Posts by sarkeizen

Original Post by lornajean:

"Sleep is absolutely essential to weight loss. Studies suggest that sleep loss may increase hunger and affect the body's metabolism which may make it more difficult to maintain or lose weight. Specifically, the less sleep you get, the more cortisol is released. And that hormone stimulates hunger. At the same time, insufficient sleep may interfere with the body's ability to metabolize carbohydrates and may cause high blood levels of glucose, leading to higher insulin levels and greater fat storage. Inadequate sleep also drives down leptin levels and low levels of leptin cause the body to crave carbohydrates."

No specific study is mentioned.  If she's talking about the one I'm thinking of then it was a full day of sleep dep followed by a full day of sleep.  Also cortisol levels in that study were constant although hunger was increased.

Still this doesn't necessarily say anything about sleep deprivation as most of us encounter it.  We don't have any information about losing a few hours here or there.  Also this is only 'essential' to weight loss when you have an 'ad libitum' diet (which is more common in people who aren't trying to lose weight) since in a calorie restricted diet you don't eat just because you are hungry. 

If we're talking strictly about weight loss. Then the evidence I've seen is mixed at best.

I've read a couple of studies that show that the fat/protein group loses more weight. One showed a substantial difference ~100% the other was in the 20% range. The one review I read ( where a large sample of studies are taken into consideration and weighed ) stated that there was no significant difference.

That said I'm reading 'Good calories/Bad Calories' which I hear takes a very 'pro-protein' position and it would be interesting to see his evidence ( If I read the author correctly he's directly in conflict with some of the China Study** conclusions).

Speaking of the "China Study**" it's interesting to see large scale research going on but a large N isn't everything. The thing I'd like to read the most is what answers they have for other modern studies that contradict some of the information they give (especially when these studies are better controlled).

As I've said before anyone wanting specific studies, feel free to ask via email.

**By the "China Study" I mean the pro-vegetarian book by that name.  Not the monographs from the China-Cornell-Oxford project.  Since there is some scholarly disagreement that one properly interprets the other.

'believe' and 'evolution' seem like complex terms to me.  Even ID people will even say they believe in evolution in certain respects.

One thing I would address is the influence of evolution on medical science and nutrition.  I admit I'm pretty skeptical about this.   From I can't think of too many examples where the evolutionary development of humans was used to deduce a medical treatment or a nutritional system.  Let alone something that was intrinsic to the progress of modern medicine or nutrition.

Compared to say math and physics.  Without which modern medicine would be crippled.

Original Post by pmorgan2:


A digital scale is the same as a dial scale except for the way it displays the reading. Instead of moving a rack and pinion to display your weight, it triggers an electronic response on a chip. So the spring still does the same thing and offers the same problems. Perhaps a digital scale is a little more accurate because its one less mechanical peice that could fail, but I don't see a drastic reason to choice one over the other, unless you want a big bright number instead of a crude dial reading. 

 I was under the impression that some modern digital scales use piezoelectrics.  For example I don't see where the spring would be on those ultra-thin scales that are transparent.

Some older doctor scales use a counterweight system however the lever assembly is similar in operation to your home scale.   I'm under the impression that doctors scales can be significantly off if they haven't been calibrated in a while.

trustwomen: Considering you're really asserting more than justifying ( Same with your post about 'conservation mode') and I think there's at least one place where one interpretation of your assertions are incongruent with some experimental data.  Some of your terms are rather vague and some of your facts appear inconsistent with revolution3 postings.   

To be honest: I'm unsure if we actually disagree or if this is just a series of errors.

If you like we can talk about this in email but I think it's tedious to do it in a forum.

Original Post by cc:

Sark, from what I've read, it appears that whether or not a higher-protein/lower-carb diet works better than the opposite depends in part on the individual. Some respond to it, and some don't (possibly having to do with an individual's level of insulin resistance and a number of other factors.) This may explain some of the differences in results in recent studies. Apparently, that there is one right way to eat for every body may be the outmoded idea, rather than carbs good/fat bad or fat good/carb bad. Makes sense to me.

