PDA

View Full Version : Types of diets question



mr_hand
02-27-2003, 09:08 AM
I kinda get confused in deciding which kinda of diets I should do. I dont understand the big deal about all these people who do the low-carb diets to lose bodyfat. The reason I say this is because, isnt the purpose of building muscle, to change your body so that while you build new muscle you burn cals at a greater rate, and help lose bodyfat anyways? I go back and forth. Should I do a low-carb diet? But, wait isnt it important for your body to have carbs? But wait, wont the low carbs will help me burn fat and lose weight? But wait, wont eating right and the building of new muscle help to burn more cals, burn fat and lose weight? Uh I think, uh wait, uh. Ya know what I mean guys. It seems like we all get caught up in too much of the scientific mumbo jumbo of diets, when its a lot simpler than we make it out to be. I dont know. Just throwing my 2 cents out there.

Tryska
02-27-2003, 09:09 AM
well it goes back to your goals.

are you trying to cut fat or gain muscle? either or.

if cutting fat, cutting carbs greatly helps reaching those goals.

if gaining muscle, eating carbs, will help reach those goals.

mr_hand
02-27-2003, 09:17 AM
Thats the confusing part. If building muscle burns fat, and you need carbs to help build muscle, why would you cut carbs?
I understand, we cut carbs to help lose bodyfat as well. But i dont understand why a person who can lose bodyfat by building muscle, would opt to go the other way. Wouldnt losing bodyfat, but having more muscle be better than losing bodyfat and having less muscle?
I just cant seem to grasp.

Tryska
02-27-2003, 09:24 AM
when losing bodyfat, you want to maintain muscle.

of course gaining muscle definitely helps burn fat in the long-run, but what it takes to real gain muscle involves gaining some fat as well. you understand what i mean?

so after a bulking cycle, theoretically you should be able to lose the fat more easily.

mr_hand
02-27-2003, 09:32 AM
okay, its starting to make sense

mr_hand
02-27-2003, 09:35 AM
it still confusing to some degrees though. its probably just the vast amount of info that goes around though. ya know what I mean. You read one thing somewhere, you read another somewhere else. Its like when you read somewhere about restricting carbs is best for burning bf, and then you read somewhere else that restricting carbs is a mistake people make when trying to burn bf? Just too much contradictory info.

Tryska
02-27-2003, 09:48 AM
i pretty much base my decisions on studies and my own experience. And not necessarily on what other people say. I mean many people embrace the FDA guidelines as beign the healthiest approach, even tho it's crap, you know what i mean?

mr_hand
02-27-2003, 10:06 AM
that is....................true

aka23
02-27-2003, 10:14 AM
You are correct that building muscle helps you burn calories at a greater rate and lose body fat. You are also correct that it is important to have carbs, especially when building muscle.

In my opinion, you should not be following a low carb diet period. The idea behind many of these diets is that the low carb/high fat intake causes your body to enter ketosis, which suppreses hunger. Less hunger makes it easier to eat fewer calories and lose weight.

The decreased carbs cause glycogen depletion in your liver and muscles, which makes it difficult to complete your workouts. The glyogen is accompanied by a lot of water, and sodium excretion increases. This causes excessive water loss (sometimes dehydration) and makes it look like the pounds are coming off on the scale, when most of the initial weight loss is actually water. There also is a good chance of muscle loss since a low carb diet encourages the body to break down muscles for energy. In many cases, there is little change in overall body fat levels.

There may be some health and nutritional risks associated with this diet as well. Some of these possible risks are Fatigue, Dehydration, Constipation, Muscle weakness, Irritability, Vitamin/Mineral/Fiber/Nutritional defficiencies, Elevated blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels, Kidney problems, Calcium depletion. (I realize that there is some debate about the last 3.) To my knowledge low carb diets are not recommended for weight loss by the AHA, the ADA, other well known large US health organizations, or the general scientific/medical community. Some well known groups, like the AHA, condemn this type of diet.

In my opinion there are better ways to cut and lose fat, such as eating a balanced diet with adaquate protein, carbs, fats, and increasing cardio. You do not have to cut back on carbs to lose fat, you usually have to cut back on calories or increase cardio. I eat what many would call a high-carb diet, yet I have under 5% body fat.

Tryska
02-27-2003, 10:19 AM
the point of a low-carb diet is to minimize insulin response which is antithetical to losing fat.

the point of ketogenic diet is to encourage ketosis. please get those straight before harping on the dangers of low-carb diets.

if you have under 5% bodyfat, year-round, i wonder you don;t feel like sh*t most of the time.

aka23
02-27-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Tryska
the point of a low-carb diet is to minimize insulin response which is antithetical to losing fat.

the point of ketogenic diet is to encourage ketosis. please get those straight before harping on the dangers of low-carb diets.

It depends which low-carb diet you are talking about and how low carbohydrate intake you are talking about. If you eat a low to no carb diet that provides insuficient carbohydrates, you will make large amounts of ketone bodies to compensate for the lack of carbohydrates. As a result, you will start to accumulate these ketone bodies in your blood stream and you will enter ketosis. Ketosis is an essential component to many low-carb diets. I realize that there are some lower-carb type diets which do not encourage ketosis. I should have made this more clear in my post. Note that I did say "The idea behind many of these diets" (not all low-carb diets).


if you have under 5% bodyfat, year-round, i wonder you don;t feel like sh*t most of the time.

I have had a low body fat (3.5%-8%) for about ten years. During this time I have felt much better than I used to and I have had fewer illnesses/colds/injuries. My grades shot up in school, and I advanced beyond my grade level in all technical areas. Having low body fat does not require feeling bad. However, if you are on a low carb diet when having low body fat, then I think it increases the risk of feeling fatigued, irritable, and generally bad.

_-_v_-_
02-27-2003, 12:00 PM
I'm with Tryska on this one.

Despite what some may say, maintaining such low bodyfat percentages for long periods of time is quite unnatural, and therefore cannot but have significant, deleterious effects upon one's health. Even professional BB'ers, with all the pharmaceutical assistance money can buy, cannot maintain 3-5% BF for anything resembling a long period of time; yet you expect us to believe that you, without such assistance, do them one better? Come on.

You've made some fairly outrageous claims here; I, for one, think it's time that you back them up. Post some proof.

aka23
02-27-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by _-_v_-_
I'm with Tryska on this one.

Despite what some may say, maintaining such low bodyfat percentages for long periods of time is quite unnatural, and therefore cannot but have significant, deleterious effects upon one's health. Even professional BB'ers, with all the pharmaceutical assistance money can buy, cannot maintain 3-5% BF for anything resembling a long period of time; yet you expect us to believe that you, without such assistance, do them one better? Come on.

You've made some fairly outrageous claims here; I, for one, think it's time that you back them up. Post some proof.

It is not unusual for athletes in cardio type sports to maintain low body fats for long periods of time. The table at http://www.lifelonghealth.org/body_comp/bc_athletes.htm lists the average body fat for persons in various sports. Male athletes in quite a few of those average low percentages. For example rock climbers 5-10%, gymnasts 5-10%, triathalon 5-11%. It follows that if these athletes trained all year round, like I do, they could maintain low body fat percentages all year round. Note that I spend more time doing cardio activities like running and cycling, than I do weighlifting (about 60% cardio, 40% lifting).

It my understanding that the serious negative effects health effects you describe typically occur when body fat nears the essential body fat level. Most sources say this is about 3% for men (it varies for individuals).

