low carb?

low carb? (bob2008)

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:09:48 GMT

Low-carbohydrate diets or low-carb diets are dietary programs that restrict carbohydrate consumption usually for weight control or for the treatment of obesity. Foods high in digestible carbohydrates are limited or replaced with foods containing a higher percentage of proteins and fats and often other foods low in carbohydrates.
=============================================================
Bob

Alcohol Rehabilitation

Re: RE: low carb? (bob2008)

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:07:42 GMT

Although humans are omnivores, each culture holds some food preferences and some food taboos.
Individual dietary choices may be more or less healthy.
=====================================================
Bob
Alcohol Rehabilitation

RE: low carb? (deweydog78)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:09:13 GMT

yeah, dude, don't quit, low carb is the way to go. i did a low carb diet and loved it. mine was more strict than yours (i was about 5% carbs), but it was great. everyone here bashes it before they have even tried it, so don't let their opinion hold much weight. before i tried it, i had a little belly going on, by the end i saw my abs. besides, fat is essential to testosterone, so low fat diets are much more harmful. besides higher testosterone levels, high fat diets also improve your hair, skin complexion, and a variety of other things. plus, you can eat bacon, which is always a plus.

RE: low carb? (gizmonel)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:12:38 GMT

I am like a lion who has pounced and wants his meat LOL.

Thanks Chuck i have no intentions in quitting this just very frustrated at the moment, not that i care for what people say.

Bottom line is i eat my 5 cups veggies i eat some starchs before workout and i feel brand new and not hungry, i am flying into my 10% body fat goal YIPPEE!

RE: low carb? (njmuscle66)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:55:14 GMT

Giz-did you read my posts. I am 100% on board with what you are doing. And I have the unigue perspective of having tried dieting both ways (high fat versus high carbs). I am not sure thouse who chimed it that the diet is BAD can say that. So you just keep going and keep getting the results you desire

RE: low carb? (gizmonel)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:40:40 GMT

Can i vent in here? Thank you. :D

OK why is it that everyone ( not this board :D ) say what i am doing is unhealthy? I mean its only for 3-4 weeks at a time GRRR.

All i am doing is limiting my carbs between 40 to 100g net each day depending if its workout day or not.

I ask for an opinion and i get FLUCKED and get a huge its not healthy you need starchs and carbs, GEEZE people its not like i am eating grease or anything or totally cutting out starchs i still have them for breakfast! And i do eat my vegetables FIVE CUPS A DAY.

If atkins and ketogenic diets were so unhealthy why are they used then by people? Why do they have atkins still around? I just dont get it Do we really need starch's? or is that modern mans invention that has created an enormous obesity epidemic? Followed by GIGANTIC PORTIONS FOR A BIGGER POPULATION.

Thanks for listening everyone. :D no more steam coming out my nostrils and ears hehehe.

RE: low carb? (njmuscle66)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:25:15 GMT

oh come on now you more than anyone on this board knows why it was even formed (based on what Vince was going through at the time and and why it failed.

RE: low carb? (njmuscle66)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:06:57 GMT

I can cite a few dealing with healthy non obese but I don't want to keep beating this topic up. I have my views about the type of diet but I am not looking to convert anyone

As for what does it have to do with bodybuilding. The Body Opus and Anabolic Diet were two books targeted specifically for the bodybuilding/powerlifting sect. In fact back in 1990 when Vince McMahon made his attempt at starting a professional bodybuilding organization we brought in Mauro Dispasquale (author of the Anabolic Diet and World Champion powerlifter) to develop the diet programs for the athletes.

I am not looking to convert anyone to "my" way of thinking. There is enough information and research out there if someone wanted to learn more and decide if it works for them

RE: low carb? (njmuscle66)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:08:49 GMT

the magazines use ghost writers for those articles but that is besides the point. I agree about bodybuilding articles and general comments. I guess my only point here is that the information about ketogenic diets go BEYOND some generic magazine. Extensive research exists within the sciencetific community. I have read alot of what was written over the past five years and found the diet exactly what i was looking for. My posts were more in an effort to get yourself and others on the board to begin to think critically about some of the common myths and straegies that might exist in nutrition,exercise, etc. Look at the rise in obesity in the US currently. The obesity rate Doubled from 1980-2000. Diabetes has increased by 49% from 1990-2000. Those facts can not be ignored. I can't think but feel our societies large intake of refined sugars and other starchy carbs does not play a role in these numbers.

http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_US.shtml

check out table 1

Someone can say the body needs glucose for energy-Does it really? No it can get energy through the development of ketones and some would even argue it perfers them. You can say you need carbs to repelenish glyogen. And you do.....But certainly not to the amount that we consume. Carbs are fun to eat. They taste damn good. But of the three macronutrients the research shows it is the one that we can do without the most.

