the title of this video on The Today Show is called "Want to burn fat? Eat carbs".
Experts: any validity?
Dr. Eades took care of this resistant starch thing: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/m...istant-starch/
Look at the actual study...
It's available free here:
from the article in Prevention:
Furthermore, there must be something wrong with the graph, as they are claiming that 0.03 - 0.05g of fat per gram of fat free mass is burned in 24 hours. My fat-free mass is perhaps 80kg, which is 80,000g. So, that means that I would burn 2.4 kg -at the low end and, in 24 hours, 4kg on the high end in the 24 hours after the meal. 4kg is about 9 pounds. I suspect they're off by a factor of 10 or 100 somewhere there. So, according to their numbers below, I would burn 4kg (9 lbs) of fat with the RS instead of 3.2kg (7 lb fat) with no RS. No wonder this is AMAZING!!! But in the next breath, they say that I would store 0.5g less of fat with the 5.4%.
Clearly their math is wrong somewhere, but I suspect that storing half a gram less of fat is not a big deal. We're talking about 4 extra calories.
more from the article:
If you actually look at the study cited above, and there's no way you can tell me that the glucose and insulin levels are different beyond measurement error. In fact, if you look at blood glucose and insulin, the 0%RS was best - adding RS actually made glucose levels worse! Here's the graph:
So, read Eades' post that Scott cited above, check the actual study, and I think you'll find that it's crap.
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.