New, Happy, But Upset!! Help!!!

[newtolowcarb]

Hey I am relatively new to low carb dieting. I was slightily over weight , but have always lifted weights(for exercise). I came across Dr. Atkins books, and was very impressed. I started to follow Atkins diet plan, and continued to lift weights at the same time. The results(after two weeks were great) were very satisfying, and then I came across the book Protein Power. Protein Power was very much the same as Atkins, but talked about lifting weights(which was great because that has been "my love" for years). I was thinking that this low carb diet was a "god send" for me. I then came across LowCarbmuscle.com. This is Anthony Colpo's web site. He seemed to say that I am totally wrong. That the only reason for my success is that the low carb diet naturally(in most people, but not all)creates a "calorie deficit." Carbs have nothing to do with weight loss. There is no "Metabolic Advantage" (which upset me greatley). Okay so here is my question. WHO IS RIGHT? IS THERE A METABOLIC ADVANTAGE TO LOW CARBING?

[gitfiddle]

I will go along with Dr. Mike on that one. There will be others who are much more into lifting that will show up soon. ;) Click on this link (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/category/metabolic-advantage/) which will give you more info if it works.

[mcsblues]

In my ever so humble opinion the differences between Mike and AC are really so small that it really doesn't matter. I doubt it is possible now, but if they ever sat down together I imagine they would have a lot in common. If you want me to stick my neck out further, I'd say there almost certainly is a metabolic advantage to low carbing, but the amount is small enough to be easily swamped by other factors (we are talking about a few hundred calories at most). The good news is that as all the other benefits of eating this way for the rest of your life are so great, most of us don't really care!:)

[maxlharris]

There is a metabolic advantage to carb reduction. It is not large.

There is a metabolic advantage to protein consumption over carb consumption. It is also not large.

There is a natural appetite suppression from keeping carbs low. This is fairly profound if you eat to internal cues (I'm sated) versus external cues (my plate isn't clean yet).

There are other things going on.

The money question: Is low carb working better for you than what you were doing before? If the answer is yes, then the real question is why you care about whether Anthony Colpo or Mike Eades is right about a small factor in the success of the diet. It works. This I know. I have a decent understanding of the possible methods by which it works, but the bottom lines are that it works and there's good science to explain why it does, though no one true answer that satisfies all parties. Life isn't such that there is a one true answer to every question, regardless of what Socrates thought.

[OutdoorGuy]

I think Max is right on the money. - - Look at your own personal results and make your decision based on that.
In the past, I have used the 'Zone' guidelines put together by Barry Sears. I lost a lot of fat doing this. I owned the Protein Power book for quite awhile but never read it because I thought it was likely just the same thing as the Zone 40-30-30 eating. - - Well I finally read Protein Power and saw that it wasn't the same as the Zone at all. (The Zone is not low carb.) I've followed the PP eating guidelines for a little over a month, and have experienced faster fat loss than Ive ever experienced before - without losing muscle. (I'm also doing weight training to increase muscle.) I find that I'm not constantly hungry during the day like I was using the other program. - - At least for me, my personal experience has been that Protein Power is the most effective fat loss approach. Regards, - -

[newtolowcarb]

Hey all thanks for your responses. I have a further question. Colpo seems to say that "controlled studies" always indicate that there is no advantage(metabolic) to low carbing. Are there any studies (controlled) who indicate that carbs do matter?

[Liliana]

Hi there, new...

Yes, there are such studies. Dr. Mike has written about them and linked to them in various of his blogs, a group of relevant ones Carol (gitfiddle) linked to, a few posts above. You might enjoy starting by reading this particular one:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/

Or, if you want to go straight to the research, about half-way through the blog Dr. Mike links to the report of just such a controlled study:

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/21/1/55

[chip]

This metabolic advantage idea seems to attract obese people: 'I can eat more than I need and some of it ends up in the toilet.' So I can eat even more because more of it still ends up in the toilet. What is so frikkin hard about eating what your body needs and no more? With a low carb diet you stop the carb addiction. And fats and protein are satiating so you won't eat a ton. Colpo says there's no free ride. Excess calories turn into fat. Period. Personally I prefer that attitude; burn it or carry it. If I eat more than I need, I will get fatter. That's the only thing I need to keep myself on the straight-and-narrow. Eades caters to heavy people. Colpo caters to athletes.

[gitfiddle]

With a low carb diet you stop the carb addiction. And fats and protein are satiating so you won't eat a ton.Hi, Chip! Absolutely true, but it takes some time to come out of the addiction. I am finally at that point, but it took three years of two steps forward and one step back. You aren't necessarily dealing with athletes in this situation. We're all different.

[laughingW]

Is this a troll thread? Two posts talking Colpo-speak?

[gitfiddle]

Is this a troll thread? Two posts talking Colpo-speak?No, silly! I was just agreeing with the part that I related to. Don't turn me in, LW! :eek:;):D

[maxlharris]

Is this a troll thread? Two posts talking Colpo-speak?

It is now. ;) *evil*

I believe in metabolic advantage. I believe it is small enough that it doesn't make much difference, except when you are very overweight. I also believe that Colpo is kind of a jerk. Just because he's a jerk, doesn't mean he's wrong about everything (or anything). Look at me. I'm right sometimes.

[Ammy]

sometimes...:razz: :evil:

[laughingW]

No, silly! I was just agreeing with the part that I related to. Don't turn me in, LW! :eek:;):D
Not bustin you gitfiddle! It's just that I enjoy your input on legit questions, and everyone else's too.

But trollish questions? I have gotten so when I read "metabolic ward" or "controlled studies" my throat gags like a person allergic to bees that gets stung one too many times. Ugh!

[maxlharris]

I have the same reaction to the words "Contracting Officer" and "COTR" (pronounced Co-Tar or cotard, depending).

[gitfiddle]

But trollish questions? I have gotten so when I read "metabolic ward" or "controlled studies" my throat gags like a person allergic to bees that gets stung one too many times. Ugh! I understand. I just have this knee-jerk reaction to "addiction" topics because I are one. What Chip said made me realize that it's not a factor in my eating any more. Blew me away, actually!

I'm not a Colpo fan simply because I shy away from dramatic venting.:peeved:

[Gabriel Guzman]

Well, I'm not so sure that the metabolic advantage of carbohydrate restriction and increase protein intake are that 'small'. In terms of what? In fact, that 'small' metabolic advantage is what helps explain why there is still weight loss (from fat), when caloric intake is not significantly lower than say a 'standard' high carbohydrate diet.

[maxlharris]

Small as compared to say basal metabolism, non-exercise activity, and general thermic effect of eating. The protein advantage is real, but is not earth shattering as compared with the thermic effect of a similar number of calories from other macronutrients. The metabolic advantage, even if we're talking 200 kcals for a big guy like self (6'2", etc), is small next to resting metabolic rate for same big guy like self. Now, don't get me wrong, I think the metabolic advantage is large as compared with the much touted metabolic advantage of carrying extra muscle. But that's so small as to be negligible.

[laughingW]

What Chip said made me realize that it's not a factor in my eating any more. Blew me away, actually!

stomp stomp whistle clap clap! Isn't it great!

[Gabriel Guzman]

Small as compared to say basal metabolism, non-exercise activity, and general thermic effect of eating. The protein advantage is real, but is not earth shattering as compared with the thermic effect of a similar number of calories from other macronutrients.

For example? What other nutrients induce more thermogenesis than protein (exclude peppers!:) ), that also provides with raw material for cell structures?

Maybe the beauty with protein is that it not only affects the body in a different way than other 'calories' but also makes the body use calories more efficiently.



The metabolic advantage, even if we're talking 200 kcals for a big guy like self (6'2", etc), is small next to resting metabolic rate for same big guy like self. Now, don't get me wrong, I think the metabolic advantage is large as compared with the much touted metabolic advantage of carrying extra muscle. But that's so small as to be negligible.

The point missing is the cumulative of that little, non-earth shattering effect. Metabolic advantage doesn't need to be huge to have a sustained effect.

[newtolowcarb]

Ok here was what Colpo seems to say:

I am going to make it simple. Let's say the two people are the same weight and have the same metabolic "status"

Person A--eats 2500 calories of 20 grahms of carbs .

Person B eats 2500 calroies of 400 grahams of carbs.

Colpo says that the carbs do not matter at all. It is the calories that count. The two people would lose(or gain or remain the same) the same amount of weight. The one who ate less carbs would not lose more weight.
You agree??? Disagree???? neither??? explain thanks!!

[Gabriel Guzman]

First of all, what does he mean by 'status'? For example, is the metabolic 'status' one of insulin resistant or insulin sensitive. Fit or unfit? Carbohydrates impact the body in the same way but the actual metabolic status may help those insulin sensitive get away with them (or somebody that is fit as in 'developed muscles'). I think the thought behind those words is in line with what most dietitians like to think, even if incorrect... sometimes trying to magically balance calories and calories out with some weight shed in the process. As attractive as that equation sounds and looks like, we are not closed systems in which that law applies (in fact the 1st law of thermodynamics that is touted so much by dietitians and those who think that a calorie-is-a-calorie). We do waste energy (that is the 2nd law of thermodynamics) and we tend to waste differently depending on the nutrients that make our menus. Somebody that is sensitive to insulin (those who have been on a low carb diet for a while have better normoinsulinemia than those that are on a high carb diet) can handle carbs better and weight gain may not be an issue but to a point. I don't know if the biochemistry behind it is missing in some people but when a process that is insulin-dependent, the process does respond to different insulin levels, which in turn means that if insulin is low, the process is either downregulated, controlled or even shut down (that's the simplistic way of explaining it). Fat internalization into the fat cells IS an insulin dependent process and doesn't happen or is downregulated when insulin levels are low. Fat synthesis inside the fat cells IS also an insulin-dependent process and when insulin is low, that process responds accordingly. Bottom line, if insulin levels are not high (they cannot be 'zero'), both fat internalization and fat synthesis are not running the show.

What about the body's energy demand? If energy sources are not readily available (like when carbs in the diet are low), and fat intake is not enough to supply for that energy, the body taps into what's in store, the fat in the fat cells. But if that demand is supplied by fat in the diet, for example, then there's no need to tap into the fat stores. For that, a caloric deficit is needed but that doesn't mean eating less (as in total calories coming in). One can still have a 2000 caloric intake but made of things that aren't metabolically worth it for the body. So, the way those calories are presented to the body DOES count as the body reacts differently to different nutrients. If most calories come from carbohydrate, then insulin levels increase thus upregulating everything that responds to insulin, including fat internalization and fat synthesis. The 'macro' result is weight gain. If those calories are presented in very little carb but more than sufficient amount of fat, while insulin won't have an impact on fat internalization or fat synthesis, the body is quite content with using the fat in the diet, which can use for energy without even attempting to tap into the fat store. If those calories are presented as mostly protein (it's virtually impossible to have natural protein sources without any fat at all... unless they're protein shakes), it takes more energy to the body to work on the protein coming in than the energy that will extract. Even if glucose can be made from certain amino acids (which happens only then that is needed), that glucose is not to support the body's energy demand. So, as long as there is some fat in store, that fat will supply energy to meet the energy demand.

So, I think is too simplistic to just take XX calories in person A and XX calories in person B with the same metabolic status unless we clearly define what status that is. That simplistic view leads to misinformation and obviates fundamental effects that different nutrients have on our metabolism.

Person A with 2500 cal and 20 gr carbs (that means that only 80 calories really come from carbs since there are 4 cal/gram of carbohydrate). So that's about 2420 cal made up by protein and fat in some ratio. If we assume that the person consumes ~60% of the calories from fat, that's roughly 161 gr fat (~1450 cal) with the remaining 40% from protein (~968 cal or about 242 gr protein). Again, if we don't really know anything about the metabolic status is anybody's guess if weight gain will happen or not. Let's say that said person is very fit (well develop musculature, which doesn't mean a body builder). The person's muscles are very efficient in burning fat and is unlikely that weight gain will ensue even at that level of fat intake. A fit individual is always in some kind of caloric deficit and either the dietary fat supplies for that demand or the person utilizes that plus what's in store. End result, no weight gain. Depending on the actual energy demand (i.e. if sufficient energy is tapped from the stores), there may be weight loss.

If the person is not fit and the energy demand is not that hight, even with a very low intake of carbohydrate, the higher intake of fat is like having cash coming to our doors that we can use for every day expenses without having to touch our bank accounts. Without a significant energy demand, we may not induce a caloric deficit and the fat coming in the diet is enough to supply the energy we need. The end result, no weight gain, but no weight loss either.

Anyway, Mr. Colpo's view (as paraphrased by you) cannot explain why when two groups of subjects eat a diet that is protein rich (and very low in carbohdyrate) and a diet that is more like the standard high-carb/low fat diet end up eating the same amount of calories (give or take 2%), but the group that eats less carbohydrate loses more weight. It must be a paradox... :)

[BlancE]

Nicely put, Gabriel.

[newtolowcarb]

Ok let me ask another question. Colpo seems to say that ketosis has benefit to weight loss whatsoever. Any thoughts?

[LisaS]

Ok let me ask another question. Colpo seems to say that ketosis has benefit to weight loss whatsoever. Any thoughts? Is that sentence what you intended to say? I ask because it doesn't make grammatical sense. Did you rather mean "no benefit"?

if you did - then I'd tend to agree with Colpo that the transient appearance or not of ketones in the urine has little if any bearing on whether or not you are losing weight or whether or not you are burning fat.

On the other hand, if you are losing weight by burning fat, sending ketones to other parts of the system to be burned and/or excreted can't be a bad thing. But this is generally happening whether you can detect them in the urine or not.

[maxlharris]

I would suggest also that Dr. Eades and Mr. Colpo do not have disagreement on this. Maybe small quibble, but the focus of Protein Power has never been on the ketones, at least not as far back as 1995 and Protein Power. That was always Dr. Atkins' thing.

I'm gonna pipe in with this: Ketones are only a sign that you might be doing a ketogenic diet correctly. You might also be fasting. You might also be a diabetic in ketoacidosis (not good). I guess I would even upgrade "might be" to "are probably," given the context of a non-diabetic starting a low carb regime. But if you're looking to the stick to explain anything to you, you're probably gonna wait a long time for results.

[chip]

Ok let me ask another question. Colpo seems to say that ketosis has benefit to weight loss whatsoever. Any thoughts?

From his perspective as a trainer, I think his point is that ketosis is a hindrance to muscle development. That makes sense. Insulin is needed to fill the muscles with nutrients. Ketosis means less insulin being released from the pancreus.

If you are exercising, ketosis might limit fat-burning. There's a saying: fat burns in a carb flame. If there's no carb, there's less fat-burning. In that scenerio ketosis slows fat loss.

[laughingW]

According to Eades' blog, and GCBC

- ketosis is a normal signal of fat-burning; after an overnight fast, in the morning when fat-burning is normally happening, healthy people show 5% ketones

- Any eating raises insulin - beef is as high as lentils as I recall from the insulin index, so muscle building can happen with no dietary carbs

- some glucose is required in the Krebs cycle, but if one eats no dietary carbs, then it comes from glycogen. Glycogen gets refilled from dietary protein breakdown (or muscle breakdown in malnutrition)

There is a story on Cordain's Paleo website of an American researcher who was following some hunter-gatherers. They would wake up, not eat, and run and hunt for 8 hours until a meal break. They laughed at the American who bonked and couldn't exercise without eating carbs first - he wasn't adapted.

I can see where someone might want more dietary carbs if they are doing carb-sucking exercise faster than they can replenish glycogen.

[newtolowcarb]

Ok I think I have the real question or difference here. This is what seems to be giving me the most problems. See what you all have to say.

After reading Colpo's matierial further here is what he says:(I'm paraphrasing)

Let's say a person loses 20lbs in 30 days, and eats 20-30 grahams of carbs a day without counting any calories. (let's say the person wound up eating 2700 calories a day or around there each day)

Colpo asserts, I believe, that if that same person were to eat 2700 calories (a day)of carbs and protein and fat the weight loss would be the same. If the person ate 2700 calories with 250 grahams of carbs the weight loss, according to Colpo, would be the same. The carb count does not matter accrding to Mr. Colpo. Any thought would be appreciated. Thank you!!

[Belfrybat]

Colpo asserts, I believe, that if that same person were to eat 2700 calories (a day)of carbs and protein and fat the weight loss would be the same. If the person ate 2700 calories with 250 grahams of carbs the weight loss, according to Colpo, would be the same. The carb count does not matter accrding to Mr. Colpo. Any thought would be appreciated. Thank you!!

This has already been covered in the posts above, but if it's still giving you problems, why don't you e-mail Dr. Mike?

I can only speak from personal experience, and I am not a heavy exerciser. In order to lost weight on a high carb low fat diet I have to go below 1200 calories a day. I can lose weight on a low carb diet (40 grams) at 1400-1500 calories a day. So there is a benefit in low carbing, but as Gabe has already said, it's not a huge difference. The real difference for me is in increased well being on low carb. Better regulated blood sugar, more energy, less aches and pains, less food craving, etc, etc.

When it comes to talking about eating styles, one has to be ready to read a lot of conflicting "facts". I've read just about every negative article there is against low carb, and sometimes over the past 30 years I've given in and left the low carb WOE -- I even gave vegan a try for a year. But I always come back -- this way of eating just makes much more sense to me than any other. And I do so much better in every way.

[gitfiddle]

Ok I think I have the real question or difference here. This is what seems to be giving me the most problems. See what you all have to say.
Basically, I have nothing to say that Dr. Mike hasn't already said in his blog. If you go up to the top of the page and click on BLOGS you can follow it and do a search.

[newtolowcarb]

Basically, I have nothing to say that Dr. Mike hasn't already said in his blog. If you go up to the top of the page and click on BLOGS you can follow it and do a search.

I cant find anywhere in Dr Eades' blogs where he deals specifically with the question I raised above.

[maxlharris]

The question doesn't really mean anything as stated.
Are the two hypothetical dieters starting from being diet adapted or from scratch? If it's from scratch, there is no doubt in my mind that the LC dieter will lose more. There is some doubt in my mind as to whether the whatever-2700 dieter will lose anything, as that's high calories for weight loss.

If they are both adapted to their diets, it gets less clear. At 2700, we're not running into hunger much (unless we're working out hard). Assuming both can lose at that point, compliance shouldn't be a problem, so they will probably lose around the same amount. Theoretically. If they both have metabolic syndrome, the low carb dieter will lose more. And feel better.

This is starting to feel a little trollish.

[Rhyme'n Reason]

This is starting to feel a little trollish.

And pointless! :peeved:

[newtolowcarb]

And pointless! :peeved:

I dont see how you think it's trollish? I mean it is a legitimate question that is giving me problems. I guees I'll ask it again.
EXAMPLE:
A person eats 20 carbs a day for two weeks, and consumes 2200 calories a day for that time period. He loses 15 pounds in that perioid.
Anthony Colpo says that if that same person eats 2200 calories of say 350 grahams of carbs he would lose the same amount of weight. Because, according to Colpo it is the calories that count.
Do you agree with that? If the person ate 2200 calories and 350 grahams of carbs instead of 20 grahams would he lose the same amount of weight as Colpo suggests?

[Rhyme'n Reason]

If you read the replies carefully, the point most of them make is that there are too many variables to give a direct answer to the question. Have you read Good Calories, Bad Calories? It explains the mechanism by which fat burning occurs. All calories are not created equal--how the body deals with them depends on both the amount of insulin present and the degree to which a person is insulin resistant. If you read the experiences of others on the board, you'll see that most of us have tried various "diets." This balance between carbs and protein has proven to be most effective. And I know that if I eat 350 grams of carbs in any given day, I will gain fluid and eventually fat, even if the calories are not that high. I did a very low fat diet at one point. It's virtually impossible to do that without eating a significant number of carbs. And I found myself getting hungrier and hungrier and hungrier as time went on. I know my calorie level at that time was in the 1200 range, and I found I had to continually get lower than that to lose weight. Most days now I am in the 1700-1900 range, I am not hungry, and I lose weight.

[maxlharris]

I dont see how you think it's trollish? I mean it is a legitimate question that is giving me problems. I guees I'll ask it again.
EXAMPLE:
A person eats 20 carbs a day for two weeks, and consumes 2200 calories a day for that time period. He loses 15 pounds in that perioid.
Anthony Colpo says that if that same person eats 2200 calories of say 350 grahams of carbs he would lose the same amount of weight. Because, according to Colpo it is the calories that count.
Do you agree with that? If the person ate 2200 calories and 350 grahams of carbs instead of 20 grahams would he lose the same amount of weight as Colpo suggests?

It's trollish because it's essentially been asked (repeatedly) and answered (same).

For the record:
I vehemently disagree with Colpo that two hypothetical overweight identical people off the street, starting two different diet regimes at the same calorie level, with one pursuing a low carb approach and another carbing high, will lose the same amount of weight on the same calories. The reason I believe this is because of the glycogen dump, which you get in spades with low carb and you don't get when you are carbing. Each glycogen molecule binds with some water molecules. Water is heavy (8.6 lbs / gallon). If our hypothetical obese low carbing twin does low carb, he could very well drop 15 lbs in a month, with much of that being water bound with glycogen. I know it is possible. I have done it.

His hypothetical twin, eating 350g of carbs (for 1400 kcals, leaving very little room for protien and fat... I cannot see even Colpo recommending that level of carb consumption, beyond the theoretical), will retail his glycogen. They may lose the same amount of fat (or close enough that it's hard to see the difference, the thermic effect of protein is small and the metabolic advantage to low carb is also small). But the low carb person's scale will move a lot faster.

Now, with a different experiment, two hypothetical dieting twins, who have been working their regimes for 6 months or so, decide to match calories and compare results. At that stage, they will probably lose at the same rate. The guy limiting his fat to eat more pasta, however, will probably be an unhappy camper.

Is it about the calories? Yes.

Is there a metabolic advantage? I think so, but I don't understand it to be very large.

Is there a thermic advantage to eating more protein and less carbohydrate? Again, yes, but I do not understand it to be very large.

But, is it ALL about the calories? No. We're talking strictly about loss. How about gain? If you keep carbs low, and eat until sated, most people will not gain weight or store more fat. If you eat calories up the whizzy while consuming large amounts of carb, you will store fat.

Last, if our hypothetical patient has metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes, or really any other insult to their insulin metabolism, all of this goes out the window. The last thing they should be doing is eating 350g of carbs. And that leads to the Multi-Trillion dollar question: Of the dieting population, what percentage has MetS?

FWIW: I think COLPO is a bit of a loud mouthed jerk. That doesn't mean he's not right sometimes. It just means that he's liable to go to extremes to make his name. Atkins was apparently a loud mouthed jerk too. But he was right more often than not.

I hope this is clear and useful.

[mcsblues]

I dont see how you think it's trollish? I mean it is a legitimate question that is giving me problems. I guees I'll ask it again.
EXAMPLE:
A person eats 20 carbs a day for two weeks, and consumes 2200 calories a day for that time period. He loses 15 pounds in that perioid.
Anthony Colpo says that if that same person eats 2200 calories of say 350 grahams of carbs he would lose the same amount of weight. Because, according to Colpo it is the calories that count.
Do you agree with that? If the person ate 2200 calories and 350 grahams of carbs instead of 20 grahams would he lose the same amount of weight as Colpo suggests?

If there is a point to all this, it is this. Unless AC has completely changed his approach (which I doubt) he is not suggesting anyone eat anything like 350g of carbs per day (far from it!). In fact he has always recommended LWB (Life Without Bread) as a great example to follow, and if you read that (and I suggest you do) you will find Lutz (and Allan) favour 72g of carbs per day ... before fibre is (dis)counted, so somewhere very close to 50 'effective' carbs - in other words much the same as the Eades have always promoted after intervention.

Since Anthony, Mike and Wolfgang are all pointing you in exactly the same direction for much better health and ease of weight control, why waste time on trivial details? It really, really doesn't matter.:)

[Mitra]

... you will find Lutz (and Allan) favour 72g of carbs per day ... before fibre is (dis)counted, so somewhere very close to 50 'effective' carbs

I always thought it was 72g of non-US carbs - ie not including fibre. The "bread unit" of 12g carb is a german thing, so I assumed it was using European-style fibre-free carbs. I'll have to dig the book out and see if I can find any clarification.

Sorry to interrupt - the inclusion or exclusion of fibre doesn't affect the point you were making.

[mcsblues]

No problem!;) All my books are packed away in boxes marked ... "books":rolleyes::p so no chance of putting my hand on LWB any time soon (even when I finally move into the new house, I am now thinking the old book cases won't do .... so yet another job!!) - but, I think the Allan translation (not sure he contributed anything else?) put the carbs as our FDA land friends understand them. Back when AC and I were pals, I seem to recall he wasn't impressed by 'effective' carbs or whatever Atkins called them once he stole the concept ... not because he couldn't understand the reasoning, but (I think) because he thought it was an unecessary complication ... and (again as I recall) this was the main reason he promoted LWB (and not PPLP).

[newtolowcarb]

It's trollish because it's essentially been asked (repeatedly) and answered (same).

For the record:
I vehemently disagree with Colpo that two hypothetical overweight identical people off the street, starting two different diet regimes at the same calorie level, with one pursuing a low carb approach and another carbing high, will lose the same amount of weight on the same calories. The reason I believe this is because of the glycogen dump, which you get in spades with low carb and you don't get when you are carbing. Each glycogen molecule binds with some water molecules. Water is heavy (8.6 lbs / gallon). If our hypothetical obese low carbing twin does low carb, he could very well drop 15 lbs in a month, with much of that being water bound with glycogen. I know it is possible. I have done it.

His hypothetical twin, eating 350g of carbs (for 1400 kcals, leaving very little room for protien and fat... I cannot see even Colpo recommending that level of carb consumption, beyond the theoretical), will retail his glycogen. They may lose the same amount of fat (or close enough that it's hard to see the difference, the thermic effect of protein is small and the metabolic advantage to low carb is also small). But the low carb person's scale will move a lot faster.

Now, with a different experiment, two hypothetical dieting twins, who have been working their regimes for 6 months or so, decide to match calories and compare results. At that stage, they will probably lose at the same rate. The guy limiting his fat to eat more pasta, however, will probably be an unhappy camper.

Is it about the calories? Yes.

Is there a metabolic advantage? I think so, but I don't understand it to be very large.

Is there a thermic advantage to eating more protein and less carbohydrate? Again, yes, but I do not understand it to be very large.

But, is it ALL about the calories? No. We're talking strictly about loss. How about gain? If you keep carbs low, and eat until sated, most people will not gain weight or store more fat. If you eat calories up the whizzy while consuming large amounts of carb, you will store fat.

Last, if our hypothetical patient has metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, pre-diabetes, or really any other insult to their insulin metabolism, all of this goes out the window. The last thing they should be doing is eating 350g of carbs. And that leads to the Multi-Trillion dollar question: Of the dieting population, what percentage has MetS?

FWIW: I think COLPO is a bit of a loud mouthed jerk. That doesn't mean he's not right sometimes. It just means that he's liable to go to extremes to make his name. Atkins was apparently a loud mouthed jerk too. But he was right more often than not.

I hope this is clear and useful.

DUDE YOUR TEN POSTS BEHIND--My newest question is not about TWO hypothetical dieters. I am asking about the same person. One person!!!! If he eats 2500 calories and 20 grahams a day for two weeks, and loses 12lbs, would he also lose the same amount(minus the water weight) of weight/fat on 2500 calories and 350 grahams of carbs? Colpo says YES!!! I am asking what your opinion is?

[newtolowcarb]

dude Your Ten Posts Behind--my Newest Question Is Not About Two Hypothetical Dieters. I Am Asking About The Same Person. One Person!!!! If He Eats 2500 Calories And 20 Grahams A Day For Two Weeks, And Loses 12lbs, Would He Also Lose The Same Amount(minus The Water Weight) Of Weight/fat On 2500 Calories And 350 Grahams Of Carbs? Colpo Says Yes!!! I Am Asking What Your Opinion Is?

Is It Possible To Get An Answer On This Question Please????

[mcsblues]

Sure. Just tell us exactly how you want this covered ... again ... and I'm sure we'd be happy to oblige!:p (I take it a simple "no" wouldn't do?)

But fair's fair. In exchange answer a real simple one. Just who is it who is telling you eating 350g of carbs a day is a good idea?:)

[Gaelen]

Hi, newtolowcarb.

Welcome to the Protein Power forum. Here, we discuss eating low carb and getting adequate protein--and the opinions of Anthony Colpo are pretty much irrelevant, whether they concern metabolic advantage or not.

Your question has been answered in many ways and from many perspectives.

You keep bringing up examples, whether one dieter or a comparative pair, where one example has the dieter eating X calores which include a large amount of carbs, and the other example has the dieter eating the approximate same X calories but far less carbs; you note that Colpo would say that the amount of carbs eaten would make no difference but that only calories would determine which example lost more weight; you ask if anyone agrees with that.

The short answer is 'no,' most of the people here don't agree with the 'it's all about calories' approach. By learning about low carb from reputable authors, we've learned that it's about MORE than calories. It's about the macronutrients and micronutrients you include in your diet.

Several excellent references have been given to you, and you've ignored them, rephrasing and repeating your question. I will repeat a reply you were given several times--why do you care? Pick a plan, read up on it and follow it. See if it works for you. Those of us following PP understand from personal experience that it works...and the main metabolic advantage it includes is that we end up healthier.

I've counted calories; it was not as successful an approach for me as counting carbs has been. I'm not going to waste any more time following unsuccessful approaches--life is too short. I've lost more weight and kept it off longer by eating more calories than I ever ate on programs which count calories. During that time, there have been extended periods when the types of exercises I could do were severely limited. I haven't been able to lift weights for about eight years...but I have still lost weight, increased lean body mass and gotten stronger. That's what counts--that it works, that I can make it last for life. Not how many calories I eat. And from experience, I know there's no way I could eat 250gms of carbs on the number of calories I eat per day without gaining weight. But I can eat that number of calories on 50-70gms carbs without gaining any weight or suffering any loss in lean body mass. My 'n' of one is all the controlled study I really need...and it's the only thing that is really relevant to my own body reshaping.

How do I know how many calories I eat if I don't track them? Well, the software I do does track them (although I don't pay attention to that number.) So I can make those statements about how many carbs I can consume, relative to calories and body weight, with confidence. As long as I'm talking about my results, it's relevant. As a broader statement or something that can be applied to everyone--as others have pointed out, things get more complicated.

Now, if you're so concerned about Colpo's opinions, you might want to go post your questions on his forum. But here, criticizing an opinion or someone from another forum isn't acceptable behavior. So please, respect the rules of discussion, read the answers you've been given, and try to form your own opinions. But do it with this knowlege--what Anthony Colpo thinks (or doesn't think) about food consumption, and carb/calorie intake, is irrelevant in the context of Protein Power. If you'd like to discuss PP, you're welcome here as long as you frame your questions from the perspective of what Protein Power says--not from the perspective of what its detractors say it isn't.

Gaelen
Administrator, Protein Power Forum

[maxlharris]

DUDE YOUR TEN POSTS BEHIND--My newest question is not about TWO hypothetical dieters. I am asking about the same person. One person!!!! If he eats 2500 calories and 20 grahams a day for two weeks, and loses 12lbs, would he also lose the same amount(minus the water weight) of weight/fat on 2500 calories and 350 grahams of carbs? Colpo says YES!!! I am asking what your opinion is?

Dude, if you cannot get the answer you want, you should probably shop some more.

I believe the difference between two hypothetical clones and one individual doing one is esoteric and that your example of one person is less revealing than the two hypothetical clones I have answered it with.

Again, it's trollish because you are asking the same question, rephrased, over and over. It's trollish because it's harping on Anthony Colpo, who may have some ducks in a row but is widely believed to be a jerk and that's putting it nicely.

Your question, as phrased in this version is nonsense. No one is losing 12 lbs of body fat in 2 weeks. Not on any diet of 2500 calories. Maybe one of those "I Eat 33,000 Calories a Day" food addicts, but no normal person with a relatively normal metabolism is dropping 12 lbs of fat in 2 weeks.

Reduce the numbers, and say that person does LC dieting and loses 4 lbs of body fat over two weeks (a fast rate, but believable) on an ad lib LC diet. It is completely unlikely that they will lose 4 more lbs of body fat on an iso caloric high carb diet, immediately after they lost 4 lbs of body fat on a low carb diet. And this is ignoring the water issue. They will regain the water. Since 80% of people really just want the damn scale to move, standing still from losing less bodyfat and gaining all your water back, is probably not a great idea.

But, here's the rub. Only you know if you are suffering from metabolic syndrome. And even you probably don't know. You could maybe find out with the help of a doctor who could give you a GTT (unpleasant to the max), check your cholesterol and your BP, check your fasting blood sugar and your HgBA1C, etc. If you have MetS, you will undoubtedly lose better on an isocaloric low carb diet than you would on an isocaloric low fat diet. If you tolerate carbs well (in the 25th percentile or better), you will probably not see a benefit to low carb intake versus low fat intake. Regardless, most people around here would suggest you STILL do low carb, because it's better for your lipid profile, your blood pressure, any acid reflux you might be having, and it's generally a healthier way to go about life.

I dunno if that answers your specific question. But as discussed, your specific question is a nonsensical hypothetical question that borders on philosophy rather than an attempt at understanding. Since most philosophy majors I know are broke, I'm moving on. Ten questions behind or not.

PS- impossible to be 10 questions behind. The questions are all the same.

[laughingW]

PS- impossible to be 10 questions behind. The questions are all the same.
(snicker) Good one.

[newtolowcarb]

(snicker) Good one.

Actually they were two different questions.

[newtolowcarb]

Hi, newtolowcarb.

Welcome to the Protein Power forum. Here, we discuss eating low carb and getting adequate protein--and the opinions of Anthony Colpo are pretty much irrelevant, whether they concern metabolic advantage or not.

Your question has been answered in many ways and from many perspectives.

You keep bringing up examples, whether one dieter or a comparative pair, where one example has the dieter eating X calores which include a large amount of carbs, and the other example has the dieter eating the approximate same X calories but far less carbs; you note that Colpo would say that the amount of carbs eaten would make no difference but that only calories would determine which example lost more weight; you ask if anyone agrees with that.

The short answer is 'no,' most of the people here don't agree with the 'it's all about calories' approach. By learning about low carb from reputable authors, we've learned that it's about MORE than calories. It's about the macronutrients and micronutrients you include in your diet.

Several excellent references have been given to you, and you've ignored them, rephrasing and repeating your question. I will repeat a reply you were given several times--why do you care? Pick a plan, read up on it and follow it. See if it works for you. Those of us following PP understand from personal experience that it works...and the main metabolic advantage it includes is that we end up healthier.

I've counted calories; it was not as successful an approach for me as counting carbs has been. I'm not going to waste any more time following unsuccessful approaches--life is too short. I've lost more weight and kept it off longer by eating more calories than I ever ate on programs which count calories. During that time, there have been extended periods when the types of exercises I could do were severely limited. I haven't been able to lift weights for about eight years...but I have still lost weight, increased lean body mass and gotten stronger. That's what counts--that it works, that I can make it last for life. Not how many calories I eat. And from experience, I know there's no way I could eat 250gms of carbs on the number of calories I eat per day without gaining weight. But I can eat that number of calories on 50-70gms carbs without gaining any weight or suffering any loss in lean body mass. My 'n' of one is all the controlled study I really need...and it's the only thing that is really relevant to my own body reshaping.

How do I know how many calories I eat if I don't track them? Well, the software I do does track them (although I don't pay attention to that number.) So I can make those statements about how many carbs I can consume, relative to calories and body weight, with confidence. As long as I'm talking about my results, it's relevant. As a broader statement or something that can be applied to everyone--as others have pointed out, things get more complicated.

Now, if you're so concerned about Colpo's opinions, you might want to go post your questions on his forum. But here, criticizing an opinion or someone from another forum isn't acceptable behavior. So please, respect the rules of discussion, read the answers you've been given, and try to form your own opinions. But do it with this knowlege--what Anthony Colpo thinks (or doesn't think) about food consumption, and carb/calorie intake, is irrelevant in the context of Protein Power. If you'd like to discuss PP, you're welcome here as long as you frame your questions from the perspective of what Protein Power says--not from the perspective of what its detractors say it isn't.

Gaelen
Administrator, Protein Power Forum
You have got to be kidding me? You say criticizing and opinion or person is not acceptable?? Who did I criticize? I dont think I criticized anyone. I merely said that I read a different opinion than the ones posted here, and I was a asking for clarification. Isnt that what these forums are all about.
I am following Protein Power, but I dont want to "stall" my weight loss as I get further into the plan. This is what Colpo says will happen, so I am trying to prepare for that. I am asking for your help. Since Colpo believes calories are the only thing that count he says that on Protein Power I am going to (as I lose weight) "stall" because the calorie deficit will increase as I lose weight. So this is relevant to my protein power plan.
I dont see why this is so complicated. It is a very simple question. Would a person lose the same amount of weight if he ate the same amount of calories but his carb content was 10 times the amount of what he consumed at another time. I guees your answer is NO. He would lose more weight on the lower carbs even though he ate the same amount of calories? correct?

[gitfiddle]

That is what I would assume. When I did eat that many carbs, I weighed a great deal more than I do now. Not sure that the calories weren't higher, though. I don't lose weight at any calorie level unless I eat low carb. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[laughingW]

I am following Protein Power, but I dont want to "stall" my weight loss as I get further into the plan. This is what Colpo says will happen, so I am trying to prepare for that. I am asking for your help. Since Colpo believes calories are the only thing that count he says that on Protein Power I am going to (as I lose weight) "stall" because the calorie deficit will increase as I lose weight. So this is relevant to my protein power plan.
Did you mean, the calorie deficit will decrease as you lose weight?

That is true of all food plans - as you get smaller, you need to recalculate your food amounts. In Protein Power, if you stalled because you lost so much weight that you are smaller, you would start with a smaller protein portion like it says in the books.


I dont see why this is so complicated. It is a very simple question. Would a person lose the same amount of weight if he ate the same amount of calories but his carb content was 10 times the amount of what he consumed at another time. I guees your answer is NO. He would lose more weight on the lower carbs even though he ate the same amount of calories? correct?
That is correct for me personally. You keep saying it's a simple question, but the answer is not simple because it depends on the person and their metabolic situation.

10 times the carb? those numbers don't make sense. I could lose weight on 1440 calories if it's 240 calories protein, 120 calories carb, and 1080 calories of fat.
I will not lose weight if it's 10 times the carb at 1200 calories, which leaves only 240 for protein and fat which isn't even enough for both essential fatty acids and essential amino acids. That is way too much carb for my size to handle.

I think if this concern is so big you can't get started, you really need to do the experiment on yourself if you want a definitive answer. There is a point at which analysis paralysis has to stop and you start doing.

You could do PP until you "stall". Then do 2 weeks with one of your scenarios, then 2 weeks with the other scenario. Keep exercise the same. And then you can report back to us.

[maxlharris]

Actually they were two different questions.
It remains impossible to be 10 questions behind.

[maxlharris]

1- I am following Protein Power, but I dont want to "stall" my weight loss as I get further into the plan. This is what Colpo says will happen, so I am trying to prepare for that.

2- I am asking for your help.

3- Since Colpo believes calories are the only thing that count he says that on Protein Power I am going to (as I lose weight) "stall" because the calorie deficit will increase as I lose weight. So this is relevant to my protein power plan.

4- I dont see why this is so complicated. It is a very simple question.

5- Would a person lose the same amount of weight if he ate the same amount of calories but his carb content was 10 times the amount of what he consumed at another time.

6- I guees your answer is NO. He would lose more weight on the lower carbs even though he ate the same amount of calories? correct?

#1- You are going to stall. The scale will have days, weeks, perhaps even a couple months where it doesn't move. This is true of PP. It is true of what Colpo is selling. It is true of WW. It is true of any reducing diet. Assuming you have a significant amount of weight to lose (call it 50+ lbs), your body will take time to readjust itself. This is natural and it is nigh unavoidable. Don't sweat. It's normal. There are fixes. But cross that bridge when you get there. And if Colpo suggests that people lose 100 lbs on his plan without stalling ever, he's worse than a jerk, he's a liar.

#2- You're getting it.

#3- The caloric deficit will contract, not widen, as you lose weight. This does matter. The gap between eating a ketogenic level of carbs and eating and unlimited number of carbs with a hard cap on calories is that the ketogenic level tends to be self limiting on the calorie. It makes it easier to cut calories lower. For most people, the carbs trigger the hormone leptin. Leptin makes you hungry. Hunger turns dieting into a moral struggle with yourself. You are hungry but you do not want to eat.

#3a- Colpo is again a nitwit. If you are doing PP correctly, and working based on your lean body mass and your activity level, you will taper calories as necessary. Same as he recommends explicitly on a theoretical low calorie approach with unlimited carbs. His beef with Dr. Mike seems to be clouding his understanding.

#3b- What if fat storage works like a Last In, First Out factory? Read this one (http://www.arthurdevany.com/2005/05/living_lifo.html). It does. It really does. Which conflicts with a lot of what Colpo is asking you to believe.

#4&5- It's really not simple. It's really not well understood fully, how people lose weight. If it were, there would be no fat acceptance movement. There'd be no "I Eat 33,000 Calories a Day" documentary. And we'd all be cover models. It seems like a simple question. But there are layers of complexity to it: insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, thyroid, adrenals, cortisol, dopamine response, beta cells, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. When someone suggests that everyone is a beautiful unique snowflake, they might be right, on the detail level. Colpo seems to want to reduce everything to a black/white, simple level. It's a good way to sell a lot of stuff. It's not necessarily the most reflective of truth.

#6- Assume Colpo is right. If I eat 1500 calories a day, for a set period, I will smoothly (along a curve) get to my target weight, and be a men's health cover model. It doesn't matter what my nutrition is, the only thing that matters is the 1500 kcal/day. (I'm not saying I buy this assumption, but I'm trying to make a point here)

Assuming he's right, I would still eat the protein power way. The simple reason: this is eating for optimal health, while eating 350g of carbs will give me really bad acid reflux and who knows what else. The high carb, reduced calorie diet is not nutrient dense and it is nowhere near an optimal diet from a health perspective. So, tell me. If both diets are the same (not saying they are, just posing a hypothetical), wouldn't you want to lose with the diet that reduces your blood pressure, controls any diabetes you may be developing, raises your HDL, lowers your total cholesterol, might hedge against alzheimers and some cancers, definitely ends acid reflux, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Even if they are equal in weight loss, I think I'm sticking with the easier to do diet that happens to improve my health while I lose weight.

[Rhyme'n Reason]

Max, I need to do a bit of threadjacking here. You mentioned acid reflux. One of my coworkers was telling me this week that he suffers from very serious acid reflux. He's taking Nexxium for it and his GI doctor has him on a diet. He told me that his number one food to avoid is onions. He also said he's eating lots of carbs because protein and fat cause him pain. Is there reading I can refer him to? If he were doing well on whatever his doc has him doing, I'd leave it alone--but he's not.

[maxlharris]

Max, I need to do a bit of threadjacking here. You mentioned acid reflux. One of my coworkers was telling me this week that he suffers from very serious acid reflux. He's taking Nexxium for it and his GI doctor has him on a diet. He told me that his number one food to avoid is onions. He also said he's eating lots of carbs because protein and fat cause him pain. Is there reading I can refer him to? If he were doing well on whatever his doc has him doing, I'd leave it alone--but he's not.

I cannot object to threadjacking as I am probably the #1 threadjacker on the site. Top five at least. Threadjacking is where a lot of interesting conversation happens.

I believe in Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution, he talks about heart burn (the old name for reflux). I'm pretty sure there's some discussion in either PP or PPLP.

If you want something faster:
http://migraineur.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/how-low-carb-improves-acid-reflux/
That explains the mechanism behind it.

When I eat carbs for about a week, I have bad acid reflux. If I persist in my carb eating (as I did all through business school, when I knew better), I have crippling acid reflux at night. When I say crippling, I mean it hurt badly enough that I didn't want to stand. I had to position myself just right while I waiting for my instant fix stuff to work. Usually took 15 minutes to calm it down. I took I think Prilosec, OTC, and it helped. But LC, within 2 weeks, I am always reflux free.

There is some science that suggests a life of acid reflux might lead to esophogeal cancer. I am not particularly interested in esophogeal cancer, so this is a good reason to stay LC for life.

Here's a book: http://www.amazon.com/Heartburn-Cured-Norm-Robillard/dp/0976642506

One more bit of reading:
http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/1175/

If you poll men you know who were in the obese bodyweight range and who are doing LC, I think 90% of them will report that it cured or reduced their reflux in fairly short order. searching this site will reveal more people than me who have reported this.

[Omlette]

RNR - I know you didn't ask me and it is only anedocetal, but when I low carb properly, my indegestion is gone. Onions are not a problem.

[gitfiddle]

Same here, FWIW.

[Mitra]

Dr Mike did a blog on this (the title refers to a book but there's info in the blog, too): Heartburn Cured (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/heartburn-cured/)

[maxlharris]

I could see onions being a problem. In an unlimited carb world. They are moderately carby (especially the mauis and vidalias). You cook them in fat (fat + carbs = inflammation). Although ND has them, raw, as highly anti-inflammatory.

I dunno. I know Onion rings are not good. And I know having onions on a burger with a giant bun and ketchup is not a good idea. Not a good idea for someone with bad reflux.

[Ammy]

I have heartburn from acids in coffee and soda's. Not affected by foods (well, raw peppers, but I don't like them so they don't "bother" me:p).

I've taken Prilosec every day now for over a year because I just can't go ON without coffee!!!
http://re3.yt-thm-a03.yimg.com/image/25/f11/74431474 (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefjQ64lIvfEAvGiJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBxY2p1Z2w 0BHBvcwMzNARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANJOTk4XzY4/SIG=1luld3n27/EXP=1217084752/**http%3A//images.search.yahoo.com/images/view%3Fback=http%253A%252F%252Fimages.search.yahoo .com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fp%253Dneed%252Bcoff ee%2526ei%253DUTF-8%2526fr%253Dfptb-msgr%2526xargs%253D0%2526pstart%253D1%2526b%253D21 %2526ni%253D20%26w=480%26h=360%26imgurl=static.fli ckr.com%252F65%252F177130737_dba7f5eff5.jpg%26rurl =http%253A%252F%252Fwww.flickr.com%252Fphotos%252F wgp_cwd3%252F177130737%252F%26size=71.2kB%26name=c offee%2Btime%26p=need%2Bcoffee%26type=JPG%26oid=42 f0fc42a1fbe354%26fusr=wgp_cwd3%26tit=coffee%2Btime %26hurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.flickr.com%252Fphot os%252Fwgp_cwd3%252F%26no=34%26tt=33,532%26sigr=11 glmgc51%26sigi=11dl1op36%26sigb=13cf7gbp9%26sigh=1 16nhda6f)

I have reduced (almost eliminated) soda from my diet (was drinking 132oz a day-can't IMAGINE why I was having problems). And my coffee has been reduced from 2 large travel mugs, to 1cup in the am, then sometimes an iced coffee in the afternoon.
In other words, I have made DRASTIC reductions, but just can't say NO completely. :o

Not really any info you're looking for, but I LIKE to TALK ABOUT ME!!!! :p

[Belfrybat]

Originally Posted by newtolowcarb http://www.proteinpower.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.proteinpower.com/forum/showthread.php?p=72153#post72153)
I am following Protein Power, but I dont want to "stall" my weight loss as I get further into the plan. This is what Colpo says will happen, so I am trying to prepare for that. I am asking for your help. Since Colpo believes calories are the only thing that count he says that on Protein Power I am going to (as I lose weight) "stall" because the calorie deficit will increase as I lose weight. So this is relevant to my protein power plan.

Since you are following Protein Power, perhaps a more appropriate question would be to ask what the Drs. Eades have to say about possibly stalling as you get further into the plan. What those of us who are committed to PP (not just a generic LC), have found is if we follow the plan as written we continue to lose weight and improved our health. It is when we deviate from the plan that we get into trouble. I can't think of anyone who is committed to this WOE ever going back to eating 250+ carbs a day -- that would undo all the good this WOE has accomplished.

Also, we all could bring in a plethora of outside "experts" to either agree or disagree with this particular WOE, but what good would that do? You are either committed to Protein Power or not. Period.

Have you read Dr. Mike's blog on calories (it's in two parts). That might help settle your fears of stalling later on.

edited to add: There is a study recently published that shows LC is more beneficial to weight loss than either LF (high carb) or Mediterranean (also high carb). Dr. Mike discussed it in his blog.

[Rhyme'n Reason]

Thanks for the comments, all. Max, the book you referenced looks particularly interesting. I'll pass on the info to him.

[maxlharris]

Back to the OP's questions about Colpo/Calorie in=Calorie Out vs. Eades/Carbs Matter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18654910?dopt=Abstract

They put some people on a standard reducing diet. They put some others on twice the protein (kept the carbs highish, though). They let em go 8 weeks. The high protein group lost more weight (8.3 lbs +/- 1.2% vs 5.5 lbs +/- 2.5%). This probably isn't glycogen deprivation, because at 40% carbs, unless you were going low calorie (e.g. <1200 kcal), you wouldn't see that happen, at least not very much of it.

In short, if you eat a protein power style diet, with protein well above the USDA RDA (bad number, bad science) and carbs low, you will lose more than someone doing an isocaloric diet with large carbs and less protein. Beyond glycogen dumping. In short, Colpo is wrong. Probably not the first time.

[newtolowcarb]

Back to the OP's questions about Colpo/Calorie in=Calorie Out vs. Eades/Carbs Matter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18654910?dopt=Abstract

They put some people on a standard reducing diet. They put some others on twice the protein (kept the carbs highish, though). They let em go 8 weeks. The high protein group lost more weight (8.3 lbs +/- 1.2% vs 5.5 lbs +/- 2.5%). This probably isn't glycogen deprivation, because at 40% carbs, unless you were going low calorie (e.g. <1200 kcal), you wouldn't see that happen, at least not very much of it.

In short, if you eat a protein power style diet, with protein well above the USDA RDA (bad number, bad science) and carbs low, you will lose more than someone doing an isocaloric diet with large carbs and less protein. Beyond glycogen dumping. In short, Colpo is wrong. Probably not the first time.

Ok that seems like good news. If we are keeping our carbs low it is very essential that we up our protein. Correct? I am lifting weights and taking isopure protein shake. Pure whey protein. It is 50 grahams of protein, and I take this directly after I am done lifting.

[maxlharris]

If you are keeping carbs low, you need to get your calories from somewhere. So, you have to get some protein. Probably more than the RDA (clearly... the RDA is very low). There's a limit to metabolically useful protein, so up to infinity is not a useful number.

The puzzling thing about this study (and I suspect I know why they did this) is that fat was very low and carbs were high for a reduced carb intervention.

As to timing of the shake and what kind of protein is best for a shake, I have my opinions based on my reading. Others may have theirs. 50g of whey within 30 minutes of the workout is within what the consensus suggests. I prefer (optimally) a sandwich approach, with some protein before the workout and some after. And I like a whey/casein blend. Whey being very quickly absorbed, casein being more slowly used. My reading suggests that this is closer to optimal.

Now, a question of how much of optimal do you really need arises. I can't answer that for you.

[Bones]

Max, I need to do a bit of threadjacking here. You mentioned acid reflux. One of my coworkers was telling me this week that he suffers from very serious acid reflux. He's taking Nexxium for it and his GI doctor has him on a diet. He told me that his number one food to avoid is onions. He also said he's eating lots of carbs because protein and fat cause him pain. Is there reading I can refer him to? If he were doing well on whatever his doc has him doing, I'd leave it alone--but he's not.

I'm sure there are various reason for a person to have heartburn/acid reflux, so I'll tell you what helped my husband. He was given heartburn medication, but I'm not fond of medication unless nothing else works, so I started giving him probiotic and enzyme supplements and he hasn't had to take his heartburn medication ever since (it has been at least a year since he was prescribed heartburn medication). I add probiotics directly to our milk, which alone has helped tremendously with the digestive problems my husband would have after having cereal. There are many people who simply lack the enzymes/probiotics necessary for proper digestion.

[Bones]

Would a person lose the same amount of weight if he ate the same amount of calories but his carb content was 10 times the amount of what he consumed at another time?

I have several friends who are extremely sensitive to carbs and easily gain up to 10 pounds in a day if they don't keep a close eye on their carbs. Obviously, it's a lot of water weight in this type of situation, but regardless, speaking poundage wise, they balloon up immediately. Unlike them, I can eat around 100 grams of whole food carbs and not gain a pound. I think, at some point, each person needs to go through a personal trial period to narrow down what works best for their body, regardless of their starting point and the plan that they begin with, or what the various methods claim to be best...regardless of calorie count.

[artsdesireincanada]

DUDE YOUR TEN POSTS BEHIND--My newest question is not about TWO hypothetical dieters. I am asking about the same person. One person!!!! If he eats 2500 calories and 20 grahams a day for two weeks, and loses 12lbs, would he also lose the same amount(minus the water weight) of weight/fat on 2500 calories and 350 grahams of carbs? Colpo says YES!!! I am asking what your opinion is?


I am new too. But this is what I do know. A few years back I knocked the white carbs out and lost sixty pounds. Nothing else worked. Not all the calorie counting in the world helped prior to that. I then got in an accident and was pretty immobile for a long time. So I ate. Lotsa carbs yummie I thought. I gained because if you are immobile, even 500 calories is too much. Especially if they are carbs.

So take me a few years later to now. I am diabetic and take so much insulen I ought to have shares in the companies! I went on this diet in a half assed manner just getting ready to do it. Knocked out the carbs, and my insulin requirements went down 10% within two days. I have now been at this diet for about four days and I am three pounds lighter.

So for me. counting calories didn't make me lose anything, but made me have a lot of attention on my stomach, and how hungry I was and how good a little ice cream would be, etc. Eat a carb, crave a carb. Tap out the energy and sleep more because of the spiked blood sugars.

High protien and low carb for me works, never hungry, occasional craving for carbs but this could be the chromium deficancy that isn't in line yet. Lose weight, and blood sugars go down.

guess which one I am choosing?:rolleyes::nod:

[bigdawg_SLC]

I am new too. But this is what I do know. A few years back I knocked the white carbs out and lost sixty pounds. Nothing else worked. Not all the calorie counting in the world helped prior to that. I then got in an accident and was pretty immobile for a long time. So I ate. Lotsa carbs yummie I thought. I gained because if you are immobile, even 500 calories is too much. Especially if they are carbs.

So take me a few years later to now. I am diabetic and take so much insulen I ought to have shares in the companies! I went on this diet in a half assed manner just getting ready to do it. Knocked out the carbs, and my insulin requirements went down 10% within two days. I have now been at this diet for about four days and I am three pounds lighter.

So for me. counting calories didn't make me lose anything, but made me have a lot of attention on my stomach, and how hungry I was and how good a little ice cream would be, etc. Eat a carb, crave a carb. Tap out the energy and sleep more because of the spiked blood sugars.

High protien and low carb for me works, never hungry, occasional craving for carbs but this could be the chromium deficancy that isn't in line yet. Lose weight, and blood sugars go down.

guess which one I am choosing?:rolleyes::nod:

That's a great story! I'm not diabetic *yet* but both parents are ... so I know that I'm doomed ... hopefully later then sooner ... But the ONLY thing that has worked for me to lose weight has ALWAYS been the PPLP WOE! Fuel the fire with a daily dose of gym work and for me 6 months later I'm down almost 70 pounds. Love it! For me the "Personal" study is the one I'm looking at more then "test subjects"

[maxlharris]

I'm sure there are various reason for a person to have heartburn/acid reflux, so I'll tell you what helped my husband. He was given heartburn medication, but I'm not fond of medication unless nothing else works, so I started giving him probiotic and enzyme supplements and he hasn't had to take his heartburn medication ever since (it has been at least a year since he was prescribed heartburn medication). I add probiotics directly to our milk, which alone has helped tremendously with the digestive problems my husband would have after having cereal. There are many people who simply lack the enzymes/probiotics necessary for proper digestion.
I'm a little late here, but what does cereal eating have to do with Protein Power?

If you dump the cereal and milk and eat eggs and protein, you won't need the probiotics or enzymes. Your reflux will leave you (assuming you keep PP for more than breakfast). And you will probably be financially better off as probiotics are not free.

[Bones]

I'm a little late here, but what does cereal eating have to do with Protein Power?

Nothing. My husband doesn't follow PP.

[maxlharris]

Nothing. My husband doesn't follow PP.
I suppose he will have to find a different solution (like probiotics) to his reflux. For nearly everyone I've talked to, reducing carbs has worked wonders for reflux.

[aurelia]

I've taken Prilosec every day now for over a year because I just can't go ON without coffee!!!

Back to the threadjack, Ammy, I would suggest that you use a coldbrew method for your coffee. I've been coldbrewing coffee for nearly two years and that made a big difference in my reflux--going low carb has eliminated the rest.

You don't need a toddy or any of the other fancy equipment you see.

Get a big container. Put about one pound of coarsly ground coffee in it. Add approximately nine cups of cool water. Cover your container. Leave it on your counter or in the frig (depending on the weather) for 12 to 18 hours. Get a mesh strainer, line it with cheese cloth and set it over another large container. Slowly and carefully pour the coffee and grounds into the strainer. Leave the grounds in the strainer over your new container for 5-10 minutes to let all the goodness drain out (most will just go right though the strainer, I let the grounds drain for a bit just cause I want all the coffee I can get). Put your newly born coldbrew back into the frig.

I have also used muslin to make a giant version of a teabag. This eliminates the need for the strainer and cheesecloth step.

My husband uses about 1/3 cup of coldbrew in his coffee mug in the morning. I like mine stronger so I use 2/3 cup of coldbrew. Just top this with freshly boiled water to make yummy, smooth, low acid coffee.

For ice coffee, I fill a big glass with ice, pour almost all the way full of coffee and add a splash of cream. Nothing better.

http://www.ineedcoffee.com/06/coldbrew/

BTW, if you like Starbucks coffee you won't like coldbrew. I like my coffee to taste like coffee, not charcoal. You can make your drink very strong using coldbrew, but it will never have the bitterness and snap of very dark roast coffees that some people like.

[Ammy]

Hey Welcome Aurelia!! I go to Des Moines often - I grew up in Iowa and my family still lives there!

I do like strong coffee. Not bitter, not burnt, not chewy, but bold. However, I have been brewing then chilling my coffee over the summer for a "cold brew", but now that it's winter I like my coffee hot.
HOWEVER, I will try your "recipe", it sounds intriguing.
Thanks!!