Quote by Kryps-jaqBut we're nearly decided woohooooooooooooooooo n:grin
still not booked anywhere, 3 weeks to go :-(
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Jaqkryps
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Female, 56
Straight Male, 58
0 miles · Greater London
Forum
Quote by john469
"we want to prove that you expend more energy on a low carb diet to account for the losing more weight." with me so far...
... therefore the study didn't prove what as wanted so the low fat lot were lying about what they ate..
I just want to be clear here, are you saying the research is lies? ie: the scientists dont get the results they want, thus subsequently decide to paint the subjects being assessed as 'underreporting fatties' rather than concede a metabolic advantage to eating specific food groupings?
Is that a fair summise of your claim?
Please provide proof that the claims of underreporting are ones of slander rather than substance!
please provide proof that the subjects were under reporting. please provide proof only the low fat group were under reporting and the low carb group were not having a sneaky cream cake every night. please provide proof that the low carb lot were not going out for a sneaky Jog session every night. please provide proof that the low fat group were not lying on the sofa every night and giving their pedometer to somebody else, you can't, cause there is no proof.
this is the whole point.
I used this study because it was one you highlighted and linked to prove your point.
as medical studies go, this one in particular has absolutely no scientific value at all, it's just another bias led statistic gathering exercise to prove one point over another. this study was skewed in favour of the result wanted to prove a point, which, when it went the opposite way, an excuse was formed why it didn't. there was no control group, there was no "lab conditions" ie no control over over what anybody ate apart from a list of "do nots" and was done on trust. there was no specific calorie restriction on the low carb lot, only on the low fat lot, presumably in the hope that the low carb lot would eat a lot more and get fater so their point would be proved. anybody that might of benefitted from a low carb diet, ie diabetics and the insulin resistant were excluded from the trial, and the list goes on.
so you can jump up and down all you like screaming you're right and everybody else is wrong and the world's an idiot if you don't agree with me and quote pubmed to your hearts content. it doesn't prove anything.
sorry I forgot, you're one of the "If you don't agree with me you're an idiot brigade."
shall we take your link step by step shall we.
We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption.
women lost more weight on low carb diet than low fat diet even though energy intake was repotedly the same.
We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss.
means "we want to prove that you expend more energy on a low carb diet to account for the losing more weight." with me so far.
To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet
so they assemble a study group.
Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects.
this is what they will be measuring. easy enough to understand. points to note though, a pedometer is not really a very good estimate of physical activity and they only used a subset of subects for the TEF, why not use all, and on what basis was the subset chosen.
Forty women completed the trial
which 10 dropped out, 10 of one group , split 50/50 or weighted in favour of one group or other. they declined to mention.
The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight ( +/- vs. +/- kg; P < ) and more body fat ( +/- vs. +/- kg; P < ) than the low-fat group
now that's a surprise. they already knew that would happen, see first point.
There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ)
well there is but only slightly. for arguments sake lets say low carbers are on a 100 calories less on average although the +/- would mean some would be on roughly the same calorie intake. but both groups are still on a lower calorie diet than normal. are you still keeping up?
Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months.
average REE roughly the same, so not a factor.
The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = ).
(the thermic effect for ease of simplicity, it the energy used to digest food) so you use more energy do digest low fat food than low carb food, but then that's already known.
Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity
so both groups are doing roughly the same ammount of exercise, the difference in REE is negligable and the TEF is greater in low fat.
and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.
therefore the study didn't prove what as wanted so the low fat lot were lying about what they ate..
not that both groups could of been, low carbers have been know to sneak the odd chocolate as well but because the result went against them, ony the low fat lot were underreporting which i find a bit unbelievable.
I am quite converse at reading scientific reports, and seperating the inbuilt bias and all the crap, To me, what that study says, it's not calories in over calories out, or how much exercise is done, but all down to in what form them calories are. hence advising how many calories is a good or bad idea is far too much of an over simplification.
shall we take your link step by step shall we.
We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption.
women lost more weight on low carb diet than low fat diet even though energy intake was repotedly the same.
We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss.
means "we want to prove that you expend more energy on a low carb diet to account for the losing more weight." with me so far.
To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet
so they assemble a study group.
Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects.
this is what they will be measuring. easy enough to understand. points to note though, a pedometer is not really a very good estimate of physical activity and they only used a subset of subects for the TEF, why not use all, and on what basis was the subset chosen.
Forty women completed the trial
which 10 dropped out, 10 of one group , split 50/50 or weighted in favour of one group or other. they declined to mention.
The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight ( +/- vs. +/- kg; P < ) and more body fat ( +/- vs. +/- kg; P < ) than the low-fat group
now that's a surprise. they already knew that would happen, see first point.
There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ)
well there is but only slightly. for arguments sake lets say low carbers are on a 100 calories less on average although the +/- would mean some would be on roughly the same calorie intake. but both groups are still on a lower calorie diet than normal. are you still keeping up?
Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months.
average REE roughly the same, so not a factor.
The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = ).
(the thermic effect for ease of simplicity, it the energy used to digest food) so you use more energy do digest low fat food than low carb food, but then that's already known.
Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity
so both groups are doing roughly the same ammount of exercise, the difference in REE is negligable and the TEF is greater in low fat.
and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.
therefore the study didn't prove what as wanted so the low fat lot were lying about what they ate..
not that both groups could of been, low carbers have been know to sneak the odd chocolate as well but because the result went against them, ony the low fat lot were underreporting which i find a bit unbelievable.
I am quite converse at reading scientific reports, and seperating the inbuilt bias and all the crap, To me, what that study says, it's not calories in over calories out, or how much exercise is done, but all down to in what form them calories are. hence advising how many calories is a good or bad idea is far too much of an over simplification.
Quote by Too Hot
all your points prove to me you have no idea how the human body works.
Are you just in this debate for fun? You can't be serious about the comments that you are making surely?
Please dont take this the wrong way and I am no scientist or biologist but it is simply a fact of day to day living that if you eat too much and don't exercise enough you will get fat.
It is beyond my understanding how you can even question this. It is happening all over the world, all around us and has happened for thousands of years.
My very basic biology was of the understanding that the body requires energy to function and the energy we get is provided from the food that we consume.
To mainatin weight Energy in = Energy out
To gain weight Energy in > Energy out
To lose weight Energy in < Energy out
the energy in over energy out simplification is just that, a simple version for the masses to use as a mantra when logic proves the opposite. You are arguing over a point over which you have no knowledge but it has been so indoctrinated that to say the opposite is tantamount to heresy.
Your argument does not explain how a “calorie†which is a unit of measurement gets from your stomach to say a fat cell in your arm or leg, it didn’t wander there of it’s own accord. It doesn’t explain the process of digestion or energy use, it doesn’t explain why some people can do no exercise and eat like a horse and stay skinny, and others, including well known sportsman, can train all the time and still get fat. The calories thing is one big red herring as I said before. It is not the total number of calories that matters, it is in what form. Hence the grass analogy.
Now ask yourself this question, What is stored in a fat cell? and how did it get there?
Quote by JTS
But they also represented me at an industrial court case.
The award was not high, but returned all my subs for decades.
And the money is much less than employers pay to "their" trade unions. Mind you, theirs tell them interesting ways to avoid tax (etc).
Industrial deaths.
Serious injuries.
Industrial disease.
All going UP....and don't forget, we exported all the jobs abroad to "save" money.....which is now starting to bite back.
Have a look at the prosecutions file on the HSE website...AND that's with 400 LESS safety inspectors than the conservatives had....
Union workplaces are safer. Less accidents, and better working conditions.
Left to their own devices employers would have kids brushing chimneys again....
where can i sign mine up :-)
Quote by ChairmanMiaow
Erm... this was clearly written by someone who has thumbed through a legal textbook and then made a load of stuff up. It has no basis in real law at all.
Corporations can "sign" agreements, and have many of the same rights and remedies as people - that't the whole point of them.
There are ways of getting out of most debts incurred before 2007 due to deficiences in the agreements and lack of compliance with consumer credit act - google it if you really wanna know.
But if you went to court with this load of claptrap, you'd be laughed at. Then you'd have judgment and costs filed against you.
Maybe this would fly in some weird parallel legal system cooked up by the original author, but not in an English court.
couldn't agree with you more lol
who in their right mind would vote for a Socialist Government :shock: especially anything that Arthur Scargill is involved in. After all many countries subscribed to the Socialist ideals and it worked in precisely none of them.
All people are equal but some are more equal than others. George Orwell, animal farm.
All people are equal but some are more equal than others. George Orwell, animal farm.
Quote by Ms_Whips
unfortunately ms whips, you are the wrong. no viruses transfere from animals to humans NATURALY ! that does not exclude infusion artificialy ! hiv is a compound that was developed in 1961/1962 in laboratories in university california l.a. and injected into hundreds of thousands of africans in the smallpox vaccine programme of the world health organisation (u.n.)in the late 1970's early eighties. well documented and in the public domain. it did not arise in monkey's, chimps or otherwise, NATURALY ! sorry if this sounds abrupt or patronising.
actually i know for a fact that i am not wrong as i hold a first degree in agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry which covers the topic of zoonoses. i also hold a number of other qualifications that the study of zoonoses have been a part of. you will find that the word is dirived from two greek words, zoon means animal, noses is diseases. the singular is zoonosis. it covers any disease, including virus' that transfer dirrectly from animal to human. we can also pass some of ours to them in which case it is refered to as a reverse zoonosis.
such things as malaria are not a zoonosis as the midge is only a vector (carrier) that transmits it to us. it is actually quite rare these days for new diseases to come about as we now have a wider immunity to the shared diseases. hence most new cases come about through our animal husbandry methods. such things as swine flu break out due to over crowding and poor conditions. just as it did in the first world war under the same conditions.
however, please feel free to do more research yourself. sorry if this sounds abrupt or patronising.
rouge_trader thanks for your support in my absence
whips
golly gosh, all them qualifications and you call the malaria carrier a midge when the real culprit is a Anopheles mosquito.
Quote by Missy
I have one of them poor old cars - couldn't afford to trade it in for a slightly less old car, let alone a new one :shock:
However, if I was one of them better off people that trade their cars in every other year......
I would sell my nearly new one, buy an old car for a couple of hundred quid, and hey presto, £2000 off the new car you were gonna get anyway
Trouble is, you must of owned the car for at least a year before you can take advantage of the trade in. and it must have an valid MOT.
just call me a cynic.
this is what Darling Said.
"In order to help the car industry and retail trade, I can announce that a scrappage scheme will be implemented next month.
It will provide motorists with a £2,000 discount on new vehicles bought when they trade in cars over ten years old.
It will be a time-limited scheme until March 2010. "
this is what Darling meant.
the government will provide £1000, the motor industry will provide the other £1000, some help eh . and i wonder if the cost of a new car will rise to cover it. so you effectively only get £1000 off
this is what Darling Said.
"In order to help the car industry and retail trade, I can announce that a scrappage scheme will be implemented next month.
It will provide motorists with a £2,000 discount on new vehicles bought when they trade in cars over ten years old.
It will be a time-limited scheme until March 2010. "
this is what Darling meant.
the government will provide £1000, the motor industry will provide the other £1000, some help eh . and i wonder if the cost of a new car will rise to cover it. so you effectively only get £1000 off
just wonder at the inquiring mind sometimes in any branch of science. not one single person questions how fat is stored, they just just accept if ya eat to many calories, you get fat. nobody questions how that extra calorie is taken from the blood stream and stored in a fat cell. what bodily processes are involved, it's just taken as a fact. who wants to know, people have been so indoctronated in the last 40 years they forget to question.
Quote by foxylady2209
My main problem is that if I eat healthy I stay the same. If I eat nice things - even just once a week - I put weight on. To lose weight I have to basically starve myself.
Tiny cereal for breakfast, single cuppa soup for lunch and a plate of salad and 1 oz of meat for tea. Total input for the day - fractionally more than a sparrow eats. Any more than that and forget the losing weight - it just won't happen. I reckon it's grossly unfair - it's also grossly boring and lasts no more than 2 weeks.
well your method is clearly not working for you then. so try something different. so time to try something different. ditch the cereal and soups.
brekkie, 2 eggs, 2 bacon, two german sausages (like fankfurters, english ones contain too much cereal) and a few mushrooms.
lunch and snacks, full fat cheeses (not cottage cheese) sausages, nuts, any sea food salads, (green leaf only) pate, any cold meats.
evening meal any meat, the fattier the better. and stir fry a few green veg like peppers, courgettes, asparagus etc.
ditch the fruit and fruit juices, cereals, root veg, pasta and anythng made with flour.
drinks, stick to tea and coffee or water. diet drinks with spirits and go easy on the beer/lager etc.
top it off with a glass of red
More calories = more weight. Simple as. I like the sound of your diet - but I would be a tank within weeks.
In this instance, a calorie is about as relevant in food intake as centimetres. All a calorie is is a unit of measurement. It's nothing to do with number of calories in. it's what happens to it once it's in there.
look at it a different way. If it was all about calories and low Fat, diets such Atkins would not work, he would of been entirely dismissed as a crackpot and disappeared in a puff of logic, but the fact of the matter is, In every clinical trial ever conducted, low carbohydrate diets beat every single low calorie diet out there.
Quote by foxylady2209
My main problem is that if I eat healthy I stay the same. If I eat nice things - even just once a week - I put weight on. To lose weight I have to basically starve myself.
Tiny cereal for breakfast, single cuppa soup for lunch and a plate of salad and 1 oz of meat for tea. Total input for the day - fractionally more than a sparrow eats. Any more than that and forget the losing weight - it just won't happen. I reckon it's grossly unfair - it's also grossly boring and lasts no more than 2 weeks.
well your method is clearly not working for you then. so try something different. so time to try something different. ditch the cereal and soups.
brekkie, 2 eggs, 2 bacon, two german sausages (like fankfurters, english ones contain too much cereal) and a few mushrooms.
lunch and snacks, full fat cheeses (not cottage cheese) sausages, nuts, any sea food salads, (green leaf only) pate, any cold meats.
evening meal any meat, the fattier the better. and stir fry a few green veg like peppers, courgettes, asparagus etc.
ditch the fruit and fruit juices, cereals, root veg, pasta and anythng made with flour.
drinks, stick to tea and coffee or water. diet drinks with spirits and go easy on the beer/lager etc.
top it off with a glass of red
Quote by Theladyisaminx
you'd be very very hard pushed to find anybody who is overweight who never eats carbohydrate, and that's even if you could find anybody that doesn't. Human beings evolved as carnivores and the digestive system is designed to deal with fats and protein, it's not designed to deal with plant matter, It's just tolerated, and if you keep exceeding what your body can tolerate, you will put on weight.
My hubby has cut his carb intake down by 90% he doesnt exercise and has lost half a stone in 4 weeks all from the right places..he said he can move quicker, less of a bloated feeling, his skin looks fresher and he just generally looks better, not that he looked bad before.
But it is a lifestyle change not a diet.
He eats natural fats. No low fats goods that are processed that way.
well done Mr Minxy.
you'd be very very hard pushed to find anybody who is overweight who never eats carbohydrate, and that's even if you could find anybody that doesn't. Human beings evolved as carnivores and the digestive system is designed to deal with fats and protein, it's not designed to deal with plant matter, It's just tolerated, and if you keep exceeding what your body can tolerate, you will put on weight.
sorry Tan, but that is far too much of a simplistic view and is more of a mantra that scientific reality. the calories in/ calories out chants forget that the human body is not a machine and it just does not use all the calories entered. for instance, you could eat 5000 calories of grass, but as the body cannot break down cellulose it won't contribute anything to energy in. The whole calorie thing is nothing but one great big red herring. there is absolutely no evidence that the average slim person eats any less or exercises any more than the average larger person. weight gain is all down to the individuals carbohydrate tolerence level. if you keep going over it, you will put on weight, if you stay under it, you will lose weight, exercise plays no part whatsoever.
Quote by Nicekat
It's not just chocolate that makes us fat, it's the amount we eat, and not only choc but what about the cakes, pastries, biscuits,alchohol etc. Also lack of exercise a major factor. As a country we get tax'd i don't get is the low fat alternatives are always more expensive, an example i buy low fat greek natural yoghurt, the full fat is more expensive and mascapone cheese the light version is more expensive than the full fat , maybe the goverment should step in and say look we have choices but don't expoilt the healthier versions xx
I agree with all of what you have said but also exercise should be made cheaper and easy to gain access to.
exercie is cheap and easy to access, it's called going out jogging, won't do ya any good but o hey lol