Note that I did not say I continually maintened a 3-5% BF. I said that I have I have had a low body fat (3.5%-8%) for about ten years. The ranges I gave were with tests reported at my gym. The two or three tests I have had in the past year have been close to 5%. Aslo note that until recently I did not use supplementation. (I recently started taking a EFA supplements and a multivitamin/mineral.) If you want me to post proof of my specific stats, I do not see how that would be possible. This is not some new claim I just through out of the hat. I listed my height, weight and BF stats in my second post on this site.

_-_v_-_
02-27-2003, 10:25 PM
Low BF% is one thing; 5% is another.

One is healthful and relatively easy to maintain (I currently am proof of this); the other, barring pharmaceutical assistance, is not.

You ignored my main point; surely, if it takes professional athletes massive pharmaceutical enhancement to attain such low BF percentages, percentages which are all too often transitory, you cannot expect us to believe that you naturally maintain a true 5% bodyfat year round.

Most atheletes require high (relative to your five percent) levels of bodyfat; it is a protective mechanism. Furthermore, the reported estimates of athlete's BF%s are often unrealistically low. NFL receivers, for example, are often reported to have sub-6% bodyfat; this, of course, as anyone who has taken a tackle knows, is an utter joke. In reality, these athletes are likely at least 10%-12% BF; they cannot afford to be any less.


If you want me to post proof of my specific stats, I do not see how that would be possible.

Camera. Photo. Scanner.

Voila.

Listen, I respect your position; you have acquitted yourself well in your discussions here. I merely do not want to give the members of this board, particularly those new to dieting and training, the impression that such low BF%s are healthy, easily maintained, and therefore realistic and attainable goals. Unfortunately, they are not.

aka23
02-28-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by _-_v_-_
oYu ignored my main point; surely, if it takes professional athletes massive pharmaceutical enhancement to attain such low BF percentages, percentages which are all too often transitory, you cannot expect us to believe that you naturally maintain a true 5% bodyfat year round.

I disagree. It does not take a pro athlete on drugs to maintain a 5% body fat. The page at http://www.lambtonhealth.on.ca/youth/teamweight.asp says it is common for boys to "enter puberty with about 5% body fat." I believe that are plenty of recrational exercisers as well as lucky naturally lean guys who maintain very low body fats year round,. Unfortunately at this time I only have data on athletes. On the page at http://www.healthcentral.com/cooltools/CT_Fitness/bodyfat1.cfm , Covert Bailey says top athletes typically test between 3-12% with underwater emersion and he has tested a guy with as low as 1% body fat.

I do not want to give the impression that this low a body fat comes without effort. I often work out more than 10 hours per week, doing several types of cardio and weightlifting. I expect that I push myself as hard as many top athletes. I also eat a carefully controlled diet.


Originally posted by _-_v_-_
Camera. Photo. Scanner.

Voila.

I took a photo a few minutes ago with my digital camera. I have sent you a private message with a link to the photo. If you do not believe it is me, I could make other photos holding specific objects, with specific poses, etc. I do not want to post photos on the message board for privacy reasons.

_-_v_-_
02-28-2003, 07:58 AM
I understand completely, and commend your willingness to do what you can to support your claim. This is why WBB works.

One percent bodyfat? I highly, HIGHLY, doubt that; quite frankly, he would likely be dead. There are health risks associated with bodyfat percentages five times that high: "However, athletes often try to seek a body fat level that is arbitrarily low and this can increase the frequency of illness, increase the risk of injury, lengthen the time the athlete can return to training following an injury, reduce performance, and increase the risk of an eating disorder." From:http://users.compaqnet.be/cn000760/drugsandmedicine-bodyfat.html (http://users.compaqnet.be/cn000760/drugsandmedicine-bodyfat.html [url)[/URL]

Again: if the most chemically-enhanced athletes in the world (pro BBers) cannot maintain true sub-5% levels for extended periods of time, why should one think that other, less enhanced athletes can do the same? It simply doesn't make any sense.

_-_v_-_
02-28-2003, 07:59 AM
Boys on average enter pubert with 5% BF?

In this age, I highly doubt that. The average now is most likely much higher.

Tryska
02-28-2003, 08:10 AM
technically, if one was only 1% body fat, they would most likely be brain dead. considering the brain is mostly fat too. and needs to be that way.


here's a good rule of thumb....honestly whatever someone says their bodyfat is, add another 4 or 5 percent to that. People underestimate, just how much fat actually exists, on purpose in the body. (ie your brain, cushioning for your internal organs, etc, etc)

aka23
02-28-2003, 08:18 AM
The page said Covert tested the guy with the underwater weighing method, and the test said he was 1%. He was not just taking the guy's word for it. However, I have already posted that most sources say essential body fat for men is usually about 3%. This is the fat this required for the brain, cushing organs, etc. Most likely the 1% reading was incorrect due to an atypical bone density. No test methods are perfect, but underwater weiging is one of the most reliable ways of testing body fat.

_-_v_-_
02-28-2003, 08:19 AM
Exactly.

I know that, when I was at my worst point (psychologically as well as physically), I dipped down to about 5%; and, surprise, I looked, and felt, like sh!t.

hemants
02-28-2003, 08:28 AM
"I kinda get confused in deciding which kinda of diets I should do"

For the most part, I think that a balanced diet is all that is required to meet your goals. There is a wide variance in what is considered balanced but as long as you are getting sufficient protein and adequate essential fatty acids and making up the rest in healthy carbohydrates, you can achieve your goals.

That being said, your confusion might be put into context by the fact that it is very difficult to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

That is why people go through bulking cycles and cutting cycles and empirical wisdom has found that more carbs during bulking and fewer carbs during cutting are sometimes effective.

Personally, I found that reducing calories but staying with the same percentages was equally effective for cutting but everyone is different.

I am speaking, however, only in terms of diets that result in the normal metabolic pathways being used to process nutrients (as opposed to things like ketogenic diets)

fuzz
02-28-2003, 08:31 AM
Not to mention the effects of low leptin levels, since being at 5-8% bodyfat year round means you must be below your setpoint, resulting in all sorts of problems. Unless you are one of the lucky few whose genetics are set to have a low set-point.

aka23
02-28-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by _-_v_-_
Again: if the most chemically-enhanced athletes in the world (pro BBers) cannot maintain true sub-5% levels for extended periods of time, why should one think that other, less enhanced athletes can do the same? It simply doesn't make any sense.

It is my understanding that most pro bodybuilders follow a cutting stage where they try to attain a low body fat, and a building stage where they try to build muscle. They accept that body fat will probably increase for optimal muscle gain during the building stage. I do not think the problem is that they cannot attain a low body fat (under 8%) all year round. I think the problem is they cannot maintain all their muscle and make optimal gains while following such a program. Athletes in other sports have different goals, and are often not as concerned with building and maintaining muscle. For example distance runners are probably not as concerned about building/maintaining muscle as pro bodybuilders. And some distance runners can and do maintain low body fat (under 8%) all year round. (The page I linked to earlier with althlete's body fat percentages showed the range of average body fat for male middle distance runners at 8% or less.)

aka23
02-28-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by _-_v_-_
Exactly.

I know that, when I was at my worst point (psychologically as well as physically), I dipped down to about 5%; and, surprise, I looked, and felt, like sh!t.

