I had a read through yes, have you? It makes no mention of high fat diets really, just low fat vs higher (than low, so normal levels) fat, not high-fat low-carb. The only place low carb diets are even mentioned is in the references section, not in the actual writeup.
Diet Food Programme
- Thread starter Craig1981
- Start date
From what I read there were trial groups with high fat intake and trials with low fat intake. Fine so far. What it doesn't mention is how calories were adjusted to accommodate this difference in fat consumption.
At the end of the day if someone is eating calories above their BMR they will put on weight, and the opposite is true for the other end of the spectrum. Nutrient break down does little to affect this.
Importantly that article doesn't actually mention reduction of body fat percentage, instead talking about measures of body fatness. To me BF% is the only important way to judge body fatness. Also we should all agree that BMI is an inaccurate measurement.
Carbohydrate are more readily stored by the body than fat, thus making them more relevant in the discussion of weight loss.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 19,896
- Location
- Wales
Exactly. If i cut half the fats from my diet i'd be dropping like 500 cals, do i then claim my weight loss was down to a low fat diet?
What, is what I said broscience? Absolute lolage.
Compared to your absolute no-science (that's right bros, I went there), I feel pretty good about my fairly vague point.
a) As has been covered, what you posted doesn't even confirm that low fat is good for fat loss.
b) The article even mentions that there is no change in cardio-vascular health with less fat.
c) It doesn't address any of the other problems associated with low fat diets and the benefits associated with higher fat intake (with in reason, and in certain diet protocols - i.e. not just high everything).
d) It doesn't address any of the biochemistry/hormone action/much of anything.
So yeah, thanks for not countering my point even slightly.
Last edited:
I wouldn't worry about losing a bit of muscle with fasting, one of the main reasons for fasting is for the "autophagy", basically breaking down your old/mutated/defective/pre-cancerous cells and use the scraps to rebuild new healthy ones. Don't take BCAAs or protein or anything. Defeats the point.
Then when you go back to anabolism you're body will be more efficient at building itself, because everything has been up-regulated to higher efficiency from the stress of the fasting.
http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2012/04/06/autophagy-turning-stress-into-health/
Then when you go back to anabolism you're body will be more efficient at building itself, because everything has been up-regulated to higher efficiency from the stress of the fasting.
http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2012/04/06/autophagy-turning-stress-into-health/
Literally dont eat anything except water/coffee. Sometimes I have a miso soup for lunch for the salt. Even a few grams of amino acids can down regulate the autophagy.
This all falls under the principle of hormesis which I'm a big believer in. A little bit of a bad thing is actually a good thing. Exercise, fasting, cold exposure, UV exposure, etc.
A MILD stress excites an over-compensation by the body. Weight lifting on a cellular level.
some light reading http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758740/
This all falls under the principle of hormesis which I'm a big believer in. A little bit of a bad thing is actually a good thing. Exercise, fasting, cold exposure, UV exposure, etc.
A MILD stress excites an over-compensation by the body. Weight lifting on a cellular level.
some light reading http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758740/
Last edited:
I also have a feeling that is how stuff like Co Q10 works. Because it's actually a PRO-oxidant. Thats why I take it every other day. In fact all of those plant anti-oxidants are really pro-oxidants, they just excite an anti-oxidant effect in the body. They are actually the plant's insecticide chemicals (poison). In the low doses we eat them in they are beneficial, through hormesis.
There was even a study where they put a group of subjects on a ZERO fruit/veg diet and they showed much lower oxidative stress than the group eating the fruit/veg. In other words stress is good.
There was even a study where they put a group of subjects on a ZERO fruit/veg diet and they showed much lower oxidative stress than the group eating the fruit/veg. In other words stress is good.
Actually I've read a few studies that showed fasting doesn't do much for women, only men. I'd reckon it relates to genetics, the men would traditionally be out all day hunting while the women would sit around and eat all day while they are grinding grains or whatever.
IMO the main benefit of fasting is the increased insulin sensitivity, but it doesn't seem to work the same for women. In fact fasting could even be BAD for them.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833943?dopt=Abstract
Alternate day fasting may adversely affect glucose tolerance in nonobese women but not in nonobese men. The gene expression results indicate that fatty acid oxidation and mitochondrial biogenesis are unaffected by alternate day fasting. However, the increased expression in SIRT1 suggests that alternate day fasting may improve stress resistance, a commonly observed feature of calorie-restricted rodents.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/1/7.full
After 3 wk of ADF, women but not men had an increase in the area under the glucose curve (36). This unfavorable effect on glucose tolerance in women, accompanied by an apparent lack of an effect on insulin sensitivity, suggests that short-term ADF may be more beneficial in men than in women in reducing type 2 diabetes risk.
...
It is interesting that the shifts in lipid concentrations were shown to be sex specific: ie, only the women had an increase in HDL-cholesterol concentrations, and only the men had a decrease in triacylglycerol concentrations
Last edited:
