http://www.dietitian.com/locarb.html

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Opinions?

The sentence

Quoted message said:

Both 30 and 55 grams of carbohydrate per day
are less than the minimum 130 grams necessary
to prevent loss of lean tissue (muscles and organs).

is utter nonsense...

Take care,
Hamburger

Old school clap trap in some newish spin.

You don't need carbohydrates to function properly in the short term.
The Eades' reasoning behind taking all the C and potassium is made
clear in their chapter on why, and their entire book basically jibes
with any first year medical text book.

I'd trust two doctors who specialize in nutrition over a MS RD LD.
Especially when those two docs have been working for as many years as
they have, have had as much success as they have had, and don't really
push anything other than their book. If you watch the Eades on PBS,
they don't even push Splenda, much less bars or brands or anything.
They do recommend some brands of supplements in the book, but it's more
of a "These will do" rather than "You should buy these."

In short, it's the same old junk, from a less than trustworthy source,
IMHO.

-Hollywood

Quoted message said:

Opinions?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Opinions?

I've read and heard from other people that you need a certain amount of
carbs (500 Cal/125gr ) to survive. Not true. My intake of carbs is around 50
to 60gr ( 200 to 240 Cal) per day for the past 1 and a half years.
Theoretically, I should have wasted away to nothing by now. The body will
turn to it's fat stores rather than muscle tissue and organs when there is a
calorie deficit.

"Tom G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:fkP3f.194255$tl2.77388@pd7tw3no...

Quoted message said:

My intake of carbs is around 50
to 60gr ( 200 to 240 Cal) per day for the past 1 and a half years.
Theoretically, I should have wasted away to nothing by now. The body will
turn to it's fat stores rather than muscle tissue and organs when there is
a
calorie deficit.

Well, not exactly, Tom.

When you run much of a caloric deficit, you'll tend to lose muscle tissue as
well as fat. When it doesn't get enough calories, the body uses about
everything you put into it for energy. It will then burn your fat stores,
but it will also go after some of that protein in the muscle tissues. I have
read that a hypocaloric diet that has a relatively high proportion of
protein will help minimize muscle loss, but there will always be some while
you're losing weight, unfortunately. This is quite well proven, by the way.

HG

"Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:fkP3f.194255$tl2.77388@pd7tw3no...

Quoted message said:

My intake of carbs is around 50
to 60gr ( 200 to 240 Cal) per day for the past 1 and a half years.
Theoretically, I should have wasted away to nothing by now. The body

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

turn to it's fat stores rather than muscle tissue and organs when there

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a
calorie deficit.

Well, not exactly, Tom.

When you run much of a caloric deficit, you'll tend to lose muscle tissue

as

Quoted message said:

well as fat. When it doesn't get enough calories, the body uses about
everything you put into it for energy. It will then burn your fat stores,
but it will also go after some of that protein in the muscle tissues. I

have

Quoted message said:

read that a hypocaloric diet that has a relatively high proportion of
protein will help minimize muscle loss, but there will always be some

while

Quoted message said:

you're losing weight, unfortunately. This is quite well proven, by the

way.

Quoted message said:

HG

Some muscle mass may be lost on a large calorie deficit diet, likely due
to insufficient protein intake. The website's claim of needing 130gr of
carbs minimum to prevent muscle loss is simply not true. 520 Cal of carbs
in 1200 Cal and 1600 Cal diets would be roughly 43% and 32%. That would
basically be an eat less/low fat diet. It's obvious the dietitian doesn't
like low carb diets and is spouting off the myth that if enough carbs are
eaten, there will be no muscle loss.

Quoted message said:

"Tom G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8K%3f.193705$1i.108370@pd7tw2no...

Quoted message said:

Some muscle mass may be lost on a large calorie deficit diet, likely due
to insufficient protein intake. The website's claim of needing 130gr of
carbs minimum to prevent muscle loss is simply not true. 520 Cal of carbs
in 1200 Cal and 1600 Cal diets would be roughly 43% and 32%. That would
basically be an eat less/low fat diet. It's obvious the dietitian doesn't
like low carb diets and is spouting off the myth that if enough carbs are
eaten, there will be no muscle loss.

No, Tom, if you consistently run a significant caloric deficit, enough to
lose weight, you WILL lose some lean body mass along with fat. It's not a
"maybe" thing. If you keep protein intake high the amount of lbm lost will
be less than if protein is low, that is correct. But there is no way to
prevent some loss of lbm. That is very well proven.

