View Single Post
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Aug-20-03, 03:46
ItsTheWooo's Avatar
ItsTheWooo ItsTheWooo is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 4,815
 
Plan: My Own
Stats: 280/118/117.5 Female 5ft 5.25 in
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa N
You might find this study interesting.

Reference:
Kasper, H., Thiel, H., Ehl, M., "Response of Body Weight to a Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet in Normal and Obese Subjects," The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 26, 1973, pages 197-204.

Summary:
The object of this study was to analyze the relationship between carbohydrate and fat as it pertains to regulation of body weight. Five volunteers were fed a formula diet comprised of 168 grams of carbohydrate, 64 grams of protein and 39 grams of fat for 45 days. Every five days, the amount of fat in the diet was increased via ingestion of either corn oil or olive oil. Researchers noted that the body could use up to 600 grams of fat daily, and this utilization was not compromised in any form, meaning individuals experienced increases in thermogenisis. At daily intakes of 300 to 400 grams of fat, subjects reported feeling warm all over and had an increased tendency to sweat. The individuals consuming the olive oil experienced an average weight gain of 20 pounds. Individuals consuming corn oil, although ingesting approximately 6,000 calories per day, experienced a decrease in weight. Researchers postulated that this discrepancy was due to the corn oil containing more of a particular essential fatty acid (linoleic acid). Based on the results obtained from this pilot study, the researchers placed 25 obese subjects on one of five diets varying in caloric value and ranging from low-fat/high-carbohydrate to high-fat/low-carbohydrate. All diets were supplemented with either corn oil or olive oil. Individuals consuming a low-fat, 855-calorie diet lost an average of 1.1 pounds daily while individuals consuming a low-fat, 1,006-calorie diet lost an average of 0.57 pounds daily. By comparison, the low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet group eating 1,707 calories lost 0.66 pounds daily while those eating 2,150 calories lost 0.70 pounds daily, regardless of whether they ate corn oil or olive oil. Eating less did not significantly alter weight loss in the low-carbohydrate groups. Researchers believed that this was a result of an increased energy output in the higher calorie group released by the body in the form of heat. Researchers also concluded that the weight loss was not water loss due to the length of the study and the total amount of weight loss achieved.


You might wish to note that those who were eating low carb consumed 700-1100 more calories than the low fat group and still lost more weight.

This one too: Please note that those that ate the most calories also lost the most weight by a good amount.

Summary:
This study tested whether a low-carbohydrate diet that did not restrict calories would be more successful in promoting weight loss than a low-fat, low-calorie diet. Researchers also tested to see if such a diet would have negative effects on blood lipid profiles, thus increasing cardiovascular risk. To test their hypothesis, they recruited 39 obese adolescents for the study; 20 were placed in a low-carbohydrate diet group while 19 were placed in a low-fat diet group. Subjects in the low-carbohydrate group were allowed to consume as much protein and fat as they wanted, so long as carbohydrate intake remained below 20 grams for the first two weeks and below 40 grams for the next nine weeks. Members of the low-fat group were instructed to consume fewer than 40 grams of fat per day. The low carbohydrate group participants consumed an average of 1,830 calories per day while those in the low-fat group consumed 1,100 calories per day. Both groups showed improvement in HDL ("good") cholesterol, triglycerides and total cholesterol. The improvement in triglycerides was much more pronounced in the low-carbohydrate group. Eating 700 more calories per day than the low-fat group, the low-carbohydrate group lost twice as much weight (an average loss of 48 pounds for the low-carbohydrate group versus an average of 20 pounds for the low-fat group). Neither diet had any effect on liver or kidney function. The researchers concluded that the low-carbohydrate diet significantly improved weight loss despite a higher caloric intake. Also, contrary to their hypothesis, despite increased fat intake, the cardiovascular risk profile did not worsen, but in fact improved in certain aspects including HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.


I'm not arguing that you don't have to restrict calories to lose weight, but if I had a choice between restricting them to 1,800 calories a day and losing weight or restricting them to 1,100 calories to lose weight (and lowering my metabolism in the process), it's not a difficult choice to make now is it?


One question, did they measure how much of the weight loss was in the form of water, fat, muscle and other? This is a very important distinction.

Carbs have a ton of water, and low carb dieting in the early stages causes a lot of water loss, which is why in the first few weeks the weight seems to just fly off. Sure some of it is fat, and you probably will lose more fat than hc dieters, but a lot of it is also water. In this particular study, the low carb dieters probably had a higher percentage of water loss, and the high carb dieters who ate very little probably lost more true fat than the low carb dieters who ate over 2000 calories in study #1.

Now, I don't doubt you can eat more calories (in the form of fat) on a low carb plan, and still lose similar amounts of weight as those who eat less calories on a high carb plan. Its no mystery really, its thermogenesis. Running on a fat burning metabolism is like doing exercise all day long. Fat requires more energy to burn than carbohydrate, therefore you must eat more calories if your primary energy intake is from lipids. To maintain the same level of bodily function as a high carb dieter you must eat more calories .
Even though im aware eating fat while eating low carb allows you to eat more, I just dont believe the average person can eat 1000 calories more !

How much more you can eat may very well be a personal thing, just like how many carbs your body can handle, how insulin resistant you are prone to become/are, etc. Personally, i only started losing when i slightly lowered my caloric intake to around 1500 (im not very active). However, i rarely, every feel hungry eating this way, and sometimes i even have to force myself to eat (to avoid low blood sugar).
Reply With Quote