Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Nutrition > Weight Gain, Weight Loss, Body Composition

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-27-2008, 10:12 AM   #1
Dave Paton
Member
 
Dave Paton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 167
Default Wtf?????

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...69909#23369909

the title of this video on The Today Show is called "Want to burn fat? Eat carbs".

Experts: any validity?
Dave Paton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 10:15 AM   #2
Scott Kustes
Senior Member
 
Scott Kustes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,048
Default

Dr. Eades took care of this resistant starch thing: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/m...istant-starch/
__________________
Scott

Fitness Spotlight
Scott Kustes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2008, 08:49 PM   #3
Jonathan Reik
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 36
Default Look at the actual study...

It's available free here:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/8

from the article in Prevention:

...

Quote:
It ups your calorie burn
Unlike some types of fiber, resistant starch gets fermented when it reaches the large intestine. This process creates beneficial fatty acids, including one called butyrate, which may block the body’s ability to burn carbohydrates. “This can prevent the liver from using carbs as fuel and, instead, stored body fat and recently consumed fat are burned,” explains Janine Higgins, Ph.D., nutrition research director for the University of Colorado’s Adult and Pediatric General Clinical Research Center. In your body, carbohydrates are the preferred source of fuel, like gasoline that powers your car’s engine. Butyrate essentially prevents some of the gas from getting into the tank, and your cells turn to fat as an alternative. One study found that replacing just 5.4 percent of total carbohydrate intake with resistant starch created a 20 to 30 percent increase in fat burning after a meal.
Yes, the study showed that if 5.4% of the carbs at a meal were RS, there was an increase in fat burning after the meal. They compared meals of 0%, 2.7%, 5.4%, and 10.7% RS. Interestingly, the 2.7% number isn't even graphed, although it was tested. Is it because 2.7% was worse than 0%? Also, interesting is that 10.7% RS caused LESS fat burning than 5.4% and even less than no RS at all! So how do you find the "hot spot" where your body burns just the right amount of fat?

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.co.../1/8/figure/F4

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:
Quote:
It may fight diabetes and heart disease
Like other fibers, resistant starch helps control blood sugar levels. “Because it skips routine digestion, we see lower blood sugar and insulin levels following a resistant starch-rich meal,” says Christine Gerbstadt, M.D., R.D., C.D.E., spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association. Blood sugar control translates into more energy and sustained energy. It also means long-term heart protection, because chronic high levels of blood sugar and insulin cause delicate arteries to become clogged and harden.

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:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.co.../1/8/figure/F1


So, read Eades' post that Scott cited above, check the actual study, and I think you'll find that it's crap.

Last edited by Jonathan Reik; 02-27-2008 at 08:52 PM. Reason: Learned how to insert links correctly.
Jonathan Reik is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.