I agree that there is no carb intake requirement to help prevent loss of
lbm, but that wasn't what I was commenting on.Have you by any chance been
attending the Tunderbar school of nutrition and reading comprehension or
something? If so, disenroll immediately before you lose any more brain
cells, 'kay?

HG

Hannah Gruen <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> "Tom G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:> news:8K%3f.193705$1i.108370@pd7tw2no...
:>
:>> Some muscle mass may be lost on a large calorie deficit diet,
:>> likely due to insufficient protein intake. The website's claim of
:>> needing 130gr of carbs minimum to prevent muscle loss is simply not
:>> true. 520 Cal of carbs in 1200 Cal and 1600 Cal diets would be
:>> roughly 43% and 32%. That would basically be an eat less/low fat
:>> diet. It's obvious the dietitian doesn't like low carb diets and is
:>> spouting off the myth that if enough carbs are eaten, there will be
:>> no muscle loss.
:>
:> No, Tom, if you consistently run a significant caloric deficit,
:> enough to lose weight, you WILL lose some lean body mass along with
:> fat. It's not a "maybe" thing. If you keep protein intake high the
:> amount of lbm lost will be less than if protein is low, that is
:> correct. But there is no way to prevent some loss of lbm. That is
:> very well proven.
:>
:> I agree that there is no carb intake requirement to help prevent
:> loss of lbm, but that wasn't what I was commenting on.Have you by
:> any chance been attending the Tunderbar school of nutrition and
:> reading comprehension or something? If so, disenroll immediately
:> before you lose any more brain cells, 'kay?

Lifting helps to minimize lbm loss too.

"Hannah Gruen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:8K%3f.193705$1i.108370@pd7tw2no...

Quoted message said:

Some muscle mass may be lost on a large calorie deficit diet, likely

due

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to insufficient protein intake. The website's claim of needing 130gr of
carbs minimum to prevent muscle loss is simply not true. 520 Cal of

carbs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in 1200 Cal and 1600 Cal diets would be roughly 43% and 32%. That would
basically be an eat less/low fat diet. It's obvious the dietitian

doesn't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

like low carb diets and is spouting off the myth that if enough carbs

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eaten, there will be no muscle loss.

No, Tom, if you consistently run a significant caloric deficit, enough to
lose weight, you WILL lose some lean body mass along with fat.

Ok, ok. I get your point. Jeez. Yes, a calorie deficit of any kind will
ultimately result in some muscle loss, however small, even on a diet that is
not radical weight loss. The body isn't 100% efficient and will draw what it
needs from whatever is available. But adequate protein intake will largely
prevent that from happening. Exercising will also help to prevent muscle
loss during dieting.

Quoted message said:

It's not a
"maybe" thing. If you keep protein intake high the amount of lbm lost will
be less than if protein is low, that is correct. But there is no way to
prevent some loss of lbm. That is very well proven.

Fine. How much are we talking about here? Vast amounts? Or small enough
not to be too concerned?

Quoted message said:

I agree that there is no carb intake requirement to help prevent loss of
lbm, but that wasn't what I was commenting on.

Minimum carb intake for the prevention of muscle loss was what the Q/A
page was about. The OP wanted opinions on that. My comments were basically
this; I have eaten less than 60gr of carbs per day for 1 and a half years. I
have not wasted away due to insufficient carb intake. If the comments in the
Q/A page were true, there would be nothing left of me, because I would have
lost most of my muscle, by dieting or maintaining on less than the 130gr of
carbs that "they" say I need.

Quoted message said:

Have you by any chance been
attending the Tunderbar school of nutrition and reading comprehension or
something? If so, disenroll immediately before you lose any more brain
cells, 'kay?

The fact is that low carb diets are usually high enough in protein to
prevent a large amount of muscle loss, which is likely to happen on other
diets that are concentrating on a theoretical minimum amount of carbs
needed, rather than adequate protein needs.

Quoted message said:

HG

Hannah Gruen said:

Tom G said:

Some muscle mass may be lost on a large calorie deficit diet, likely due
to insufficient protein intake. The website's claim of needing 130gr of
carbs minimum to prevent muscle loss is simply not true. 520 Cal of carbs
in 1200 Cal and 1600 Cal diets would be roughly 43% and 32%. That would
basically be an eat less/low fat diet. It's obvious the dietitian doesn't
like low carb diets and is spouting off the myth that if enough carbs are
eaten, there will be no muscle loss.

No, Tom, if you consistently run a significant caloric deficit, enough to
lose weight, you WILL lose some lean body mass along with fat. It's not a
"maybe" thing. If you keep protein intake high the amount of lbm lost will
be less than if protein is low, that is correct. But there is no way to
prevent some loss of lbm. That is very well proven.

