Article: The TRUTH About Low Carb Diets by Keith Klein
Steve
as well as the whole story?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/articles-submit/keith-klein/low-carb-diet-truth.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TRUTH About Low Carb Diets
by Keith Klein
TaeBo Select Malibu Naturals Nutritionist
www.ineedcarblo.com
If you've started a higher-fat, lower-carbohydrate diet
then there are a few things you should know:
Why Low Carbohydrate Diets Don't Produce Long-Term
Results.
Enough about the Atkins diet, let's talk about
low-carbohydrate diets in general. Boy, am I frustrated.
If I had a dime for every time a person asked me about
the new "high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet," I'd be a
millionaire.
It's frustrating because it's like a used car salesman
that's willing to sell you a lemon by highlighting the
up-side of a car, but forgets about letting you in on
the down-side. In the case of the low-carbohydrate diet,
the down-side outweighs the up-side by a huge margin.
A problem that adds to the confusion is the simple fact
that cutting back on carbohydrates works, at least for a
quick drop in body fat and body water. The piece of the
puzzle missing for most dieters is the long-term effects
on the body due to such a drastic reduction in
carbohydrates.
In case you haven't heard the latest scoop on the
high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet, let me fill you in on
the concept.
This diet was very popular during the 70s and was
popularized by Dr. Atkins. Like many diets of the past,
this one gained a lot of press. After a couple of years
of popularity Dr. Atkins' dieting approach fell by the
wayside for several reasons.
Unfortunately, the low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet is
back, and seems to be gaining in popularity once again.
Currently, Dr. Sears' book The Zone and another called
Protein Power have revitalized the Atkins' diet.
The concept is that a person should eat more protein,
more fat and very little carbohydrate as the day wears
on. Because the dieter is eating more fat, they tend to
feel full longer, and this helps the person exert more
control over hunger.
In the past, people were allowed to eat as much red meat
as desired, but had to keep their carbohydrate intake as
low as possible. This combination of foods causes a
chemical reaction, thereby causing the person to burn
body fat at an accelerated rate.
It's called a ketogenic diet. The low intake of
carbohydrate, coupled with a high-fat diet and exercise
causes the production of ketones. Ketones are the
chemical residue of broken-down fats in the blood.
To be more specific, if insufficient carbohydrates
exist, the body begins to mobilize fat to a greater
extent than it can use.
The result, both at rest and after exercise, is
incomplete fat metabolism and the accumulation of acid
by-products called ketone bodies. This situation can
lead to a harmful increase in the acidity of the body
fluids, a condition called acidosis or ketosis.
The ketogenic diet was conceived in the 20s by doctors
in France and the United States. They discovered that
prolonged starvation promotes ketosis as the body uses
its fat reserves. So, they devised a way to mimic the
chemistry of starvation through diet.
The current diet revolution is nothing new, it's just an
adaptation of these old concepts. The problem is, most
people get their information from uninformed sources
which fail to understand the scope of their
recommendations.
Low Carbohydrate Diet - What You Need To Know
If you've started a higher-fat, lower-carbohydrate diet
then there are a few things you should know:
1) By reducing carbohydrates you will see a drop of body
weight and body fat. However, if you drop them too low
while exercising, you could alter your body's T3 levels.
T3 is an active thyroid molecule that helps regulate
your metabolic rate. Diets low in carbohydrate tend to
cause a reduction of T3, which in turn can slow down
your metabolic rate. This is particularly true for
people who under-eat and over-exercise.
2) A lot of the weight you drop while on a
low-carbohydrate diet is water weight. For every gram of
carbohydrate you ingest, about three to five grams of
water usually accompany it. By decreasing your
carbohydrate intake you naturally drop body water.
Although this may sound like a good idea, when you
resume eating carbohydrates you may find that your body
rebounds and retains excess water. The water retention
will dissipate after several days, but it wreaks havoc
on the dieter's mental state.
3) During the 70s, clinicians began noticing that people
that followed the Atkins' diet regained their weight
very rapidly once they ceased the diet. In fact, they
found the longer a person had been on the
low-carbohydrate diet, the more carbohydrate sensitive
they became.
Further, when this diet was combined with exercise it
caused people to become even more carbohydrate
sensitive. This could be the devastating pitfall,
because once the low-carbohydrate diet has ended, and
the person tries to resume eating carbohydrates, his
body tends to horde and store the carbohydrates as
opposed to using them for energy.
The person notices a fast accumulation of body water
that's followed by an abnormally fast body fat gain.
Although the water weight will eventually drop off, the
person notices that he gains body fat very easily, but
loses it more slowly in the future.
4) Carbohydrates provide a "protein sparing" effect.
Under normal circumstances protein serves a vital role
in the maintenance, repair, and growth of body tissues.
When carbohydrate reserves are reduced the body will
convert protein into glucose for energy.
This process is called gluconeogenesis. The price that's
paid is a reduction in the body's protein stores. In
other words muscle! All, in turn, causes the metabolic
rate to slow down as well.
5) There's another problem that eating too little
carbohydrate creates. Your muscle fullness depends to a
large extent on your carbohydrate intake. Low
carbohydrate levels tend to make muscles lose their
density and flatten out.
