Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The Latest Metabolic Adaptation Study

A quick post here just to get it out there, and I'm already a couple weeks behind the curve.  Oddly haven't heard too much about this, or perhaps it's because I've lost the will to deal with the community that would jump on this?  Who knows :-)

There is a new NIH funded study out of Columbia (Rosenbaum & Leibel) published this month:  Models of Energy Homeostasis in Response to Maintenance of Reduced Body Weight

I'm going to limit this post to just one of the three experiments conducted:

In 17 subjects (14 women, 3 men) weight stable energy expenditure and body composition  was determined following a period of 6-8 weeks of weight stability.  They were then put on an 800 cal/day diet until they had reduced their weight by 10% of initial weight.  This took 7-13 weeks, after which their food intake was increased to achieve weight stability at the 10% reduced weight for 6-8 weeks.  Energy expenditure and body composition were measured here.  This was repeated to achieve 20% loss, where the second weight loss phase took 8-14 weeks.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Weight Loss on a Very Low Fat High Sugar Diet

A Facebook friend recently posted a screenshot of some papers he'd been reading this past month.  Being the geek that I am, I of course scanned the titles to see if there was anything I might be interested in, and I was shocked to discover this study for the first time!  Shocked in that I'd never seen it before or seen anyone reference it.  Read on and discover that this isn't quite true ...  (As of this post, full text available HERE.)

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss ... 1997 ← Almost two decades ago!!

Sunday, June 5, 2016

How Does the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model aka TWICHOO, Explain the Obesity Epidemic?

A short post ... something I hit on again in the process of writing another one. Below is a plot of the absolute amounts of protein, carb and fat that Americans claimed to consume from 1965 through 2011 (adapted from Hite & Economic Litigation Consultants, 2015 , blog post).   All but 1965 is NHANES data, but I'll even "give them" the inappropriate toss-in of the 1965 Sesame-Street-song data point.

I've properly lined up the timelines for prevalence of BMI > 25 curve  (that scale -- not shown -- goes from just over 45% to just under 75%. ).  This is the same curve repeated by Adele Hite and so, so many others -- often immediately after chastising Ancel Keys for equating correlation with causation (keep ignoring thqt he didn't do that with his infamous plot) -- in an attempt to implicate the Dietary Guidelines in the obesity epidemic.    Even IF one could pin the obesity epidemic on an increase in carbohydrate consumption, two things are clear:
  • Absolute fat intake stayed consistent with baseline
  • Calories increased 

Q:  How does TWICHOO  explain this?

                   (Taubes Wrong Insulin-Carbohydrate Hypothesis Of Obesity)

A:   It doesn't!                                                                          

The only time ANY effect at all has been seen for LC vs. LF, it has been when carb restriction is extreme, protein is not controlled for, calories are not controlled for, the low fat is of negligible difference from the baseline diet, LC is whole real food vs. processed carbs and sugar for the LF, or some combination of several-to-all of these confounders.  Even with the deck stacked, any effect seen is relatively short lived and can't be attributed to increased satiety of fat or clinically significant reduction in insulin levels.  

If you take that together with data we're supposed to accept at face value -- NHANES -- there can be no support for an increase in carbohydrate from around 225 to 275 g/day resulting in hyperinsulinemia induced fat cells gone wild.   It doesn't square.  

Why is anyone spending another research dollar to test this idea that doesn't even fit the observations?

Monday, May 16, 2016

It's TOTAL Energy Expenditure that Matters, and RMR Doesn't Necessarily Predict It!

Post Overview:

In the context of weight loss, maintenance or gain, eventually all roads lead to the acceptance that *calories matter* ... you must be in deficit, balance or surplus respectively.

In the wake of the recent The Biggest Loser Regain study, there has been a lot of doom-and-gloom reporting, led by Gina Kolata and Sandra Aamodt in the New York Times.   I've distilled the results down to the bare bones:

Summarized from Table 1 from Fothergill   14 Contestants (6 Men , 8 Women)

The "alarming outcome" was that resting metabolic rate was reduced as might be expected, but seemingly remained suppressed and even further declined despite significant re-gain (70% re-gain/loss for the mean) after 6 years.   However the TEEs -- the TOTAL energy expenditures for the day -- tell a different tale.  These were measured over a roughly two week period by doubly labeled water in free-living conditions.
  • The TEEs remained high at 30 weeks 
  • The TEEs increased with concomitant re-gain
And most importantly of all to the big picture
  • The TEEs are substantial ... averaging over 3000 calories per day at all time points in a study group that is 43% male, 57% female.
This post is about the RMR and TEE data from another study looking at discrepancies in weight status and reported intake.   When compared to predictions from regression lines (similar method as used in Fothergill) the relative RMR did not track to relative TEE.

  • It's TEE that matters when considering caloric intake for weight goals.
  • Using generally predicted RMRs to set individual total energy intake goals is somewhat "foolproof".

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Is Gary Taubes Losing It?

Is Gary Taubes losing it?  His grip on reality, that is?  I submit that it is the only "innocent" explanation for his behavior of late.

