Fitness and Training > General Fitness

Recent Study "Proving" Low Carb Diets are Superior for REE

(1/4) > >>

KC Parsons:
This study just came out last week and has gotten a LOT of press.

The article that got published in the NY Timeswas written by none other than Taubes where he promotes the hell out of low carb diets based on this study. His big knockout punch is the effect that very low carb diets have on resting energy expenditure (REE).

Here's my very crude review of it.


--- Quote from: me ranting on facebook ---Total resting energy expenditure, on average, was about a whopping 70 kCals more per day in the VLCD group compared to the low fat group. That in and of itself makes me giggle.

But, if we back up, they f#cked around with the protein. VLCD had 150g of protein per 2000 kcals while the other two got only about 105g per 2000 kcals. That's a very important variable and should have been consistent from group to group.

A side consideration is that fiber in the low GI and low fat groups was set about 3 times higher than the low carb.

Anyway, then we look at the trends. On AVERAGE, the REE decreased the least in the VLCD group (again, only by 70 kCals). But if you follow each individual, the results are wayyyy more varied. some people had the highest REE on the low GI diet. Some people had the highest REE on the low fat. And then some people had the highest REE on the very low carb diet. For some, it was about the same across the board.

So you can conclude, statistically, that you MIGHT be someone who could respond better to VLCD diets (as far as that big giant burn of 70 extra kCals a day goes).

What really makes this even more laughable are the hormonal adaptations. The positive points for the VLCD were metabolic:
Higher HDL (though do note that total lipoproteins went up), lower serum triglycerides, and better overall insulin sensitivity (bear in mind that in none of the groups did insulin sensitivity worsen, they all got better. VLCD just got the best compared to the other two).

But the hormonal changes were pretty shitty for the VLCD: Leptin, Thyroid Stimulating Hormone, and active T3 were all significantly lower compared to the low GI and low fat groups. To top that off, the VLCD had significantly more urinary cortisol as well. This gives me a good laugh since the same group of people who tend to get their jimmies all rustled over insulin and carbs also have a vengeful hate for cortisol.

To expand on that real quick, here's some food for thought. For most of these changes, we're looking at basically which diet sucked less. That is, all diets had lowered resting energy expenditure from pre-diet baseline, but VLCD just had the smallest decrease (on average for that astounding 70 kCals, mind you). Same goes for leptin. Leptin dropped in all of the dieters, it simply dropped the least for the low-fat group.

But, oddly enough, in the low-fat group, urinary cortisol actually dropped from pre-diet baseline. While this is a relatively crude measure, it's a bit funny to think of someone actively dieting (even if that's just intentionally controlling to keep maintenance) and being less stressed.

Oh, and all of this is only reliably applicable if you're 18-40 years old with a BMI of 27 or higher.

All in all, it was a great study. Other than the protein issue, I do like the design and am happy about this new data we have. What I don't like is the retarded f#cking conclusions that came about because someone has an inaccurate agenda that he needs to continue to maintain or because most everyone else just read the abstract without looking at the details.
--- End quote ---


Thoughts, ideas, input, discussion - all are welcome and encouraged.

Josh Vernier:
I only have one thing to say...F@#$ING FINALLY!!

Joe Brock:
So, what you're saying, is that I can MAYBE (depending on predisposition to personal response) increase my REE by a whopping 70kcal a day (on a roughly 5000-6500 kcal a day intake) by going to a VLCD?

Seems legit.

The humor of the lowered cortisol levels in the low-fat group isn't lost on me, though.  That's hilarious.

I'm surprised to see the T3 levels dropping on a VLCD.  I wouldn't have expected that.

I'd like to see this followed up in a long-term study, and one of the options being to test high-glycemic foods given in the post-training hours.  I honestly have grown a religious affinity for following up heavy training by consuming over 90% of my daily sugars in the 2 or so hours after working out.  Seems to work well for me.  Then again, I'm not one to spout the glorious wonders of any diet.

Perhaps I will change my original stance of "a calorie is a calorie" to "a calorie is a calorie, give or take 1-2%."

Steve Low:
Cortisol elevated on low carb is common sense really.

You need extra hormones to activate lipolysis to make up for the extra energy for the carbs... it's a more stressful state on the body in general

Like I said on EMI forum though, for those with terrible insulin sensitivity in pre-diabetic/diabetic glucose range I would still go low/very low/no carb diet to improve that up because chronically elevated glucose levels screw up with too many of the body's systems that it's negative. The extra insulin sensitivity is beneficial for those people.

Though I've generally moved away from macronutrients to recommending "real foods" -- fruits, vege, meat, fish, birds, eggs.. maybe some nuts and seeds. Dairy only if youre not allergic and trying to gain weight.

Josh Vernier:
I see it as a step in the right direction, at least. May not be much, but it is quantifiable evidence that's getting a lot of press.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page