Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon
There was a program on in the UK a few months back where two doctors who are both twins ate entirely different diets for a single month; one ate a no carb/sugar diet and the other went on a minimal fat diet. It was a very interesting program but the basic summary from the experiment was:
- Both diets lost the doctors weight.
- A high (natural) fats diet with no carbs/sugars diet will lose you 4 times the body mass than a high glucose low fat diet.
- The ratio of muscle and fat lost is more or less 50:50 during weight loss on both diets.
- Glucose is basically essential in any type of exhausting activity whether it's cycling up a very steep hill or concentrating on trading stocks and shares; the body needs sugars to operate at peak efficiency and fats don't provide that immediately unlike glucose.
- The hypothesis that the high sugar diet would lead someone toward diabetes was incorrect and in fact the high fat diet was much (much!) worse meaning the doctor who was on that diet was 2 points away from being pre-diabetic at the end of the study.
- By FAR and away the worst possible way of eating was a 50/50 split of sugar and fat which is why most creatures find that combination uncontrollable. Doughnuts, cheesecake, ice cream etc.
- In a study on rats the group fed high sugar foods did not gain weight. The rats on high fat but no sugar also did not gain weight. The rats fed a 50/50 mix of sugar and fat gained insidious amounts of weight.
- By far and away the best way to lose weight is to avoid all processed food (which often has the noxious 50/50 sugar and fat combination) and to eat a healthy mix of healthy fats, natural sugars and some carbs and to exercise regularly so that any weight lost is primarily from fat stores and not muscle.
There's no magic pill; it's just a case of finding the correct ratio for your own body type, metabolism and exercise regime.
Note, that those studies done with Rats, they were given EXTREMELY HIGH rations of food with EXTREMELY HIGH disproportion of macro nutrients. Basically the doctors fed rats the extreme case and said, "Oh fat hurts rats". Bravo doctors, you just recreated an outlier.
Again those doctors could work better with carbs versus fats. If one did, than both probably did because they are twins. All that twins does is say, "Ok they are identical". If they both are predisposed towards one thing or another, than it can still skew the results. Also what were the lifestyles of the doctors before the tests? Did they adhere to the tests 100% of the time? Did they have any pre-existing medical conditions? Are you just spouting off bullet point summary of what was published with out reading the study word for word? Just saying, you can post a news article summary, and it could be completely different interpretation of what actually happened.
Yes glucose is essential and yet the human body can create its own glucose through the liver. The amount of glucose the bodies needs is actually very small. The liver produces enough for daily resting functions alone. Also low intensity burns less glucose than high intensity. As soon as you go to the point of Anaerobic exercise, you are burning nearly 100% glucose because glucose doesn't need oxygen to burn. Fats need to be oxidized. So, lets say you don't do high intensity long duration workouts. You don't need that many carbs at all because your body doesn't required any for that sort of work out.
Check this website out, great information. Basically the daily requirement for glucose is ZERO because the body can make its own and live off of ketosis.
At least 50 grams per day of carbs to ward off muscle loss, only if the amount of protein is not met to do the same. So with enough protein, carb intake can still be zero with out muscle loss
After that it is all based on how the person reacts. If a person can't work in Ketosis, then yes upping carbs can increase energy, and make the person more pleasant to deal with.
This is why a lot of primal diets recommend sprinting over endurance running, and only a few times a week. The rest of the time they recommend lifting heavy weights. This is because the exercise regimen doesn't need that many glucose molecules, it's low intensity.
Actually 50/50 is pretty tasty. There is a reason why processed foods are addictive. Yes they are very over powerful at first. If you get off sugar for an extended period and then go drink a soda. Its really not that appealing. Then you start drinking more and more, and it becomes addictive. Its really scary how these companies use our brains pleasure centers against us.
On a note on metabolism. Since it seems to be the biggest excuse lately. Majority of people don't have a messed up metabolism. Most of the time people can't gauge how much they eat during the day. They think they are eating way less than they are. Given metabolism fluctuates, but its still goes back to a normal area for majority of people. Like most things found naturally, it sits on a bell curve. So to be an outlier on this, you got to be a very large standard deviation away from the norm. You might be talking 5% or less of the population. Not high odds. If people want to find out. Get them on a moderate work out regime and a very strict calorie program to isolate if their metabolism is bad. Odds are it isn't. Its kinda the reason most diets work for a while. It gives a person structure, until they fall off the bandwagon.