• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Swedish low carb study - 44 months

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some members on this thread seem to assume that low carb can only work if you increase your fat intake, they are almost certainly correct if you restrict your carbs to under 20g/40g a day, however many of us are successfully controlling our diabetes by carb restriction that is not as severe as the Atkins/Bernstein teachings suggest.

I probably eat around 80g to 120g of carbs a day which is more than enough to give me the energy I require for my lifestyle, without the need to increase my fat intake.

Again many members here believe that increased saturated fats are actually bad for us. A view shared by cardiologists and the medical profession world wide.

The dangers of all this talk about high fat as I see it is that it is likely that many members will think its OK to eat more fat whist only slightly reducing their carbs which will result in weight gain and possible cardiac problems. I have always believed that to use fat for energy you need to be in ketosis, and I wonder how many of those who call themselves low carbers are actually in ketosis at all?

Low carb - high fat seems to work but it cant work if you dont restrict your carb intake drastically, something I feel is not necessary for most people.
 
Once again it is a simple question of maths:

If you wish to keep your intake isocaloric (same number of calories) and you wish to reduce fat OR carbs, then you will need to increase one or both of the other two macronutrients.

If you are restricting calories as well, then you can reduce one of the macronutrients without a corresponding increase in one or both of the other two.

But unless you have excess fat mass, you evidently can not survive indefinitely on less calorie intake than the number used by your body.

Not all cardiologist nor all of the medical profession agree that saturated fat is "bad for us".

Please also remember that terms like "low-fat/high-carb" generally describe the proportion of the daily energy (calories) being derived from each of the macronutrients. As Carbs and Fat are the chief sources of energy -- and because our daily Protein requirement is modest, around 60-80g for an adult male IIRC -- most often we seem to talk in terms of low or high, Carbs or Fat. So remembering that Fat has over twice as many calories per gram when compared to Carbs or Protein, we might take an example of a person on around 2,000 calories per day who could substitute around 45g of Fat in place of 100g Carbs and change the description of their diet from low fat to low carb, while still remaining isocaloric. It is not a question of the volume of food eaten and I'd like to dispel any suggestion that "high fat" means sitting around eating from a tub of lard with a spoon... it can be as simple as reverting to "real" food and no longer eating "low fat" versions of food.
 
pianoman said:
Not all cardiologist nor all of the medical profession agree that saturated fat is "bad for us".
Click to expand...

Yes I've seen the latest low carbers link to the doctor who thinks saturated fat is good for us all, but what is it that Aristole said? "One swallow does not a summer make" 8)

As for the rest of your post, well I dont have an A level in maths so I'll leave all the workings out to you, I just know that other than white bread and pasta I can eat pretty much anything I like just as long as its in small enough portions, so without working out how much of this and how much of that I simply tested every combination of food till I knew what I could and couldnt eat. If others want to deny themselves 50% of what they used to eat thats fine by me but no amount of low carb spin is going to make me eat fat :lol:
 
No-one (certainly not me) is trying to convince you how to eat Sid. I am stating established facts about our nutritional requirements for energy... no matter what you may call what you eat, I have yet to see any evidence presented which could convince me that a body can sustain itself indefinitely by taking in less energy than it uses.

The math is really very simple... If you have cut the amount of carbs you eat and have not increased the amount of protien, and are at least as physically active as before, then the energy has to come from fat -- either in your diet or from your fat mass stores.

And of course there are a great deal more than the one Doctor who knows that saturated fat is not "bad for us" but is essential to our health. Galileo was seen as controversial (threatened by the inquisition and put under house arrest) for his observations concerning the Universe and Earth's role in it. I doubt that many eminent scientists of his time were on his side either (or would admit to being on his side for fear of the consequences)... did any of that make him wrong?

Once again: the moderate change of no longer avoiding fat can be sufficient to change the proportion of energy in a diet from low-fat/high-carb to low-carb/high-fat... there is no need to go looking for extra fat.
 
pianoman said:
I have yet to see any evidence presented which could convince me that a body can sustain itself indefinitely by taking in less energy than it uses.
Click to expand...

Er, sorry but where and when did I say that?

pianoman said:
The math is really very simple... If you have cut the amount of carbs you eat and have not increased the amount of protien, and are at least as physically active as before, then the energy has to come from fat -- either in your diet or from your fat mass stores.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I have simply cut the carbs I eat down to a level that sustains my bodies needs. And as I said earlier does one not have to be in ketosis to obtain energy from fat? I'm not an extreme low carb'er so I'm not 100% about that perhaps you can enlighten me?

pianoman said:
And of course there are a great deal more than the one Doctor who knows that saturated fat is not "bad for us" but is essential to our health.
Click to expand...

There you go moving the goal posts again pianoman, I am well aware that fat is essential to our health but are we not talking about increasing fat intake especially saturated fats? So are there more doctors who say eating more saturated fat is good for you than there are saying cut back on saturated fats? I think we all know the answer to that and as for Galileo Galilei, yes there have always been mavericks but for every one who is proved right there are 1000's if not millions who are just plain wrong or misguided.

pianoman said:
Once again: the moderate change of no longer avoiding fat can be sufficient to change the proportion of energy in a diet from low-fat/high-carb to low-carb/high-fat... there is no need to go looking for extra fat.
Click to expand...

Once again: There you go talking about low-fat/high-carb, sorry but that was never me, prior to diagnosis I certainly ate a high carb diet as most of us did I suspect but I never ate a low fat diet, in fact I never really thought about diet at all. I dont avoid fat but I certainly don't think it is a good idea to increase it especially saturated fats which have been proven, regardless of what you think, to contribute to cardio vascular disease.
 
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

—Michael Crichton
Click to expand...
 
pianoman said:
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

—Michael Crichton
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So we know what Chrichton thinks. Now just what point are YOU trying to make pianoman? :roll:

For the info of all the sceptics and 'pseudo experts' around, check out this link:

http://www.therockymountaingoat.com/201 ... oes-viral/

Low fat/low carb and low calorie - however, he doesn't shout about it or tell people the math doesnt work out. His patients do, especially after the great weight loss and good Bg control resulting in many of them coming off medication. I suppose there will still be those who think it 'can't possibly work' or 'it's unsustainable'? Depends what your lifestyle is like and what you want to achieve!
 
I feel that I have made every effort to make my own position abundantly clear. Others are free to do with what that what they will.

Yes "low everything" can work to lose weight (I already said as much) but you cannot survive indefinitely taking in fewer calories than your body expends.
 
It's been a tough couple of weeks for physics, first we had the "faster than light" neutrino that challenges Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and now we have Albert's Second Law of Thermodynamics beating diet.

My money is that someone will break "Gravity" before the end of the month.
 
pianoman said:
I feel that I have made every effort to make my own position abundantly clear. Others are free to do with what that what they will.

Yes "low everything" can work to lose weight (I already said as much) but you cannot survive indefinitely taking in fewer calories than your body expends.
Click to expand...

Pianoman
What part of, 'it works for me' do you not understand? Because of disability, less activity, I am constantly trying to lose weight, so it works well and achieves the desired results. Not everybody needs the amount of calories recommended eaach day and many people just don't want to eat too much anyway. As I have been doing it for several years that way, as a method of control of both weight and Bg levels I have to disagree with your assertion that you cannot do it and survive. I am not a ghost.

Reminds me much of the fact that a humble bumble bee is simply not designed for flight, yet somehow it does defying all logic and so called 'laws' of aerodynamics!
 
borofergie said:
It's been a tough couple of weeks for physics, first we had the "faster than light" neutrino that challenges Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and now we have Albert's Second Law of Thermodynamics beating diet.

My money is that someone will break "Gravity" before the end of the month.
Click to expand...


BF, it's actually Dr Du Toit's diet, not mine! Still, he is a Doc so he must be a quack! :lol:
 
Albert said:
Because of disability, less activity, I am constantly trying to lose weight, so it works well and achieves the desired results. Not everybody needs the amount of calories recommended each day and many people just don't want to eat too much anyway. As I have been doing it for several years that way, as a method of control of both weight and Bg levels I have to disagree with your assertion that you cannot do it and survive.
Click to expand...
I read that as: you have excess fat mass to lose, and you are less physically active than you used to be... so it is no big surprise to me that you are currently surviving by eating less than you use each day. My assertion was as to the long term sustainability of such a diet once you no longer have excess fat mass to use.

In this thread I have said...
If you wish to keep your intake isocaloric (same number of calories) and you wish to reduce fat OR carbs, then you will need to increase one or both of the other two macronutrients.

If you are restricting calories as well, then you can reduce one of the macronutrients without a corresponding increase in one or both of the other two.

But unless you have excess fat mass, you evidently can not survive indefinitely on less calorie intake than the number used by your body.
Click to expand...
...and...
Yes "low everything" can work to lose weight (I already said as much) but you cannot survive indefinitely taking in fewer calories than your body expends.
Click to expand...
...and...
If you have cut the amount of carbs you eat and have not increased the amount of protien, and are at least as physically active as before, then the energy has to come from fat -- either in your diet or from your fat mass stores
Click to expand...
I have said nothing about eating the recommended number of calories nor have I disputed that you can survive by eating at an energy deficit so long as you have fat mass stores. In other words I have said nothing to contradict your own observations of your diet.

I can see how you may now be eating less overall than you did before but as I tried to explain earlier the terms "low carb" etc... relate to the percentage of energy from each of the macronutrients -- so even if you were only eating 800 calories a day, if 450 calories were from Carbs, that would still technically be seen as an "high carb" diet because the highest proportion of dietary energy is coming form Carbohydrate -- although at that level of calorie restriction a person would probably getting substantially more of their energy from their own saturated animal fat mass stores. Imagine that: a calorie-restricted diet forces us to rely on high levels of saturated animal fat -- virtually identical to pig fat (AKA lard) :o

Incidentally: the way I eat -- real whole food avoiding sugars and starches -- is ALSO a low GI approach :D
 
it's actually Dr Du Toit's diet, not mine! Still, he is a Doc so he must be a quack!
Click to expand...

Dr Du Toit is an interesting doctor who's had great sucess in reducing weight and athe amount of medications taken for diabetes, high blood pressure etc in his practice,
Unfortunately, he doesn't reveal his macronutrient proportions since he wants any diet to supervised by a doctor, since weight loss would require medication changes.
I wrote about him on my blog so investigated his diet as much as I could.
He says that it conforms to Canadian guidelines, is low GI, is not high protein nor a 'ketosis diet'. It avoids processed/refined carbs. It is also fairly low calories...1100 for women, 1500 for men. Some people have sustained it for over 2 years.

I found a short article((its' not a trial though) in the British Columbian Medical Journal
http://www.bcmj.org/blog/3000-pounds-gone-1-year
I got more snippets of info about his diet from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKOWp-GlH1A
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows ... 1778824999

I did a bit of speculation and calculation using the canadian guidelines (carbs 45-60%, fat , 25-35%, protein ) and came up with a possible breakdown for a woman. (of course it must be speculation but I don't think the nutrient profile can be that much different )
130 g carb = 47% of 1100 calories = 520 calories
34g of fat = 28% of 1100 calories = 306 calories
68g protein = 25% of 1100 calories = 272 calories

If I'm right in my speculation the diet is not high in grams of carbs, though they do form almost 50% of the diet. In some terms this would be considered high carb, in others low carb!(moderate carbs anyone?) It conforms to mainstream guidelines for fat content. TBH its fairly close to the proportions I eat though I normally eat about 1800 calories . I need a bit more as I also run quite long distances.
I also hadn't realised until just now that it's the same proprtions, though lowerin calories, as those given by Jennie Brand-Miller in her low GI diet book.
(my personal objection is that he excludes exercise until normal weight has been achieved)
 
Dr du Toit's attitude to exercise is interesting...
We must remember that the problem here is not the lack of exercise, but obesity. This is an addiction to food, which is difficult to change permanently by doing a lot of exercise. How sustainable is the exercise going to be? You have to teach the patients to eat healthy food and make good decisions on what to eat.

Exercise stimulates appetite and for a person already addicted to sugars it can be very difficult to stick to a diet if they do lots of exercise. Exercise = anabolism, Diet = catabolism. If you do both at the same time, you are cancelling out what you want to achieve metabolically. As soon as patients reach their goal weight, an exercise program is initiated, and that helps them to maintain their weight. It just makes a lot more sense to run around the block if you weigh a few pounds less.

I compared the weight loss in two groups of patients. One group was allowed moderate exercise and the other was not allowed to exercise. The group that did not exercise lost weight much more effectively. They eventually get an eating program that helps them maintain their weight after initial weight loss and it is relatively easy to stick with.
Click to expand...
...and I can see how any well thought out diet (which simply means "what we eat") could be an huge improvement over the "thoughtless" eating that seems so prevalent these days. This is clearly promoted as a weight-loss intervention and I'd be interested to know what he advises for long term maintenance once the desired weight is achieved.

None of which changes my position on the unsustainability of long-term calorie deficit .
 
Thanks phoenix, I love your posts. :D Even if quite often I have to read them several times to understand them.

pianoman
What I am doing works, even if <60g carbs per day is high carbs according to some! :roll: I really couldn't care less what you think about it's sustainability. Your opinion is just one voice amongst many.

Do what works for you is all I would say to anybody and disregard those that say 'it can't be sustained!' Some of us have been trying to lose weight constantly.

As one noted member here says in his sig, 'People who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it.' :wink:
 
In actuality Albert I have said nothing against you or your approach... I have tried to talk in very general terms, initially because I could not understand where your suggestion of "low everything" was coming from -- but you (and it seems Sid) appear to assume I am making it a personal attack. That is your choice. Good luck with it.
 
Actually pianoman nothing is personal, just a difference of opinion. We are all adults after all. I along with good friends of mine never make assumptions, that's from people who make comments that something can't be done.
It pays to be sure of the facts before spouting opinions and rubbishing what someone here does, which infer someone is lying or misguided!

There are so many different ways for someone to control diabetes not just one way. We are all different.
 
You still haven't told us what you eat, Albert. Being overweight and limited in what exercise I can do, I'm interested. How about posting a typical day's menus?

Please?

Viv 8)
 
It is amazing what the body is capable of without sticking to these guideline calories that are set out for us and there are both ends of the spectrum. Profuse over eaters and and under eaters. Both can and do live for a high number of years, if not all their lives like that. It effects some people not others. Some are lucky some are not in the genetic gamble.
Some people live to the recommended calorie intake and still get metabolic syndromes. I suppose it is all to do with quality not quantity at the end of the day that makes all the difference with calorie intake...not how many we consume ,well that's how I see it for myself.

I have lived at a calorie deficit for a good 5 years now when I look at the amount of running and training I do to what I eat. I eat low carb and I eat clean and I have run daily for 5 years and raced on a calorie deficit with only benefits to my health.I turned my labs around and I am the fittest and healthiest and overall strongest I have been. I don't believe you need that "set" amount of calories that are pushed down our necks :wink: Ged it!

I think a healthy life can be lived and even a very active life can be lived without the recommended daily calorie intake ,or supplement drinks or energy bars, or any of the stuff they tell you you should eat or drink if you exercise a lot. . Keep it simple and fresh and natural and listen to your body and so long as you have the energy to do what you need to do if it is on 1200 calories a day and you run 10 miles, then who's to say you can't live like that if you are doing so on a long term basis and you are healthier but more importantly feel healthier .And you are also maintaining a good body weight with good muscle mass.

As my Endo says we have a nutritional problem in this country,we are dying in the land of plenty..Maybe??? :wink: . He says when he goes to Mumbai there are children with legs like sticks in the slums and then obese people with plenty in other parts of the city , guess which he said are the healthiest :D

I love to read of Fauja Singh, the oldest Marathon runner in the world he is 100 and runs ten miles everyday and completes numerous Marathons a year all on a calorie deficit :D and a very simple vegetarian diet at that. No carbohydrates ,plenty of Ginger and tea :D I bet most trainers and medics would have him on a drip over here ...but he does it and does it well on very little, at 100 :shock: and has done for years.

Also Bob Krause the oldest living Type 1 Diabetic who has nuts and 3 prunes for breakfast ,skips lunch and has a chicken salad for tea. He claims his long life is due to not having loads of insulin swimming around in his body and has kept his insulin levels to precision lows for as long as he can remember...on a frugal ,obviously healthy (for him) diet. Again an interesting bloke that's got something to say really because he has been there and done it...and certainly lived to tell the tale :D

And there will also be people who have lived a high calorie high fat high protein diet for all their lives and will be relatively healthy and tell a different story. It's really not rocket science ,we know what we should and should not be eating and we know when we feel and look good on it no matter how many calories are in the blinking thing :wink:

The people in that study would lose more weight without exercise because the people exercising through the weight loss programme will replace some of the lost body mass with muscle and muscle weighs more,but it also burns more calories. So either way for long term weight loss and maintenance the more muscle you can build the better....and exercise is the only way to do this,carbs or preferably no carbs, or not many carbs for me :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top