It's interesting but it only explains differences in studies that measure those factors. Otherwise you've got to come up with why some combination of factors just happens to end up in the low-carb group and the other combination of factors just happens to show up in the high-carb group. There are plenty of other well-established factors in showing incongruent correlations. Like improper blinding, poor controls, small samples and bad math. :D

Also the larger the number of contributing factors someone comes up with, as a rule of thumb the less likely I would be to believe them. Simply because it's less likely that someone measured and analyzed sixteen different factors than two and therfore it's less likely that this is based on experimental evidence rather than conjecture.

Some of my criticisms of the 'there isn't a single right way to eat' idea is that 'right way' isn't well defined. Considering that we don't know every factor (let alone every dietary factor) that leads to good health a 'holistic' definition is not going to be achievable.

Now if you restrict yourself to 'losing weight' then obviously that caloric intake correlates better than anything else studied. So it kind of makes the point moot.

Not to mention that if there are 'two' significantly diets high-carb, low-carb. Why not three? Why not N? If there's N then again I'm leaning closer to calling 'bull' on someone because it doesn't seem likely that this is based on experimentation.  In fact the large N gets I'd assert that the more likely that the hypothesis is unprovable.

I think it's better to ask the question: "What are the largest causes of death?"( In the US it's something like Heart disease, Cancer, Stroke - Iatrogenics if you're counting that way ). Then ask "Are there diets that affect these factors?".

Original Post by starrynight4192:

The whole thing sarkeizen has been saying is doubling your calories when you are eating so low as 600 calories for example (to reach 1200) could help you lose but if you think you'll lose weight by doubling your calories when you are already consuming 2000 calories a day is incorrect.

Actually I'm a bit more extreme than that.

I'm saying that if you look at virtually any clinically controlled example of overfeeding - (starvation then re-feeding, semi-starvation then re-feeding, +/-10% of maintenance, +/-50% of maintenance). You see zero net effect of this kind. Your BMR goes up when you eat more but not more than the calories you are eating. Your BMR goes down when you eat less but not greater than the calories you are missing. So when you eat more you gain weight and when you eat less you lose weight virtually without exception.

The exceptions I have found number two. One is a second-hand report of a case study which claimed there was an athlete who was able to increase their BMR marginally ( 32 Calories per day ) by altering their diet however the person had changed so many other variables (exercise for example) it would be difficult to make the attribution with much confidence.

The only other example was a +/- 10% Re-feeding study. Where some people showed the ability to drop their BMR by 2% under the calories removed for less than 2wks - after that the BMR moved up again to less than the caloric defect ( 8%).

The interesting thing is that in the 10% or 50% studies the BMR changes are close to the values consumed. So considering that it would seem eminently reasonable that any significant changes ('de-plateauing', large weight loss or gain) measured by informal means by "eat more and lose" pundits should be attributed to error.

Not to mention that this evidence falls in line with the mechanism proposed by another study that I have posted numerous times which correlates long-term BMR changes with changes in fat stores. Meaning that your BMR only goes up in a long-term way AFTER you have gained weight in body fat.

So that's what I think about the idea. As for Revolution3 herself it's more the ridiculous insistence that there can be no significant error on her part.

Original Post by thecreep:

I don't know where I heard this, but doesn't it take longer to burn fat calories than it does to burn carb calories? Does anyone out there know what I'm talking about? 

 You might be referring to the energy content of the material.   A gram of fat contains more energy (9 KCal) than a gram of carbohydrates ( 4 KCal).  So yes eating four grams of fat requires more than twice the energy expenditure to 'work off'.

You might be referring to TEF - the thermic effect of feeding.  That there are slight variances in the amount of energy it takes to assimilate different foods.  So the net energy you get out of different foods varies a little.

He hasn't touched on that yet but from the article it looks like he will ( last line says that it was adapted from the book).

Right now he's just talking about Fat/Cholesterol Intake being unrelated to serum cholesterol.  So far he's citing a lot of old research and studies.   Demonstrating that the popular opinion ( Cholesterol intake implies serum cholesterol rising) were derived from research that was misinterpreted, ambiguous, incorrect or spun in some way.