Gary Taubes and Mike Eades
in Better Days for Low Carb "Science"  8/13/2008
direct image link
I'll have more to say when I can recoup from the busy time of year in my real job coupled with traveling weekend before last.  But if you haven't heard, two studies conducted by NIH scientist Kevin Hall:
  • The unveiling of the results of the NuSI funded multi-center study at an obesity conference.  See Nutrition Wonk for the most info.  This was a 2 month metabolic ward study.
  • The followup results of a study on The Biggest Loser with some confusing metabolic outcomes.  I say confusing as the numbers don't add up, but that hasn't stopped pretty much everyone from painting a picture of doom and gloom topped with a large dollop of CICO/ELMM is going to destroy your metabolism fatalism.    I will have more to say on this topic, I'm just trying to focus my thoughts into some sort of manageable post or series, and I'm struggling to do so when the voices in the different communities I travel in are at once somehow in sync and conflicting all at the same time!  It will get done.
The predictable response to the first study has been, disturbingly, worse than usual.  The worst of it coming from Mike Eades.   Scratch that, I think it is even worse that Taubes himself offered up no original comment on his own blog, but yet allowed Eades' screed to speak for him.  You see, Kevin Hall is, according to Eades, hampered by youthful inexperience in the scientific world and likely a corrupt scientist riddled with cognitive dissonance.  This coming from a guy who listens to Feinman explain that entropy is how energy disappears when boulders drop off cliffs, and other manglings of the laws of physics.   SIGH.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

NuSI Study Debunks Taubes

I just came back from a trip to Kansas City to meet the public (grin) and was immediately bombarded from several sides with the above video.   Nutrition Wonk has transcribed the talk so head on over to see that and the poster!

Saturday, April 16, 2016

That "New" Old Study on Saturated Fat ...

Firstly, the idea that any single RCT would change history -- given that the likes of Nina Teicholz, Zoe Harcombe and others have drilled into us the fact that RCTs in this area were scarce (and will remain so) -- truly does border on the pathological at this point.    An appropriate RCT, of adequate size and duration, conducted with suitable compliance and verification, could conceivably turn any number of hypotheses on their heads.   But such a trial would be next-to-impossible.  Besides, even if this RCT-to-end-all-RCTs-&-nutritional-unknowns were to begin tomorrow, there would be no more-certain answers than we have today for at least a decade, better yet two or three.  And that right there is the monumental frustration.  EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS.  The current revisionist revisitation of studies from almost a half century ago does nothing for anyone.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Insulin Caused Cerebral Stress - And THANK YOU! I'm baaaaack :-)

Dateline:  March 26, 2016

Helloooo Inmates!!

A quick update, but first a sincere thank you to each and every one who participated in my 40 Day Lenten Lentil Fast post.  As of this morning -- two months after publication -- we stand at just over 2700 comments.  No that's not a typo.  Who knew all I had to do was stop blogging?    It fills my heart to have such great interaction here at any time.  It especially filled it these past two months, months that have been more tumultuous than time-constrained, and some of the most difficult of my life.  So THANK YOU, and especially for much needed laughter along the way!  What more is there to say?

I may or may not elaborate further on some unintended blog-related whys for the unplanned hiatus, but surely one of them has to be that old saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same".    While there are many examples of low carb antics I could use, there seems to be something about the almighty potato that folks just don't want to see the obvious -- you know that Occam's Razor deal we hear so much about -- about, and instead must construct ever intricate explanations for why people tend to drop weight like a conscientious objector enlisted in an A. Ben Keys study when they eat nothing but potatoes.

To every fraudulent hypester out there -- I'm looking at you Dr. David S. Ludwig, and I'm looking at you too Dr. Mark Hyman -- blaming obesity on "high glycemic" refined carbs while tossing the potato onto that list at every chance ... You need to stop lying to people.  If you did that. ... if you tested your whole potato in an honest fashion, and reported the results without spin, you might get some credibility back.  But you won't, because there's no money in that game, so instead you will go on lying to people, and using the response to (not even potato chips) Pringles and lactase-treated milk & oat dust to further your agendas.   The reality is that when people consume potatoes -- perhaps with some vegetation for added texture/flavor -- without dousing them in "satiating fat", they find they have a hard time eating enough to meet their caloric needs.  Then they lose weight.  Magic I tell ya!

Here is my 2016 Potato Miracle Diet:  Go out and purchase a 5 lb bag of potatoes.  Some additional items might include a head of cabbage, a bag of sauerkraut, a can of diced tomatoes, or a few bags of steam in bag broccoli, green beans or spinach.  (I'm going for quick and easy here, feel free to substitute fresh, organic, non-GMO whatever).  Cook those potatoes up as you see fit with a minimum (if any) of cooking fat.  Eat as much, whenever you are hungry.  That's it.

But this little stunt has taken on a life of its own, and it's the gift that keeps on giving apparently.  The original here was dated over FIVE years ago!  In the interim there was the potato starch version and then back to more potatoes, and now potatoes again.  I'm bumping this because Peter D has become increasingly uncoupled from reality in his attempts to explain what cannot be explained in his world where physiological insulin resistance is somehow a prefered metabolic state and insulin is still somehow the cause of obesity.  And so, five years after his first attempt at this, he's back trying to explain the results of a recent study in  Boiled mashed potatoes for miracle satiety?  This time with protons.  I can't even ...

New posts set in the queue!  Happy Easter to all who celebrate.  See you on Monday!

Friday, February 26, 2016

Bump: The Diabetes "Crash" Cure & Pancreatic Fat

Sixteen post bumps for 2016 ... No. 5

This post has been bumped before! To read original content use browser search for "Original Publication"

The original posting of this was shortly after the first papers published on the success of a very low calorie diet -- essentially a 6-800 calorie protein-sparing-modified-fast, protein shakes + non-starchy veggies -- in curing diabetes in relatively short order.  You may also be interested in the following posts:

The Diabetes "Crash" Cure Revisited (a follow-up to this one)
Diabetes "Crash" Cures: VLCal vs. VLCarb

Check Featured Comment (if any) for further updates from me.