4 ms·

"Ergo, the diet is a good thing" is what the proposers of that diet say. On the contrary, Dr. Hirsch says that "when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and f

"Ergo, the diet is a good thing" is what the proposers of that diet say. On the contrary, Dr. Hirsch says that "when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water. That can confuse attempts to measure energy output" ergo, the measurements were mistaken and there is not advantage from a low-carbs diet (as proved from Dr. Hirschs's experiments in a controlled environment).

raverbashing 14y ago
""when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water" This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing that has to be compensated. And there is loss of water in all weight loss diets. "the measurements were mistaken and there is not advantage from a low-carbs diet" There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point but there are several other aspects that are important in diets
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- danmaz74 14y ago
  He isn't saying that losing water is a bad thing, he says that how you lose it could explain the measured increased levels of calories burned from this new study, even if his own evidence says that you don't lose more weight from a hig fat diet. "There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point": what he says is that there are no advantages from a weight loss point, as the calories balance IS what creates long-term weight loss (according to him).
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    "what he says is that there are no advantages from a weight loss point" A diet is much more than counting calories. It's about managing to maintain a set amount of food for your objective. Here's an experiment you can do. Replace all your food (lunch/dinner) with chicken fillets (for the daily need of protein), top up calories with sweet potatoes and olive oil for fat needs. See how long you can keep up with this diet. This is a nutritionally sound diet (except for micronutrients), and if you calculate your daily needs you will maintain your weight (or you can adjust for weight loss or gain) But a regular person will probably lose weight because (s)he will get sick of it fast and eat less! The calories matter, but two things can have an equal number of calories and one may make people feel hungry after 1h and the other may make people feel full for the whole day. Guess who's more likely to lose weight?!
einhverfr 14y ago
I think the snarky response would be that "in dieting unproven criticism of published scientific studies is no substitute for research." I think it's fine to come up with such criticism as long as it leads to looking at and questioning the result and defining further studies, but...... One of my hobbies is history and archaeology. It's what I studied mostly in college (computing was just a hobby). One of the fascinating things is that diets where the primary calories come from carbs is associated in the archaeological record with both more dental problems (due to changes in the bacterial flora of the mouth) and shorter life expectancy than are lower carb diets. So a diet where your main sources of calories are essentially a curdled milk, and dried fish with butter, and where your primary source of carbs (and use of grain) is from beer has a longer life expectancy, and a much lower dental problem rate than a diet where grains and breads are the primary source of calories. One of the interesting things you can watch in the Scandinavian archaeological record is that during the conversion, grain production went up, life expectancy went down,and dental caries became far more common. Moreover the spread is sufficiently high that it cannot be accounted for by infant mortality. Average life expectancy at birth in the Viking Age (according to Else Roesdahl) was approx 45, though this probably did not include infanticides which poses some selection problem. But in France at the same time it was 20. Moreover the average life expectancy at age 20 in France at the time was only 35. This doesn't mean that there weren't other factors involved such as changing standards of hygiene, or population changes that might not have had some impact. However I don't think one can say that diet had nothing to do with it.
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  Has anyone researched this and documented a correlation? I'm doubtful of your claims, and given your opening line, it's ironic that you go on to compare observations from your hobby against statements made by a doctor with 60 years of research behind him. His criticism is not unproven, there's no substantiation for that claim at all. But you also make an interesting observation, if it has a basis in fact. It would seem to contradict the research of the Okinawan diet, which is almost exclusively plant-based, and 85% of calories are carb-derived.
  - einhverfr 14y ago

raverbashing 14y ago

""when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water" This is not a bad thing, but it is a thing that has to be compensated. And there is loss of water in all weight loss diets. "the measurements were mistaken and there is not advantage from a low-carbs diet" There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point but there are several other aspects that are important in diets

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
danmaz74 14y ago
He isn't saying that losing water is a bad thing, he says that how you lose it could explain the measured increased levels of calories burned from this new study, even if his own evidence says that you don't lose more weight from a hig fat diet. "There is not an advantage from the calorie balancing point": what he says is that there are no advantages from a weight loss point, as the calories balance IS what creates long-term weight loss (according to him).
- raverbashing 14y ago
  "what he says is that there are no advantages from a weight loss point" A diet is much more than counting calories. It's about managing to maintain a set amount of food for your objective. Here's an experiment you can do. Replace all your food (lunch/dinner) with chicken fillets (for the daily need of protein), top up calories with sweet potatoes and olive oil for fat needs. See how long you can keep up with this diet. This is a nutritionally sound diet (except for micronutrients), and if you calculate your daily needs you will maintain your weight (or you can adjust for weight loss or gain) But a regular person will probably lose weight because (s)he will get sick of it fast and eat less! The calories matter, but two things can have an equal number of calories and one may make people feel hungry after 1h and the other may make people feel full for the whole day. Guess who's more likely to lose weight?!

einhverfr 14y ago

I think the snarky response would be that "in dieting unproven criticism of published scientific studies is no substitute for research." I think it's fine to come up with such criticism as long as it leads to looking at and questioning the result and defining further studies, but...... One of my hobbies is history and archaeology. It's what I studied mostly in college (computing was just a hobby). One of the fascinating things is that diets where the primary calories come from carbs is associated in the archaeological record with both more dental problems (due to changes in the bacterial flora of the mouth) and shorter life expectancy than are lower carb diets. So a diet where your main sources of calories are essentially a curdled milk, and dried fish with butter, and where your primary source of carbs (and use of grain) is from beer has a longer life expectancy, and a much lower dental problem rate than a diet where grains and breads are the primary source of calories. One of the interesting things you can watch in the Scandinavian archaeological record is that during the conversion, grain production went up, life expectancy went down,and dental caries became far more common. Moreover the spread is sufficiently high that it cannot be accounted for by infant mortality. Average life expectancy at birth in the Viking Age (according to Else Roesdahl) was approx 45, though this probably did not include infanticides which poses some selection problem. But in France at the same time it was 20. Moreover the average life expectancy at age 20 in France at the time was only 35. This doesn't mean that there weren't other factors involved such as changing standards of hygiene, or population changes that might not have had some impact. However I don't think one can say that diet had nothing to do with it.

jessedhillon 14y ago
Has anyone researched this and documented a correlation? I'm doubtful of your claims, and given your opening line, it's ironic that you go on to compare observations from your hobby against statements made by a doctor with 60 years of research behind him. His criticism is not unproven, there's no substantiation for that claim at all. But you also make an interesting observation, if it has a basis in fact. It would seem to contradict the research of the Okinawan diet, which is almost exclusively plant-based, and 85% of calories are carb-derived.
- einhverfr 14y ago