Training in keto, fighting on carbs?

[Seriously-Dead]

Question to Arlecchino.

Still haven't awnsered my question donutboy, how come the Natal Indian tribe suffered from obesity when they only ate 1600 cals/day?

How come I'm the one that have to "give evidence" but you didn't give any?

Oh, hi there. I'm Kitavian, and 70% of my diet comes from carbohydrates.

 

[Ironpants]

Oh, hi there. I'm Kitavian, and 70% of my diet comes from carbohydrates.

Maybe you missed this part...

Grains, refined sugar, vegetable oils and other processed foods are virtually nonexistent on Kitava

Please read the entire article.

 

[FlyingOmoplata]

Oh, hi there. I'm Kitavian, and 70% of my diet comes from carbohydrates.

If you did a little research on the foods they eat you would realize they are predominately low GI high fiber foods that are rarely processed.

Low GI in case you were curious means low glycemic index which in turn translates to reduced insulin response.

Change their diet from low GI foods to high GI foods and let me know how that all carbohydrate diet works for them.

 

[Jacob Coile]

Hey guys so can I just eat these for my meals and lose bodyfat as long as I just eat a few hundred C4l0R13s less then normal?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FZkEOQLSK...UoFQ/s1600/20080429115227_houston%2520011.jpg

Dude you almost made me kill my diet after I just saw this! Let the record show that I could easily finish that box and ask for another without even blinking...

 

[Monger]

Change their diet from low GI foods to high GI foods and let me know how that all carbohydrate diet works for them.

Considering the vast majority of low GI to high GI trials shows no difference in weight gain/loss, I'm sure it'd work just fine for them.

 

[Ironpants]

Considering the vast majority of low GI to high GI trials shows no difference in weight gain/loss, I'm sure it'd work just fine from a body comp standpoint.

I think he was trying to say that vegtables arn't the same as starchy carbs.

Your right though as far as starches go it doesn't make a real difference weather it's low or high GI.

 

[Ironpants]

Dude you almost made me kill my diet after I just saw this! Let the record show that I could easily finish that box and ask for another without even blinking...

According to the C4l0ri3 in C4l0ri3 out theory you could eat these for your meals and lose weight as long as you eat a little bit less calories then normal.

 

[Sinister]

Oh, hi there. I'm Kitavian, and 70% of my diet comes from carbohydrates.

Yeah, that's really an awful link. For one, it's an observational study. Second, there was never a food list provided in-terms of daily or seasonal consumption. We're just told they consume x,y,z. There are also confounding variables of Island life, such as better adherence to circadian rhythmicity, which will effect metabolic rates. Then there's the suggestion that they're "not particularly active," which sounds suspect considering neither the lives of farmers, nor the lives of hunter/gatherers are sedentary. It begs the question if the observers merely consider napping, and sleeping more hours as being "less active." Technically it's true, but it's misleading in suggesting daily life of having to grow, process, or catch and process all of your own food is "inactive." While there is some agriculture in the Solomon Islands due to colonization, typically meat is still what is sought after. One of the articles referring to this Kativan study ironically used this photo:

 

[Ironpants]

^ Also they arn't getting their carbs from the boxed cereal isle at the local supermarket and chowing down at Crispy Creme

 

[mtruitt76]

No they lost and were beaten so they gave up.

It got down to a point where someone said this...



When you start seeing staments like that you know then you are dealing with people who no longer have functioning brains.

I am not sure how you "win" a discussion about nutrition. People trying to "win" in these discussions is how threads get de-railed and people start taking disagreements personally.

None of the topics dicussed in this thread are settled matters. If we can stay away from personal attacks we stand a better chance of learning something new from these exchanges.

 

[Monger]

For one, it's an observational study.

While 'sort of' true, and I'm not usually a fan of oberservational studies, when it comes to a situation like this, what other method would be more accurate? The conclusion on a typical diet in Kitava was based on surveys, fairly long-term observations, and an examination of available foods. So, although it may not be completely accurate, I see no reason why it would be overly inaccurate either. It's certainly more credible than educated speculation.

Second, there was never a food list provided in-terms of daily or seasonal consumption. We're just told they consume x,y,z.

From the study...

In brief, tubers (mainly yam, sweet potato, and taro), fruit, fish, and coconut are dietary staples in Kitava. The average amount of money spent on purchased Western food in 1 y is $3 (US) (median: $0.50, 90th percentile: $13, range: $0-300). The main items purchased are rice, sugar, canned fish, drippings (fat from cooked meat), oil, and biscuits. Three dollars is enough for 2 kg rice or sugar. The intake of dairy products, alcohol, coffee, and tea is close to nil and that of oils, margarine, cereals, and sugar is negligible. Total fat intake is low but most of the fat is saturated. The intake of n - 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, soluble fiber, minerals, and vitamins is high, whereas salt intake is “ı‘40-50 mmol/24 h, compared with 100-250 mmol/24 h in the West. However, 80% of the subjects are daily smokers.

This is their estimated macro break down as % of calories...

21% fat
17% sat fat
2% mono fat
2% omega 3 fat
1% omega 6 fat
10% protein
69% carbs

This is their estimated daily food intake in grams...

tubers 1,200g
fruit 400g
coconut 110g
fish 85g
other vegies 200g

There are also confounding variables of Island life, such as better adherence to circadian rhythmicity, which will effect metabolic rates.

I don't question that this is true. I do, however, question its significance in this context.

Then there's the suggestion that they're "not particularly active," which sounds suspect considering neither the lives of farmers, nor the lives of hunter/gatherers are sedentary.

From the study...

The amount of physical activity is estimated at 1.7 multiples of the basal metabolic rate, which is slightly higher than in sedentary Western populations. Median predicted basal metabolic rate (from weight) at age I 8-30 y is 5.5
MJ/d in males and 4.9 MJ/d in females.

That would be ~2,500 calories a day for a 150lb guy. That's over 16cals a pound and would be considered fairly active.

EDITED for shit grammar

 

[Ironpants]

I am not sure how you "win" a discussion about nutrition. People trying to "win" in these discussions is how threads get de-railed and people start taking disagreements personally.

None of the topics dicussed in this thread are settled matters. If we can stay away from personal attacks we stand a better chance of learning something new from these exchanges.

They made it into some personal diatribe to prove me wrong. I don't care about "winning" but they made it into some game to P.O. me.

I showed them the evidence to support my claim with a plethora of factual data, graphs, statistics, studies ect and they kept telling me "I'm wrong " "not real evidence" ect then provide nothing of their own other then insults it got real annoying.

I don't see how they think their is no link or substantial evidence between insulin and weight gain when you have things like type 1 and 2 diabetes and obesity medically linked to blood sugar and excessive carbohyrate intake.

 

[Sinister]

While 'sort of' true, and I'm not usually a fan of oberservational studies, when it comes to a situation like this, what other method would be more accurate? The conclusion on a typical diet in Kitava was based on surveys, fairly long-term observations, and an examination of available foods. So, although it may not be completely accurate, I see no reason why it would be overly inaccurate either. It's certainly more credible than educated speculation.

I seem to recall a general distaste of yours about food surveys and estimates. I wouldn't dismiss that here. What method? Put some Kativans in a metabolic ward and see if the results can be replicated. This study is not an experiment, it relies purely on formation of hypothesis and observation of data. It's accuracy can be influenced by subjectivity, or interpretation of information based on subjectivity.

This is there estimated macro break down as % of calories...

21% fat
17% sat fat
2% mono fat
2% omega 3 fat
1% omega 6 fat
10% protein
69% carbs

This is there estimated daily food intake in grams...

tubers 1,200g
fruit 400g
coconut 110g
fish 85g
other vegies 200g

This would be educated speculation, estimates. While possibly not inaccurate, not confirmed to be accurate either.

I don't question that this is true. I do, however, question its significance in this context.

The existence of possible confounding variables are never insignificant. Questioned justly though they may be.