Carbohydrates are a great source of fuel, so not eating
enough can lower your energy level and make your muscles
feel softer.
6) These diets focus on the relationship between
carbohydrates and insulin (a hormone that shuttles fuel
into fat). However, their suggestion that insulin exerts
negative effects is not only misleading, it's downright
flawed.
Insulin does play a role in fat storage, but it also
causes glucose to be shuttled into muscle cells as well.
Our diets should keep blood levels of insulin as stable
as possible, not try to suppress its release.
7) On the flip side, you'd have to be totally
out-of-the-loop if you haven't heard that more fat
increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, and
obesity. Naturally, everyone wants to hear that they can
eat fats and lose weight. I guess if you want to look
good in your coffin, then it's okay with me.
I've always disagreed with the American Dietetic
Association and the idea that 30 percent fat is healthy.
I believe that a diet of 20 percent or less fat poses a
substantial health benefit as well as a reduced risk of
obesity.
It amazes me that this diet is back. Are people's
memories really that short that they can't remember the
reason that the Atkins' diet vanished the first time?
Consider what bodybuilders learned years ago. During the
70s and early 80s, every major bodybuilding competitor
dieted on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, yet most of
them ended up very smooth and not very well defined.
The bodybuilders of the late 80s and 90s have improved
dramatically. By having a diet high in protein, low fat,
and moderate in carbohydrates, some of the best
physiques ever have been produced.
Some confusion about carbohydrates could stem from the
fact that people see and hear bits and pieces of
information from gym buddies and accept the information
as fact.
While it is true that as a contest nears bodybuilders
decrease their carbohydrates, that doesn't mean that
cutting back excessively yields better results.
Over the years I have found that by removing the starch
at the final meal during the last three to four weeks
before a show, bodybuilders tend to get very tight and
more defined. And for others, a biased article designed
to sell books placed prominently in a major magazine
could be all it takes to attract everyone's attention.
When you hear people talking about a "new" diet
approach, stop and ask yourself does it follow healthy
guidelines? Does the diet call for measures that you
cannot do for life? If so, don't even try it.
If you are serious about transforming your body to its
ultimate potential, get the Muscle Building Nutrition by
Will Brink with great reviews from top pro athletes like
Lee Labrada, Charles Poliquin, and more.
About the author
For 18 years Keith Klein has been one of America's
leading nutritionists. His books include Weight Control
For Young America, Lean For Life, Get Lean, The Healthy
Chef, and Kidtrition Cafe. His columns run in Fitness
Express, Health and Fitness, and many other
publications.
Keith hosted a nationally syndicated 2-hour radio
program GetFit, for three years on Prime Sports Network.
Keith's popular television show, Smart Bodies, aired
weekday mornings on TPN for several years. He currently
hosts the Keith Klein Nutrition Hour and is director of
The Institute of Eating Management, where he acts as
personal nutritionist to many of America's top athletes,
models, and dancers, including Mary Lou Retton, Kim
Zmeskal, Ricky Sanders (Washington Redskins); golf pros
Greg Chapman and Kelly Knehne; Lee Labrada (Mr. America
& Mr. Universe), Carla Dunlap (Ms. Olympia), Victoria
Gay ("Jazz" of the American Gladiators), Betsy Bates
(Ms. America), Tatianna Anderson (Ms. Fitness USA),
Deanna Clark.
Bob in CT
<nos...@please.reply.to.group.thanks.com> wrote:
> Any opinions about whether or not what this guy has to say as being true
> as well as the whole story?
>
[cut]
>
> 2) A lot of the weight you drop while on a
> low-carbohydrate diet is water weight. For every gram of
> carbohydrate you ingest, about three to five grams of
> water usually accompany it. By decreasing your
> carbohydrate intake you naturally drop body water.
> Although this may sound like a good idea, when you
> resume eating carbohydrates you may find that your body
> rebounds and retains excess water. The water retention
> will dissipate after several days, but it wreaks havoc
> on the dieter's mental state.
It's never wreaked havoc on mine.
> 3) During the 70s, clinicians began noticing that people
> that followed the Atkins' diet regained their weight
> very rapidly once they ceased the diet. In fact, they
> found the longer a person had been on the
> low-carbohydrate diet, the more carbohydrate sensitive
> they became.
> Further, when this diet was combined with exercise it
> caused people to become even more carbohydrate
> sensitive. This could be the devastating pitfall,
> because once the low-carbohydrate diet has ended, and
> the person tries to resume eating carbohydrates, his
> body tends to horde and store the carbohydrates as
> opposed to using them for energy.
> The person notices a fast accumulation of body water
> that's followed by an abnormally fast body fat gain.
> Although the water weight will eventually drop off, the
> person notices that he gains body fat very easily, but
> loses it more slowly in the future.
Can't say this is or isn't true.
>
> 4) Carbohydrates provide a "protein sparing" effect.
> Under normal circumstances protein serves a vital role
> in the maintenance, repair, and growth of body tissues.
> When carbohydrate reserves are reduced the body will
> convert protein into glucose for energy.
> This process is called gluconeogenesis. The price that's
> paid is a reduction in the body's protein stores. In
> other words muscle! All, in turn, causes the metabolic
> rate to slow down as well.
This assumes you don't eat enough protein. If you eat enough protein gor
gluconeogenesis AND for the body, then you shouldn't have muscle loss.
>
> 5) There's another problem that eating too little
> carbohydrate creates. Your muscle fullness depends to a
> large extent on your carbohydrate intake. Low
> carbohydrate levels tend to make muscles lose their
> density and flatten out.
> Carbohydrates are a great source of fuel, so not eating
> enough can lower your energy level and make your muscles
> feel softer.
My muscles don't "feel softer".
>
> 6) These diets focus on the relationship between
> carbohydrates and insulin (a hormone that shuttles fuel
> into fat). However, their suggestion that insulin exerts
> negative effects is not only misleading, it's downright
> flawed.
> Insulin does play a role in fat storage, but it also
> causes glucose to be shuttled into muscle cells as well.
> Our diets should keep blood levels of insulin as stable
> as possible, not try to suppress its release.
Isn't keeping blood levels of insulin as stable as possible what a low
carb diet does? Also, I think that after exercise, it's beneficial to
increase insulin in order to replenish carb stores.
>
> 7) On the flip side, you'd have to be totally
> out-of-the-loop if you haven't heard that more fat
> increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, and
> obesity. Naturally, everyone wants to hear that they can
> eat fats and lose weight. I guess if you want to look
> good in your coffin, then it's okay with me.
> I've always disagreed with the American Dietetic
> Association and the idea that 30 percent fat is healthy.
> I believe that a diet of 20 percent or less fat poses a
> substantial health benefit as well as a reduced risk of
> obesity.
I've seen a lot of data saying you're wrong -- high fat intake is good.
Moreover, I ate very low fat for a long time and developed insulin
resistance because of it. Additionally, eating my high fat diet has
raised my HDL, lowered my triglycerides, and improved my Total
Cholesterol/HDL ratio. I've also lost about 50 pounds.
>
> It amazes me that this diet is back. Are people's
> memories really that short that they can't remember the
> reason that the Atkins' diet vanished the first time?
> Consider what bodybuilders learned years ago. During the
> 70s and early 80s, every major bodybuilding competitor
> dieted on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, yet most of
> them ended up very smooth and not very well defined.
> The bodybuilders of the late 80s and 90s have improved
> dramatically. By having a diet high in protein, low fat,
> and moderate in carbohydrates, some of the best
> physiques ever have been produced.
Isn't a low carb diet "moderate" in carbohydrates once maintenance is
reached? I've certainly increased my carb consumption over time.
--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
Dawn Taylor
and everybody:
>Any opinions about whether or not what this guy has to say as being true
>as well as the whole story?
I was interested in what he had to say, up to the point where he
wrote:
"This situation can lead to a harmful increase in the acidity of the
body fluids, a condition called acidosis or ketosis."
Ketosis and acidosis aren't the same thing. Ketosis is merely the
process of burning stored fat.
When somebody's presenting themselves as an expert but gets something
that fundamental completely wrong -- and present that incorrect
information to strengthen their argument -- I find it difficult to
seriously consider anything else they have to say.
He also gives incorrect information about protein sparing, makes
bizarre, false statements like "not eating enough (carbs) can lower
your energy level and make your muscles feel softer" and is completely
wrong about current research regarding fat consumption, parroting the
old, false belief that eating fat -- any fat! -- increases the
likelihood of heart disease and cancer ... even going do far as to say
that he thinks the American Heart Associations recommendation of 30%
dietary fat is *too liberal.*
In other words ... he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Dawn
Lester
>Why Low Carbohydrate Diets Don't Produce Long-Term
>Results.
Enough right there in the above sentence.
We all know that statement is absurd. So no use in reading the rest.
The guy is an absolute idiot.
Les
Steve
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:43:35 -0400, Steve
> <nos...@please.reply.to.group.thanks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why Low Carbohydrate Diets Don't Produce Long-Term
>>Results.
>
>
> Enough right there in the above sentence.
>
> We all know that statement is absurd.
The longest study to date on low-carb diets only lasted for 6 months.
Weight loss stratedgies are usually evaluated by how much lost weight a
person keeps off for 5 years.
Steve
http://www.geocities.com/beforewisdom/
"The great American thought trap: It is not real unless it can be seen
on television or bought in a shopping mall"
Roger Zoul
:: On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:43:35 -0400, Steve
That's bullshit.
::
:::
::: 4) Carbohydrates provide a "protein sparing" effect.
::: Under normal circumstances protein serves a vital role
::: in the maintenance, repair, and growth of body tissues.
::: When carbohydrate reserves are reduced the body will
::: convert protein into glucose for energy.
::: This process is called gluconeogenesis. The price that's
::: paid is a reduction in the body's protein stores. In
::: other words muscle! All, in turn, causes the metabolic
::: rate to slow down as well.
::
:: This assumes you don't eat enough protein. If you eat enough
:: protein gor gluconeogenesis AND for the body, then you shouldn't
:: have muscle loss.
::
:::
::: 5) There's another problem that eating too little
::: carbohydrate creates. Your muscle fullness depends to a
::: large extent on your carbohydrate intake. Low
::: carbohydrate levels tend to make muscles lose their
::: density and flatten out.
::: Carbohydrates are a great source of fuel, so not eating
::: enough can lower your energy level and make your muscles
::: feel softer.
::
:: My muscles don't "feel softer".
The only thing I could possibly think he's getting at is at not being able
to get a pump in the gym, that that getting a pump means much.
::
:::
::: 6) These diets focus on the relationship between
::: carbohydrates and insulin (a hormone that shuttles fuel
::: into fat). However, their suggestion that insulin exerts
::: negative effects is not only misleading, it's downright
::: flawed.
::: Insulin does play a role in fat storage, but it also
::: causes glucose to be shuttled into muscle cells as well.
::: Our diets should keep blood levels of insulin as stable
::: as possible, not try to suppress its release.
::
:: Isn't keeping blood levels of insulin as stable as possible what a
:: low carb diet does?
Yes, but this fool doesn't understand why trying to avoid excessive insulin
production is important.
He is a moron.
Roger Zoul
:: On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 13:43:35 -0400, Steve
Agreed.
Bob in CT
wrote:
I think he means ketoacidosis, which means that he's a complete idiot.
The Queen of Cans and Jars
> TaeBo Select Malibu Naturals Nutritionist
now there's a fabulous credential.
*snerk*
Peter Allen
news:tvpub0ljvv2rkcaoe...@4ax.com...
> bizarre, false statements like "not eating enough (carbs) can lower
> your energy level "
I'm not going to argue with anything else you said (partly because I is not
an expert...).
But in that case: if you do not eat a reasonable quantity of carbohydrates,
then you will not perform well in an aerobic max test (such as any race that
isn't a sprint). IMO that is lowering your energy level.
Peter
rosie read and post
Lyle McDonald
And how much does that apply to the average dieter?
Lyle
jamie
> Lester wrote:
>> Steve <nos...@please.reply.to.group.thanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why Low Carbohydrate Diets Don't Produce Long-Term Results.
>>
>> Enough right there in the above sentence.
>> We all know that statement is absurd.
>
> The longest study to date on low-carb diets only lasted for 6 months.
>
> Weight loss stratedgies are usually evaluated by how much lost weight a
> person keeps off for 5 years.
My personal, one-person study has lasted a good deal longer.
168/125/125 LC since 2/18/97 maintaining since 3/17/99
--
jamie (jami...@newsguy.com)
"There's a seeker born every minute."
Peter Allen
news:10bvfh3...@corp.supernews.com...
Not very much, I know, because people to whom it would apply don't tend to
get that fat in the first place.
However just because you (or Dawn, more to the point) may disagree with most
of what the guy wrote doesn't mean that you need to rubbish every point he
makes, especially when the result is getting things wrong yourself.
Peter
Lyle McDonald
I don't recall rubbishing every point he made by any stretch (tho Klien
has had an irrational hardon against lowcarb diets for as long as I can
remember and most of his criticisms come out of years old and totally
outdated/incorrect ideas).
In fact, when I talk about lowcarb diets, I try to ALWAYS point out the
necessity of carbs for high intensity activities (aerobic and weights)
tho I'm sure occasionally I forget.
A couple of Klein's points are conditionally applicable (i.e. flatness
for bodybuilders, energy levels for high intensity athletes; hence the
use of cyclical lowcarb diets in those populations) but not across the
board by any means. Most of them are flat out wrong (ketosis/acidosis
is an old/incorrect confusion, the fat/disease link is just as simplified).
Lyle
Peter Allen
For 'you' in what I wrote above, read 'one'. I wrote that in a bit of a
hurry, I was trying to say that the person rubbishing everything was Dawn,
not you. Sorry.
Peter
Alan Wright
As soon as he starts talkiong about ketones and ketosis he gets
the biochemistry completely wrong. Most of the other statements
are the classic lies and half truths that have been passed around
for ages. Just another idiot with an agenda.
Alan
"Steve" <nos...@please.reply.to.group.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:c9nnv...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Dawn Taylor
<petero...@hotmail.com> announced in front of God and everybody:
>However just because you (or Dawn, more to the point) may disagree with most
>of what the guy wrote doesn't mean that you need to rubbish every point he
>makes, especially when the result is getting things wrong yourself.
That question in the original post was, "Any opinions about whether or
not what this guy has to say as being true as well as the whole
story?"
Well, a great deal of what the guy had to say was complete bullshit.
Which invalidates his essay as a whole.
I think that answered the original question quite nicely.
Dawn
Doug Freyburger
>
> Any opinions about whether or not what this guy has to say as being true
> as well as the whole story?
>
> http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/articles-submit/keith-klein/low-carb-diet-truth.htm
>
> Enough about the Atkins diet, let's talk about
> low-carbohydrate diets in general. Boy, am I frustrated.
Interesting. He starts out at the gate declining to debate
the actual Atkins diet so he has to attack generic low carbing.
That's the start of the fun.
> A problem that adds to the confusion is the simple fact
> that cutting back on carbohydrates works, at least for a
> quick drop in body fat and body water.
So I lost 35 pounds of water. Sure thing, wanna buy my
bridge? At best estimate 4-6 of those 35 were water.
> The concept is that a person should eat more protein
Generic low carbing of his design not Atkins. Interesting.
> The result, both at rest and after exercise, is
> incomplete fat metabolism and the accumulation of acid
> by-products called ketone bodies. This situation can
> lead to a harmful increase in the acidity of the body
> fluids, a condition called acidosis or ketosis.
Instant sign of idiocy, can't tell dietary ketosis from
ketoacidosis or for that matter from lactoacidosis.
Ketones are not acidic they just happen to come along
with acids when ketoacidosis is happening. Since dietary
ketosis doesn't include those other chemicals dietary
ketosis doesn't include acidic blood.
> > The current diet revolution is nothing new, it's just an
> adaptation of these old concepts. The problem is, most
> people get their information from uninformed sources
> which fail to understand the scope of their
> recommendations.
Including him when it comes to sources. He did have to
attack generic undisiplined low carbing rather than actual
Atkins after all. Yup, folks who make it up on their own
occasionaly do bad stuff to themselves.
> 1) By reducing carbohydrates you will see a drop of body
> weight and body fat. However, if you drop them too low
> while exercising, you could alter your body's T3 levels.
> T3 is an active thyroid molecule that helps regulate
> your metabolic rate. Diets low in carbohydrate tend to
> cause a reduction of T3, which in turn can slow down
> your metabolic rate. This is particularly true for
> people who under-eat and over-exercise.
Exactly why the core Atkins process has Induction last 14
days. Exactly why not one single popular plan includes
staying low. And exactly why I campaign folks who are making
up their own plan to follow a designed plan.
> 2) A lot of the weight you drop while on a
> low-carbohydrate diet is water weight. For every gram of
> carbohydrate you ingest, about three to five grams of
> water usually accompany it. By decreasing your
> carbohydrate intake you naturally drop body water.
Chuckle. So how much of the 35 I lost was water again?
> Although this may sound like a good idea, when you
> resume eating carbohydrates you may find that your body
> rebounds and retains excess water. The water retention
> will dissipate after several days, but it wreaks havoc
> on the dieter's mental state.
That's a valid point. One of the reasons I replied is he
does have some valid points mixed in. Others saw he can't
tell dietary ketosis from ketoacidosis and wrote him off
as an idiot.
> 3) During the 70s, clinicians began noticing that people
> that followed the Atkins' diet regained their weight
> very rapidly once they ceased the diet.
Name a diet that let's you keep it off after quiting. Go
ahead, I'm waiting. Tick, tock. All diets tend to cause
regain plus rebound; that's why folks have to find a
permanent change.
> 4) Carbohydrates provide a "protein sparing" effect.
Actually it's fat that does this. The results of the
classic fat fast experiment that showed people eating 90%
fat at 1200 calories lost less lean than people eating
90% carbs at 1200 calories. I've never seen a biochemical
explanation of why eating fat does this or why eating carbs
has the reverse effect, but the data does show it.
> Under normal circumstances protein serves a vital role
> in the maintenance, repair, and growth of body tissues.
> When carbohydrate reserves are reduced the body will
> convert protein into glucose for energy.
That may explain why eating high-carb-low-protein costs
lost lean, but it does not suggest why eating
high-fat-low-protein does not.
> 5) There's another problem that eating too little
> carbohydrate creates. Your muscle fullness depends to a
> large extent on your carbohydrate intake. Low
> carbohydrate levels tend to make muscles lose their
> density and flatten out.
Being sleek as a panther is a problem? Serious? Not
to me.
Anyone who previously lost lean on low protein diets
tends to grow it back when low carbing.
> Our diets should keep blood levels of insulin as stable
> as possible, not try to suppress its release.
Insulin instability comes from excess release, so avoiding
excess release is not the same as suppression.
> 7) On the flip side, you'd have to be totally
> out-of-the-loop if you haven't heard that more fat
> increases your risk of heart disease, cancer, and
> obesity.
Except that all of the data towards that claim is done
with high-carbers. All studies of low-carbers tend to
show reduced risks across the board for most but not
all. Some will argue that currently available studies
are still too short term and I agree, but what about
the long term studies that show that high-carbing tends
to increase their risks in most but not all.
> It amazes me that this diet is back. Are people's
> memories really that short that they can't remember the
> reason that the Atkins' diet vanished the first time?
The AMA went ballistic fighting it. Turns out they were
wrong.
> Consider what bodybuilders learned years ago. During the
> 70s and early 80s, every major bodybuilding competitor
> dieted on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, yet most of
> them ended up very smooth and not very well defined.
> The bodybuilders of the late 80s and 90s have improved
> dramatically. By having a diet high in protein, low fat,
> and moderate in carbohydrates, some of the best
> physiques ever have been produced.
Many competitive body builders now cycle. Neither low
fat nor low carb but a cycle between them. Lots of work
for what most dieters desire.
> While it is true that as a contest nears bodybuilders
> decrease their carbohydrates, that doesn't mean that
> cutting back excessively yields better results.
Just like he had to resort to generic roll-your-own low
carbing because Atkins and all other popular plans teach
exactly the same thing as well. Every one has folks
move up in carbs after the initial two weeks.
> When you hear people talking about a "new" diet
> approach, stop and ask yourself does it follow healthy
> guidelines? Does the diet call for measures that you
> cannot do for life? If so, don't even try it.
Exactly and this is the biggest edge plans like real
by-the-book Atkins and real by-the-book SBD have. In
their later stages many folks *can* follow them year in
and year out.
> About the author
> For 18 years Keith Klein has been one of America's
> leading nutritionists.
Not a stunning qualification. Many nutritionists learned
their craft back in the days when low carbing was not
popular and they have never caught up.
Bob in CT
> Steve wrote:
[cut]
>
>> Although this may sound like a good idea, when you
>> resume eating carbohydrates you may find that your body
>> rebounds and retains excess water. The water retention
>> will dissipate after several days, but it wreaks havoc
>> on the dieter's mental state.
>
> That's a valid point. One of the reasons I replied is he
> does have some valid points mixed in. Others saw he can't
> tell dietary ketosis from ketoacidosis and wrote him off
> as an idiot.
It's a valid point in that you do gain back water. It's a non sequitor
(sp?) to say that this "wreaks havic on the dieter's mental state." I
simply know that I'm going to gain weight if I eat too many carbs. In
fact, I like it, as I know I'm going to bike faster (although I do have a
few more pounds of water to slog up a hill).
Lyle McDonald
> On 4 Jun 2004 13:46:04 -0700, Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>
>>> Although this may sound like a good idea, when you
>>> resume eating carbohydrates you may find that your body
>>> rebounds and retains excess water. The water retention
>>> will dissipate after several days, but it wreaks havoc
>>> on the dieter's mental state.
>>
>>
>> That's a valid point. One of the reasons I replied is he
>> does have some valid points mixed in. Others saw he can't
>> tell dietary ketosis from ketoacidosis and wrote him off
>> as an idiot.
>
>
> It's a valid point in that you do gain back water. It's a non sequitor
> (sp?) to say that this "wreaks havic on the dieter's mental state."
I do think that has the *potential* to do so, especially if the dieter
isn't aware of the difference between
water weight gain
fat gain
most books tend not to distinguish weight (which can be water, glycogen,
fat, muscle, poop, etc) from fat loss and not making that distinction
can cause problems.
So for the same reason that the initial rapid (mostly water) weight loss
when carbs are restricted is psychologically benefitting to folks, the
initial rapid (almost all) water weight gain when they are reintroduced
can be just as damaging. It cements the idea that 'carbs make me fat'
in the dieter's mind and can derail the diet but quick.
But this is all contingent on the dieter being aware of what's actually
going on in their body in terms of water weight gain vs. fat gain.
Lyle
Aurora
low carb diet is directly caused by the carb reduction itself, not
necessarily rate of catabolism (lipolysis of bodyfat & gluconeogenesis
of muscle mass)? IMO I think any relationship between low carb diets
and decreased thyroid function - if one even exists - is only because
of their effectiveness at eliciting catabolism. In other words low
carb diets work so well at eliciting hypoinsulinemia & catabolism,
that if one is not careful or responsible they can inadvertently diet
themselves into starvation mode. His own evidence seems to support
this conclusion. If it was the lack of carbs causing hypothyroidism,
why then does he admit exercising is an additional risk factor?
Exercising to burn body fat is a catabolic metabolic action. So is
reducing dietary glycemic load. The only thing in common between the
given "low carb dieting & hypothyroid risk factors" seems to be an
elevated rate of catabolism.
We have known for a few years now that eliciting an unnaturally rapid
rate of catabolism trips the body's anti-starvation mode mechanisms
via the leptin feedback system. Leptin has master control over the
thyroid; when energy balance is rapidly falling into the red leptin
levels plummet. When leptin plummets so does thyroid function. This is
temporary though, as eating more calories will put fat back in the
cells, raise leptin, and thus restore thyroid function. He's not
telling us anything new, other than offering evidence that restricting
carbs is very, very good at getting many bodies into a catabolic
state.
2) What an *ignorant* thing to say. The whole goal of ANY diet is
forcing your body into a hypoinsulinemic state to facilitate body fat
catabolism. The reason you want your body to be hypoinsulinemic is
because only then will your body consume its own flesh. Insulin is the
master metabolic hormone, meaning the state of insulin dictates to
your body the nature of all secondary metabolic processes. Insulin
rises in response to energy consumption, and it falls in absence of
it. This is why dieters traditionally restrict calories, as
restricting calories reduces energy, which then allows your body to
reduce insulin levels, which then elevates glycogen & forces your body
to use itself for fuel: the glycogen, body fat, and muscle mass.
All diets tend to cause water loss, as all diets, irregardless of
composition, trigger relative hypoinsulinemia via caloric restriction.
As I said, hypoinsulinemia calls upon catabolic metabolizing of body
stores to sustain life. The only difference between LC and low cal/fat
is degree. LC is better at forcing your body into a catabolic state
than caloric restriction alone, so LC puts greater demand on stored
glycogen (and fat, and protein) for energy.
IMO, putting your body into a glycogen depleting state not always a
bad thing. If you aren't using up your glycogen (via exercise), and
the liver/muscle reserves are always overflowing with energy, guess
what your body does when you *do* eat rapidly digested simple carbs?
That's right, it is metabolized into FAT. Carbs flood the blood with
fuel - whether or not your body actually needs it that fast - and this
necessitates a surge of the energy mobilizing anabolic hormone insulin
to deal with it. If glycogen is full, and if you aren't doing anything
especially strenuous to use all that energy, guess what?
Your body simply dumps all those carbs into the fat cells.
Of course, carbs stored as fat can be used for energy as well, however
it is important to remember that if you are dumping an excessive
amount of carbohydrate in your fat cells it is likely you are on a
high carb & cal diet which promotes hyperinsulinemia. Remember, a
hyperinsulinemic environment makes catabolism (the usage of body fat)
very difficult. What is *actually* going to happen is not going to be
a seamless transition into catabolism in the presence of energy
deficit. instead you will experience painful hyperinsulinemia induced
reactive hypoglycemia. All that insulin swarming around in your blood
mucks up your body to keep energy levels balanced by facilitating
catabolism. So, when your blood sugar drops because of the insulin,
your body's backup system is compromised. Unless you know better,
hypoglycemia triggers more consumption of carbs. The cycle then
repeats itself as you consume more sugar, which results in more
hyperinsulinemia & fat storage, which results in more hypoglycemia
later, etc.
So in short, yes, LC diets do cause glycogen weight loss to a greater
degree than non carb restrictive diets, however this is another sign
that it is very effective. If your body is using glycogen this tends
to mean your body is using itself for fuel, and insulin levels aren't
very high. It also means, unless you eat too many LC calories, your
body can effortlessly & painlessly use it's own fat for fuel. This is
why LC diets aren't associated with pain & deprivation when calories
are restricted - eating foods which are conducive to promotion of a
hypoinsulinemic state makes caloric restriction & catabolism very,
very effortless.... sometimes even unconscious. Some people lose
weight without even trying, *if* they are eating a diet which does not
promote hyperinsulinemia.
3) I have never seen evidence which shows that rebound body fat gain
is more severe on cessation of a LC diet than other kinds of diets.
Eating the old way made you fat. Of course if you go back to your
hyperinsulinemic diet you will blimp up again. If you are intelligent
you won't allow that to happen, you will maintain with a moderate carb
diet.
4) Stupid. Saccharides are digested into blood sugar just like amino
acids are. In other words, carbohydrate is protein sparing only
because of its energy contents. If one eats enough energy from dietary
protein to facilitate gluconeogenesis AND structural repair,
catabolism of body protein will be no more great than that on any
other diet designed to trigger catabolism. It is important to remember
that because of the nature of losing body fat, it is impossible to
lose fat without also losing a little bit of muscle mass. When you
force catabolism, you are as a result making anabolic activities (such
as building fat or body muscle) more difficult. You have very little
control over which tissues your body uses first. It will use fat
preferentially to muscle of course, but if the body needs blood sugar
and you aren't suppling adequate carb/protein in diet to meet those
needs, than it WILL attack the muscles for that sugar. Of course, you
can avoid this by eating enough protein and calories to avoid muscle
catabolism. In fact it is possible to build muscles on LC, *if* one
eats enough protein & total calories to do it.
It is important to remember that building muscle is always going to be
either more difficult or impossible in a catabolic (body fat)
environment. It doesn't matter whether or not you are forcing your
body into catabolism by carb restriction or by calorie restriction
alone, all that matters is that the nature of catabolism is not
conducive to muscle anabolism. The optimal environment for building
muscle is one where there is a caloric EXCESS, as this is the ideal
environment for promoting anabolism. So what to do if you want to
build muscle and lose fat? Easy. Calorie staggering, or cyclical diets
are the answer. This is why body builders typically utilize cyclical
ketogenic diets (CKD). The strategy is as follows:
a) Have a few days of "bulking phase". Bulking phase is characterized
as a few days of high calorie & high carb. The idea is replenish
energy energy which is to be used for muscle anabolism. They lift
during or shortly after this time so they can be sure all that energy
is going to feed & repair the muscle which is broken down by the
lifting.
b) They then a few days of severe "restrictive phase" - Restriction is
characterized by very low calorie levels, and usually very low carbs &
high fat/protein. This is where they force the body toward body fat
catabolism. They may lose *some* of the previously built up muscle
during this time, but less than that which was built up during/after
bulking. As long as the net effect is that of positive muscle
anabolism and positive fat catabolism, they will make progress.
5) I have no idea whether or not this is true so I can't comment.
6) The only one with a simplistic view of insulin is the author of
this article. These pig headed people don't seem to understand it's
ultimately the hormones which are the catalyst behind shaping and mold
our bodies, NOT calories. Calories are indirectly important. They are
important in so much that their presence of absence affects hormones,
and allows hormones to do their job, however not all calories are
equal and therefore not all calories have the same effects on the
body. Type of calorie matters just as much as the potential energy &
type of material contained in that calorie.
Remember, insulin is the master metabolic hormone, which means its
state dictates the nature of all metabolic processes. Carbs tend to
promote a high energy, highly anabolic, low catabolic environment.
Eating high carbs is fine if you are doing tons of activities which
promote usage of that energy (i.e. cardio) and/or positive muscle
anabolism (i.e. weight lifting). However, in absence of the activity
the sort of anabolism promoted by a high carb diet is always going to
be FAT anabolism. The whole point of carb AND calorie restriction is
to manipulate insulin in such a way (hypoinsulinemia) so as to produce
the type of metabolic activity you want to occur (body fat
catabolism). In other words, the kinds of results you want should
dictate how you manipulate your diet.
