Mikkel Ravn Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2546975/One-twin-gave-sugar-gave-fat-Their-experiment-change-YOUR-life.html Interesting article that basically underlines what Mr. Naterman has been saying all along: Don't cut out all your carbs (well, that's my interpretation anyway). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marios Roussos Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Yeah, tough to tell from the info in the link alone. They don't tell us how long the twins were on the diet prior to testing and therefore whether the one on the ketogenic diet had time to adapt. Regardless, I agree with your conclusion as even one of the biggest proponents of the ketogenic diet reports that although aerobic activity need not suffer if the diet is implemented appropriately, anaerobic activity such as weight-lifting and sprinting does deteriorate. Here's a link to his review article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524027/ I'm also not sure that many people are following these strict ketogenic diets anymore. My impression is that when people talk about low carb diets nowadays, they are mostly referring to the paleo diet, which typically allows for veggies (including root vegetables and squash), and fruit. This may just be a reflection of my own bias regarding the importance of eating fruits and veggies. Edit: I just tried a search on google trends and Atkins still seems more popular than Paleo, though the trend is such that Atkins has lost a lot of popularity while Paleo has been steadily climbing: http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=paleo%20diet%2C%20low%20carb%2C%20ketogenic%20diet%2C%20atkins&cmpt=q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briac Roquet Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I feel their experiment was a bit stupid coming from doctors. They do say they're not nutritionists, but still. I get that they wanted to try a no carb approach for one of them, but no fruits or veggies? Come on.So, he felt like crap. Because he had some severe deficiencies? Because he didn't have time to adapt to the ketogenic diet (it's not good on the long-term but most people do report better ability to stay focused and other benefits)? Even the Atkins diet doesn't require you to cut all carbs. While I agree that we shouldn't cut carbs out (or even go low-carb) in an optimal diet, I think this experiment doesn't really show it well. As for the no fat part, we don't really know what he ate, so it's bogus too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikkel Ravn Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 Yeah, it's popular science at best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaro Helander Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I always wondered why research cannot be done using proper real-life scenarios. Like half of protein synthesis research with EAA:s seem to be performed with the scenario that the test subjects have just been released from a concentration camp with no food for six months, then they come and train their left hamstring for three sets, and they're administrated 3 grams of EAA:s, and an amazing increase in protein syntehsis is proven! BUY Anabolic S***storm V8! Well, just kidding, but still. Venting my frustration here 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikkel Ravn Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 I always wondered why research cannot be done using proper real-life scenarios. Like half of protein synthesis research with EAA:s seem to be performed with the scenario that the test subjects have just been released from a concentration camp with no food for six months, then they come and train their left hamstring for three sets, and they're administrated 3 grams of EAA:s, and an amazing increase in protein syntehsis is proven! BUY Anabolic S***storm V8! Well, just kidding, but still. Venting my frustration here I can relate. Confounding factors are a pain in the a$$, so let's just pretend they do not exist. The phrase "...research in untrained males show..." irks me in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Macdonald Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Did anyone see the Horizon show this article was promoting? The whole episode is on youtube (for now) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D-XL-zkNIY I found some problems there as well. Their evaluation of the low-carb twin's insulin resistance after a month is deeply flawed from my understanding. The conclusions towards the end about certain combinations of food and their effects on the brain is an intriguing area of study. But I think they presented it far too simplistically. I agree with the overall message though, avoid extreme diets and processed foods. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Video is gone... In the end, it really is about thecolin's last line: Avoid extreme diets and processed foods. Unless, for some reason, you are one of the very few people with a disease that actually does require an extreme diet to manage, which of course should go without saying (but I'm saying it anyways for completeness). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Macdonald Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Video is gone... You can't stop the internet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTSTZImInrw 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 42:15 to 42:28 for the win. "It's like a really basic rule in life, isn't it? If someone is selling you one simple solution to a problem that everyone has, it probably isn't going to work." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Macdonald Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 42:15 to 42:28 for the win. Yes, the basic message there is excellent. Regarding the insulin resistance on the low carb diet. My understanding though is that the insulin response when somebody is starved of carbohydrates is more of a glucose sparing response from the body when levels get low. Glucose is prioritized to the brain when carbs are cut out, and the body lowers insulin production to keep whatever little glucose there is in circulation, in circulation. But if you throw in a super high-carb hit into the mix when you're body thinks carbs are scarce, the insulin reaction is going to be quite poor. I'm not a supporter of low carb eating, but I'm not sure they fairly represented that aspect of the diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaro Helander Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Yes, the basic message there is excellent. Regarding the insulin resistance on the low carb diet. My understanding though is that the insulin response when somebody is starved of carbohydrates is more of a glucose sparing response from the body when levels get low. Glucose is prioritized to the brain when carbs are cut out, and the body lowers insulin production to keep whatever little glucose there is in circulation, in circulation. But if you throw in a super high-carb hit into the mix when you're body thinks carbs are scarce, the insulin reaction is going to be quite poor. I'm not a supporter of low carb eating, but I'm not sure they fairly represented that aspect of the diet.Don't know how much time it would take to adapt from long periods of no carbs back, but atleast what we know from small-scale fasting is that during the fast your insulin resistance goes way up, but when as soon as you start feeding, you'll be instantly super sensitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Yes, the basic message there is excellent. Regarding the insulin resistance on the low carb diet. My understanding though is that the insulin response when somebody is starved of carbohydrates is more of a glucose sparing response from the body when levels get low. Glucose is prioritized to the brain when carbs are cut out, and the body lowers insulin production to keep whatever little glucose there is in circulation, in circulation. But if you throw in a super high-carb hit into the mix when you're body thinks carbs are scarce, the insulin reaction is going to be quite poor. I'm not a supporter of low carb eating, but I'm not sure they fairly represented that aspect of the diet.I don't think that makes sense. In a glucose-starved environment, it makes sense to me that you want to make your muscle and fat cells resistant to insulin (which happens). This spares glucose for your brain (and all neurons), which needs it the most, but sets up a state where it spares the fat stored in body fat as well. Fat makes resistin, further supporting insulin resistance, leading to a slow decrease in lean mass and an increase in body fat percentage. This is what happened to the doctor who ate zero carbs and tons of fat. 41:10 is the time to hear this summary. The point of the test is to illustrate whether your body is capable of properly producing and utilizing insulin right now. This is, in fact, a good indication of where your health is going. Especially when A1C is rising at the same time. If A1C was 4.7 or something, or had dropped from initial measures, I would probably agree that there is a possible misinterpretation going on. Many of us now know that with dietary changes you can re-establish proper functionality, so I am not sure that your argument is really valid in the context given. The battery of tests, as a whole, does support the stated conclusion that this twin has had a negative health impact from his 1 month super-high fat, zero carb diet. What's important to understand is that circulating fasting blood glucose often doesn't actually change much... that's the problem. You've got the same amount of glucose, but your body doesn't really know what to do with it anymore. That's more or less the definition of type II diabetes. Helander: It is usually a mistake to interpret short timeframe results into explanations of long-term effects when you don't actually know what the long term effects are. Those arguments are why we couldn't establish a link between cigarette smoke and cancer rates for over 10 years. The same thing is happening with cell phone antennas and cancer risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts