How carbs and insulin make you fat and/or ill!

[ATZ]

Quote

You do crack me up, matey! That shows cognitive dissonance. How can an author conclude contrary to the data? Which is the most important - the study data or the author's interpretation of it? I see so many studies where, if you read the actual data, it is saying one thing very clearly, yet the author - in an effort to remain true to a personal preconceived notion or the peer consensus or whatever - will conclude something completely contradictory to the evidence. Very sad!

I think the only thing that cracks me up is your reasoning in the face of all the contradictory evidence to your point. And if you want a perfect example of cognitive dissonance go read Feinman and Fine's paper once more.

As for the ketone issue you cited in your explaination of recording calories - ketone loss is moot after the first few days of ketosis. The joys of a negative feed back system and a kidney that doesn't want to piss out energy.

[ATZ]

Quote

The degree of the changes in the British diet is not the point - the point is that the only changes in a an upward direction were CHO and protein. Total food calories and total fat came down. If your contention is correct - that it is merely a calorie deficit that is required for weight/fat loss - than obesity should have dropped or remained stable over the same period not risen.

My contention is correct. You do require a calorie defecit, or a negetive energy balance to lose fat / weight / whatever semantic you want to argue about. If the data shows a drop in calorie intake but does not show whether activity had remained the same its pretty useless no, so it neither refutes or supports my claims. Do the UK obesity stats take into the fact that those in unskilled jobs have shocking diets? Think building sites and burger vans?

I'd also like to know where that dietary information came from, as if it was self reported - as in the first Brehm study which you are harping on about, then as I have stated multiple times its notoriously inaccurrate...

Intentional mis-reporting of food consumption and its relationship with body mass index and psychological scores in women.

Lara JJ, Scott JA, Lean ME.

Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

BACKGROUND: The reasons for mis-reporting food consumption warrant investigation. OBJECTIVE: To document intention to mis-report food consumption and its associations with psychological measures in women. DESIGN: A total of 184 female volunteers aged 18-65 years, comprising 50 seeking help in primary care to lose weight with a body mass index (BMI) >/=30 kg m(-2) (obese-clinical group) and 134 nurses (nonclinical groups) (BMI <25 kg m(-2), n = 52; BMI 25-29.9 kg m(-2), n = 45; BMI >/=30 kg m(-2), n = 37) were studied. A questionnaire was administered containing three psychological tests (self-esteem, psychological well-being and Stunkard's three-factor eating questionnaire) and new items to address food intake mis-reporting. RESULTS: Overall, 68% of participants declared an inclination to mis-report (64% nonclinical, 78% clinical). Inclination to under-report was 29, 33 and 51% in the three nonclinical groups; and 46% among the obese clinical patients. Among the same groups, inclination to over-report were 39, 29, 11 and 32%. After adjusting for social deprivation and BMI, women inclined to mis-report had higher hunger (P = 0.008) and disinhibition (P = 0.005) scores than those intending to report accurately. These variables were associated with current dieting, frequency of dieting, self-reported bingeing and dissatisfaction with body weight. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that intentional under-reporting and over-reporting of food consumption are common in women of all BMI categories and are associated with eating behaviour. Current dieting, frequency of dieting in the past, self-reported bingeing and dissatisfaction with body weight seem to mediate this relationship.

Repeated measurement of habitual food intake increases under-reporting and induces selective under-reporting.
Goris AH, Meijer EP, Westerterp KR.

Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. annelies.goris@philips.com.

The aim of the current study was to measure differences in reporting behaviour between a first occasion of 7 d food recording and a second occasion of 7 d food recording 12 weeks later, in a group of elderly men (n 17) and women (n 17). Half the group followed an exercise intervention. The mean age was 61 (sd 5) years and mean BMI was 26.2 (sd 3.8) kg/m2. Reported energy intake was compared with energy expenditure as calculated from measured BMR and physical activity assessed with a tri-axial accelerometer for movement registration. Total under-reporting was divided into undereating and under-recording. Undereating was calculated from the change in body mass over the recording week and the under-recording was measured using the water balance technique. In the first period, the total under-reporting was 21 % and increased to 27% in the second period In the first period there was no indication for subjects eating less during the recording week, however, in the second period subjects lost body mass during the food recording indicating undereating. The amount of under-recording was calculated at 21% in the first period and 18% in the second period of recording (P 0.28). During the second period subjects selectively under-reported their fat intake and over-reported their protein intake. In conclusion, repeated assessment of food intake caused a higher quantitative and a qualitative under-reporting of food intake. The effect of interventions (dietary or otherwise) on habitual food intake might be confounded by changes in food-reporting behaviour.

Selective underreporting of energy intake in women: magnitude, determinants, and effect of training.

Scagliusi FB, Polacow VO, Artioli GG, Benatti FB, Lancha AH Jr.

Department of Biodynamics, in the School of Physical Education and Sport, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. fscagliusi@hotmail.com

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify underreporting of energy intake in Brazilian women; identify underreporting determinants; find out if underreporting was selective and; test if a motivational multimethod training, in combination with providing the subjects some results from the prior recording period, was able to reduce underreporting. DESIGN: Energy intake (EI) was assessed by a 7-day diet record. Energy expenditure (EE) was calculated by heart rate monitoring. EI:EE ratio lower than one in subjects who did not lose weight in one month was considered underreporting. Underreporting was correlated with anthropometric, behavioral, and psychological parameters. Food and nutrient consumption was compared between underreporters and non-underreporters. A focus group investigated the main causes of underreporting. Subjects were told that the earlier food records' results were unrealistic and submitted to a motivational training. Then, they were reevaluated for underreporting. SUBJECTS: Subjects were recruited by advertisements for a physical activity program. Thirty-eight healthy women, 13 normal-weight (34%), 13 overweight (34%), and 12 obese (32%), enrolled in the study. Three subjects (2 normal-weight and 1 obese) (8%) withdrew. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED: Analysis of variance, paired t tests, and simple linear regression. RESULTS: Seventeen women (49%) underreported their EI by 21%. A significant negative correlation was found between social desirability and EI:EE. Undereating, errors in portion sizes estimation and the inconvenience of having to record everything that was eaten seemed to explain underreporting. Mean portion sizes did not differ for underreporters and non-underreporters. Fewer self-reported years of education was correlated with underreporting only among normal-weight women. Training and confrontation with earlier results reduced underreporting rate to 33%, but did not affect macronutrient densities. Applications/conclusions Subjects tended to report their intake in a socially desirable way, by eating or reporting less frequently foods considered unhealthful or fattening, like sweets and fried foods. Inclusion of social desirability score as a covariate in studies that rely on self-reports of food intake may be useful. A motivational training program, developed in such a way that subjects are comfortable reporting intake of foods considered socially undesirable, in combination with confrontation with earlier results of dietary assessment and use of portion size measurement aids, can be used to attenuate underreporting.

Behavioral and body size correlates of energy intake underreporting by obese and normal-weight women.

Kretsch MJ, Fong AK, Green MW.

US Department of Agriculture, Western Human Nutrition Research Center, Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To examine behavioral and body size influences on the underreporting of energy intake by obese and normal-weight women. DESIGN: Seven-day estimated food records were kept by subjects before they participated in a 49-day residential study. Self-reported energy intake was compared with energy intake required to maintain a stable body weight during the residential study (reference standard). Energy intake bias and its relationship to various body size and behavioral measures were examined. SUBJECTS: Twenty-two, healthy, normal-weight (mean body mass index [BMI] = 21.3) and obese (mean BMI = 34.2) women aged 22 to 42 years were studied. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Analysis of variance, paired t test, simple linear regression, and Pearson correlation analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Mean energy intake from self-reported food records was underreported by normal-weight (-9.7%) and obese (-19.4%) women. BMI correlated inversely with the energy intake difference for normal-weight women (r = -.67, P = .02), whereas the Beck Depression Inventory correlated positively with the energy intake difference for obese women (r = .73, P < .01). CONCLUSION/APPLICATIONS: Results suggest that body size and behavioral traits play a role in the ability of women to accurately self-report energy intake. BMI appears to be predictive of underreporting of energy intake by normal-weight women, whereas emotional factors related to depression appear to be more determinant of underreporting for obese women. Understanding causative factors of the underreporting phenomenon will help practicing dietitians to devise appropriate and realistic diet intervention plans that clients can follow to achieve meaningful change.

PLENTY more where they came from Nu.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

My contention is correct. You do require a calorie defecit, or a negetive energy balance to lose fat / weight / whatever semantic you want to argue about. If the data shows a drop in calorie intake but does not show whether activity had remained the same its pretty useless no, so it neither refutes or supports my claims. Do the UK obesity stats take into the fact that those in unskilled jobs have shocking diets? Think building sites and burger vans?

You needn't have posted the rest of the drivel as this paragraph alone sums up where you are going wrong!

In particular:
Do the UK obesity stats take into the fact that those in unskilled jobs have shocking diets? Think building sites and burger vans?

Which illustrates what GT and I have been saying - calories in and calories out are not independent variables if you expend more energy you eat more and if you eat less you just end up expending less energy. So on a purely calorific basis it balances out in the long term - the only thing that dictates how those calories (whether maintenance, deficit or excess) will be partitioned, burned or stored is the hormonal balance induced by the form those calories consumed take. So a works vending machine (carbs like crisps, chocolate and biscuits), canteen (carbs like sandwiches and baps or pies and pasties) or a burger van (carbs like burger buns, chips and sugary drinks and bad fats like vegetable oils and trans fats) offers the macronutrient ratio most conducive to a deranged hormonal environment that leads to fat gain and/or lack of fat loss.

As to the rest of the verbiage - the fact that self-reported dietary intake is inaccurate is well known - I have often argued the point myself. But if it is so consistent among the studies you quoted (~20%) why does it really matter when comparing one self-reported diet against another self-reported diet?

If your inference is that different macronutrient ratios lead to significantly different degrees of under/over reporting then why is it so difficult to grasp that different macronutrient ratio also have significantly different effects on body composition?!

[ATZ]

Nice way to gloss over my points there. Drivel because it doesn't agree with the premise of your thread?

The reason I stated burger vans and building sites as an example was because they're more likely to consume excess calories and get fat. I've worked on a building site, I've seen first hand the amount of food these guys get through, and not necessarily carb heavy foods - fry-ups are still a firm favourite.

And whats moving more and eating more, and moving less and eating less got to do with my point? My point is excess calories or positive energy balance make you fat. And no, macro composition is not the only influence on how those calories get partioned, exercise can have a massive influence on this: Metabolic response to small and large 13C-labelled...[Br J Nutr. 2001] - PubMed Result

Metabolic response to small and large 13C-labelled pasta meals following rest or exercise in man.

Folch N, Péronnet F, Massicotte D, Duclos M, Lavoie C, Hillaire-Marcel C.
Département de kinésiologie, Université de Montréal, CP 6128 Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada.

The metabolic response to a 150 or 400 g 13C-labelled pasta meal was studied for 8 h following rest or exercise at low or moderate workload (n 6). Following rest, the 400 g meal totally suppressed fat oxidation (v. 14.1 g following the 150 g meal) and a small amount of glucose was converted into fat (4.6 g), but fat oxidation remained high in subjects who had exercised following both the small (21.8 and 34.1 g) and large meal (14.1 and 32.3 g). Exogenous glucose oxidation was significantly higher in subjects who had remained at rest both following the small (67.6 g v. 60.4 and 51.3 g in subjects who exercised at low and moderate workloads) and large meal (152.2 v. 123.0 and 127.2 g). Endogenous glucose oxidation was similar in the three groups following the 150 g meal (42.3-58.0 g), but was significantly lower following the 400 g meal in subjects who had exercised at low workload (24.2 v. 72.2 g following rest; and was totally suppressed in those who had exercised at moderate workload. As a consequence, a larger positive glycogen balance was observed in subjects who exercised before the large meal (182.8-205.1 g v. 92.4 g following rest; Total fat oxidation calculated from 08.00 hours to 20.00 hours was similar in subjects who exercised at low and moderate workloads. These results indicate that: (1) de novo lipogenesis, which plays only a minor role for the disposal of an acute dietary carbohydrate load, is totally suppressed following exercise, even when a very large carbohydrate load is ingested; (2) the reduction in glycogen turnover as well as a preferential conversion of glucose into glycogen are responsible for the increase in glycogen stores following exercise; (3) for a similar energy expenditure, exercise at low workload for a longer period does not favour fat oxidation when the post-exercise period is taken into account

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Yawn! And my point - yet again - is that a calorie deficit does not necessarily result in fat loss nor does a calorie excess necessarily result in fat gain. Even without exercise the individual response to calorie excesses and deficits are variable and not always predictable and do not yield increases or deficits in fat mass or body weight that are in any way correlated to the amount of the calorie excess or deficit. Taken as a whole that leads to the logical conclusion that something else other than calories are at work.

Not everybody can or wants to exercise before after eating a meal and if the net effect is that their appetite and food intake goes up then, in the LONG-TERM (not just over eight hours), they are not achieving anything are they?

[ATZ]

Quote

As to the rest of the verbiage - the fact that self-reported dietary intake is inaccurate is well known - I have often argued the point myself. But if it is so consistent among the studies you quoted (~20%) why does it really matter when comparing one self-reported diet against another self-reported diet?

If your inference is that different macronutrient ratios lead to significantly different degrees of under/over reporting then why is it so difficult to grasp that different macronutrient ratio also have significantly different effects on body composition?!

Your changing the goalposts here again. You were arguing that the brehm study you originally posted 2 pages back was some good evidence of your stance that low carb diets porduce more weight loss than isocalorific low fat (or high carb) studies. Thus, trying to show its carbs that make you fat etc etc.

I refuted this by showing that

a) the study had already been refuted by its own authour in a later price of work who couldn't show a difference (pay attention here, someone changing their stance in light of new evidence)

b) the study used self reporting data.

I posted some info to show just how badly people can mis-report food intake to show how crap any study using self reporting is.

I never said that differening % of macro's won't affect body composition.

What I did say, and you can see it countless times in this thread: that protein intake being held constant, manipulating fat or carbs has a negligable impact on body compostion, if calories between two diets are matched. This is bourne out by the metabolic ward studues I posted earlier also.

[ATZ]

Quote

Yawn! And my point - yet again - is that a calorie deficit does not necessarily result in fat loss nor does a calorie excess necessarily result in fat gain. Even without exercise the individual response to calorie excesses and deficits are variable and not always predictable and do not yield increases or deficits in fat mass or body weight that are in any way correlated to the amount of the calorie excess or deficit. Taken as a whole that leads to the logical conclusion that something else other than calories are at work.

This my (supposed) learned friend is rubbish. A calorie defecit doesn't produce fat loss? I see no point in continuing this argument. Its only going to serve to make you look more foolish.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

So we are not arguing polar opposites then, we are arguing degrees. I say the macronutrient ratio does have a very big impact on how calories are partitioned, burned or stored and I personally know people who have slashed their calories and not lost an ounce. So calories are not king.

[ATZ]

Quote

So we are not arguing polar opposites then, we are arguing degrees.

You are saying carbs make you fat. I am saying excess calories or positive energy balance makes you fat.

Quote

I say the macronutrient ratio does have a very big impact on how calories are partitioned, burned or stored and I personally know people who have slashed their calories and not lost an ounce. So calories are not king.

Protein being adequate and constant the other two macro's do not change body composition to any great degree. As bourne out by the studies I posted.

I know countless people who have lost weight (fat) through calorie control so what's your point? Did these people you know acurrately record theor food intake? Did they resistance train to maintain muscle mass? Did they eat enough protein?

I thought we'd agreed anecdotes were useless at least.

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Quote

I now countless peopl who have lost weight (fat) through calorie control so what's your point?

My point is that calorie reduction is neither consistent or predictable which leads one to conclude calories are not the sole arbiter of body composition changes. And that includes keeping protein constant. Insulin is the storage hormone it stores fat and prevents fat stores from being broken down and released. Cabs influence insulin secretion to a greater degree than fat. The lower the ratio of carbs to fat - even with protein kept constant - the lower the insulin response the less fat will be stored and the more fat can be released from existing stores to be used for energy.

Anecdotes are not useless where they agree with the theory, science and data. In this case, both sides can appear to claim victory precisely because the calorie deficit/excess responses of humans are so variable and unpredictable. Formulating a hypothesis that takes that variability into account is what is required and what GT in GCBC was driving at. You can't simply say it is a case of people under/over report their intakes and that explains the difference or that some people are more active than others and that explains the difference because you can pull individual, well-controlled datum points out that show the opposite of what the current theory predicts.

For instance, yes people - and overweight people in particular - are apt to under-report their true calorific intake but when tested under scientific conditions, it is found that their metabolic rate is actually higher than a lean counterpart. So there is no guarantee that their true calorific intake is actually that much greater than their metabolic needs. Their higher metabolism explains their urge to eat more. Again, calories in, calories out are not independent variables you cannot reduce calories in by 500 kcals per day and expect that person to lose 1 lb of fat per week - it just won't happen. And neither can you increase a persons calorific expenditure by 500 kcals per week and expect them to lose 1 lb of fat per week - that just won't happen. Some may lose close to that, initially, others won't lose anywhere near that and still others may actually stay static or gain slightly. Because altering one side of the equation, by necessity, has to modify the other. As the Borg say "Resisance is futile"; you won't be able to deny the metabolic adaptations to your tinkering indefinitely.

So what you need to do is alter the metabolic millieu to begin with and let that deal with the whole calorie balance issue. No animal, in its natural state and habitat (with sufficient food at its disposal), suffers from extreme over or underweight yet they do not count calories (they are unable to) it is regulated automatically by their hormones due to eating the diet most suited to their evolutionary make-up.