Sex God
Do not like cheeseburger's :mad:
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Is more calories a good idea?
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.
Sex God
Quote by Witchy
:karaoke:
Why don't you come on over, caaalorie
:karaoke:
:laughabove: :laughabove:
Sex God
Same calories but les carbs = body works harder to consume food. Kryps is right on this as far as I can make out. Oh and far less insulting in arguement too. Great reading though.
Sex God
Quote by john469
Same calories but les carbs = body works harder to consume food. Kryps is right on this as far as I can make out. Oh and far less insulting in arguement too. Great reading though.
but hey, cheers for joining the party with your vaccuous ad hominem based input.
John by putting this sort of stuff I guess it must be OK for me to ask you to use a torch and come right down out of your own arsehole.
As for proof Kryps provides enough for me to side with his arguement. You however add a literary emetic to the debate giving me nothing other than nausea, granted a very effective weight loss programme in itself.
Do I feel better for typing this? ermmmmmmmmmm yes
Quote by john469
Here:
JOURNAL OF OBESITY: Assessment of selective under-reporting of food intake by both obese and non-obese women in a metabolic facility
Put that in your pipe and yada, yada, yada!
So they started with a hypothesis and experimented for 24 hours and "proved" what they had set out to prove !!!
You crack me up !! You really do
Yes, thats generally how testing a hypothesis works... what with a hypothesis being an untested theory a scientist might have for why something is the way it is, you genius!
Anyhoo, the above study documented the observation wherein the obese subjects were found to be eating snack foods in between their allotted meals, snack foods of which they failed to report in their food intake logs.
The stunning fact here is that the above hypothesis took a mere 24hr to prove!! Can you not see the ramifications such undereporting has for longer studies where ZERO food intake control is employed?
Can you really not see that?
Incidently, we havent even got onto the other methods used for demonstrating beyond doubt that anecdotal undereporting is a fact; but we will.
Either way, re: your above crappy ad hominem; your inability to read cracks me up, Einstein.
See, any old mug can do it, moron.
I thought this forum had managed to move on from backbiting and childish name calling.....obviously I was wrong!!
Quote by john469
Here:
JOURNAL OF OBESITY: Assessment of selective under-reporting of food intake by both obese and non-obese women in a metabolic facility
Put that in your pipe and yada, yada, yada!
So they started with a hypothesis and experimented for 24 hours and "proved" what they had set out to prove !!!
You crack me up !! You really do
Yes, thats generally how testing a hypothesis works... what with a hypothesis being an untested theory a scientist might have for why something is the way it is, you genius!
Anyhoo, the above study documented the observation wherein the obese subjects were found to be eating snack foods in between their allotted meals, snack foods of which they failed to report in their food intake logs.
The stunning fact here is that the above hypothesis took a mere 24hr to prove!! Can you not see the ramifications such undereporting has for longer studies where ZERO food intake control is employed?
Can you really not see that?
Incidently, we havent even got onto the other methods used for demonstrating beyond doubt that anecdotal undereporting is a fact; but we will.
Either way, re: your above crappy ad hominem; your inability to read cracks me up, Einstein.
See, any old mug can do it, moron.
I thought this forum had managed to move on from backbiting and childish name calling...obviously I was wrong!!
Sex God
Quote by Max777
I thought this forum had managed to move on from backbiting and childish name calling...obviously I was wrong!!
Unfortunately Max, you are very right. The post has deteriorated again and has reverted to the backbitting, name calling and the 'lets get one over on someone' again. However, the AUP still stands
Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple
I thought this forum had managed to move on from backbiting and childish name calling...obviously I was wrong!!
Unfortunately Max, you are very right. The post has deteriorated again and has reverted to the backbitting, name calling and the 'lets get one over on someone' again. However, the AUP still stands
but how is it's diet?lp
Sex God
I can think of a few people I would like to experiment on, and 24 hours would probably be long enough, however, longer, maybe a month, would be better.
Sex God
Quote by flower411
I can think of a few people I would like to experiment on, and 24 hours would probably be long enough, however, longer, maybe a month, would be better.
Aye aye capain !!! Message received and understood !!
Although ....on previous experience ......
Ten years !!!! might do the trick
Oh it was not aimed in the way you took it, it was naughty experimenting I was thinking of, but then again ....
Quote by flower411
Ooooops !! I musta bin listening too much to the "big stick" mods lately
Oh ffs.................................
..................you told me you were discreet and wouldn't tell anybody about Saturday night
Dave_Notts
AWWW !! ya just jelous ......it wasn`t your big stick I was refering to ....but hell ...everybody knows that satisfaction is guaranteed in the Dave_Notts house ...
I think I owe you more than a fiver for bigging me up on that one :happy:
But seriously, most people think they are short changed in the Dave_Notts house :lol:
Dave_Notts
Quote by flower411
Ooooops !! I musta bin listening too much to the "big stick" mods lately
Oh ffs.................................
..................you told me you were discreet and wouldn't tell anybody about Saturday night
Dave_Notts
AWWW !! ya just jelous ......it wasn`t your big stick I was refering to ....but hell ...everybody knows that satisfaction is guaranteed in the Dave_Notts house ...
I think I owe you more than a fiver for bigging me up on that one :happy:
But seriously, most people think they are short changed in the Dave_Notts house :lol:
Dave_Notts
Fuckin ell !!! I wasn`t gonna mention the thing about ya knicking their purses ....but as you`ve brought it up ...!!
Don`t ya think you should stop doing that ??
I only do it since graduating from the "Taking sweets from kids class" :giggle:
Dave_Notts
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.
Sexpert
Quote by Kryps-jaq
so no proof then?
Are you a total moron - this guy has provided proof upon proof of his points via peer reviewed published academic studies, you on the other hand quote airy fairy nonsense and hold it up as incontrovertible fact.
Quote by kentswingers777
This is very good I must say.
Very good...........but I have no idea what the feck they are trying to prove here
Are 400 calories better or worse was the original question.........so what were they trying to prove :lol: . I lost it inbetween the name calling.
Dave_Notts
Quote by easyrider_xxx
so no proof then?
Are you a total moron - this guy has provided proof upon proof of his points via peer reviewed published academic studies, you on the other hand quote airy fairy nonsense and hold it up as incontrovertible fact.
proving that one group cheated does not constitute proof another group did, that is very bad science in the extreme.
Sexpert
Quote by Dave__Notts
This is very good I must say.
Very good...........but I have no idea what the feck they are trying to prove here
Are 400 calories better or worse was the original question.........so what were they trying to prove :lol: . I lost it inbetween the name calling.
Dave_Notts
I think the main point is, if you consume more calories than you expend, you'll get fat.
Everyone's metabolism is different, so there is no one size fits all calorie count, but at the end of the day, there were no fat inmates in Auschwitz - that's not supposed to be funny, just a blunt observation.
So the brigade who bleat on about it being "my glands, genes, metabolism...." etc, you can bleat on, but in reality it's the pies you eat and lack of exercise that make your bum look big !
Quote by flower411
This is very good I must say.
Very good...........but I have no idea what the feck they are trying to prove here
Are 400 calories better or worse was the original question.........so what were they trying to prove :lol: . I lost it inbetween the name calling.
Dave_Notts
There was something in between the name calling ????
Fuck ....you far more observant than me :lol:
I never called anybody anything.
Sexpert
Quote by flower411
This is very good I must say.
Very good...........but I have no idea what the feck they are trying to prove here
Are 400 calories better or worse was the original question.........so what were they trying to prove :lol: . I lost it inbetween the name calling.
Dave_Notts
There was something in between the name calling ????
Fuck ....you far more observant than me :lol:
I never called anybody anything.
Interestingly enough kryps .....no ya didn`t :lol:
I think it`s the bloke that`s losing the argument who`s name calling
Those of us who eat and drink sensibly, exercise and thus stay fit healthy and toned, do not have any argument to win - it's the bleating bloaters who are trying to make a point
Sexpert
Quote by flower411
This is very good I must say.
Very good...........but I have no idea what the feck they are trying to prove here
Are 400 calories better or worse was the original question.........so what were they trying to prove :lol: . I lost it inbetween the name calling.
Dave_Notts
There was something in between the name calling ????
Fuck ....you far more observant than me :lol:
I never called anybody anything.
Interestingly enough kryps .....no ya didn`t :lol:
I think it`s the bloke that`s losing the argument who`s name calling
Those of us who eat and drink sensibly, exercise and thus stay fit healthy and toned, do not have any argument to win - it's the bleating bloaters who are trying to make a point
So just more name calling then ...
if the marquee fits....
Sex God
Quote by flower411
This is very good I must say.
Very good...........but I have no idea what the feck they are trying to prove here
Are 400 calories better or worse was the original question.........so what were they trying to prove :lol: . I lost it inbetween the name calling.
Dave_Notts
There was something in between the name calling ????
Fuck ....you far more observant than me :lol:
I never called anybody anything.
Interestingly enough kryps .....no ya didn`t :lol:
I think it`s the bloke that`s losing the argument who`s name calling
:thumbup:I agree you didn't Kryps and I feel the debate went your way as did flower.
Must admit though I did forget myself earier and was a bit bad