I do not doubt that you felt worse at a lower body fat. However, that does not neccesarily mean that the lower body fat caused your feelings. There are many other possible explanations. For example you may have been following a low-carb cutting diet which is associated with fatigue, irritability, and generally feeling bad. You may have been dehydrating yourself to prepare for a competetition. Again this can cause you to feel bad. You may have been cutting your calories. You may have been feeling general effects of a diet or supplementation. You may have been doing new cardio exercises that your body was not used to. Or you may just have a higher natural body fat set point than some. The possibilities are endless.

In my case, I eat the same way and follow approximately the same training program all year round. There are no low-carb, low-water, or low-calorie diets. I eat what I have learned makes me feel well, and avoid foods and meals that do not. After changing my diet and exercie rountine my asthma was eliminated, my allergies greatly improved, I stopped getting headaches or feeling nausea after eating certain meals, my body looked far better, my cardiovascular fitness improved dramatically, I had fewer illnesses, and generally felt much better. This is true both for the periods in which I was tested at my lowest body fat and the period in which my body fat tested near 8% (freshmen year of college). If anything I felt worse when I was near 8% body fat than the lower body fat. This probably was related to overtraining by being on a sports team while trying to continue my usual exercise program.

restless
02-28-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by aka23
In my opinion, you should not be following a low carb diet period. The idea behind many of these diets is that the low carb/high fat intake causes your body to enter ketosis, which suppreses hunger. Less hunger makes it easier to eat fewer calories and lose weight.

The decreased carbs cause glycogen depletion in your liver and muscles, which makes it difficult to complete your workouts. The glyogen is accompanied by a lot of water, and sodium excretion increases. This causes excessive water loss (sometimes dehydration) and makes it look like the pounds are coming off on the scale, when most of the initial weight loss is actually water. There also is a good chance of muscle loss since a low carb diet encourages the body to break down muscles for energy. In many cases, there is little change in overall body fat levels.

There may be some health and nutritional risks associated with this diet as well. Some of these possible risks are Fatigue, Dehydration, Constipation, Muscle weakness, Irritability, Vitamin/Mineral/Fiber/Nutritional defficiencies, Elevated blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels, Kidney problems, Calcium depletion. (I realize that there is some debate about the last 3.) To my knowledge low carb diets are not recommended for weight loss by the AHA, the ADA, other well known large US health organizations, or the general scientific/medical community. Some well known groups, like the AHA, condemn this type of diet.



I want to see evidence of this. And I don't mean material published by these US health organizations but controlled studies backing up your claims.

A low carb diet is not unhealthy, does not mean one is depriving himself of essential nutrients (unlike the diet you have been on), does not cause kidney problems, is not low in fiber because most carbs should come from green vegetables, does not raise cholesterol because it should be high in omega 3, irritability goes away after your body has adjusted to the diet, dehydration only happens if you don't drink enough water (Duh!!), etc, etc.

Those were some bold claims and I want to see you prove it.

fuzz
02-28-2003, 01:05 PM
Agreed. Where are the sources?

aka23
02-28-2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by restless
I want to see evidence of this. And I don't mean material published by these US health organizations but controlled studies backing up your claims.

I will respond to each of your requests below. If you wish to see references for other claims, then tell me which ones.


does not cause kidney problems,

This was one of the final three comments in which I said "there is some debate." You can find studies both for and against this claim. Here some that are for:

http://www.cannedfood.org/whatsnew/cuttingcarbs.htm
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2002/20020801-hplc.html
http://www.kidneyfund.org/AboutAKF/Newsroom_020425.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2679056&dopt=Abstract



does not raise cholesterol because it should be high in omega 3,

This is another one of my three comments in which I said "there is some debate."

The Atkins' Diet is one of the best known of the low carbohydrate diet programs. In a study of the Atkins diet, published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in September 1980, people who followed the diet for eight weeks experienced an increase in blood cholesterol levels, even though they had lost weight. (Weight loss is known to decrease cholesterol levels.) In a more recent study in the October 2000 issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, researchers calculated that long-term use of the Atkins diet would result in a 25% increase in blood cholesterol levels. I realize there have been some studies showing a decrease in cholesterol. The AHA's position is that this decrease was more related to lost weight, than the composition of the diet.



A low carb diet is not unhealthy, does not mean one is depriving himself of essential nutrients...
is not low in fiber because most carbs should come from green vegetables

It depends on the specific foods consumed. A low carb diet does not have to, but it increases the risk of depriving yourself of essential nutrients including fiber. For example The Atkins' Diet, one of the best known of the low carbohydrate diet programs, severely restricts fruits and also vegetables to a lesser extent. At one point in the program participants are supposed to keep total carb intake below 20g per day. Reducing quantities of these foods reduces many valuable nutrients, like fiber. Atkins recommends taking a multivitamin/mineral supplement, but this does not include additional substances found in fruits/veg such as phytochemicals–substances which may ward off heart disease and cancer, and fiber.

Fiber rich foods tend to contain a good amount of carbs, while protein and fat rich foods tend to contain little carbs. When one lowers their carb% and increaes their protein & fat % they also tend to also decrease fiber. Americans are already at risk for low fiber and lowering their carbs increases this risk. This does not mean that mean everybody following every low carb diet has inadaquate fiber/vitamins/minerals. I am saying that many of these diets increases the risk of defficiencies.



dehydration only happens if you don't drink enough water

I agree that a person can usually avoid dehydration by increasing their water intake to compensate for the increased water loss. However, not everyone does this. The diuretic effect of many low carb diets increases the risk for dehydration. I would also say that running in hot weather increases the risk for dehydration.

restless
02-28-2003, 04:00 PM
Ok Aka, while I generally agree with some things you say and am able to tolerate others, one can’t go around spreading lies like this and get way with it with no confrontation.

First, I’d like to leave clear that I’m not a big fan of extreme low carb diets for bodybuilders, not because there’s anything unhealthy about them as there isn’t any actual proof that restricting carbs has any negative impact on health, but because low carb doesn’t seem to make any significant difference in fatloss, so ketosis seems to be overrated when it comes to this, and also because of the “flat” look your muscles end up having on a very low carb diet. Having said that I’ll proceed to comment on the links you provided.

This Mr Wang said:

“Wang said, on average, people should consume half their daily calories from carbohydrates. The high-protein diet permits only 15 percent of daily calories to come from carbohydrates. Limiting carbohydrates forces the body to search for other sources of energy, one of which is fat, Wang said. Ketone bodies, which cause ketoacidosis, are formed when the body is forced to burn fat for energy. “

Now, either he is just a blatant liar or completely ignorant because Ketoacidosis is a pathological condition caused by the complete lack of insulin in the blood and is only seen in diabetics and alcoholics. Possibly they picked these ten subjects out of a group of homeless drunks and thus reached the conclusions they did. I did not read beyond this point, as these people clearly have no ideia of what they are talking about.

