tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post4093665921653321135..comments2024-03-28T02:36:04.078-07:00Comments on Health Correlator: What is a good low carbohydrate diet? It is a low calorie oneNed Kockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-85293588558594576702023-01-15T07:37:12.348-08:002023-01-15T07:37:12.348-08:00This post is a revised version of a previous post....This post is a revised version of a previous post. The original comments are preserved here. More comments welcome, but no spam please!Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-84226960600571883582011-12-19T14:16:52.945-08:002011-12-19T14:16:52.945-08:00but I think that it depends in the amount of exerc...but I think that it depends in the amount of exercise that you do to equilibrate one with the other.India Pharmacyhttp://www.indianpharmacyexpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-37509509233518787992011-06-23T06:40:23.188-07:002011-06-23T06:40:23.188-07:00Really enlightening post… but can you be a bit mor...Really enlightening post… but can you be a bit more specific about ‘glycogen replenishment’ and the ‘calories-in-calories-out’ section.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16894500739730458209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-11008719383171224802011-06-13T07:38:12.337-07:002011-06-13T07:38:12.337-07:00Hi gregory, thanks.Hi gregory, thanks.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-55890538992758408652011-06-13T07:25:24.188-07:002011-06-13T07:25:24.188-07:00David, Harry:
There is another aspect that ap...David, Harry:<br /><br /> There is another aspect that applies to bodybuilders, which is that strength training seems to increase one’s nitrogen balance:<br /><br /> http://bit.ly/eQCgtU<br /><br /> This is one of the reasons why BBs can lean down dramatically without much loss of lean body mass.<br /><br /> Hunger seems to really get out of control when someone is in calorie deficit AND also in negative nitrogen balance.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-52940802276532402482011-06-12T18:33:38.610-07:002011-06-12T18:33:38.610-07:00@ David Isaak
Yep, reduce calories in and you gen...@ David Isaak<br /><br />Yep, reduce calories in and you generally get a reduction in expenditure as well (due to reduced resting metabolism, and reduced spontaneous levels of non-exercise activity thermogenesis).<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />The reduction in expenditure is minuscule compared to the reductions in intake that are possible with deliberate calorie restriction (which is why bodybuilders and POWs reliably get very very lean!).<br /><br />The bottom line is that, even allowing for the body's adaptive response to calorie restriction, it is still the only reliable way to accurately predict mass loss...and is therefore still the only practical way to ensure mass loss, no matter what dieting modality you employ to achieve it (i.e. calorie restriction). <br /><br />If you use low carbs to create consistent calorie restriction, it'll work...if you use low carbs to eat at maintenance calorie levels, you won't lose weight. Same goes for any other approach.<br /><br />Cheers<br />HarryHarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04205398934164420457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-68912131596059988892011-06-12T02:34:58.049-07:002011-06-12T02:34:58.049-07:00Ned and Jenny,
On the subject of fish and mercury...Ned and Jenny,<br /><br />On the subject of fish and mercury, Chris Kresser wrote an article which makes the following claims:<br /><br />"Selenium protects against mercury toxicity, and 16 of the 25 highest dietary sources of selenium are ocean fish;<br /><br />If a fish contains higher levels of selenium than mercury, it is safe to eat;<br /><br />Most species of commonly eaten fish in the U.S. have more selenium than mercury."<br /><br />http://thehealthyskeptic.org/is-eating-fish-safe-a-lot-safer-than-not-eating-fish<br /><br />That was enough to persuade me to put fish squarely back on the menu (even though I'm not in the US).<br /><br />Ned, splendid interview with JM; worth a second listen!<br /><br />gbgregory bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14403962860702863331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-85575542841917788892011-06-11T15:14:38.917-07:002011-06-11T15:14:38.917-07:00@Harry--
"...calories in vs calories out does...@Harry--<br />"...calories in vs calories out does in fact predict weight flux with excellent accuracy."<br /><br />Yes...except that "calories out" is affected by calories in. Generally you can't fiddle calories in without having an effect on calories out.<br /><br />The problem is that Cal In/Cal Out is a truism, but also misleading, in that it urges people to consider Cal In and Cal Out as independent variables when they aren't.David Isaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04928598446742324391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-45413027386400298032011-06-11T14:45:12.201-07:002011-06-11T14:45:12.201-07:00"What is the thermodynamic efficiency of the ..."What is the thermodynamic efficiency of the human body?"<br /><br />I assume you're being ironic, and, yes indeed, that isn't something that can be calculated without making some interesting assumptions. The standard thermo definitions of efficiency are hard to apply to living systems without comng up with new and interesting definitions of "work--" and a lot of these aren't much like what M Carnot had in mind!David Isaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04928598446742324391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-18343216754274450712011-06-09T23:48:27.009-07:002011-06-09T23:48:27.009-07:00What is the thermodynamic efficiency of the human ...What is the thermodynamic efficiency of the human body?js290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-61205186339708181102011-06-09T19:06:14.735-07:002011-06-09T19:06:14.735-07:00"I think what Harry meant to say here was tha..."I think what Harry meant to say here was that the notion of calories and its application to dieting was useful compared to a theory X of metabolism (yet to be developed), in the same way that Newtonian physics is wrong but useful compared with Einstein's general theory of relativity"<br /><br />Yep, spot on Ned. Whatever theoretical shortcomings the calorie may have (as a proxy measure for metabolisable energy in vivo), the metabolic ward studies prove time and time again that it accurately tracks energy flux in dieters.<br /><br />So, even with metabolic perturbations (like the adaptive lowering of REE in reposnse to energy restriction), subjects still reliably lose mass when their energy intake is restricted.<br /><br />Now, given that many dietary 'advisers' say things like "calories don't matter", or "eat whatever you want, so long as it's not macronutrient X", I think it's worth reminding people that whatever you do with diet, if you take in too much energy, you'll store it.<br /><br />Cheers<br />Harry<br /><br />P.S. Thanks for the kind words Ned. Btw, great podcast on Jimmy Moore...I very much enjoyed hearing you canvass the 'disagreement' between Taubes and CarbSane!Harryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04205398934164420457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-76169941979431142962011-06-09T12:51:08.540-07:002011-06-09T12:51:08.540-07:00> Wrong but really really useful...kinda like N...> Wrong but really really useful...kinda like Newtonian physics...<br /><br /> I think what Harry meant to say here was that the notion of calories and its application to dieting was useful compared to a theory X of metabolism (yet to be developed), in the same way that Newtonian physics is wrong but useful compared with Einstein's general theory of relativity.<br /><br /> By the way Harry, you have a very sharp mind, and are being quite modest.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-22349030903809872822011-06-09T11:19:44.532-07:002011-06-09T11:19:44.532-07:00One interesting question is how "efficient&qu...One interesting question is how "efficient" the body gets at converting protein to glucose.<br /><br />I've seen quite a few reports of low-carbing Type 2 diabetics who get blood sugar spikes from protein powders. <br /><br />Of course, T2 diabetics tend to be insulin-resistant. But the fact that they spike so rapidly on easily digested proteins makes me wonder if they aren't also well-trained to make sugar from protein. <br /><br />A lot of these folks are also from the "keep the carbs low and exercise doesn't matter" school of thought. I'd be interested to see how things might change with some clearance of glycogen from their muscles...David Isaakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04928598446742324391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-39099377710111951232011-06-08T18:39:32.490-07:002011-06-08T18:39:32.490-07:00"Aquatic mammals are excluded" - why exc..."Aquatic mammals are excluded" - why exclude them - whale meat is delicious - besides, considering diminishing fish supplies,big creatures like whales are direct competitors of humans in competition for limited sea fish resourcesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-2465711280666100642011-06-08T16:02:02.417-07:002011-06-08T16:02:02.417-07:00Hi Stu. I addressed the issue of satiety in the in...Hi Stu. I addressed the issue of satiety in the interview with Jimmy, probably better than I can do in a comment.<br /><br /> As for LC with more protein and less fat, it seems to make particularly good sense to me. In LC liver glycogen should be regularly depleted, so the amino acids resulting from the digestion of protein will be primarily used to replenish liver glycogen, to replenish the albumin pool, for oxidation, and various other processes (e.g., tissue repair, hormone secretion). If you do some moderate weight training, some of those amino acids will be used for muscle growth.<br /><br /> In this sense, the true “metabolic advantage” of LC, so to speak, comes from protein and not fat. Calories in still counts, but you get better allocation of nutrients. Moreover, in LC, the calorie value of protein goes down a bit, because your body is using it as a “jack of all trades”, and thus in a less efficient way.<br /><br /> Dietary fat is easily stored as body fat after digestion. In LC, it is difficult for the body to store amino acids as body fat. The only path would be conversion to glucose and uptake by body fat cells, but the liver will want all the extra glucose for itself, so that it can feed its ultimate master – the brain.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-24067955745574147052011-06-08T10:19:58.893-07:002011-06-08T10:19:58.893-07:00Ned, it sounds to me that you're advocating a ...Ned, it sounds to me that you're advocating a low carb, low fat, high protein diet as being the most satisfying and therefore the lowest calorie diet. I buy that high nutriant levelas are a key component, but what is to say a higher fat diet wouldn't be more satisfying that a low fat diet? What is it that promotes satiety? Is it protein, fat, some particular vitamin, bulk? What is it that people crave, an will cause them to overconsume everything else until they get enough of that substance? Does it vary from person to person? I think you've made an unspoken assumption about that the substance is, and it's not fat. What if that's wrong? What if it is fat? Wouldn't your diet cause people to overeat?<br /><br />Stu WardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-83538410256293148352011-06-08T09:00:03.069-07:002011-06-08T09:00:03.069-07:00Harry,
First, do you even know what a "close...Harry,<br /><br />First, do you even know what a "closed mechanical system" means thermodynamically? <br /><br />Also, the "something happens" portion of your model can be better described as "hormones." You have your causality wrong. <br /><br />As long as you exist in the physical world, you can be certain the <b>laws of science</b> will always hold true. Speaking of Newton, do people jump off cliffs to confirm that his law of gravitation always holds?<br /><br />It's kind of sad to see people who obviously didn't make it through college physics talk about energy conservation as if they've made some important discovery. <br /><br />Laws of science... been around for a long time... always true...js290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-12487939291871013462011-06-07T23:15:42.688-07:002011-06-07T23:15:42.688-07:00@js290
I get the sinking feeling that you're ...@js290<br /><br />I get the sinking feeling that you're just too clever for me. Ah well.<br /><br />But nevertheless...<br /><br />Calories go in (food) > something happens > calories go out (heat). <br /><br />Now, what the metabolic ward studies show is that if you reduce the calories going in, then the 'something in the middle' bit and the 'calories out' bit doesn't sufficiently reduce to account for the reduced calories in. Result: loss of mass.<br /><br />In fact, the net mass loss tracks so closely with the reduction in calories that it seems to operate 'as if' it were a closed mechanical system.<br /><br />Believe it or not, this actually surprises a lot of people (people that aren't as clever as you).<br /><br />Not only that...it actually speaks against those people who advocate diets that place a lot of importance on the 'something in between' bit and the 'calories out' bit (e.g. the metabolic advantage and/or faecal loss theories). It does so, because it shows that, in practical terms, 'the calorie' (theoretically and categorically misplaced as it may be) is actually a really useful proxy for metabolisable energy in the human system.<br /><br />Wrong but really really useful...kinda like Newtonian physics... <br /><br />Cheers<br />HarryHarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04205398934164420457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-42894212347610832582011-06-07T22:48:43.509-07:002011-06-07T22:48:43.509-07:00Harry,
Some really, really smart scientists figur...Harry,<br /><br />Some really, really smart scientists figured that out ages ago and deemed it a fundamental <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science" rel="nofollow">law of science.</a> Good job finding <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ73MFbVVlI" rel="nofollow">your trowel blade, though, Ralph Wiggum.</a>js290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-40025808433946457892011-06-07T17:50:27.108-07:002011-06-07T17:50:27.108-07:00As a nutritional consultant, I have offered people...As a nutritional consultant, I have offered people the choice of a number of different eating modalities (including low-carb, low-fat, calorie counting, volumetrics). I do this because people tend to comply better with programs if they've had some engagement with the design, and because different ways of eating are more or less suitable for individuals based on personal, social, and economic circumstances.<br /><br />Having said that, my experience, and my reading of just about every metabolic ward study, is that calories in vs calories out does in fact predict weight flux with excellent accuracy.<br /><br />I know that there are many theoretical reasons as to why this may not/should not be the case, but the empirical studies just keep confirming the correlation time after time, after time....<br /><br />Cheers<br />HarryHarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04205398934164420457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-91560422826349688212011-06-07T07:43:59.084-07:002011-06-07T07:43:59.084-07:00On the issue of metal poisoning, which Jenny broug...On the issue of metal poisoning, which Jenny brought up, one can significantly reduce exposure by avoiding large predatory fish. Small to medium-sized non-predatory fish, preferably wild-caught, is generally safe. Examples are sardines, smelts, and even bigger fish like snapper and river drum.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-89551662708064752452011-06-07T07:39:20.940-07:002011-06-07T07:39:20.940-07:00There is an enormous variety of aquatic life in th...There is an enormous variety of aquatic life in the sea, rivers, and lakes. When I talk about seafood I mean to refer to many representatives of that aquatic life – mussels, clams, crawfish, shrimp, fish, octopus, crab etc. Aquatic mammals are excluded.<br /><br /> When you look at seafood items, generally they are very low in calories. As Gretchen said, animal food calories correlated strongly with fat content. So the reason why seafood items tend to be low in calories is that they do not have a lot of fat.<br /><br /> There are some exceptions, like salmon. But even 100 g of salmon (wild-caught cooked sockeye) will, according to Nutriondata.com, have only 11 g of fat. A lot of that fat will be monounsaturated (5.3 g); and a significant portion (1.4 g) will be polyunsaturated and of the omega-3 type. The 100 g portion will have 216 calories.<br /><br /> On the other hand, 100 g of cooked fat-trimmed blade roast will have 25 g of fat, and 341 calories. Most of the fat will be monounsaturated and saturated, both of which are great, but the calories add up. In fact, it will not be easy to find any 100 g cut of muscle meat with 11 g of fat or less; cooked beef tenderloin trimmed to “zero fat” will give you that.<br /><br /> Organ meats are generally very lean. No one sells them with the surrounding fat that you’ll see if you butcher the animal yourself. For instance, 100 g of cooked beef liver will have only 5 g of fat, and 191 calories.<br /><br /> Other types of seafood can be extremely lean. For example, 100 g of octopus will have 2 g of fat, and 164 calories.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-59479724169404581322011-06-07T07:14:30.718-07:002011-06-07T07:14:30.718-07:00Thanks for listening to the interview folks, and f...Thanks for listening to the interview folks, and for your kind words. You may want to drop a little note in the comments area on Jimmy’s site, since the podcast was prepared and is being released by him.Ned Kockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755560885749335053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-15901315807943825872011-06-07T06:42:17.405-07:002011-06-07T06:42:17.405-07:00Excellent interview with Jimmy, Ned, and one I was...Excellent interview with Jimmy, Ned, and one I was looking forward to hearing.<br /><br />Good info about TNF-a, also.<br /><br />As recommended by Paul Jaminet, it's good to include some 'safe-starch' for protective mucin production, and some 'resistant starch' to feed the ~300 trillion fellow travelers that are working for us on their side of the gut/brain axis.<br /><br />jim suttonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8859456735165996893.post-75545199752043210862011-06-07T05:57:31.103-07:002011-06-07T05:57:31.103-07:00I eat low carb, very low carb, between 30 and 50g ...I eat low carb, very low carb, between 30 and 50g carbs per day, but also high calorie because I don't want to lose weight as I'm thin. I increase calories by eating oily fish, lots of eggs and meat and sautéing veggies in coconut oil.Annehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07160051347588051524noreply@blogger.com