The amount of physical activity is estimated at I .7 multiples of the basal metabolic rate, which is slightly higher than in sedentary Western populations. Median predicted basal metabolic rate (from weight) at age I 8-30 y is 5.5
MJ/d in males and 4.9 MJ/d in females.

That does absolutely nothing to dispel the point that the "activity level" could possibly be subject merely to more napping and hours of sleep. Which would be far more beneficial to health and metabolic function than sitting at a desk for 12 hours a day and only sleeping 4-5 hours a night. The difference being noted is lifestyle. I see no reason for this observational study to be considered relevant to an active Western person, suggesting that a diet of a broad statement such as "70% of calories from carbohydrates" being a generally good idea.

Even if, going by every point considered, this might be good for this particular tribe. I question the significance of that when matched with a modern lifestyle.

 

[Eric Brown]

I am definitely not a fan of observational studies. Probably have some sort of bias, though, with all the time I have spent in the lab or researching.

That being said, it is difficult (almost said 'one cannot') draw conclusions about what hormone is responsible for anything in a culture or specific population without measuring it. I truly dislike observational studies for the simple fact that so many variables are completely uncontrolled.

 

[Ironpants]

What about this tribe? No ones awnsered it yet...

Here is another study.

A medical docotor studied a group of indian immigrants in South Africa. The population lived on very few calories by western standards but had obesity issues.


Quote:
Back in the early 1960s, Dr. George Campbell was working at a hospital in Natal, South Africa, where he was studying a local population of Indian immigrants. Although the Natal Indians were utterly impoverished, living on as little as 1600 calories a day and toiling for hours on end in the local sugar plantations, many of them were “enormously fat,” as Campbell put it. How could this be, when the calories-in calories-out theory says the Natal Indians should have been deathly thin?

He looked closer into their diets and eating habits and found this..


Quote:
Their diet was very low in fat, so that didn’t appear to be the issue. They did, on the other hand, eat about 80 pounds of sugar each year-or about 25% of a 1600-calorie diet-as well as lots of refined complex carbohydrates such as white flour. One can imagine Campbell wondering whether there was something about sugar and other refined carbohydrates that was messing up the metabolism of his patients and making them store fat they couldn’t burn off.

They were living off 1600 cal/day average of a basically all sugar diet (white corn), but by the calorie in calorie out lie, these people should have been emanicaited, yet they were on average very fat.


Quote:
This carbohydrate-driven dysfunction of insulin behavior explains why the Natal Indians were overweight in spite of eating so few calories, and why the calories-in calories-out theory doesn’t hold for the human body: in eating sugar and other refined carbohydrates as our main fuel source, we shut off access to our fat stores. Calories go in, but they don’t come out. This also explains why a person on a low-calorie, high-carbohydrate diet is often fatigued. The person takes in less fuel than normal yet is unable to access energy from the fat cells to maintain the normal operations of the body’s cells. So the cells respond by slowing down their metabolism, and instead of burning fat, the dieter just gets tired.

Turns out that because the Natal indian population had such a high carb/sugar diet their bodies ability to burn fat was shut off. They simply could not lose body fat despite only eating 1600 cal a day.


Quote:
Most of all, hyperinsulinemic weight gain forces us to reconsider the nature of obesity. In most cases it isn’t a matter of gluttony-the inability to keep from the dinner table-but rather a glitch in a basic hormonal system of the human body by which calories are shoved into fat cells and made unavailable.


Volume 1, Number 1 - Selene River Press - Publisher and Distributor of Health Books - Dr. Royal Lee and the Lee Foundation of Nutritional Research

And lol to donutboy abouve me isn't sceince based on observation?

 

[Monger]

Sinister,

I think you took my post more confrontational than it was meant to be. I wasn't supplying info to contradict you. I was supplying info that seemed to be in question and wasn't known.

I seem to recall a general distaste of yours about food surveys and estimates. I wouldn't dismiss that here.

LoL, I do and I even made reference to that in the first line of my response to you.

Everything depends on context. In a situation like this, the Kitava study is ALL you have. There is no other evidence available. Observational study > nothing.

What method? Put some Kativans in a metabolic ward and see if the results can be replicated.

