Not sure how this can be applied to our shared goal of losing weight and maintaining the loss, but I do find it interestingNew research from Hebrew University shows carefully planned high-fat diet can lead to reduction in body weight, unique metabolism in which ingested fats are not stored but rather used for energy at times when no food is available.Full details here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4291923,00.html
All four groups of mice gained weight throughout the experiment, with a ?nal body weight greater in the group that ate an unscheduled high-fat diet. IOW--calories still matter. And you'll gain weight when you eat more calories than you burn (and lose it when you eat fewer). (btw I presume the insulin reactions among the groups were altered by the macrocomposition of the 4 diets, but this was not sufficient to prevent weight gain when excess calories are consumed)
According to Prof. Froy, “Our research shows that the timing of food consumption takes precedence over the amount of fat in the diet, leading to improved metabolism and helping to prevent obesity. Improving metabolism through the careful scheduling of meals, without limiting the content of the daily menu, could be used as a therapeutic tool to prevent obesity in humans.”This makes sense in a way with what we've been told for years: yo-yo dieting will actually make you gain weight in the long run by making your body start to be more efficient at expending fewer calories and more efficient at storing them because of the feeling that starvation times may be coming.Beyond the high-fat scheduled, vs. low-fat unscheduled, I'd like to see what happens if the number of calories are designed to create weight loss and then one group is fed on a schedule and one is fed unscheduled. I'd be willing to bet that the scheduled group would lose more weight, not so much because of the high-fat, but rather because their bodies wouldn't be trying to conserve all the calories they received expecting a famine.Our bodies have not really evolved all that much from our hunter/gatherer ancestors. Back then, feast or famine was a way of life and we would store fat before winter, and slowly use a lot of it during the elan times when foliage was sparse and the number of game animals was limited. Our bodies developed the ability to conserve those calories so we could live longer on less food. Now, we have food available literally 24/7/365, but we try to starve ourselves, thinking that we'll fit into those smaller pants, or look great for some fill-in-the-blank special event, we can sometimes lose weight quickly, but the next time we try the same strategy, we find that the weight is a little harder to lose. After years of yo-yoing, we can find weight loss almost impossible. I really do think that the key is to eat healthy food, spread evenly through the day, not gorged at 3 meals or worse, skipping meals in anticipation of eating more later.LWW
'Yo-Yo' Dieting Won't Harm Long-Term Weight Loss EffortsStudy found no differences among 'weight cyclers' and others as time went onTHURSDAY, Aug. 16 (HealthDay News) -- So-called "yo-yo" dieting -- where people repeatedly lose weight by dieting, only to regain the weight -- may be frustrating, but it will not hurt a person's ability to lose weight over the long term, a new study finds.This type of "weight cycling" does not have a negative effect on metabolism, the study found. The findings may be significant, the experts added, because yo-yo dieting affects up to 40 percent of the population in the Western world, and estimates indicate that nearly half of American women are currently dieting to lose weight."A history of unsuccessful weight loss should not dissuade an individual from future attempts to shed pounds or diminish the role of a healthy diet and regular physical activity in successful weight management," study senior author Dr. Anne McTiernan, a member of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center's Public Health Sciences Division, in Seattle, said in a center news release.......Overall, 18 percent of the women in these two groups were considered severe yo-yo dieters (they reported losing 20 or more pounds on three or more occasions), and 24 percent were moderate yo-yo dieters (they reported losing 10 or more pounds on three or more occasions).Although severe yo-yo dieters were, on average, almost 20 pounds heavier than the women who were not yo-yo dieters when the study began, at the end of the study the researchers found no significant differences between those who had a history of yo-yo dieting and those who did not.... ...Yo-yo dieting also did not affect the percentage of body fat and lean muscle mass gained or lost among the women, they noted....http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_128325.htm...
A calorie isn't a calorie - low carbers have a thermogenic advantage."Thus, it is clear that insulin plays an important role in obesity, independent of energy intake.""Bluher et al (7) showed that the lack of an insulin receptor in fat tissue produces almost complete protection against obesity. In other words, fat-specific insulin receptor knockout mice can eat a lot of “extra calories” and still hardly gain any fat mass."http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/6/1442.full
Reaching for the popcorn... ;0)LWW
In other words, fat-specific insulin receptor knockout mice can eat a lot of “extra calories” and still hardly gain any fat mass."I guess you missed this line in the article provided in the first link: All four groups of mice gained weight....A calorie isn't a calorie - low carbers have a thermogenic advantage."Thus, it is clear that insulin plays an important role in obesity, independent of energy intake."And this in my response:(btw I presume the insulin reactions among the groups were altered by the macrocomposition of the 4 diets, but this was not sufficient to prevent weight gain when excess calories are consumed)
So you are saying that 1500 calories of simple sugars is the same as 1500 calories of fatty acids which is the same as 1500 calories of 1500 calories of amino acids? It's more important to see what impact each has on a person's hormones.http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154Results Compared with the pre–weight-loss baseline, the decrease in REE was greatest with the low-fat diet (mean [95% CI], –205 [–265 to –144] kcal/d), intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet (–166 [–227 to –106] kcal/d), and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet (-138 [–198 to –77] kcal/d; overall P = .03; P for trend by glycemic load = .009). The decrease in TEE showed a similar pattern (mean [95% CI], -423 [–606 to –239] kcal/d; -297 [–479 to –115] kcal/d; and -97 [–281 to 86] kcal/d, respectively; overall P = .003; P for trend by glycemic load < .001). Hormone levels and metabolic syndrome components also varied during weight maintenance by diet (leptin, P < .001; 24-hour urinary cortisol, P = .005; indexes of peripheral [P = .02] and hepatic [P = .03] insulin sensitivity; high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, P < .001; non-HDL cholesterol, P < .001; triglycerides, P < .001; plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, P for trend = .04; and C-reactive protein, P for trend = .05), but no consistent favorable pattern emerged.Conclusion Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.
So you are saying that 1500 calories of simple sugars is the same as 1500 calories of fatty acids which is the same as 1500 calories of 1500 calories of amino acids? It's more important to see what impact each has on a person's hormones.ummm.....obviously that's not what I'm saying--AGAIN--here is what I wrote:(btw I presume the insulin reactions among the groups were altered by the macrocomposition of the 4 diets, but this was not sufficient to prevent weight gain when excess calories are consumed)
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |