Low Carb Study

Thanks for posting the study, TM! :)

Interesting:

Even participants consuming higher calories on the very low carb diet were able to lose more weight compared to the lower calorie, low fat diet. The low carb diets improved several risk factors for heart disease.
Click to expand...

Feeding and training the brain! :p

Best wishes to you!


Chillen
 
Last edited:
"BUN increased on the low carb diets only. However, creatinine levels (a marker of kidney function) remained unchanged."



What is BUN?
 
Last edited:
In other words, more protein is being burned?
Click to expand...
Yes and no...

A higher BUN level can indicate decreased kidney function. Which can be completely unrelated to changes in protein metabolism.

However, its not untypical
of low carb/high protein diets (or simply high protein diets in general) to be the soul reason for the increased level. As protein (amino acids) typically do have a greater role in energy metabolism(directly used into the CAC or through interconversion to glucose) in such diets. And as such, there would be increased nitrogen excretion.

They did state that creatinine levels were normal. This being a far more accurate marker of overall renal function.
So its likely, in this cause, the increased level of BUN is simply from the diet and not a sign of kidney malfunction.
 
What a pathetic article tony, i thought you were better than that.

Nice to see it came from their very own site, and wow 12 weeks was such a big study.
 
matt182 said:
What a pathetic article tony, i thought you were better than that.

Nice to see it came from their very own site, and wow 12 weeks was such a big study.
Click to expand...

Matt, I think it might be useful if you go eat your junky processed carbs and never talk about low carb diets again.

Thanks :yelrotflmao:
 
 
Last edited:
realworksuks said:
Matt, I think it might be useful if you go eat your junky processed carbs and never talk about low carb diets again.

Thanks :yelrotflmao:
Click to expand...

That obvisouly shows how you have a biased tendecy for low carb diets. Of course there are bad and good carbs, i eat the good ones ;)
 
Karky said:
In other words, more protein is being burned?
Click to expand...

Read the section on the "protein sparing effects of the ketogenic diet" In the "Ketogenic Diet" book, and then make up your mind brotha.

There isn't a ton of information out there.. not a lot of studies have been done.
 
Last edited:
Matt, there is no need to get hostile. Constructive criticism is OK, but don't get.
What if their site just posted the study? The names of the ones who wrote it are there, do they have any attachment with Atkins?
And why don't you post a longer study if you have one, matt?
 
That barilla one before was good if that was what you were alluding to.

If you want to eat fat and protein all your life go ahead, maybe you could participate in a long term study see how good it really is and the many health problems.

Principal among
these dietary approaches are those promoting highprotein,
low-carbohydrate regimens (e.g., the Atkins
diet), which have gained widespread popularity
even though the scientific evidence supporting
their safety and efficacy is limited. A recent review
of low-carbohydrate diets reported that weight loss
with these diets is related to the duration of the diet
and the restriction of calories but not to the reduction
in carbohydrate intake per se and also pointed
out the paucity of long-term data. In only five published
investigations were subjects following these
diets studied for longer than 90 days, and none of
the studies were randomized or included a comparison
group.
 
realworksuks said:
Read the section on the "protein sparing effects of the ketogenic diet" In the "Ketogenic Diet" book, and then make up your mind brotha.

There isn't a ton of information out there.. not a lot of studies have been done.
Click to expand...

I was just asking a question about how to interpret information found in the article, nothing more. Burning protein isn't necessarily a bad thing anyways, it is pretty much bound to happen. As long as it is not excessive amounts and a lot of muscle you're fine.
 
Karky said:
In other words, more protein is being burned?
Click to expand...

Yes.

There is an independent study I found a good while back that showed that once you start ingesting an excessive amount of protein, your body actually loses more of it. This was, of course, influenced by resistance training, but protein loss was still higher in diets where protein intake exceeded protein needs. It was a pretty good study so I'll see if I can locate it and post it here.

Besides cardiovascular health related issues, excess protein in diet can cause bone demineralization in adults, independent of exercise.

As for comparing this study and the Barilla meta analysis... I don't think you can have it both ways. If you are going to knock one, you have to knock the other, as they are both industry backed, and not the result of collegiate or independent initiation. I'm not a fan of strictly industry backed research because generally the industry will pick and choose what helps them the most. Granted this isn't always true, but I got the chance to read enough on industry bias back in my kinesiology research course back in college to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

That's not to say that they both aren't good bits of research. The thing here is that both aspects could very well be true. Atkins may be the best method for fat-specific weight loss, but may come with some rather large risks, much like many forms of prescription medication.

As such I don't see myself following a low-carb regiment anytime soon when I can maintain my weight more nutritiously with a moderated diet.
 
Last edited:
matt182 said:
What a pathetic article tony, i thought you were better than that.

Nice to see it came from their very own site, and wow 12 weeks was such a big study.
Click to expand...

It was in their reserach library, doesnt mean they actually performed it.

Do you have anything to back up your cause besides that little italic exerpt you posted? There was another study I will have to find that was conducted over 10 years of low carb dieting. The people werent dead.

Remember also that this study says low carb, not no carb.
 
Taking another look at this study, I have a few issues with it.

First, the cross-section is not large enough. 21 bodies, 7 to a group, really isn't a whole lot of individuals. Granted this could very well be due to monetary constraints, but for a decent semi-longitudinal study like this, it is always better when there is a larger cross-section. It's not a true longitudinal study (which generally cost the most and are the most difficult to carry out) so I'm not sure as to why they wouldn't expand their subject base.

More importantly there are issues with the group break down. There is no mention of the activity levels of individuals, particularly important in the higher calorie group, and equally important throughout all groups. Because activity level dictates caloric deficit, it is *especially* important in the LC-HP increased calorie intake group. There is also not a control group, and really, there always needs to be a control group. And there also isn't a group testing for a reduced calorie "normal" macro nutrient intake.

Because there is no inclusion of activity levels in this study, the final sentence of the conclusion (the authors concluded...) is kind of invalidated.

The portion "written by Atkins professionals" at the bottom of the page is suspect and misleading at best. Within the study itself it is said that the difference in weight loss between the diets is "statistically insignificant." This is most likely due to the standard deviation in the means for weight loss in each dietary group. Because of this, the final sentence (the results suggest...) of the last paragraph in this section is also invalid.

Just my thoughts on the study itself and the analysis by Atkins professionals... it seems to me that this summary was selectively "interpretted" by the Atkins camp. As for the compared Barilla study, it is a meta-analysis, and as such, is susceptible to equal scrutiny as it is a hand-picked collection of studies. I would be more willing to place greater faith in the Barilla meta-analysis if it provided some basic contrasting materials and then showed why the contrasting materials are incorrect (the way a proper meta-analysis should be conducted).

I like , and am looking forward to the results of the final study it cites.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top