If you are mainly concerned with losing body fat (catabolism), but not
building muscle (anabolism), then a straight ahead low carb & lower -
but adequate - calorie diet is your best bet for achieving this. If
you want to build muscle but not lose body fat then your best bet is a
high calorie, high carb diet with adequate protein and fat. However,
if you want to build muscle AND lose body fat, your best results will
be on some sort of calorie staggering/cyclical diet featuring a high
calorie/carb "bulk phase" followed with a low calorie/carb
"restrictive phase".
The author seems to think that for some reason, god only knows why, in
absence of physical goals which include a focused effort toward muscle
anabolism or increased energy output (via cardio) you should put
yourself in an anabolic environment via high carbohydrate consumption.
Why the hell would you want to do this, unless of course you like
being fat and want to be fatter?
7) Oh GOD! The links between fats and heart disease are very, very
weak. Furthermore, hypercholesterolemia is a SIGN of CHD, not a cause.
CHD plaques are made of cholesterol, but the cholesterol didn't cause
the damage. Cholesterol has a passive relationship with CHD. The
relationship between CHD and heart disease is akin to the relationship
between stitches and a wound. A high presence of stitches tends to
imply a high likelihood of being wounded, but the stitches didn't
actually CAUSE the wound! Correlation does not prove causation.
Furthermore, total amount of cholesterol is not nearly as important as
composition. Low triglycerides and high HDL even when total
cholesterol is elevated is not a symptom, whereas lower levels of
total cholesterol with high levels of triglycerides and low HDL is. I
would go into what DOES cause CHD, but I've already spent too much
time on this post.
Steve <nos...@please.reply.to.group.thanks.com> wrote in message news:<c9nnv...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
SpicaTC50
auro...@hotmail.com says...
So who is Keith Kline and why is this necessarily the TRUTH? Btw, tell him
there's no such word as irregardless.
news:<c9nnvk0lc
>2...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
Steve
> In article <79154ab9.04060...@posting.google.com>,
> auro...@hotmail.com says...
>
> So who is Keith Kline and why is this necessarily the TRUTH? Btw, tell him
> there's no such word as irregardless.
From Merriam-Webster Online at:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=irregardless&x=0&y=0
One entry found for irregardless.
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early
20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the
attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently
repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such
a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can
be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen
over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use
regardless instead.
Axel of the North!
>
[snip long post]
>
Wow. What a post. Liked it very much. Nice to see it summed up like
that. Too bad you are a heretic for top-posting!!! ; )
Yeah. The only time i've ever had a problem with slow metabolism on a
low-carb diet (or when i'm low-carbing) is when i just don't get
ENOUGH energy. its the energy deficit that causes a problem, for me.
My brain also feels pretty good on low-carb. I seem to be able to
support gluconeogenesis to the point where i'm happy. i don't have a
weight problem, nor do i have epilepsy, but i enjoy eating low-carb
when i'm not physically active. when i am active i like what carbs do
for me (and i don't worry about insulin because of glut-4). yesterday
i had a low-carb meal in my belly and went to the gym and did
deadlifts, some squats, a little jogging (good for warming up and
sensing strength levels) and bench presses with some pull-downs,
ending with some dips.
emotionally i felt very good after the exercise. low-carb, really i
should say high protein and high fat meals make me feel good, but
after exercise i feel even better. after that i bought a quart of
organic papaya juice at my local HFS and drank it down with about a
teaspoon of creatine monohydrate. that hit the spot.
i understand the Life Extension Foundation comes off as advertising
its products (not completely altruistic) but i like to read it and
have found a few products worthwhile (quality counts, regardless). I
read in a recent issue about ideal glucose and insulin levels
(fasting, etc.). They argue that the government's recommended safe
levels of both need updating, that many people who don't test as being
pre-diabetic still have unhealthy hormone levels, well, insulin at
least. and of course the blood-sugar (AGEs) issue. i agree. i've read
plenty of stuff on life extension (not referring to the magazine),
CR.. such as what's important is fasting long enough to cause some
sensation of hunger, during that time one gains much of the life
extension properties... still looks spotty on the details but short,
periodic fasts may help with "clean-up" or "detox" work to facilitate
longevity and effect gene expression.
what i'm getting at is i think insulin sensitivity is a good thing.
there are drugs designed to do this, some of them have been
recommended for possible life-extension capabilities (metformin). but
good ole exercise and minerals (vanadium, chromium) help, too. given
what the LEF says about new research into insulin/blood-sugar, i'd
think that sensible low-carb diets gain higher recognition as a
result.
fasting for days on end may not be so good. the warrior diet may be on
to something; eating slightly less, mild CR, that can help. how about
fewer and smaller meals compared to the 3 squares? that's also good..
but it is hard when one has work obligations and such.
all in all low-carb has its place, and high carb "meals" (which
includes liquid carb-ups) have their place. either one in excess
causes problems. i'm just saddened by the perpetuation of dietary
over-simplification.
Keith Kline is guilty of that crime. maybe he's getting paid by the
wheat council or something. maybe he's just invested too much of his
life in the old school and his ego won't let him back out.
"... the street term for it would be 'Byxmyndig' *legal to get in
pants* (it's true)" - Dukeman, in AGHL