RE: low carb? (twistedlink)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:38:48 GMT

No i didnt mean him, i wasnt talking about anyone making this diet in particular, i was talking about generic bodybuilding articles, they are usually made by juicers...or lets say for less arguments sake, potential juicers...suspect juicers.

You get it everywhere

"want to build muscle in just 6 months?"

and then they give you all these routines etc and have themself on the page all massive-which to me looks obviously roided.

I mean even on this forum we have post your own articles, theres a lot of amatuers out there making articles.
And even if someone has a phD, it should still be read through with a tooth comb to make sure what theyre saying isnt bent-i would read everything up on low carb diets, but TBH, ive read so many BB articles, i kind of know what it will be like.

Again, its not the results im doubting, its just the health problems that may (most probably) occur.

RE: low carb? (njmuscle66)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:17:33 GMT

ORIGINAL: twistedlink
Leave the facts to proper studies, not some juicer who reads a wiki article and thinks hes the dogs bollox on everything.

Jeff Volek-who i referenced above is a PHD so I think his knowledge base is far beyond a wiki article I would think.

Not sure who you were refering to as some juice who thinks he knows the dogs but I don't think a Doctor from Duke University Medical Center would qualify either.
Duke Health Briefs: Low-Carb Diet Effective In Research Study
DURHAM, N.C. – The high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet popularized by Dr. Robert Atkins has been the subject of heated debate in medical circles for three decades. Now, preliminary research findings at Duke University Medical Center show that a low-carbohydrate diet can indeed lead to significant and sustained weight loss.

There has recently been a resurgence of diets promoting low carbohydrate intake, but the scientific evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of these diets is limited. This is the first published scientific study of the popular low-carbohydrate Atkins diet in two decades, and research is continuing.

The study appears in the July 2002 issue of the American Journal of Medicine and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Atkins Center for Complementary Medicine.

“Study participants were put on a very low carbohydrate diet of 25 grams per day for six months,” said Eric Westman, M.D., associate professor of medicine at Duke and principal investigator of the study. “They could eat an unlimited amount of meat and eggs, as well as two cups of salad and one cup of low-carbohydrate vegetables such as broccoli and cauliflower a day.”
Researchers found that 80 percent of the 50 enrolled patients adhered to the diet program for the duration of the study and lost an average of 10 percent of their original body weight. The average amount of weight lost per person was approximately 20 pounds.

“While we’re impressed with the weight loss of this diet, we still are not sure about the safety of it,” Westman said. “More studies need to be done in order to be confident about the long-term safety of this type of diet.”

For example, all participants developed ketonuria, the presence of measurable ketones in urine. The level seen in this study translates to roughly that of a non-dieting person if they didn’t eat for a couple of days, said Westman. “This is a finding that we need to learn more about. The level of ketones present was not terribly high, but we don’t know if this is safe or harmful to one’s health over a long period of time.”

The study further showed that patients’ cholesterol levels improved by the end of six months -- a finding that was unexpected, according to Westman.

“We were somewhat surprised to find that patients’ blood lipid profiles improved, even though there was much more fat in the diet,” he said. “We had thought the fat in the diet would increase the cholesterol.”

Cholesterol is a fat-like substance that circulates in the blood stream and can accumulate to the point of blocking blood vessels and arteries. Having a high level of blood cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, according to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health.
Although exercise was recommended, it was not a requirement for the study. Half of the subjects didn't exercise at all and still lost weight, according to the researchers.

Because of the intensity of this type of diet program, Westman cautions that “if someone has a medical problem or is taking medications, they should only do this diet under the supervision of a health care provider."
Abstract:
Am J Med 2002 Jul;113(1):30-6 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program.

Westman EC, Yancy WS, Edman JS, Tomlin KF, Perkins CE.

Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, 2200 West Main Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA. ewestman~duke.edu

To determine the effect of a 6-month very low carbohydrate diet program on body weight and other metabolic parameters. Fifty-one overweight or obese healthy volunteers who wanted to lose weight were placed on a very low carbohydrate diet (<25 g/d), with no limit on caloric intake. They also received nutritional supplementation and recommendations about exercise, and attended group meetings at a research clinic. The outcomes were body weight, body mass index, percentage of body fat (estimated by skinfold thickness), serum chemistry and lipid values, 24-hour urine measurements, and subjective adverse effects. Forty-one (80%) of the 51 subjects attended visits through 6 months. In these subjects, the mean (+/- SD) body weight decreased 10.3% +/- 5.9% (P <0.001) from baseline to 6 months (body weight reduction of 9.0 +/- 5.3 kg and body mass index reduction of 3.2 +/- 1.9 kg/m(2)). The mean percentage of body weight that was fat decreased 2.9% +/- 3.2% from baseline to 6 months (P <0.001). The mean serum bicarbonate level decreased 2 +/- 2.4 mmol/L (P <0.001) and blood urea nitrogen level increased 2 +/- 4 mg/dL (P <0.001). Serum total cholesterol level decreased 11 +/- 26 mg/dL (P = 0.006), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level decreased 10 +/- 25 mg/dL (P = 0.01), triglyceride level decreased 56 +/- 45 mg/dL (P <0.001), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level increased 10 +/- 8 mg/dL (P <0.001), and the cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio decreased 0.9 +/- 0.6 units (P <0.001). There were no serious adverse effects , but the possibility of adverse effects in the 10 subjects who did not adhere to the program cannot be eliminated. A very low carbohydrate diet program led to sustained weight loss during a 6-month period . Further controlled research is warranted

Please post either the abstract or a link to your studies when you get a sec

RE: low carb? (twistedlink)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:54:56 GMT

cavemens diets and digestion abilities were much different back then, they got there carboydrates from vegetables and fruits in the past before making bread and pasta, but im sure it was much more than 5%

And of course, around these times the average age was around 20

Oh a bodybuilding show i know low carbs is essential, but do they go on this diet for many months? maybe even years?

And are professional bodybuilders healthy per se?

Im not saying this dieting method doesn't work, i know it does, im trying to point out the DANGERS of it, not wether it works or not.

Like i said before deadly which you now know, they have obviously read and now exxagerated or generally bent some form of science, it happens all the time in bodybuilding articles-thats why i dont read them

Leave the facts to proper studies, not some juicer who reads a wiki article and thinks hes the dogs bollox on everything.

RE: low carb? (njmuscle66)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:52:54 GMT

We will agree to disagree. It is the best program I have found for me to get into the shape I need to compete.anyone looking to fully understand the concept should look at the following books

The ANabolic Diet by Mauro Dispasquale
The ketogenic Dieting Handbook-lyle Mcdonald
The body opus -dan duchaine

also this is interesting.............

ACSM Wrap-Up, Part II
A Summary of the 2004 New England Conference
by Eric Cressey

"Very Low Carbohydrate Ketogenic Diets and Metabolic Syndrome" (VLCKD) Jeff Volek, PhD, RD
Dr. Volek is not only a great guy, accomplished powerlifter, and highly-respected authority on carbohydrate-restricted diets, but he's also got the best damn Powerpoints you'll ever see. Comparing one of his presentations to "normal" Powerpoints is like hanging a Monet up next to a preschooler's finger painting… Sorry, I totally geeked out for a second there.
Dr. Volek started off with a "what they tell you and don't tell you" section. The so-called experts claim that saturated fat (SFAs) increases LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance and inflammation. Unfortunately, what gets back-burnered is that not all SFAs have these effects. Good examples of the healthier SFAs are stearic and palmitic acid.
The determining factors are the dietary intake of linoleic acid and the positional distribution of the saturated fatty acid on glycerol. Moreover, the healthier SFAs may increase HDL, reduce triglycerides and increase LDL particle size (this is a good thing; keep reading). SFAs only lead to insulin resistance in the presence of sugar, too. When carbohydrates are kept low, SFAs are "processed" differently.
Likewise, these experts claim that ketones are dangerous and that the brain needs glucose for fuel. What they don't tell you is that the level of ketones observed with VLCKDs is far below what one would see in a diabetic. Even so, ketones are indicators of accelerated lipolysis, and all cells can adapt to utilize ketones. Cellular glucose needs can be met through gluconeogenesis, and the ketones may actually be a "super fuel." Finally, research suggests that there may actually be therapeutic potential for ketones in the treatment of insulin resistance, seizures, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.
Metabolic syndrome is at an all-time high. Currently, it affects 22%, 34% and 44% of Americans ages 40-49, 50-59 and 60-69, respectively. To "qualify," you either have to know the bouncer at the door to the Syndrome X night club, or have three or more of the following factors:

1. Waist circumference of >102 cm (men) or >88 cm (women)
2. Fasting glucose measurement of >110 mg/dl
3. HDL cholesterol of <40 mg/dl (men) or <50 mg/dl (women)
4. Fasting triglycerides of >150 mg/dl
5. Systolic blood pressure of V 130 mm Hg

While all the experts agree on how to define and diagnose metabolic syndrome, a fierce debate rages on when it comes to treating it: low-fat or low-carbs? Dr. Volek is one of those leading the charge for the low-carb side, and he presented data from six studies done right here in our lab at UCONN that look at the blood lipoprotein responses to VLCKDs.

So what did they find in these studies? Well, essentially the same thing that 19 previous studies — studies people keep wanting to ignore, for some reason — found. Mean fasting triglycerides, postprandial triglycerides and total cholesterol/HDL ratio dropped markedly, while mean HDL was increased.
Interestingly, though, Dr. Volek pointed out that there's a significant amount of variability in individual responses to the VLCKDs. The drops in triglycerides are largely explained by starting levels, but the HDL increases weren't accounted for by weight loss or starting levels. It warrants mention that LDL values increased in four of the six studies. It's important to note, however, that not all LDL is created equal. In fact, a preponderance of small LDL particles (known as Pattern B) is highly correlated with cardiovascular disease. VLCKDs actually shift particle size to the larger variety, making people more "Pattern A." This shift's magnitude is largely explained by initial LDL sizes.
With his blood chemistry rationale complete (for now), Dr. Volek next addressed the question of whether or not VLCKDs enhance weight loss and, if so, whether this weight loss is only due to water and/or lean body mass. All the research verifies that low-fat diets are VLCKDs' whipping boy when it comes to weight loss. In the five studies cited, subjects generally lost twice as much (or even more) weight on VLCKDs than on low-fat diets after three, six and twelve months. The low-fat diet subjects also demonstrated noteworthy tendencies to hug trees, wear hemp, buy Enya CDs, and vote Libertarian.

Dr. Volek went on to present the results of eleven studies demonstrating that between 67% and 150% of weight loss with VLCKD interventions was actual fat mass. And yes, two studies actually saw increases in lean body mass simultaneously. Can't say that for traditional dieting
In the first one, an eight week treatment of morbidly obese adolescents, subjects averaged gains of 1.4 pounds in lean body mass while mean fat loss was 16.8 pounds. Blood chemistries improved, and the incidence of sleep abnormalities significantly decreased. These remarkable results were achieved with a diet of 650 to 725 calories and less than 25 grams of carbohydrates. Is there any chance we can replace vending machines with omelet bars in our high schools?
Just in case you're worried that children (or anyone, for that matter) can't get all the important vitamins and minerals with a low-carb diet, I should tell you that when caloric intake is held constant, you're slightly more likely to have vitamin and mineral deficiencies on a low-fat diet than you are on a low-carb diet. This statement takes into account fat and water-soluble vitamins as well as macro and trace minerals.

As you can probably imagine, fasting insulin levels also decrease with VLCKDs, although this increase is less pronounced in women. According to one study, overweight women saw a 9% decrease whereas overweight men experienced a 40% drop. This difference is most likely due to the fact that women have less insulin kicking around in the first place (which is why they tend to be more pear-shaped than apple-shaped).
Finally, VLCKDs lower leptin far more (50% vs. 17%, in one study) than low-fat diets. This difference can be attributed to the increased loss of fat mass with VLCKDs.
So, when taken collectively, all this data adds up to tell us that VLCKDs are a damn good means of preventing and treating metabolic syndrome. These dietary interventions allow for an amazing metabolic adaptation that provides for decreased triglycerides, insulin and fat mass while increasing LDL particle size and HDL.
Future research needs to move beyond the questions of "Do VLCKDs work?" and "Are VLCKDs safe?" Instead, research needs to look to figure out who responds best to these diets (Dr. Volek called it "personalized nutrition"), establish recommendations for optimal macronutrient breakdowns, and determine how such diets can be integrated with exercise, pharmaceutical interventions and OTC supplements.

RE: low carb? (njmuscle66)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:44:01 GMT

looks very sound

also have to give kudos to dapunisher. Well informed on keto diets-Nice job man

RE: low carb? (gizmonel)

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:24:20 GMT

Question? If my protein and fat intake is roughly the same IE 45/45 and carbs 10% is this still ok?

I am averaging:

190-200g proteins
40-70g net carbs
70-90g fats

calories are between 2000 and 2300, i lost 1.8 lbs like this last week i am 155lbs and 5'4