Weightology.net

[JamesKrieger]

Originally Posted by Patrick N

For the past couple months, I've been trying to make Martin Levac see the light. I figured that if I could convince him, it would be possible to convince lots of people. But it's just not happening.

Arguing with Levac is like arguing with Fred Hahn. I don't know which one is worse.

[Uchi-mata]

Originally Posted by JamesKrieger

Arguing with Levac is like arguing with Fred Hahn. I don't know which one is worse.

Why argue then, its like discussing with a pastor from some obscure religious sect - You'll never ever convince them, no matter of what solid scientific evidence you put on their table...

[Jean Paulo]

At least it's nice to have someone proving that they were wrong

[Patrick N]

Originally Posted by JamesKrieger

Arguing with Levac is like arguing with Fred Hahn. I don't know which one is worse.

Originally Posted by M Levac

No, I don't.

If I could find an experiment, even an animal-based one, where they tested a caloric surplus using a diet of 100% fat, then I think I could convince him.

[JamesKrieger]

Originally Posted by Patrick N

If I could find an experiment, even an animal-based one, where they tested a caloric surplus using a diet of 100% fat, then I think I could convince him.

Patrick,

Here's a study comparing a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet to a carbohydrate-free, high fat diet in rodents. The net increase in epididymal fat was identical in both conditions, which refutes Martin's claim that one cannot gain fat on a carbohydrate-free diet.

The researchers stated:

In summary, we have demonstrated that triglyceride synthesis in adipose tissue is not down-regulated when carbohydrate appears to be limiting; there is an extensive triglyceride turnover during conditions where ~0% of the calories are derived from dietary carbohydrate. Our data suggest that the contribution of glucose and non-glucose carbon sources shifts with changes in nutritional status

[cyclist]

Originally Posted by JamesKrieger

Patrick,

Here's a study comparing a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet to a carbohydrate-free, high fat diet in rodents. The net increase in epididymal fat was identical in both conditions, which refutes Martin's claim that one cannot gain fat on a carbohydrate-free diet.

The researchers stated:

In summary, we have demonstrated that triglyceride synthesis in adipose tissue is not down-regulated when carbohydrate appears to be limiting; there is an extensive triglyceride turnover during conditions where ~0% of the calories are derived from dietary carbohydrate. Our data suggest that the contribution of glucose and non-glucose carbon sources shifts with changes in nutritional status

You realize that paleo/insulin crazies will just say that this study didn't have low enough carbohydrates in the low carbohydrate group?

I wish it wasn't the case, but I just think the ONLY point of arguing with the crazy crowds is to win over the swing crowds who watch the arguments.

[JamesKrieger]

Originally Posted by cyclist

You realize that paleo/insulin crazies will just say that this study didn't have low enough carbohydrates in the low carbohydrate group?

You can't go any lower than zero carbohydrate. This study compared a zero carb group to a high carb group.

I wish it wasn't the case, but I just think the ONLY point of arguing with the crazy crowds is to win over the swing crowds who watch the arguments.

Agreed

[lylemcd]

I think it's disingenuous to try to have it both ways. If you're not going to accept rat work in support of something, don't accept it to dismiss something. Rat work is simply irrelevant in this case.

[JamesKrieger]

Originally Posted by lylemcd

I think it's disingenuous to try to have it both ways. If you're not going to accept rat work in support of something, don't accept it to dismiss something. Rat work is simply irrelevant in this case.

I would agree with you that too many people will accept a rat model if it supports their argument, and then automatically dismiss it if it doesn't and say, "These are rats and not humans".

However, I don't think it's disingenuous to accept rat models under certain circumstances and be extremely cautious with or dismiss them under other circumstances. It depends upon what is being examined, and the magnitude of the differences between rat and human physiology and whether those differences are relevant to the problem at hand.

For example, rats have a greater capacity for de novo lipogenesis than humans, which is why some of the high fructose feeding rodent studies are not completely relevant to humans (particularly given that the fructose contents of the diets are often ridiculously high).

However, in this particular case, I do think the rat model is relevant. It's a model examining the contribution of glucose and non-glucose sources of glycerol for triglyceride synthesis under different dietary conditions. I don't think the differences in rat and human physiology would have a great impact on the applicability of these results to humans. The low carb zealots argue that carbohydrate is required for fat synthesis as a glycerol source. This paper makes it clear that adipose tissue "finds a way". In the presence of high carbohydrate, it will synthesize glycerol from glucose. But in the presence of high fat and no carbohydrate, it will synthesize glycerol through glyceroneogenesis from the ingested triglycerides. And one pathway is not more efficient than the other.

I think it comes down to why someone is dismissing or accepting a rat model.

[randyjr]

I just saw this thread, very nice to have someone else arguing with Low Carb fruitcakes. I don't understand, why do those people defend their views so much? It's like they're on some super "high" by following their low and zero carb diets?