Catalyst Athletics Forums

Catalyst Athletics Forums (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/index.php)
-   Weight Gain, Weight Loss, Body Composition (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   Zoning in on Data for Atkins Dieters Living in South Beach. (http://www.catalystathletics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4392)

Darryl Shaw 06-08-2009 06:28 AM

Zoning in on Data for Atkins Dieters Living in South Beach.
 
Quote:

Diet, Insulin Resistance, and Obesity: Zoning in on Data for Atkins Dieters Living in South Beach.

Abstract.


Insulin resistance is a central pathogenic factor for the metabolic syndrome and is associated with both generalized obesity and the accumulation of fat in the omental and intramyocellular compartments. In the context of the current obesity epidemic, it is imperative to consider diets in terms of their ability to both promote weight loss and ameliorate insulin resistance. Weight loss under any dietary formulation depends on hypocaloric intake, and only moderate weight loss (510%) is sufficient to augment insulin sensitivity. However, increments in insulin sensitivity may be more directly related to loss of intramyocellular or omental fat rather than loss of total body weight per se. The widespread acceptance of popular low-carbohydrate high-fat diets (e.g. Atkins Diet, Zone Diet, South Beach diet) further underscores the need to evaluate dietary interventions regarding their safety and metabolic effects. These high-fat diets have been shown to be safe in the short term; however, their long-term safety has not been established. With respect to insulin sensitivity, diets enriched in saturated fats can induce insulin resistance, whereas fat substitution with monounsaturated fats can enhance insulin sensitivity. On the other hand, high-fiber, high-carbohydrate diets comprised of foods with low caloric density can similarly be used for effective weight reduction and to ameliorate insulin resistance. Although some data suggest that low-glycemic index diets are most advantageous in this regard, these effects may have more to do with increments in dietary fiber than differences in available carbohydrates.

Popular low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets are being fervently embraced as an alternative to challenging modifications in lifestyle and intentional calorie reduction. Current data do not support such unbridled enthusiasm for these diets, particularly in relationship to high-fiber, high-carbohydrate diets emphasizing intake of fresh vegetables and fruits. Long-term studies to determine the efficacy and safety of both popular and experimental diets are warranted.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/9/4197

George Mounce 06-08-2009 07:15 AM

Quote:

These high-fat diets have been shown to be safe in the short term; however, their long-term safety has not been established. With respect to insulin sensitivity, diets enriched in saturated fats can induce insulin resistance, whereas fat substitution with monounsaturated fats can enhance insulin sensitivity.
Must be nice to just lie in your research.

Yet another article done by people who can't even do a simple Google search.

Steven Low 06-08-2009 08:34 AM

I'm not sure how they think that saturated fats are going to increase insulin resistance more than high CARBS which stimulate the direct release of insulin. Although the fiber does blunt the insulin response, yes.

"However, increments in insulin sensitivity may be more directly related to loss of intramyocellular or omental fat rather than loss of total body weight per se."

Exercise does the best job given a decent diet. Only high intensity exercise shows significant elimination of intracellular triglycerides

Mike ODonnell 06-08-2009 09:29 AM

Just the sarcastic tone of the title shows the bias towards putting down the zone, south beach and atkins at whatever cost.

Quote:

On the other hand, high-fiber, high-carbohydrate diets comprised of foods with low caloric density can similarly be used for effective weight reduction and to ameliorate insulin resistance.
Really? So the zone, south beach or any other sensible eating plan does NOT promote the intake of natural carbohydrates such as fruits and vegetables? Really?

I'm over all your posting for biased high carb studies....as I don't get what your point is? We all agree fruits and vegetables are great.....as for high carb, how the hell I could ever eat 65% carbs in my calorie intake from fruits and vegetables would be beyond me.....quite impossible in my book. As for all the less active people with obesity and insulin resistance....guess I'll switch them over to a nice low fat/high whole grain diet and solve all their issues....oh wait, modern medical dogma attempted that and it failed miserably.

As for high carb diets....that would be the absolutely DUMBEST thing to tell any client who wants to lose weight. Even the Zone at 150g a day would be more than enough for most all people unless they are seriously more active than the average person who breaks a sweat walking to the car.

Arien Malec 06-08-2009 10:54 AM

I generally appreciate Darryl's study postings (as biased as they are, I appreciate seeing all the research done, whether it aligns with my biases or not), but this is the stupidest editorial passing as research I've ever seen.

Darryl Shaw 06-09-2009 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Mounce (Post 58648)
Quote:

These high-fat diets have been shown to be safe in the short term; however, their long-term safety has not been established. With respect to insulin sensitivity, diets enriched in saturated fats can induce insulin resistance, whereas fat substitution with monounsaturated fats can enhance insulin sensitivity.
Must be nice to just lie in your research.

Yet another article done by people who can't even do a simple Google search.

Am I missing something? I've read studies agreeing with the authors statement re. saturated fats and insulin resistance and a quick search of pubmed also seems to confirm his position.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10889805

Darryl Shaw 06-09-2009 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arien Malec (Post 58661)
I generally appreciate Darryl's study postings (as biased as they are, I appreciate seeing all the research done, whether it aligns with my biases or not), but this is the stupidest editorial passing as research I've ever seen.

Could you elaborate? As I read it the article seemed to be reasonably balanced with good references (the ones I had time to read anyway) and merely discussed the relative merits of two different dietary strategies for achieving weight loss, which the author made clear is the real key to improving insulin sensitivity, without coming down strongly in favour of one side of the argument or the other.

Arien Malec 06-09-2009 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl Shaw (Post 58696)
Could you elaborate?

The sarcasm and disdain in statements like:

Quote:

Popular low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets are being fervently embraced as an alternative to challenging modifications in lifestyle and intentional calorie reduction. Current data do not support such unbridled enthusiasm for these diets, particularly in relationship to high-fiber, high-carbohydrate diets emphasizing intake of fresh vegetables and fruits.
is what particularly set me off (not to mention that the Atkins diet does not limit vegetables, except in the induction phase, and the Zone has a significant allowance for such foods).

If you enter a paper not even attempting to temper your bias, I'm not going to pay much attention to the paper. I could go line by line, but in general, there is a much different standard of evidence being applied to LC diets (no conclusion can be drawn because the types of foods weren't controlled) vs his high fiber hypothesis


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.