My beef so far is that:

a) We don't get to see the methodology of these studies - so we can weigh them for ourselves.  They are too old to look up in most databases.

b) IMHO the math and methodology of modern medicine is better.  

What I figure though is that he is using this to tell a story of how he thinks we got the ideas we have about Cholesterol and heart disease.   Hopefully he will cite some modern research in the next chapter or two.

He also alludes (and he does this in the article) that he's rather Atkins-esque.  Protein & Fat shouldn't be avoided, you will lose more weight eating the same number of calories of that over carbs.  I've read at least one abstract of a study that agrees with that opinion.  However a couple of the reviews ( where many studies are compared and analyzed ) seem to say that it's not true.

I'm still thinking about this stuff.  I was hoping to post a review of the book when I'm done.

Hope this helps. 

eastside
But the BMI above 25 isn't just non-obese; it's just the cut-off for overweight.This is just one of those studies using secondary data that leaves out such an important variable (exercise - both theoretically and empirically important) that I don't even see the utility in publishing it. It is just a vita builder. Ah, I must have misread your earlier post - and the original study. Call it a mind-fart. I thought you wrote 35. So the group of highly active (which you would have to be to keep 35 and be non-obese) wouldn't necessarily be large. Of course it would be easy for someone at 25.1 and still be healthy.

I don't think the statistical significance is even that helpful for this. The sample of 54,000+ is so large that just about any difference will cause a significant chi-square change in the omnivores. But regardless, I can't imagine the CI not moving up or down if you separate physically active vs. inactive people in the omnivore group. But as it is, the model in this paper is so horribly misspecified that its conclusions can't be taken all that seriously. How useful can a BMI-based obesity study be when there is no indication of physical activity in it? It's like having a study looking at the effects of pollution on lung cancer prevalence without controlling for if the person smokes or not! I completely agree.

mikelane
On one hand you're responding that this study shows that veganism (your word, see above) isn't, necessarily, healthier than vegetarianism (can only be assumed from what you wrote).

Nope but given the BMI range it's rather moot anyway. Read my post again - twice if necessary. I've made a statement on the affect of this on people who make specific assumptions. You are again, making an inductive error in attempting to state that those people are me.

On the other you're chastizing me for referring to diets in toto.

Not exactly, the problem was your making an inductive error. The fact that the effect of this data on another group that makes a similar inductive error may account for your confusion.

That conclusion does not support your assertion that "pure vegans, as a self-reported group are no less obese than the 'impure' forms of veganism."

You have to read the words around the text you disagree with too.

The only conclusions that the study itself draws is that it is healthier to cut back on animal products and consume more plant foods.

Again this is an inductive error. The study concludes that a group of women who possess attribute X are in group Y. 'Is healthier' implies that attribute X causes people to be in group Y. The study says that this may be the case but of course it may not be the case.

So again, I question your motives and your particular spin of this study

You still haven't been able to assign any of your imagined assertions to me.

udokier

sarkeizen: I don't pretend to know what your agenda is here

Well...you did take a statistic and make an inductive leap in a particular direction.  I don't see how you could do that without making an assumption about me.

, and if you don't like the word "disingenuous", then how about "deceptive"?

Again that term doesn't really apply.  At best you could say "Misunderstood by me and some estimation of people I know" but if so it's by a mechanism common to all epidemiology.

As you should well know, that the average person would come away from those statistics with the notion in his/her mind that "vegans/vegetarians have more healthful, slimming diets than people who eat meat"

I really try not to pretend to speak for the average person.   

I really don't see how comparing two groups on restricted diets to people eating God knows what garbage is constructive.

I agree but that's the problem isn't it?  Control size is a factor when trying to measure small groups.   Controls need to be unrestricted by the variable you are testing.  You can see this in both people and animal trials.  I can certainly provide some other examples.

Perhaps the difficulty here is something you're projecting onto the term 'omnivore'.  I.e. taking it to mean 'any omnivorous diet' instead of 'most omnivorous diets in the people group sampled'. 

mikelane
I find it interesting that your conclusions here, that veganism isn't all that healthy don't jibe with the conclusions from that study:

Well I'm glad you read the study....now if you could just have read my post first:

It almost looks like you assumed some sort of pro-vegan agenda in my posting that. Curious. Since, if anything the data speaks to vegans who attempt to use data of this sort to promote pure veganism. (Such as...oh...I don't know www.goveg.com ) Since if you assume causation: pure vegans, as a self-reported group are no less obese than the 'impure' forms of veganism.

So what conclusions are mine?  Hmmm....don't see any.  I see me saying that this data speaks to people who assume certain things and state certain things.

Even if vegetarians consume some animal products, our results suggest that self-identified semivegetarian, lactovegetarian, and vegan women have a lower risk of overweight and obesity than do omnivorous women. The advice to consume more plant foods and less animal products may help individuals control their weight.

The study itself makes no conclusions that veganism leads to being more overweight compared to lacto-vegetarianism (perhaps because of the objections I've raised thus far) but rather that an omnivorous diet is unhealthy and people need to increase their intake of plant-based foods and decrease meat intake.

Er no.  Notice how it refers to people not ideas?  (Vegetarians not Vegetarianism) but you talk about "Omnivorous diet" not "omnivorous women".

Notice how it talks about "risk" not "health"? 

Notice also how tentative the conclusion is? (Use of "may help control weight")

Something doesn't smell right with your spin of this study.

I've made a statement on the affect of this on a specific people group.  You have made an inductive error in the application of statistics.

eastside
This, IMO, really makes these results not incredibly useful.  With the huge omnivore sample over 54,000, you are pretty much guaranteed to have several subgroups in their with different diet & physical activity interaction effects.

I'm at a BMI of 25.7, putting me at overweight.  But I'm 6'1" at 195 lbs and have a 32 inch waist, not overweight by a long shot.  I'm not super muscular, but even someone like me who exercises regularly can be heavy enough to put them in the overweight category.

Good points.  Two things, there's a difference between having a criticism and if said criticism affects the utility of the study. 

Both of the things you mention are good criticisms but to validate them you actually need to show how they skew the data.  For example, it's agreed that you could have people who are non-obese but have a BMI >= 25 in this group.  The question of course is :"Is that group significant?".  (i.e. Can you show that the CI is affected by these values, etc...)

Numbers wise a calorie is just that, but as for your body being able to burn those calories that is a diffrent story.  For example....If you eat a heathy sandwich (subway), a side salad, and veggies = about 600 calories...+good calories which have right balance of fats, carbs, proteins, fibers and vitamins...meanining your body will absorb the proper nutrients and dispose of the rest....If you ate a cheeseburger 600 calories alone or more...it is full of sodium (bad), fat (bad), and no good nutrients this fat cannot digest and becomes stored fat on your butt and thighs...Bad calories=stored fat and weight gain-  Good calories you can actuallly eat more and not gain weight....

I think this is patently untrue.  Any overconsumption of calories will get stored as fat.  I'd like to see clinical data for the above.

I'm not sure how many times I have to talk about adequate dosage and relative risk here but...

Sodium is not intrinsically bad for you, in fact you wouldn't feel too good if you had severe sodium depletion.  The problem with sodium is the quantities we take it in. and it's association with a few diseases ( high-blood pressure, swelling, etc).

Don't worry about defending yourself. It works for you.

Some subset of people here have a very odd definition of 'work'.

Things can 'work' for you if there's no good evidence they work.

Things can 'work' for you even if the medical evidence is against it working.

Things can 'work' for you even if the result is strongly correlated with things detrimental to ones health.

Guess I should start writing my book 'Lose weight by cutting off small pieces of yourself' after all this 'worked' for so many people. I'll follow it up with another bestseller 'Tone up by being slapped upside the head by me'. I can't prove that it works but...hey aren't ALL experiences VALID?

The fact is that we did do it, it does work for us

I won't get into some peoples insane definition of 'fact'