How would that yield better results with in the same context as the study? You can't measure daily energy expenditure in a metabolic ward and transfer that to normal daily activity. Being in a metabolic ward and feeding them doesn't tell you what they normally eat. I don't know where you're going with that.

This study is not an experiment, it relies purely on formation of hypothesis and observation of data. It's accuracy can be influenced by subjectivity, or interpretation of information based on subjectivity.

Dude, I am not using the findings of this series of studies to form opinions on cholesterol, insulin sensitivity, cardiac health, or any one of the other several health markers they tested. No one has used this in defense of any of that that I know of. What has been questioned are simply what they ate and their normal activity level. You won't get that information any other way than what the researchers did. Things like that will always come with a degree of estimation and assumption.

This would be educated speculation, estimates. While possibly not inaccurate, not confirmed to be accurate either.

This could be an argument of semantics so I'll define what I mean by speculation...

Reading about the country, culture, food availability = educated speculation.

Going to the region. Spending months there documenting the food and quantities that you actually witness people consuming, documenting surveys given to over 2,000 people, examining the food availability to the region via hunting, agriculture, and imports, tying it all together to form a conclusion = more credible than the above defined "educated speculation".

That does absolutely nothing to dispel the point that the "activity level" could possibly be subject merely to more napping and hours of sleep.

I wasn't trying to dispel anything. As stated in my first sentence of this post, I was supplying information that you didn't seem to have.

I see no reason for this observational study to be considered relevant to an active Western person, suggesting that a diet of a broad statement such as "70% of calories from carbohydrates" being a generally good idea.

Even if, going by every point considered, this might be good for this particular tribe. I question the significance of that when matched with a modern lifestyle.

Even if it wasn't an observational study, I wouldn't apply it to the typical westerner. Different context and far too many variables to be directly applicable.

 

[Eric Brown]

Dude, I am not using the findings of this series of studies to form opinions on cholesterol, insulin sensitivity, cardiac health, or any one of the other several health markers they tested.

Wish more people would follow this example. Just too many damn variables to draw a conclusion as to cause. To do so is junk science.

We have cultures eating diets that span the spectrum, for lack of a better way to put it. IMO, it is largely because we are amazingly adaptable. Sure, I share that opinion with a lot of people, but it is still an just an opinion.

Large-scale, long-term hormonal response testing gets expensive, and gets harder and harder to get approved. Unless, of course, someone is backing the study, which raises its own problems.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

If you did a little research on the foods they eat you would realize they are predominately low GI high fiber foods that are rarely processed.

Low GI in case you were curious means low glycemic index which in turn translates to reduced insulin response.

Change their diet from low GI foods to high GI foods and let me know how that all carbohydrate diet works for them.

My reason for posting the article was to show that not all carbs are created equal. That you can live a healthy and long life (all while smoking cigarettes!) on a healthy diet, even one based around carbohydrate intake.

I was never a proponent of the calorie in vs. calorie out line of thinking. I just think it's retarded to demonize a single macronutrient and espouse that this macronutrient is responsible for a whole wack of health problems, when the issue is obviously more complicated than that. Going low carb is not necessary. Eating healthy, natural, whole foods is!

 

[Monger]

Wish more people would follow this example. Just too many damn variables to draw a conclusion as to cause. To do so is junk science.

We have cultures eating diets that span the spectrum, for lack of a better way to put it. IMO, it is largely because we are amazingly adaptable. Sure, I share that opinion with a lot of people, but it is still an just an opinion.

Large-scale, long-term hormonal response testing gets expensive, and gets harder and harder to get approved. Unless, of course, someone is backing the study, which raises its own problems.

I agree. One study will generally not tell the whole story either. Context and application must always be considered. Even well controlled studies that seem applicable to this or that can sometimes not be duplicated. In other words, we have to look at the entire body of literature to make conclusions. Looking at isolated studies will sometimes get you into trouble.

 

[Monger]

Probably have some sort of bias, though, with all the time I have spent in the lab or researching.

What do you research, if you don't mind me asking?