However - Comparing lean muscle loss on a diet of the same total
calories and the same protein grams is instructive. A diet that
is high-fat/low-carb results in less lean loss than a diet that
is low-fat/high-carb. Shown in plenty of studies. Go low enough
in calories and there will be some lean loss either way, but more
on low-fat less on low-carb. It's yet another advantage held by
high-fat/low-carb systems.

I don't know if there have been studies on why this happens.
Dietary fat has some sort of lean-sparing effect that dietary
carbs do not.

I thought it was the protein that kept the body from losing muscle. A lot
of low fat dieters don't get as much protein as they should. Not true for
LC dieters because it's pretty hard to eat nothing but fat so carbs get
replaced with protein.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
| However - Comparing lean muscle loss on a diet of the same total
| calories and the same protein grams is instructive. A diet that
| is high-fat/low-carb results in less lean loss than a diet that
| is low-fat/high-carb. Shown in plenty of studies. Go low enough
| in calories and there will be some lean loss either way, but more
| on low-fat less on low-carb. It's yet another advantage held by
| high-fat/low-carb systems.
|
| I don't know if there have been studies on why this happens.
| Dietary fat has some sort of lean-sparing effect that dietary
| carbs do not.

:> Doug Freyburger wrote:
:> | However - Comparing lean muscle loss on a diet of the same total
:> | calories and the same protein grams is instructive. A diet that
:> | is high-fat/low-carb results in less lean loss than a diet that
:> | is low-fat/high-carb. Shown in plenty of studies. Go low enough
:> | in calories and there will be some lean loss either way, but more
:> | on low-fat less on low-carb. It's yet another advantage held by
:> | high-fat/low-carb systems.
:> |
:> | I don't know if there have been studies on why this happens.
:> | Dietary fat has some sort of lean-sparing effect that dietary
:> | carbs do not.

A high-fat/low carb diet typically has adequate amounts of protein. A
low-fat/high carb diet may be deficient in protein because people avoid meat
trying to be low fat. Since carbs are high, the body might get its protein
from muscle breakdown while at the same time not using fat. Hence, a
high-carb/low-fat diet (think Ornish) can be muscle wasting and fat sparing.
A typical Atkins-like high-fat/low carb diet won't be muscle wasting and fat
sparing, but muscle sparing and fat wasting. However, on hypocaloric diets,
(which low carb is) one will still lose muscle mass over time. Yes, less
than typical Ornish-style low fat, but still present. The faster the loss,
the greater likelihood of muscle mass loss. Weight training can limit it,
if not excessive. Too much cardio can also result in muscle wasting, too.

FOB said:

Doug Freyburger wrote:

| However - Comparing lean muscle loss on a diet of the same total
| calories and the same protein grams is instructive. A diet that
| is high-fat/low-carb results in less lean loss than a diet that
| is low-fat/high-carb. Shown in plenty of studies. Go low enough
| in calories and there will be some lean loss either way, but more
| on low-fat less on low-carb. It's yet another advantage held by
| high-fat/low-carb systems.

| I don't know if there have been studies on why this happens.
| Dietary fat has some sort of lean-sparing effect that dietary
| carbs do not.

I thought it was the protein that kept the body from losing muscle. A lot
of low fat dieters don't get as much protein as they should. Not true for
LC dieters because it's pretty hard to eat nothing but fat so carbs get
replaced with protein.

LC tends to be lean sparing even for same total protein
grams and for same total calories. The study that
established this is the famous one that Dr Atkins used
to design his "fat fast". Subject groups were given
1000 calories per day of 90% protein, 90% carbs, 90%
fat, and a 0-calorie control group. As expected the
0-calorie control group lost better than the 90% protein
group. As expected the 90% carb group lost as much
lean as the 0-calorie group. NOT as expected the 90%
fat group lost better than the 0-calorie group (read
"metabolic edge" claim) and ALSO lost less lean than
any other group including the 90% protein group.

I agree that in the long term LC diets tend to have
plentifull protein and that works against lean loss,
but plentifull protein isn't even needed in shorter
terms like a month or so.

I understand how the hormones work such that more
dietary fat in exchange for less dietary protein
triggers better loss - Dietary fat indirectly drives
glucagon release and glucagon pulls fat from storage,
while dietary protein drives neither insulin nor
glucagon release and so has much less impact on fat
withdrawal per-calorie.

But I don't understand how a merely high-fat diet
that is also low-protein should end up being lean
sparing. I know that studies show it's true, but I
do not know of any proposed mechanisms more exact than
evolutionary ones. The evolutionary ones aren't
mechanism based, but they do make indirect sense -
Fat does not spoil as fast as raw flesh so it can be
stored with less technology than it takes to make
jerky. As a result famines early in human evolution
could have been staved off with stored fat not stored
meat. Extreme northern diets tend to be ultra-high
fat. There are a bunch of aspects like this none of
which are particularly convincing alone and none of
which suggest a mechanism.

Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> FOB wrote:
:>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
:>>
:>> | However - Comparing lean muscle loss on a diet of the same total
:>> | calories and the same protein grams is instructive. A diet that
:>> | is high-fat/low-carb results in less lean loss than a diet that
:>> | is low-fat/high-carb. Shown in plenty of studies. Go low enough
:>> | in calories and there will be some lean loss either way, but more
:>> | on low-fat less on low-carb. It's yet another advantage held by
:>> | high-fat/low-carb systems.
:>>
:>> | I don't know if there have been studies on why this happens.
:>> | Dietary fat has some sort of lean-sparing effect that dietary
:>> | carbs do not.
:>>
:>> I thought it was the protein that kept the body from losing muscle.
:>> A lot of low fat dieters don't get as much protein as they should.
:>> Not true for LC dieters because it's pretty hard to eat nothing but
:>> fat so carbs get replaced with protein.
:>
:> LC tends to be lean sparing even for same total protein
:> grams and for same total calories. The study that
:> established this is the famous one that Dr Atkins used
:> to design his "fat fast". Subject groups were given
:> 1000 calories per day of 90% protein, 90% carbs, 90%
:> fat, and a 0-calorie control group. As expected the
:> 0-calorie control group lost better than the 90% protein
:> group. As expected the 90% carb group lost as much
:> lean as the 0-calorie group. NOT as expected the 90%
:> fat group lost better than the 0-calorie group (read
:> "metabolic edge" claim) and ALSO lost less lean than
:> any other group including the 90% protein group.
:>

What was the span of this experiment?

:> I agree that in the long term LC diets tend to have
:> plentifull protein and that works against lean loss,
:> but plentifull protein isn't even needed in shorter
:> terms like a month or so.

You're saying they had the 0-calorie group fast for 1 month? Otherwise, how
do you draw this conclusion?

:>
:> I understand how the hormones work such that more
:> dietary fat in exchange for less dietary protein
:> triggers better loss - Dietary fat indirectly drives
:> glucagon release and glucagon pulls fat from storage,
:> while dietary protein drives neither insulin nor
:> glucagon release and so has much less impact on fat
:> withdrawal per-calorie.
:>
:> But I don't understand how a merely high-fat diet
:> that is also low-protein should end up being lean
:> sparing. I know that studies show it's true, but I
:> do not know of any proposed mechanisms more exact than
:> evolutionary ones. The evolutionary ones aren't
:> mechanism based, but they do make indirect sense -
:> Fat does not spoil as fast as raw flesh so it can be
:> stored with less technology than it takes to make
:> jerky. As a result famines early in human evolution
:> could have been staved off with stored fat not stored
:> meat. Extreme northern diets tend to be ultra-high
:> fat. There are a bunch of aspects like this none of
:> which are particularly convincing alone and none of
:> which suggest a mechanism.

Roger Zoul said:

Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]> wrote:

:> LC tends to be lean sparing even for same total protein
:> grams and for same total calories. The study that
:> established this is the famous one that Dr Atkins used
:> to design his "fat fast". Subject groups were given
:> 1000 calories per day of 90% protein, 90% carbs, 90%
:> fat, and a 0-calorie control group ...

What was the span of this experiment?

I think I found it listed on the Atkins site:

http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-175782.html

This appears to be the 1956 study that set Dr A on the
path to doing low carb himself. It eventually led to his
prescribing it for his patients, then his first book and
so on.

Series 2 in the write-up was the part with 1000 calories
per day, 90% from fat protein or carb. Interesting that
the phase only lasted 7 days and it did not include a
control group.

Note that in my current perspective I object to this old
study for several reasons. 1) Only a week in this phase,
2) Only 14 subjects, too few, 3) No listed control group.

Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:>> Doug Freyburger <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>>
:>> :> LC tends to be lean sparing even for same total protein
:>> :> grams and for same total calories. The study that
:>> :> established this is the famous one that Dr Atkins used
:>> :> to design his "fat fast". Subject groups were given
:>> :> 1000 calories per day of 90% protein, 90% carbs, 90%
:>> :> fat, and a 0-calorie control group ...
:>>
:>> What was the span of this experiment?
:>
:> I think I found it listed on the Atkins site:
:>
:> http://atkins.com/Archive/2002/1/11-175782.html
:>

For some reason, I can't get to the web at the moment...but it immediately
concerned me that a study had a "0-calorie" control group. Obviously, that
can't last for long....

:> This appears to be the 1956 study that set Dr A on the
:> path to doing low carb himself. It eventually led to his
:> prescribing it for his patients, then his first book and
:> so on.

I'm sure he paid attention to more than just the issue of a high fat diet
sparing protein. Likely, the high-fat diet caught his attention because it
worked, period.
:>
:> Series 2 in the write-up was the part with 1000 calories
:> per day, 90% from fat protein or carb. Interesting that
:> the phase only lasted 7 days and it did not include a
:> control group.

Interesting, but certainly not surprising. Who'd agree to it for 7 days.

:>
:> Note that in my current perspective I object to this old
:> study for several reasons. 1) Only a week in this phase,
:> 2) Only 14 subjects, too few, 3) No listed control group.

Yes.

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I understand how the hormones work such that more
dietary fat in exchange for less dietary protein
triggers better loss - Dietary fat indirectly drives
glucagon release and glucagon pulls fat from storage,
while dietary protein drives neither insulin nor
glucagon release and so has much less impact on fat
withdrawal per-calorie.

Doug, could you point me at a reference for that? - as a diabetic with a
pain-in-the-neck liver, I'm very interested in anything that would help to
control liver dumps of glucose.

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/74/72Kg

Nicky said:

Doug Freyburger said:

I understand how the hormones work such that more
dietary fat in exchange for less dietary protein
triggers better loss - Dietary fat indirectly drives
glucagon release and glucagon pulls fat from storage,
while dietary protein drives neither insulin nor
glucagon release and so has much less impact on fat
withdrawal per-calorie.

Doug, could you point me at a reference for that?

The part about glucagon being indirectly driven by
dietary fat? I've read numerous texts about glucagon
so I don't have a specific one. You likely already
know about the direct linkage between blood sugar and
insulin. The indirect linkage between dietary fat
and glucagon includes adrenaline so I had to piece
it together from a few sources.

Quoted message said:

as a diabetic with a
pain-in-the-neck liver, I'm very interested in anything that would help to
control liver dumps of glucose.

I don't know why liver dumps glucose in diabetics so
I don't know what linkage that would have to glucagon.
Since the liver makes glucose from the glycerol in
fat, lower glucagon might lower supply and therefore
lower fat consumption. Was that your concept? Seems
weak because fat derived glycerol isn't the only way
the liver makes glucose and I'm not convinced that
reducing the supply of fat in the blood will stop the
liver from dumping glucose. Besides, most of my study
has revolved around increasing the liver's fat supply
not reducing it.

Maybe increasing the protein-to-fat ratio for the
same total calories (go lean) would help your
situation, but it would also reduce the loss rate of
stored body fat. That's not a typical goal among folks
in the losing phases. I'm also dubious that it would
work because the liver can make glucose from protein
as well as from fat.

Let's see how much I understand about the issue.
Dawn syndrome is the liver producing more and more
glucose in the morning until more insulin is taken or
more carbs are eaten? I don't remember which. Not
clear that tweaking either protein or fat percentages
would have much effect on that.

"Nicky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

--
A1c 10.5/5.6/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/74/72Kg

1g of metformin may not be adequate for you.

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

"Doug Freyburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't know why liver dumps glucose in diabetics so
I don't know what linkage that would have to glucagon.

Here is how I understand it.
Glucagon is the hormone that triggers the liver dump, I think it happens in
response to a low insulin level. I don't know if it's an absolute low or a
relative low. Normal people get a matching release of insulin so BG stays
stable.

Quoted message said:

Let's see how much I understand about the issue.
Dawn syndrome is the liver producing more and more
glucose in the morning until more insulin is taken or
more carbs are eaten? I don't remember which. Not
clear that tweaking either protein or fat percentages
would have much effect on that.

The dawn phenomenon is when, in preparation for waking, glucagon is released
to convert stored energy for use in hunting breakfast, getting the kids off
to school, whatever. Without the normal first phase insulin response, the
diabetics' BG rises. If I'm 85 at 3-4am, I might be 95-100 at 7-8am. If I
don't eat it will keep rising, I'm on 2.5g metformin, I think that dampens
the dump somewhat.

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes