BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Unread 12-16-2009, 01:17 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Things change coming out of low carbs because there is a transient insulin resistance that develops.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Unread 12-16-2009, 01:27 PM
easyrhino easyrhino is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 904
Default

So I should only pay attention to how I react when the diet is fairly stable?

Or, alternately, maybe just pay attention less, and stop stuffing my fat face, fatty?
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Unread 01-29-2010, 01:02 AM
Insight Insight is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 45
Default

Great article. A few questions:

1) How does this relate to the energy equation? I still have trouble figuring out how insulin is relevant. If insulin levels in the blood go up, then lipolysis slows or comes to a halt. So what happens if you're still on a deficit in that case? What does your body to do produce the energy it needs?

I have had much better results from my diets when I just treated a calorie as a calorie and went on my way... but do I take your article to say that there is a point to "restricting carbs" for some people, even if they aren't restricting them enough to actually get into ketosis? I'm talking about the average bro here who's just trying to "cut excess carbs" without actually running a ketogenic diet.

And again, with the energy equation - if someone were theoretically very insulin sensitive (or tended to overproduce insulin), that would mean they would see very different results from a low carb vs a high carb diet (as your cited study shows). How is this reflected in the energy equation? Does this mean that effectively, for insulin certain people, the presence of carbohydrate in the diet would cause a drop in BMR, explaining the hindered weight loss?

Does insulin cause thermodynamics to be violated?

2) What easyrhino said. I don't feel bloated after a high-carb meal, but I do sometimes get very tired. I'm not on a ketogenic diet, however - moderate to high carb, 500 cal deficit. Does this mean I am insulin sensitive and also tend to overproduce it as well?
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Unread 01-29-2010, 09:28 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

1. Anytime you eat transiently lipolysis will be interrupted as the body is using what you use ate.

Of course insulin doesn't inviolate the energy balance equation.

The issue of who may or may not do better with higher or lower carbs is probably addressed in at least 5-6 articles on the main site.

2. Could be a variety of things, tiredness is pretty vague.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Unread 01-29-2010, 04:50 PM
Insight Insight is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 45
Default

Hi Lyle, and thanks for taking the time to respond.

I'm not asking "who would do better" on high vs low carb diets. I'm asking specifically about this statement in the "Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss" article:

"The results were intriguing: insulin sensitive women on the high carb diet lost nearly double the weight as insulin sensitive women on the low-carb diet. Similarly, insulin resistant women lost twice the weight on the low-carb diet as on the high carb diet."

And then

"Unfortunately, itís not clear what caused the divergent results. The researchers mentioned a gene called FOXC2 which is involved in energy expenditure and found that it was upregulated in the individuals who responded best to diet; further research into this topic is needed (3)."

So do I take this to mean that for the insulin sensitive women, the presence of carbohydrate in the diet caused an elevation in BMR, and for the insulin resistant women, the reduction of carbohydrate in the diet caused an elevation in BMR?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Unread 01-29-2010, 04:55 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

I believe this:

Unfortunately, it’s not clear what caused the divergent results.

Is pretty to the point. And I tend to dislike repeating myself.

We can guess until the cows come home and it's still entirely possible that it was some totally unrelated confound or freak result. But it will only be guessing until another study is done testing it to see what happened.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Unread 01-29-2010, 04:55 PM
Insight Insight is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 45
Default

Actually, after typing the above, I found the fulltext of the study in question (luckily it was free) here. Here is an excerpt from it:

Quote:
Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake.
And then, a fairly important caveat right in the middle of the page:

Quote:
Subjects from both groups were then randomized to receive a hypocaloric diet (400 kcal deficit/d) comprised of either 60% CHO, 20% fat, and 20% protein (HC/LF) or 40% CHO, 40% fat, and 20% protein (LC/HF) for the following 16 weeks... The subjects were otherwise free-living and were expected not to consume food outside of the diet but could have eaten food in addition to or other than the diet.
So is it reasonable to take from this that the folks who were placed on diets well-matched to their Si were simply prone to eat less extraneous food outside of the diet, and folks who were placed on diets poorly-matched to their Si were prone to eat more?

I had the initial idea that this study showed more that being a diet well-matched to your insulin sensitivity would elevate your BMR or in some way create a larger caloric deficit, but now after finding the study it doesn't seem like this is quite what it suggests.

And of course I know that insulin doesn't destroy physics... I was being tongue in cheek
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Unread 01-31-2010, 04:56 PM
Insight Insight is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 45
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
I believe this:

Unfortunately, itís not clear what caused the divergent results.

Is pretty to the point. And I tend to dislike repeating myself.

We can guess until the cows come home and it's still entirely possible that it was some totally unrelated confound or freak result. But it will only be guessing until another study is done testing it to see what happened.
You posted at the same time that I did, so I didn't see this. But being as the subjects were allowed to eat food outside the diet, as per the excerpt from the study above... doesn't seem like much guessing would be needed to figure out how this all would play out.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Unread 02-01-2010, 11:53 PM
cxw cxw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 249
Default

Is the hyperlink still working for everyone else?

I get: Not Found, Error 404
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Unread 02-02-2010, 08:16 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

It's fixed, that's a leftover from the old old old site.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.