N.M., et al., "The Effects of Varying Dietary Fat on Performance and Metabolism in Trained Male and Female Runners," Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 19(1), 2000, pages 52-60.

Summary:



The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of low-, medium- and high-fat diets on performance and metabolism in trained runners. Twelve men and 13 women, all of whom ran an average of 42 miles a week, ate a low-fat diet consisting of 16% fat for four weeks. All then switched to a medium-fat diet (31% fat) for another four weeks. A subset of six men and six women followed a high-fat diet consisting of 44% calories from fat for another four weeks. At the end of each diet, participants were tested for endurance and maximal oxygen consumption (the greatest amount of oxygen breathed per minute). Blood levels of lactate, pyruvate, glucose, glycerol, triglycerides and free fatty acids were measured before and after these tests. Runners on the low-fat diet ate 19% fewer calories than did those on the medium- or high-fat diets despite the study’s design to have all groups eat the same number of calories. Body weight, percent of body fat, maximal oxygen consumption and anaerobic power were not affected by dietary fat intake. Runners who increased dietary fat intake from 16% to 31% increased endurance time by 14%. No differences were seen in blood lactate, glucose, glycerol, triglycerides and fatty acids when comparing runners on the low- versus the medium-fat diet. Those who increased dietary fat to 44% had higher blood pyruvate and lower lactate levels after the endurance run. Researchers concluded that a high-fat diet that provides sufficient total calories does not compromise anaerobic power.


Controlled carbohydrate nutrition may improve athletic performance. Many athletes hesitate to consume a low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet for fear of detrimental effects on performance. They may be concerned with gaining weight and/or body fat or fear that burning fat rather than carbohydrate, would impair performance. This study refutes these ideas. Trained endurance runners eating more fat did not gain weight or body fat. Their oxygen consumption and anaerobic power were also not hampered in any way. Runners who ate more fat in this study actually increased endurance time.


EVEN BETTER>>>

Enhanced Endurance in Trained Cyclists During Moderate Intensity Exercise Following 2 Weeks Adaptation to a High Fat Diet

Lambert, E.V., Speechly, D.P., Dennis, S.C., et al., "Enhanced Endurance in Trained Cyclists During Moderate Intensity Exercise Following 2 Weeks Adaptation to a High Fat Diet," European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 69(4), 1994, pages 287-293.

Summary:




This study sought to compare the effects of two weeks of a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet (70% fat, 23% protein and 7% carbohydrate) with two weeks of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (74% carbohydrate, 14% protein and 12% fat) on exercise performance. Five trained cyclists were required to perform a host of cycle tests at various intensities and lengths of time. Based on the results of these tests, exercise time to exhaustion during high intensity exercise was not significantly different between groups. However, when comparing the different diet groups’ performance during moderate intensity exercise, time to exhaustion was significantly longer after subjects followed the high-fat diet, despite starting off with lower muscle glycogen content (stored glucose). Subjects in the high-fat group also had a lower respiratory quotient, indicating that they were burning fat for fuel in place of carbohydrate.


Controlled carbohydrate nutrition may improve athletic performance. Although not affecting anaerobic (high intensity) performance, a low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet significantly improved aerobic (moderate intensity) performance in trained cyclists. These individuals were able to pedal nearly 40 minutes longer than individuals eating a standard high-carbohydrate diet.

Your TRADITIONAL teachings tell you that sugars (carbs) are the key to endorance sports..... That does not make it a fact.

Here are some studies on the bad effects of saturated fats, I found many more that say saturated fats are bad for you.




Mozaffarian D. Rimm EB. Herrington DM.

Institution Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Building 2, Room 315, Boston, MA 02115; dmozaffa@hsph.harvard.edu.

Title Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women [corrected] [published erratum appears in AM J CLIN NUTR 2005 Mar;81(3):728].

Source American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004 Nov; 80(5): 1175-84. (54 ref)

Abbreviated Source AM J CLIN NUTR. 2004 Nov; 80(5): 1175-84. (54 ref)

Abstract BACKGROUND: The influence of diet on atherosclerotic progression is not well established, particularly in postmenopausal women, in whom risk factors for progression may differ from those for men. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate associations between dietary macronutrients and progression of coronary atherosclerosis among postmenopausal women. DESIGN: Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and after a mean follow-up of 3.1 y in 2243 coronary segments in 235 postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease. Usual dietary intake was assessed at baseline. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) total fat intake was 25 +/- 6% of energy. In multivariate analyses, a higher saturated fat intake was associated with a smaller decline in mean minimal coronary diameter (P = 0.001) and less progression of coronary stenosis (P = 0.002) during follow-up. Compared with a 0.22-mm decline in the lowest quartile of intake, there was a 0.10-mm decline in the second quartile (P = 0.002), a 0.07-mm decline in the third quartile (P = 0.002), and no decline in the fourth quartile (P < 0.001); P for trend = 0.001. This inverse association was more pronounced among women with lower monounsaturated fat (P for interaction = 0.04) and higher carbohydrate (P for interaction = 0.004) intakes and possibly lower total fat intake (P for interaction = 0.09). Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progression (P = 0.001), particularly when the glycemic index was high. Polyunsaturated fat intake was positively associated with progression when replacing other fats (P = 0.04) but not when replacing carbohydrate or protein. Monounsaturated and total fat intakes were not associated with progression. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression. Copyright (C) 2004 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

2005015204.

Special Fields Contained Fields available in this record: abstract, cited references.

Author Belhumeur R. Greene GW. Riebe D. Caldwell M. Ruggiero L. Stillwell K.

Institution Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island.

Title Fatty acid intake and serum lipids in overweight and obese adults: short-term effects of fat reduction, exercise, and weight loss.

Source Topics in Clinical Nutrition. 2004 Jul-Sep; 19(3): 255-64. (28 ref)

Abbreviated Source TOP CLIN NUTR. 2004 Jul-Sep; 19(3): 255-64. (28 ref)

Abstract The purpose of this observational study was to describe the relationship between dietary fatty acids and serum lipids in 154 overweight adults participating in a weight management program. Mean energy intake decreased by 252 +/- 548 kcal and weight decreased by 4.1 +/- 3.4 kg (P < .001). Total fat (% kcal), grams of polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated fat, and trans fatty acids, and saturated fat decreased as did serum lipids except for triglycerides (P <= .001). Changes in total cholesterol were correlated with alterations in all fatty acids except for saturated fatty acids; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was correlated with a change in trans fats and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was not correlated with any variables. In the multiple regression model, 3.9% of the variance in LDL-C could be explained by trans fats after controlling for the effects of other variables; a lowering of HDL-C was associated with a change in percentage of fat kilocalories. In conclusion, trans fats appear to be associated with LDL-C. Based on these findings, it is prudent to recommend that the public limit their intake of trans fats.

2002054744 NLM Unique Identifier: 11874924.

Special Fields Contained Fields available in this record: abstract.

Author van Dam RM. Willett WC. Rimm EB. Stampfer MJ. Hu FB.

Institution Department of Chronic Diseases Epidemiology, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands. E-mail: rob.van.dam@rivm.nl.

Title Dietary fat and meat intake in relation to risk of type 2 diabetes in men.

Source Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar; 25(3): 417-24. (50 ref)

Abbreviated Source DIABETES CARE. 2002 Mar; 25(3): 417-24. (50 ref)

Abstract OBJECTIVE: To examine dietary fat and meat intake in relation to risk of type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We prospectively followed 42,504 male participants of the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study who were aged 40-75 years and free of diagnosed diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer in 1986. Diet was assessed by a validated food frequency questionnaire and updated in 1990 and 1994. During 12 years of follow-up, we ascertained 1,321 incident cases of type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Intakes of total fat (multivariate RR for extreme quintiles 1.27, CI 1.04-1.55, P for trend=0.02) and saturated fat (1.34, 1.09-1.66, P for trend=0.01) were associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. However, these associations disappeared after additional adjustment for BMI (total fat RR 0.97, CI 0.79-1.18; saturated fat 0.97, 0.79-1.20). Intakes of oleic acid, trans-fat, long-chain n-3 fat, and alpha-linolenic acid were not associated with diabetes risk after multivariate adjustment. Linoleic acid was associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes in men <65 years of age (RR 0.74, CI 0.60-0.92, P for trend=0.01) and in men with a BMI <25 kg/m(2) (0.53, 0.33-0.85, P for trend=0.006) but not in older and obese men. Frequent consumption of processed meat was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes (RR 1.46, CI 1.14-1.86 for > or = 5/week vs. <1/month, P for trend <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Total and saturated fat intake were associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes, but these associations were not independent of BMI. Frequent consumption of processed meats may increase risk of type 2 diabetes.


2001081060 NLM Unique Identifier: 11252075.

Special Fields Contained Fields available in this record: abstract.

Author Brodney S. McPherson RS. Carpenter RA. Welten D. Blair SN.

Institution University of Texas-Houston, School of Public Health, Houston, TX.

Title Nutrient intake of physically fit and unfit men and women.

Source Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2001 Mar; 33(3): 459-67. (32 ref)

Abbreviated Source MED SCI SPORTS EXERC. 2001 Mar; 33(3): 459-67. (32 ref)

Abstract OBJECTIVE: Participation in physical activity and following a diet low in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol and high in fiber are important in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease and other health problems. Despite the importance of both behaviors, little is known about the interactive role of diet and physical activity. The association between physical activity and diet has been studied, but data on the association between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), which is an objective measure of habitual physical activity, and diet are lacking in adults. This report examines nutrient intakes of men and women across low, moderate, and high fitness categories and compares the intakes to national dietary recommendations. It is the first step in examining the relationship between diet, CRF, and morbidity and mortality endpoints in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study (ACLS). METHODS: Between 1987 and 1995, 7959 men and 2453 women participating in the ACLS provided 3-d diet records and completed a preventive medical examination. CRF was measured using a maximal exercise test, anthropometric and other clinical variables were measured following a standardized protocol, and lifestyle factors were assessed with a medical history questionnaire. RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounders, there was a significantly lower percent of energy from fat and saturated fat across low, moderate, and high CRF categories. With additional adjustment for total energy intake, there was a significantly higher dietary fiber intake and a significantly lower cholesterol intake across CRF categories. The percentage of men and women meeting national dietary recommendations was higher at higher CRF levels. CONCLUSIONS: Men and women with higher fitness levels consumed diets that more closely approached national dietary recommendations than their lower fit peers.

OK this was hard reading but I will try to make some sense of it. Firstly all these studies are looking for statistical correlation and they don't provide "cause and effect". Cause and effect is the important missing factor in all the claims so far.

The first one was hard reading but my understanding of it is that its saying that saturated fat diets were slightly benificial. High carbohydrate diets were more harmful. It was hard to read and its just looking for correlation.

The second study pointed a finger of blame at trans-fatty acids. No argument there.

The third study admits that its results aren't independant of BMI (body mass index) so it's not giving us cause and effect and I thought that the forth study was just weak. I think they admitted to the fact that they didn't do there own study and they were just "data mining" other studies. I don't think it was telling us anything.

Regards, Anthony

EVeryone here needs to read Food for Fitness by Chris Carmichael. I am about half way done with it so far. It explains in great detail how your body uses food and how a balanced diet will help fuel your body. Cycling is an endurance sport, you NEED carbs for fuel. One of the posters said that he doesnt eat carbs but has added fresh fruit back into his diet. Fruit has carbs! Bananas are high in carbs. People need to become educated before they start arguing and say they don't want advise. I dont think people would post advise that would harm you.

Yes, saturated fat is the unheathy kind.

Weight loss is not hard. People make it SO much more difficult that it needs to be. Excersize a little(or a lot) more than you're used to and eat a healthy diet(one without fast food filled with saturated fat). Natural foods that you have to prepare are more healthy. If you eat a LOT, try cutting back just a little because if you cut back a lot, you won't stick with it. Then when you have cut back some start adding in foods that are more nutrient dense(more vitamins, minerals and other good stuff per calorie). It is not a difficult concept. One last thing, you're not going to loss weight and keep it off unless you make it a lifestyle. Thats the hard part. I am currently working on this. Its a long process. I have made some modifications to my diet over the past two months and I have dropped about ten pounds. In the first part of the two months, I was cycling a LOT. Then I broke my frame and haven't had a bike in about a month. So after the lack of biking, I gained about five pounds. My bike will be ready to go again monday or tuesday so I will be back in the saddle again.

What is your opinion on eating a balanced diet that excludes none of the food groups and extoles the virtues of moderation, one that says you need to consume grains, fruit, vegtables, meats and meat substitutes.

From your earlier posts I get the opinion that you think that saturated fats are needed for a healthy diet, but do you not think that over doing saturated fats can be harmful, or is an unlimited amount ok, and whithout any side effects such as hardening of the arteries? What is the aieteology of heart disease, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease? Are these diseases seen more commonly in people who eat saturated fats in excess? Or is the reason for for these diseases because we are living longer and now have the time to clog our arteries, whereas in the old days the commonner would be dead by the age of 30?

I checked out your websight that you recommended and I noticed that the doctor refutes other people evidence with her own evidence but does not back up any of her own with references. She refers to a study done in China but does not properly reference the study so that people can look it up and verify what she says; she also does this with any other study she refers to. This person being a doctor must know her APA it was required in her learning, but she does not use it. The funny thing is that the only type of reference that she gives that anyone can trace is to a news agency which are famous for taking studies out of context.

Please disregard this last paragraph it is not grounded in fact, I deeply regret providing false information, the websight is in fact very well referenced

Thank you

[QUOTE=craigery] Cycling is an endurance sport, you NEED carbs for fuel. QUOTE]

This is another example of someone using traditional knowledge with a total disregard of actual studies implimented. How can you be so certain of this statement when the studies I posted above Prove the opposite? Is it because your teacher told you in 1965? or was it the book you are reading where the author is repeating everything he heard when he was in school in 1960?

The proof is in the pudding. (no pun intended :D )

[QUOTE=Mike Cavanaugh]Your studies show that more calories will lead to more available energy. The people in your studies who ate more calories had more energy. More gas in the tank means more mileage? What is your opinion on calorie intake, will less calories mean less available energy?

Is the summary of the second study your words?

Have you identified your biases, and how have they affected your view?

What about the energy required to convert fat to usable fuel for your body, would this offset the calorie difference between the fat intake and the carb intake?

How easy it is to convert animal fat to human fat once it enters the body? How easy is it to convert carbs to human fat, what sort of energy is used in the conversion, and what is available for use as fuel?

Do you know if these studies were repated with the same results; does one study mean that no more studies need to be done to verify the results? Have simmilar studies been done?

I agree with the point you make on traditional knowledge; when someone says we do it that way because it is always done that way I think it means that they have not thought about the underlying reasoning and are not willing to challenge it.

Mike

Mike, you said you believe less calories means less energy. In your first study you present the people who ate more carbs than fat ate less calories than the people who ate more fat. Would it not follow with your reasoning that the people who ate more fat comsumed more energy and thus had more energy available; therefore they would have greater endurance because of thier elevated energy intake, and not because they ate more fat than carbs.

When you say you are on a low carb diet does that mean you are excluding fruits and vegtables, or are you trying to reduce the amount of refined sugars you consume i.e. refined grains and other highly refined products like HFCS and the like, or is a combonation of the 2?

I would still like to know what and if you have identified your biases on this subject and recognised how they may affect ones view.


Mike I commend you for the lifestyle change you are making, if you can become and stay healthy and happy you are doing the right thing. It is also nice to see that you are trying to get the facts.

Thank you

Mike

Hello Mike.

When I aksed you about biases I am not doubting the fact that we all have them, I was wondering if you, or anyone else for that fact recognises how they may colour thier view of the presented evidence.

I not trying to aggrevate you for I wish to learn as much as I can by trying to see all that I can, and it is good to see all the different sides of the argument. You do present what seems like a strong opinion and thats why I ask about your biases and how they may alter your perspective. And this alteration may make it so one sees only part of the evidence they wish to see. Of course this is only my opinion.

On another note I am a strong believer in broccolli, it is what I call my multivitamin.

I wish you the best. By the way I was 220 I am now 210, when I get to 200 I will be joining you in making the lightweights look slow on the bike. Of course I will be in my car when they start looking slow to me. Actually gravity will be pulling me down hill on my bicycle quicker. :-)

[QUOTE=Mike Cavanaugh]Perhaps because some of us don't have to rely on studies...we have actual experience. Studies don't prove squat, actual accomplishments are all that count. Studies are often disputed by other studies, success is indisputable. You have yet to accomplish anything, so your opinions are only based on the opinions of others and hardly credible for disputing anyone. When you actually accomplish what you intend to accomplish, then you can claim some credibility. Until then, you're just blowing smoke - how's that for motivation?

There are a couple of important points that everyone must realize:

1) Any true study that is going to try to show a correlation between human diet and its long-term effects on the body takes years rather than weeks.

2) Studies trying to show correlation try to get as many subjects as possible and try to conduct the study for as long as possible in order to show a "stronger" correlation between a particular variable and its effects on the body.

No matter how many studies are done dealing with human subjects, you will never truly prove cause and effect. You can only prove cause and effect when you test one variable at a time. With human beings you can never truly test only one variable. Humans are not machines, each person has their own built in variables.

This is why you have to read the medical journals (not studies that were funded by some company trying to show that their product is better than another) and look for those that show a strong correlation between a variable and the results and look for other studies that show the same correlation.

Seems to me like "low carb" and "sensible carb" are two really different issues that are being confused by some people here. By what many would consider to be a kind of average diet, one would eat something like a bowl of cereal and a glass of juice for breakfast, maybe a fast-food meal (hamburger, fries, soft drink) for lunch, and some pasta, a little salad or vegetable, and a piece of meat for dinner. Somewhere in there you'd probably eat a desserty snack too. Including sugary beverages, that's a huge proportion of the diet coming from carbohydrates! So a "lower carb" diet for someone who ate averagely before would actually just be a sensible change to more veggies and whole grains, and fewer sugary beverages and nutritionally "empty" carbs.

Any super-restrictive diet is doomed to failure as a lifestyle change. If you're going to restrict atkins-style seriously, I'd recommend just doing a controlled juice fast for however long you need, and then moving to a sensible diet. That strategy is, in my opinion, MUCH healthier than living on steak and bacon.

Thermodynamic Edge For Low Carbohydrate Diets: SUNY Downstate Researchers Say All Calories Are NOT Alike

In a paper published in Nutrition Journal (Open Access, available without subscription at http://www.nutritionj.com/home), two researchers from SUNY Downstate Medical Center show that low carbohydrate, high protein diets can be expected to be more effective than low fat diets, going against long standing prejudice of the nutritional community, which has claimed that only calories count.

(PRWEB) July 31, 2004 -- “There are numerous examples of low carbohydrate diets being more effective than low fat diets with the same number of calories. It doesn’t always happen but it can happen,” said Dr. Richard Feinman of the Department of Biochemistry. “The nutritional establishment has been reluctant to accept this, because they say it violates the law of thermodynamics. However, they never seriously look at the thermodynamics, which not only says its possible, but it is to be expected.” he added.

In their paper, Dr. Feinman and Dr. Eugene J. Fine explain that thermodynamics is as much about efficiency as it is about energy conservation. Carbohydrate is an efficient fuel, whereas protein is not. On a low carbohydrate/high protein diet, even though total energy is conserved, more energy is wasted as heat, a process known as thermogenesis. This energy comes from burning fat.

The researchers stress that “the human body is not a storage locker. It is a machine and the efficiency of the machine is controlled by hormones and enzymes. Carbohydrates increase insulin and other hormones that regulate enzymes, leading to storage rather than burning of fat.”

“Of course, people are different” said the authors, “but many people are sensitive to the effects of carbohydrates and for them, a low carb diet is going to work well.”

The practical point is that getting rid of the idea that “a calorie is a calorie” opens the door for serious research into what kind of diets will be most effective and which people will benefit most. “This is important,” they explain “because millions of people
are seriously trying to lose weight on low carbohydrate diets, and instead of being given directions on the best way to do this, they have been largely discouraged by health professionals and self-appointed expert groups. The obesity epidemic is too important to allow this to happen.”

Note to editors/reporters: You can read the entire scientific paper by going to http://www.nutritionj.com/home and clicking on “Provisional PDF” at the bottom of the headline.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb145415.htm
Reply With Quote

This paper also indicates Dr Feinman lives up to his name!;

"Title: Metabolic Syndrome and Low-Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diets in the Medical School Biochemistry Curriculum
Author(s): Richard D. Feinman PhD ; Mary Makowske PhD
Source: Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders Volume: 1 Number: 3 Page: 189 -- 197
DOI: 10.1089/154041903322716660
Publisher: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
Abstract: One of Robert Atkins contributions was to define a diet strategy in terms of an underlying metabolic principle ("the science behind Atkins"). The essential feature is that, by reducing insulin fluxes, lipids are funnelled away from storage and oxidized. Ketosis can be used as an indicator of lipolysis. A metabolic advantage is also proposed: controlled carbohydrates leads to greater weight loss per calorie than other diets. Although the Atkins diet and its scientific rationale are intended for a popular audience, the overall features are consistent with current metabolic ideas. We have used the Atkins controlled-carbohydrate diet as a focal point for teaching nutrition and metabolism in the first-year medical school curriculum. By presenting metabolism in the context of the current epidemic of obesity and of metabolic syndrome and related disorders, we provide direct application of the study of metabolic pathways, a subject not traditionally considered by medical students to be highly relevant to medical practice. We present here a summary of the metabolic basis of the Atkins diet as we teach it to medical students. We also discuss a proposed mechanism for metabolic advantage that is consistent with current ideas and that further brings out ideas in metabolism for students. The topics that are developed include the role of insulin and glucagon in lipolysis, control of lipoprotein lipase, the glucose-glycogen-gluconeogenesis interrelations, carbohydrate-protein interactions and ketosis. In essence, the approach is to expand the traditional feed-fast (post-absorptive) cycles to include the effect of low-carbohydrate meals: the disease states studied are generalized from traditional study of diabetes to include obesity and metabolic syndrome. The ideal diet for weight loss and treatment of metabolic syndrome, if it exists, remains to be determined, but presenting metabolism in the context of questions raised by the Atkins regimen prepares future physicians for critical analysis of clinical and basic metabolic information."

http://zerlina.ingentaselect.com/vl...96/v1n3/s5/p189

While in Galveston several winters ago I utilized a low carb diet to lose weight and rode my bike ALOT... (of course riding the bike helped) That said, I put in many rides over 40 miles and some as long as 70 and I NEVER "bonked" I felt fine, and I lost weight. When I got back to MT I rode almost to the top of going to the sun road (the road was still closed due to snow so I couldn't go all the way to the top) and I felt fine, no bonking due to no carbs. Now would Lance do the same? NO!!!!! He has very little fat to begin with and studies HAVE shown that athletes do perform better with a high carb diet.
Doug

All good points. I've yet to see any study that disproves the time-proven way to loose weight and increase fitness, as well as maintaining weight and fitness - exercise and a balanced diet. BALANCE in activity, what you eat and how you eat is the key. Going to extremes in any area may produce results, but the results are neither long-term nor healthy.