About your second study, I’ll reply with this quote from the American journal of clinical nutrition:

“Getting enough calcium is essential for building and maintaining healthy bones, but new research suggests that protein may also play an important role in preventing bone loss.
The relationship between protein and bone density is not clear-cut. Some studies have detected a decreased risk of bone loss and fracture in people who consume high levels of protein. But other studies have linked protein consumption to an increased risk of fracture, especially in people who consume high levels of animal protein.
During a 3-year study of nearly 350 elderly men and women who were taking calcium citrate and malate and vitamin D supplements, investigators found that bone mineral density increased most in people whose diets contained the most protein. Whether protein came from mainly animal or plant sources did not affect the increase in bone density.
Bone mineral density may be improved by increasing protein intake in many older men and women, as long as they meet the currently recommended intakes of calcium and vitamin D.
Dietary protein was linked to increased bone density only in people who were taking supplements. Protein intake did not have a noticeable effect on bones in study participants who were assigned an inactive placebo pill. Additional research is needed to see whether protein improves bone density in older people who get all their calcium and vitamin D from dietary sources, not supplements.
The more protein a person eats, the more calcium is excreted in urine. Excess protein intake should be bad for bone. But the results of the study suggest that concerns about protein intake are probably unfounded,
You need both calcium and protein for bone, and if your diet has plenty of both, then your bones are likely to be in better condition than if you are short on one or both of these nutrients.
This study and other recently published research "go a long way toward refuting" concerns that animal protein is bad for bones.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition April 2002;75:609-610, 773-779


If you need more, I can surely provide some more.

This next one is pure genius,

" The researchers studied five fit endurance runners who consumed a low, then a medium, and finally a high-protein diet. During the high-protein phase, the runners consumed about 30% of their total calories from foods such as eggs, steak, and so-called "power bars". Blood tests showed that increasing the protein intake led to a progression toward dehydration, and that a greater strain was placed on the kidneys due to the excessive amount of protein.”

Do you think it ever crossed the minds of these clever people that maybe, and just maybe, there’s the need to actually increase your fluid intake when you increase your protein intake? Ummm? Wow, what a concept, drinking more water prevents dehydration.

The last one has no relation to what’s being discussed so I’ll leave that one alone.



The Atkins' Diet is one of the best known of the low carbohydrate diet programs. In a study of the Atkins diet, published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in September 1980, people who followed the diet for eight weeks experienced an increase in blood cholesterol levels, even though they had lost weight. (Weight loss is known to decrease cholesterol levels.) In a more recent study in the October 2000 issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, researchers calculated that long-term use of the Atkins diet would result in a 25% increase in blood cholesterol levels. I realize there have been some studies showing a decrease in cholesterol. The AHA's position is that this decrease was more related to lost weight, than the composition of the diet.

The Atkins diet is just that, the Atkins diet. It's by no means representative of low carb or Keto diets. He did make some mistakes, namely not distinguishing the impact the various types of fats can have on your health.


Fiber rich foods tend to contain a good amount of carbs, while protein and fat rich foods tend to contain little carbs. When one lowers their carb% and increaes their protein & fat % they also tend to also decrease fiber. Americans are already at risk for low fiber and lowering their carbs increases this risk. This does not mean that mean everybody following every low carb diet has inadaquate fiber/vitamins/minerals. I am saying that many of these diets increases the risk of defficiencies.

Again, you are making assumptions that don't hold much water, a crap diet is a crap diet, be it an extreme low fat diet that deprives one's body of essential fatty acids or in the case of a diet with no green vegetables it's the lack of important micronutrients (is this the term?) that these foods contain that has a negative impact on health not the lack of carbs per se, your body does fine without carbs as it can pratically turn anything in glucose.


I agree that a person can usually avoid dehydration by increasing their water intake to compensate for the increased water loss. However, not everyone does this. The diuretic effect of many low carb diets increases the risk for dehydration. I would also say that running in hot weather increases the risk for dehydration.

Good for you, but don't go around saying low carb diets are unhealthy because some idiots don't seem to be able to remember that water is vital to your health.

restless
02-28-2003, 04:24 PM
Someone just posted an excerpt from the latest issue of the Journal of Nutrition at the HST board, what a coincidence.

aka23
02-28-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by restless
This Mr Wang said:...

Now, either he is just a blatant liar or completely ignorant because Ketoacidosis is a pathological condition caused by the complete lack of insulin in the blood and is only seen in diabetics and alcoholics. Possibly they picked these ten subjects out of a group of homeless drunks and thus reached the conclusions they did. I did not read beyond this point, as these people clearly have no ideia of what they are talking about.

It is Dr. Wang, not Mr. Wang. He is a professor of internal medicine and a researcher at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He is considered an expert in this field, and in my opinion does know what he is talking about.

I do not think you can dismiss all of the studies findings because you do not like how one of the researchers is defining ketoacidosis to be when acid excretions rose from baseline levels of 61 milli-equivalents per day to 116. Perhaps you would use a different definition, but in any case the study found that levels of urinary citrate, which inhibits kidney stones, dropped by almost 25 percent. They concluded that the diet increases risk of kidney stones, which corresponds to my original claim.



About your second study, I’ll reply with this quaote from the American journal of clinical nutrition...

The calcium depeltion was one of the three claims in which I said "there is some debate." I meant there are some studies in favor and some studies against the claim. You quoted one study against the claim. One that is in favor is below and conflicts with your studies findings is below. Also note that your study of eldery persons taking calcium supplements on a high protein diet may not be the most relevent one in discussions of low carb diets.

"A Dallas research team report that low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (which also tend to be higher in protein) may increase the risk of bone loss. The trial, published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, showed that the loss of calcium in the urine increased during the study. What's more, the increase in calcium excretion wasn't compensated for by an increase in calcium absorption. In other words, calcium balance dropped by up to 130 milligrams daily."



"Blood tests showed that increasing the protein intake led to a progression toward dehydration, and that a greater strain was placed on the kidneys due to the excessive amount of protein.”

Do you think it ever crossed the minds of these clever people that maybe, and just maybe, there’s the need to actually increase your fluid intake when you increase your protein intake? Ummm? Wow, what a concept, drinking more water prevents dehydration.

I linked to the study to support my claim about increase risk of kidney problems. The study found that greater stress was placed on the kidneys due to the excessive amount of protein. There is not enough information to know if the progression towards dehydration could have been prevented by drinking more water. Perhaps the sodium excretion limited the amount of water the body could store and was a major factor in the dehydration. In any case, I think that the American Kidney Fund's findings and recommendations are relevant to other athletes who are considering such a program.



The Atkins diet is just that, the Atkins diet. It's by no means representative of low carb or Keto diets. He did make some mistakes, namely not distinguishing the impact the various types of fats can have on your health.

The Atkin's diet is one of the most well known low carb diets. I believe that most diets which keep carb levels as low as Atkin's would run into the problems mentioned in my post. Also note that Atkin's did distinguish about the impact the various types of fats can have on your health and encourages EFA supplementation. He discusses EFA's on his website at http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/11/30-802131.html .

I agree that Atkin's is not representative of all low carb diets. I generally have a larger problem with ones that have the lowest carb intake like Atkin's, and have less of a problem with ones with larger carb intakes, like The Zone.



this is not because you lack carbs. Your body does fine without them, it can pratically turn anything in glucose.

You are saying that your body does fine without carbs (a 0% carb diet)? Such a diet would be catastrophic to a person trying to build muscle. Glycogen serves as your fuel when weightlifting (your body cannot use fats for energy during short activities like lifting). Without carbs, your body would be breaking down muscle for energy and you would have very limited energy in the gym.

restless
02-28-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by aka23


It is Dr. Wang, not Mr. Wang. He is a professor of internal medicine and a researcher at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He is considered an expert in this field, and in my opinion does know what he is talking about.

I do not think you can dismiss all of the studies findings because you do not like how one of the researchers is defining ketoacidosis to be when acid excretions rose from baseline levels of 61 milli-equivalents per day to 116. Perhaps you would use a different definition, but in any case the study found that levels of urinary citrate, which inhibits kidney stones, dropped by almost 25 percent. They concluded that the diet increases risk of kidney stones, which corresponds to my original claim.




It 's not a case of not liking anything, Ketoacidosis does not happen in healthy people and the only evidence that's almost beyond debate is that a high protein diet will agravate a already existent kidney condition. The rest is crap.




The calcium depeltion was one of the three claims in which I said "there is some debate." I meant there are some studies in favor and some studies against the claim. You quoted one study against the claim. One that is in favor is below and conflicts with your studies findings is below. Also note that your study of eldery persons taking calcium supplements on a high protein diet may not be the most relevent one in discussions of low carb diets.

"A Dallas research team report that low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (which also tend to be higher in protein) may increase the risk of bone loss. The trial, published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, showed that the loss of calcium in the urine increased during the study. What's more, the increase in calcium excretion wasn't compensated for by an increase in calcium absorption. In other words, calcium balance dropped by up to 130 milligrams daily."


See the scanned excert from the lattest journal of nutrition.


The Atkin's diet is one of the most well known low carb diets. I believe that most diets which keep carb levels as low as Atkin's would run into the problems mentioned in my post. Also note that Atkin's did distinguish about the impact the various types of fats can have on your health and encourages EFA supplementation. He discusses EFA's on his website at http://atkinscenter.com/Archive/2001/11/30-802131.html .

Yes, he did fix his recommendations latter.


There is not enough information to know if the progression towards dehydration could have been prevented by drinking more water.


This is a truly weird statement. You need a study showing that drinking water prevents dehydration?



I agree that Atkin's is not representative of all low carb diets. I generally have a larger problem with ones that have the lowest carb intake like Atkin's, and have less of a problem with ones with larger carb intakes, like The Zone.

Alright, you are essentially biased towards low fat diets and want to convince yourself that carbs are somewhat necessary in one's diet. Something like that?


You are saying that your body does fine without carbs (a 0% carb diet)? Such a diet would be catastrophic to a person trying to build muscle. Glycogen serves as your fuel when weightlifting (your body cannot use fats for energy during short activities like lifting). Without carbs, your body would be breaking down muscle for energy and you would have very limited energy in the gym.

I am saying that there's no such thing as essential carbs. I'm also saying that if one's totally deprived from protein or from EFA's for long enough one will die, and without carbs you will just have less glycogen stores at the worst. A 0 % carb diet is not possible anyway.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of extreme low carbs diets for bodybuilders, but I don't go around dissing them when the evidence against them is for the most part bull****.

aka23
02-28-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by restless
It 's not a case of not liking anything, Ketoacidosis does not happen in healthy people and the only evidence that's almost beyond debate is that a high protein diet will agravate a already existent kidney condition. The rest is crap.

Medical professionals and medical textbooks sometimes use a different definition of ketoacidosis than authors of low-carb diet books. The textbooks sometimes call the low-carb ketosis "starvation ketosis." Using their definition involving blood measures, ketoacidosis can occur to a measurable extent in an overnight fast (or an overnight in which carbs are not eaten)." However, I do not think the terminology should effect the results of the study. There is a good amount of research indicating a connection between kidney stones and high-protein diets, just like the study found. Certainly the risk is greatest in people who are prone to kidney stones, such as people with prexisting kidney conditions.



See the scanned excert from the lattest journal of nutrition..

As I have said before, there are studies that show results both in favor and against the claim. I do not think there is any point to keep posting links. At this point all the evidence is not in, and some studies conflict each other. As I said in my first post, there is some debate.



This is a truly weird statement. You need a study showing that drinking water prevents dehydration?

Low carb diets are assoiciated with sodium excretion. When your electrolyte balance is altered, water retension and thrist often are also alterned. In some cases, the water just flows through, leading to an increased risk of dehydration. This may or may not have happened in the study. There is not enough information to conclude how the progression towards dehydration could have been prevented in the subjects, and the results of the study should not be ignored.



Alright, you are essentially biased towards low fat diets and want to convince yourself that carbs are somewhat necessary in one's diet. Something like that?

In my posts I recommend a 20-30% fat diet, which has nothing to do with this discussion or this thread. I believe that carbs should ideally make up the majority of ones calories, carbs are an important part of a balanced diet, and that there are negative health effects with low carb diets. I think that most of the medical/scientific community, most sports nutrionisists, and most major US health organizations would agree with these claims.



A 0 % carb diet is not possible anyway.

A few extreme low carb dieters do try no carb diets (usually for short periods). Such a diet can be created by only eating meats.

noraa
03-01-2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by aka23
[B]

Medical professionals and medical textbooks sometimes use a different definition of ketoacidosis than authors of low-carb diet books. The textbooks sometimes call the low-carb ketosis "starvation ketosis." Using their definition involving blood measures, ketoacidosis can occur to a measurable extent in an overnight fast (or an overnight in which carbs are not eaten)." However, I do not think the terminology should effect the results of the study. There is a good amount of research indicating a connection between kidney stones and high-protein diets, just like the study found. Certainly the risk is greatest in people who are prone to kidney stones, such as people with prexisting kidney conditions.
Sorry, you seem to like quoting other people, but you are absolutely wrong about ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis will ONLY happen in specific situations, usually diabetics (hence, Diabetic Ketoacidosis) and some other cases that are much rarer (alcoholics etc).
Even in starvation you will be lucky to see greater than 6-8mmol/L ketones (blood levels, urinary levels are pathetic) Severe diabetic ketoacidosis will easily double that level. Once the body gets to that levels, increases in production of insulin (low carb diets usually dont mention that bit) will inhibit further ketogenesis and enchance peripheral ketone utilization.
In terms of low carb diets and nephrolithiasis, it can increase risks, because it can increase blood levels of uric acid and this can raise the risks, but its a relatively small percentage (<5-10% in most cases). Its only obvious that people with pre-existing kidney disorders shouldnt try low carb/higher protien diets, and even atkins admits this.


Low carb diets are assoiciated with sodium excretion. When your electrolyte balance is altered, water retension and thrist often are also alterned. In some cases, the water just flows through, leading to an increased risk of dehydration. This may or may not have happened in the study. There is not enough information to conclude how the progression towards dehydration could have been prevented in the subjects, and the results of the study should not be ignored.
this is mainly with people who ahve problems with electrolyte balance before hand, and is a relatively small percentage of people. The large majority of people have no problem with electrolyes. Dehydration with keto diets is a difficult thing. It will dehydrate you more than sheer water intake can fix, go see misc,fitness.weights and read up about elzi volks back injury and keto diets.
Heavy training and low carb (like atkins, not like CKD/TKD tho cos they allow some build up in carbs) generally may not be a great mix.

Hello restless, did you like my jpeg :D

noraa
03-01-2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by aka23

The calcium depeltion was one of the three claims in which I said "there is some debate." I meant there are some studies in favor and some studies against the claim. You quoted one study against the claim. One that is in favor is below and conflicts with your studies findings is below. Also note that your study of eldery persons taking calcium supplements on a high protein diet may not be the most relevent one in discussions of low carb diets.

"A Dallas research team report that low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (which also tend to be higher in protein) may increase the risk of bone loss. The trial, published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases, showed that the loss of calcium in the urine increased during the study. What's more, the increase in calcium excretion wasn't compensated for by an increase in calcium absorption. In other words, calcium balance dropped by up to 130 milligrams daily."
Read the term MAY. Bone loss is an extremly long term, and multifactorial process. And there is a fine line between protein/calcium intake.
And its also important to note, a keto diet is not always a high protein. In terms of the research on atkins style diets, what usually happens is that fat and protein intake do not change, but carbohydtates are removed. This means that absolute levels of fat and protein do not change (just percentage breakdowns-which are absolutely worthless)


The Atkin's diet is one of the most well known low carb diets. I believe that most diets which keep carb levels as low as Atkin's would run into the problems mentioned in my post.
well, do you really know the atkins diet. The low (~20g) carb limit is onyl for 2 weeks, and then carbohydrate levels are increased.


I generally have a larger problem with ones that have the lowest carb intake like Atkin's, and have less of a problem with ones wih larger carb intakes, like The Zone.
Its fair enough to have problems with atkins, but your way of referencing it seems like you have read it straight out of the ADAs directive book, which is usually full of things like high protein diets cause kidney damage to which there is no evidence for this claim.


You are saying that your body does fine without carbs (a 0% carb diet)? Such a diet would be catastrophic to a person trying to build muscle. Glycogen serves as your fuel when weightlifting (your body cannot use fats for energy during short activities like lifting). Without carbs, your body would be breaking down muscle for energy and you would have very limited energy in the gym.
you must get your inforamtion from the ADA. How does your body break down muscle for energy if you are eating protein?
ITs a common claim from many groups that keto diets burn muscle, but there is absolutely no evidence of this. (yes gluconeogenesis converts aminos to glucose but these are predominantly from dietary sources. Yes you do lose some LBM on keto diets, but no more than any other diet.

The primary energy source for most resistance training is phosphocreatine, not glucose. Sure after a longer set, it can start to drain glucose more, but it can still work. Which is shown not in research (as there is little available on keto and resistance training) but in real life experience and anecdotal evidence.

restless
03-01-2003, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by noraa



Hello restless, did you like my jpeg :D

Yes I did. :D

I never realized that you were Aaron from the HST board untill now! :confused:

aka23
03-01-2003, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by noraa

Sorry, you seem to like quoting other people, but you are absolutely wrong about ketoacidosis. Ketoacidosis will ONLY happen in specific situations, usually diabetics (hence, Diabetic Ketoacidosis) and some other cases that are much rarer (alcoholics etc).
Even in starvation you will be lucky to see greater than 6-8mmol/L ketones (blood levels, urinary levels are pathetic) Severe diabetic ketoacidosis will easily double that level. Once the body gets to that levels, increases in production of insulin (low carb diets usually dont mention that bit) will inhibit further ketogenesis and enchance peripheral ketone utilization.
In terms of low carb diets and nephrolithiasis, it can increase risks, because it can increase blood levels of uric acid and this can raise the risks, but its a relatively small percentage (<5-10% in most cases). Its only obvious that people with pre-existing kidney disorders shouldnt try low carb/higher protien diets, and even atkins admits this.

More information about starvation kecoacidosis can be found at http://www.qldanaesthesia.com/AcidBaseBook/AB8_2.htm#starv .
"Ketoacidosis can appear after an overnight fast but it typically requires 3 to 14 days of starvation to reach maximal severity."

The Dr. in the study said that ketoacidosis was present, but he did not describe the severity. I do not doubt that this is different from alcoholic and diabateic kecoacidosis. In any case, I do not think the terminology should effect the results of the study. The study found that there was an increased risk of kidney stones. There is no doubt that the risk is most severe in persons with a history of kidney stones or persons with a tendency for kidney stones. However, this risk would also be present in persons who have a tendency for kidney stones and don't know it yet (persons who have not had their first kidney stone yet).



Dehydration with keto diets is a difficult thing. It will dehydrate you more than sheer water intake can fix, go see misc,fitness.weights and read up about elzi volks back injury and keto diets.
Heavy training and low carb (like atkins, not like CKD/TKD tho cos allow some build up in carbs) generally may not be a great mix.


This confirms that the study which found a progression towards dehydration should not be ignored, and one should not assume that the problems could be corrected by drinking more water.

restless
03-01-2003, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by aka23


More information about starvation kecoacidosis can be found at http://www.qldanaesthesia.com/AcidBaseBook/AB8_2.htm#starv .
"Ketoacidosis can appear after an overnight fast but it typically requires 3 to 14 days of starvation to reach maximal severity."

The Dr. in the study said that ketoacidosis was present, but he did not describe the severity. I do not doubt that this is different from alcoholic and diabateic kecoacidosis. In any case, I do not think the terminology should effect the results of the study. The study found that there was an increased risk of kidney stones. There is no doubt that the risk is most severe in persons with a history of kidney stones or persons with a tendency for kidney stones. However, this risk would also be present in persons who have a tendency for kidney stones and don't know it yet (persons who have not had their first kidney stone yet).



No one ever talked about starvation. Keep it about low carb diets. Ketoacidosis won't happen to healthy individuals on low carb diets and that Dr wang don't know a thang (Sorry couldn't resist that one).

I still want to see evidence that low carb diets are dangerous as what you've presented so far didn't qualify as for the most part is not even related to low carb diets but to high protein diets, and even then it's all questionable.

aka23
03-01-2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by restless
No one ever talked about starvation. Keep it about low carb diets. Ketoacidosis won't happen to healthy individuals on low carb diets and that Dr wang don't know a thang (Sorry couldn't resist that one).

It is called "starvation ketosis," but it applies to any time when carbs are not eated (low-carb diets). This type of kecoacidosis occurs to a measurable extent in healthy individuals who are doing an overnight fast. I also trust the results of the study which found that it occured to a measurable extent in the persons on the low carb diet. As I have said earlier, Dr. Wang is a professor of internal medicine and researcher at a well known university, and is an expert in this field. He obviously does know "a thang."


I still want to see evidence that low carb diets are dangerous as what you've presented so far didn't qualify as for the most part is not even related to low carb diets but to high protein diets, and even then it's all questionable.

I never said "low carb diets are dangerous." In my first post I said, "There may be some health and nutritional risks associated with this diet as well." These increased health risks include
1. Fatigue,
2. Dehydration,
3. Constipation,
4. Muscle weakness,
5. Irritability,
6. Vitamin/Mineral/Fiber/Nutritional defficiencies,

And I said there is some debate about the following 3 items. There may be increased risk of:
7. Elevated blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels,
8. Kidney problems,
9. Calcium depletion.

If you chosse to ignore all these increased risks, it is your choice. I think there is adaquate evidence that low carb diets can increase risk of all of the first 6 items. This does not mean that every person on every low carb diet will have all of these problems. It just means there is an increased risk.

restless
03-01-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by aka23


It is called "starvation ketosis," but it applies to any time when carbs are not eated (low-carb diets). This type of kecoacidosis occurs to a measurable extent in healthy individuals who are doing an overnight fast. I also trust the results of the study which found that it occured to a measurable extent in the persons on the low carb diet. As I have said earlier, Dr. Wang is a professor of internal medicine and researcher at a well known university, and is an expert in this field. He obviously does know "a thang."



I never said "low carb diets are dangerous." In my first post I said that low carb diets increase risk of:
1. Fatigue,
2. Dehydration,
3. Constipation,
4. Muscle weakness,
5. Irritability,
6. Vitamin/Mineral/Fiber/Nutritional defficiencies,

And I said there is some debate about the following 3 items. There may be increased risk of:
7. Elevated blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels,
8. Kidney problems,
9. Calcium depletion.

I think there is adaquate evidence that low carb diets can increase risk of all of the first 6 items. This does not mean that every person on every low carb diet will have all of these problems. It just means there is an increased risk.

Alright then, since you can't provide evidence of your claims show me cases of people having health complications proved to be related to low carb intake (not to mineral or vitamin defficiencies consequence of a crap diet). There are many thousands, if not millions following these diets so you should come up with something.


If you chosse to ignore all these increased risks, it is your choice.

The first 6 risks you are talking are quite simply al laughable and the next 3 are all proven wrong by serious recent research. Wake up.

aka23
03-01-2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by noraa
Read the term MAY. Bone loss is an extremly long term, and multifactorial process. And there is a fine line between protein/calcium intake.

As I have said many times, there is some debate about the protein calcium connection. There are studies with conflicting findings. Some support the claim some do not.l


well, do you really know the atkins diet. The low (~20g) carb limit is onyl for 2 weeks, and then carbohydrate levels are increased..

Yes I do. There are four levels to the Atkins Diet. The first section is the Induction Diet, where you get very limited carbohydrates (20g or less) for two weeks. The next phase is the Ongoing Weight loss, where you get to increase your carbohydrate intake slightly. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my post about the carb intakes in the diet.



Its fair enough to have problems with atkins, but your way of referencing it seems like you have read it straight out of the ADAs directive book, which is usually full of things like high protein diets cause kidney damage to which there is no evidence for this claim...

you must get your inforamtion from the ADA.

The ADA, the AHA, the FDA, sports nutritionists, the general medical/scientific communtity, nutrion textbooks, and nutrition courses all share a similar opinion of low carb diets. I would expect that my opinion sounds similar to theirs. I did not say that high protein diets cause kidney damage. I said "There may be some health and nutritional risks associated with this diet as well. Some of these possible risks are" and explained that "that there is some debate about" the kidney problem risk. Even you admit that there is an increased risk in persons with prexisting kidney disorders. I content that the increased risk is also present in persons who have a tendency for kidney problems (such as kidney stones), but don't know it yet becuase that risk has not yet manifested itself in a visible disorder.



How does your body break down muscle for energy if you are eating protein?

Carbohydrates have a protein sparing effect. The brain needs to have glucose. Quoting Galoxy of Health (http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:sKi0vBQGJ0wC:www.galaxyofhealth.com/summer01/bodybuildersnutrition11.html+%22protein+sparing+effect%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

"As long as your body can use carbohydrates for energy, it will spare the protein you eat to be used for building and maintaining your muscle structure. In the absence of carbohydrate, your body will attempt to use the available protein to supply energy, metabolizing the protein in the muscle structure you have worked so hard to build. Too little carbohydrate in the body also affects how you look-your muscles shrink as they lose glycogen and you end up with a drawn, pinched look. "

In many cases, the above can be prevented by upping your protein to compensate for the lost carbs. However, a large portion of people who are on low carb diets are trying to lose weight and eat below their maintenance level of calories.



The primary energy source for most resistance training is phosphocreatine, not glucose. Sure after a longer set, it can start to drain glucose more, but it can still work. Which is shown not in research (as there is little available on keto and resistance training) but in real life experience and anecdotal evidence.

I said that glycogen fuels muscles during weightlifting, not glucose. It is my understanding that anaerobic glycolysis (forming ATP from muscle glycogen) occurs during exercise is of maximum intensity and short duration, such as activities lasting 7 seconds to two minutes. Phosphocreatine is also used by the body when on-site ATP is used up very quickly, such as in activities lasting under 6 seconds. Both pathways contribute to energy during a typical weighlifting workout.

restless
03-01-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by aka23


The ADA, the AHA, the FDA, sports nutritionists, the general medical/scientific communtity, nutrion textbooks, and nutrition courses all share a similar opinion of low carb diets. I would expect that my opinion sounds similar to theirs. I did not say that high protein diets cause kidney damage. I said "There may be some health and nutritional risks associated with this diet as well. Some of these possible risks are" and explained that "that there is some debate about" the kidney problem risk. Even you admit that there is an increased risk in persons with prexisting kidney disorders. I content that the increased risk is also present in persons who have a tendency for kidney problems (such as kidney stones), but don't know it yet becuase that risk has not yet manifested itself in a visible disorder.



These are essentially the same people that led you to follow a unhealthy ultra low fat diet right?

I gave you credit for having reviewed your position on dietary fat, maybe it's time you do the same on this subject as all you have done is contribute to perpetuate a series of unfunded myths, missinterpreted research and lies to undeservedly give a dietary practice with million of years a bad rep.

I am out of this discussion, maybe someday you'll realize that all your sources of info all extremely biased and will then try see the other side of the story.

aka23
03-01-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by restless
The first 6 risks you are talking are quite simply al laughable and the next 3 are all proven wrong by serious recent research. Wake up.

As Nora posted, keto diets "will dehydrate you more than sheer water intake can fix". You admited that there can be irritability at the start of such a diet. If you do not believe the fatigue/muscle weakness claims, then try doing your usual weighlifting workout while in ketosis from a low carb intake. We have previously discussed the increased risk of nutritional deficiencies/fiber (constipation related to fiber). I do not see any point to reposting previous discussions.

The final 3 risks have studies in favor and against the claims. This does not mean that they have been proven wrong. This means that all the evidence is not conclusive and there are conflicting studies. At the very least, there are increased risks in certain individuals.

I have already posted links that show health risks, and do not see any point to continue to do so.

The nutrition committee of the American Heart Association has issued a science advisory warning that low carb/high-protein diets have not been proven effective and pose health risks. The report covered the Atkins, Zone, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, and Stillman diets. The committee stated:

--Such diets may produce short-term weight loss through dehydration.
--Weight loss may also occur through caloric restriction resulting from the fact that the diets are relatively unpalatable.
--The high fat content may be harmful to the cardiovascular system in the long run.
--Any improvement in blood cholesterol levels and insulin management would be due to weight loss, not the change in composition.
--A very high-protein diet is especially risky for patients with diabetes because it can speed the progression of diabetic kidney disease

Other well known groups have similar opinions.

aka23
03-01-2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by restless
These are essentially the same people that led you to follow a unhealthy ultra low fat diet right?

I gave you credit for having reviewed your position on dietary fat, maybe it's time you do the same on this subject as all you have done is contribute to perpetuate a series of unfunded myths, missinterpreted research and lies to undeservedly give a dietary practice with million of years a bad rep.

I am out of this discussion, maybe someday you'll realize that all your sources of info all extremely biased and will then try see the other side of the story.

You keep bringing up low fat diets even though it has nothing to do with this thread. In previous posts, I have recommended a diet with 20-30% fat. This is the same range that is common with sports nutritionists and other groups studying athletes.

These are not unfounded myths, and I see no point to conitinue to restate my arguments.

restless
03-01-2003, 12:06 PM
To close this debate I'll say this,

I bring the low fat diet into discussion to illustrate the fact athat you have been getting your info from the wrong sources, just that.

The initial weight loss due to lost fluids is just that, a short term phenomena, countless people have used these dies and to my knowledge no cases of dehydration have been reported.

Fatigue, muscle weakness and irritability, although all possible, are not health risks, they are simply less than desirable effects of reduced carb intake and for the most part are temporary.

A low carb diet should be high in fiber so constipation is also not an issue at all.

The cholesterol issue should be counteracted by an high omega 3 intake.

A low carb diet doesn't have to contain ridiculous amounts of protein, like you seem to be suggesting and we are only discussing the effects on healthy individuals. Diabetics are a different story.

The rest of your supposed health risks are all in the "may" territory, that is, there's no actual evidence of such claims.

noraa
03-02-2003, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by aka23


More information about starvation kecoacidosis can be found at http://www.qldanaesthesia.com/AcidBaseBook/AB8_2.htm#starv .
"[b]Ketoacidosis can appear after an overnight fast but it typically requires 3 to 14 days of starvation to reach maximal severity."

The Dr. in the study said that ketoacidosis was present, but he did not describe the severity. I do not doubt that this is different from alcoholic and diabateic kecoacidosis. In any case, I do not think the terminology should effect the results of the study. The study found that there was an increased risk of kidney stones. There is no doubt that the risk is most severe in persons with a history of kidney stones or persons with a tendency for kidney stones. However, this risk would also be present in persons who have a tendency for kidney stones and don't know it yet (persons who have not had their first kidney stone yet).
whether wang is a doctor or professor or what, they are still wrong
This is a quote from a rather good text book called "essentails of human nutrition" by Mann and Truswell.
Professor Jim Mann and Associate professor Murray Skeaff wrote this paragraph "An absolute insulin deficiency such as seen in severe uncontrolled insulin dependant diabetes mellitus results in an very high rate of production of ketones and acidosis results because of the accumulation of acetoacetic and betahydroxy butyric acids. In healthy individuals with a functioning pancreas, the ingestion of glucose stimulates insulin secretion and thereby prevents or abolishes ketosis. This can be achieved by as little as 50-010g glucose daily. In the normal fasting individual a modest increase of ketone bodies stimulates insulin secretion. The insulin inhibits further ketogenesis and enhances perpheral ketone body use so that ketone body levels do not rise above 6-8mol/litre. (in severe diabetes levels may be twice as high as this.) In prolonged starvation there is further ketone body formation and a moderate degree of ketosis may result. However, ketoacidosis does NOT occur in the absence of insulin deficiency (emphasis mine)
Jim is a world leader in diabetes and is actually an endocrinologist from memory. Murray has been involved in fatty acid research since the 1980s.
The subjects in the study you mention have attained a state of ketosis, NOT ketoacidosis, no matter what the researchers think.

noraa
03-02-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by aka23

The ADA, the AHA, the FDA, sports nutritionists, the general medical/scientific communtity, nutrion textbooks, and nutrition courses all share a similar opinion of low carb diets. I would expect that my opinion sounds similar to theirs. I did not say that high protein diets cause kidney damage. I said "There may be some health and nutritional risks associated with this diet as well. Some of these possible risks are" and explained that "that there is some debate about" the kidney problem risk. Even you admit that there is an increased risk in persons with prexisting kidney disorders. I content that the increased risk is also present in persons who have a tendency for kidney problems (such as kidney stones), but don't know it yet becuase that risk has not yet manifested itself in a visible disorder.
I get to deal with people like this daily, from my countries own DA, heart assoc etc. You have to understand how dietary recommendations are made. They are made towards populations, to reduce risk factors. if one subject is eating a high fat diet, there is no proof that it will cuase any damage to anything. It may increase the risk, but there is no proof that it WILL cause any damage. A correctly constructed low carb diet could be just as nutritious as a high carb diet, and a lot more nutritious than the standard american diet.
Anybody knows that increased protein intake shouldnt be done by subjects with preexisting kidney disease. For one, the body has a lower ability to process nitrogen in the form of urea, and this can be relatively toxic.


Carbohydrates have a protein sparing effect. The brain needs to have glucose. Quoting Galoxy of Health (http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:sKi0vBQGJ0wC:www.galaxyofhealth.com/summer01/bodybuildersnutrition11.html+%22protein+sparing+effect%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

"As long as your body can use carbohydrates for energy, it will spare the protein you eat to be used for building and maintaining your muscle structure. In the absence of carbohydrate, your body will attempt to use the available protein to supply energy, metabolizing the protein in the muscle structure you have worked so hard to build. Too little carbohydrate in the body also affects how you look-your muscles shrink as they lose glycogen and you end up with a drawn, pinched look. "
Referencing to bodybuilding sites is not exactly great referencing. Real research shows that low carbohydrate diets make you lose no more LBM than any other diet. (i can show references, but they are at home and I am not.)


In many cases, the above can be prevented by upping your protein to compensate for the lost carbs. However, a large portion of people who are on low carb diets are trying to lose weight and eat below their maintenance level of calories.
No, any diet that doesnt provide adequate protien will cause muscle loss (usally rounded to 1g/lb). IF you are eating a low carb diet doesnt mean that the body will suddenly start eating up the body proteins for substrate to gluconeogenesis, when it has freely available aminos from the diet. (which is also how raised protein intake can actually take you out of ketosis)
If you are starving, the body will use a large proportion of muscle protein for energy, until it has fully adapted to ketosis, and then the whole body need for carbs are lower, so the actual breakdown of proteins is lower (but not nil),
But starvation =! low carb diet.




I said that glycogen fuels muscles during weightlifting, not glucose. It is my understanding that anaerobic glycolysis (forming ATP from muscle glycogen) occurs during exercise is of maximum intensity and short duration, such as activities lasting 7 seconds to two minutes. Phosphocreatine is also used by the body when on-site ATP is used up very quickly, such as in activities lasting under 6 seconds. Both pathways contribute to energy during a typical weighlifting workout. [/QUOTE]

noraa
03-02-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by aka23


The nutrition committee of the American Heart Association has issued a science advisory warning that low carb/high-protein diets have not been proven effective and pose health risks. The report covered the Atkins, Zone, Protein Power, Sugar Busters, and Stillman diets. The committee stated:

--Such diets may produce short-term weight loss through dehydration.
Not really dehydration to start with, its just glycogen lowering which removes the water associated with it. Longer term would potentially be a dehydration problem.


--Weight loss may also occur through caloric restriction resulting from the fact that the diets are relatively unpalatable.
Where did they get this one from, of course atkins says it aint calories that matter, but any reasoned person knows it is. and unpalatable, jee, that must be why its so unpopular to eat large amounts of red meat and fat.

--The high fat content may be harmful to the cardiovascular system in the long run.
While they can go off old data for htis, there is no true proof that it will be harmful to cardiovascular system. Why, because there is long long term data on this diet, only high carb/high fat diets.

--Any improvement in blood cholesterol levels and insulin management would be due to weight loss, not the change in composition.
Yes, and the point is

--A very high-protein diet is especially risky for patients with diabetes because it can speed the progression of diabetic kidney disease
What means high protein diet to you?
Most research shows that peoples intake of protein do not change on atkins, the fat intake doesnt change much either. The only thing that changes is the carb lowering, which results in calorie restriction.

noraa
03-02-2003, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by aka23


You keep bringing up low fat diets even though it has nothing to do with this thread. In previous posts, I have recommended a diet with 20-30% fat. This is the same range that is common with sports nutritionists and other groups studying athletes.

These are not unfounded myths, and I see no point to conitinue to restate my arguments. Um, dude that level of fat is LOW fat. 20-30% is a low fat diet.

Spartacus
03-02-2003, 11:31 PM
I think a big problem with low carb diets is that one of the few nutritional ideas that has a large body of evidence supporting it is that eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables is very important for health, especially to prevent heart disease and cancer. low carb diets basically restrict this to some vegetables, reducing the quantity and variety of healthy plant compounds.