What makes you fat, carbs or calories?

[Angry Canadian]

What about the glycemic Index and Insulin response?

If I eat 3000 calories high in fibre, like beans, whole grain bread etc, it spikes my insulin less and thus less fat is stored. This is opposed to eating 3000 calories in cake and doughnuts which would spike insulin extremely fast and store more fat. Also this is why drinking coke which isn't exactly high in calories will make you fat pretty quick with the high sugar/corn syrup.

I totally disagree that going from 3000 calories -> 2500 calories directly will make you lose weight unless it's the EXACT same food in smaller portions, also some foods are better for your ****bolic rate as mentioned earlier.

This is my understanding, Someone correct or expand on what i'm saying?

[Pinoy Badboy**]

Good point.

You WILL lose "weight" if you reduce calories, no matter which way you cut it, you will. It's an unbreakable law.

But the real question is, do you want to lose weight in MUSCLE or in FAT?

THAT my friends is where good food choices come in.

You cut calories, but choose poor foods?

You'll most likely still look the same with your shirt off, but smaller...due to a loss of muscle. Think Jared from subway.

-Your performance will worsen because of the crappy foods AND cut calories.

-You have very little food to eat

-You will have health problems

-You will feel like SH!T


You start by making good food choices, THEN cut calories gradually?

80-95% of the weight you lose is from fat cells, you spare (or even GAIN) muscle , thus looking WAY better.

-You can eat MORE food, because healthier foods are less calorie dense

-Your performance will improve

-Your health will improve

-You will feel better.

EDIT: Actually for alot of people, making good food choices alone cause big improvements.

[Monger]

Originally Posted by Angry Canadian

What about the glycemic Index and Insulin response?

We run on stored fat most of the day. We eat>fat is stored>fat is used for fuel. Rather you store more fat at a given meal means very little in the big picture if the amount your storing on average doesn't exceed the amount your spending on average. The whole insulin thing has been blown way out of proportion over the years.

I can find several studies showing that GI makes next to no difference in calorie controlled situations. Alan Aragon has a great article out there discussing that very thing as well.

If I eat 3000 calories high in fibre, like beans, whole grain bread etc, it spikes my insulin less and thus less fat is stored. This is opposed to eating 3000 calories in cake and doughnuts which would spike insulin extremely fast and store more fat.

Assuming next to identical macros and caloric content... there will be no significant difference. The biggest issue with that scenario is a lack of micronutrients which could potentially lead to other problems.

Also this is why drinking coke which isn't exactly high in calories will make you fat pretty quick with the high sugar/corn syrup.

This is because people live off of the shit. 2, 3, 5 cokes a day adds up pretty quick. Especially when most people that drink it are probably already overeating to begin with.

also some foods are better for your ****bolic rate as mentioned earlier.

While true, it's extremely overrated unless your on some kind of extreme protein diet. Otherwise, the differences in TEF don't add up to all that much within the context of a reasonable diet for the average person.



An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women.

Sichieri R, Moura AS, Genelhu V, Hu F, Willett WC. Department of Epidemiology, Institute of Social Medicine, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. sichieri@ims.uerj.br

BACKGROUND: Despite interest in the glycemic index diets as an approach to weight control, few long-term evaluations are available. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate the long-term effect of a low-glycemic-index (LGI) diet compared with that of a high-glycemic-index (HGI) diet; all other dietary components were equal. DESIGN: After a 6-wk run-in, we randomly assigned 203 healthy women [body mass index (in kg/m2): 23-30] aged 25-45 y to an LGI or an HGI diet with a small energy restriction. The primary outcome measure was weight change at 18 mo. Secondary outcomes included hunger and fasting insulin and lipids. RESULTS: Despite requiring a run-in and the use of multiple incentives, only 60% of the subjects completed the study. The difference in glycemic index between the diets was approximately 35-40 units (40 compared with 79) during all 18 mo of follow-up, and the carbohydrate intake from energy remained at approximately 60% in both groups. The LGI group had a slightly greater weight loss in the first 2 mo of follow-up (-0.72 compared with -0.31 kg), but after 12 mo of follow-up both groups began to regain weight. After 18 mo, the weight change was not significantly different (P = 0.93) between groups (LGI: -0.41 kg; HGI: -0.26 kg). A greater reduction was observed in the LGI diet group for triacylglycerol (difference = -16.4 mg/dL; P = 0.11) and VLDL cholesterol (difference = -3.7 mg/dL; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results


Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and ****bolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial.

Das SK, Gilhooly CH, Golden JK, Pittas AG, Fuss PJ, Cheatham RA, Tyler S, Tsay M, McCrory MA, Lichtenstein AH, Dallal GE, Dutta C, Bhapkar MV, Delany JP, Saltzman E, Roberts SB.
Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA.

BACKGROUND: There remains no consensus about the optimal dietary composition for sustained weight loss. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the effects of 2 dietary macronutrient patterns with different glycemic loads on adherence to a prescribed regimen of calorie restriction (CR), weight and fat loss, and related variables. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of diets with a high glycemic load (HG) or a low glycemic load (LG) at 30% CR was conducted in 34 healthy overweight adults with a mean (+/-SD) age of 35 +/- 6 y and body mass index (kg/m(2)) of 27.6 +/- 1.4. All food was provided for 6 mo in diets controlled for confounding variables, and subjects self-administered the plans for 6 additional months. Primary and secondary outcomes included energy intake measured by doubly labeled water, body weight and fatness, hunger, satiety, and resting ****bolic rate. RESULTS: All groups consumed significantly less energy during CR than at baseline (P < 0.01), but changes in energy intake, body weight, body fat, and resting ****bolic rate did not differ significantly between groups. Both groups ate more energy than provided (eg, 21% and 28% CR at 3 mo and 16% and 17% CR at 6 mo with HG and LG, respectively). Percentage weight change at 12 mo was -8.04 +/- 4.1% in the HG group and -7.81 +/- 5.0% in the LG group. There was no effect of dietary composition on changes in hunger, satiety, or satisfaction with the amount and type of provided food during CR. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.


No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

Aston LM, Stokes CS, Jebb SA. MRC Human Nutrition Research, Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, UK. Louise.Aston@mrc-hnr.cam.ac.uk

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a diet with a reduced glycaemic index (GI) has effects on appetite, energy intake, body weight and composition in overweight and obese female subjects. DESIGN: Randomized crossover intervention study including two consecutive 12-week periods. Lower or higher GI versions of key carbohydrate-rich foods (breads, breakfast cereals, rice and pasta/potatoes) were provided to subjects to be incorporated into habitual diets in ad libitum quantities. Foods intended as equivalents to each other were balanced in macronutrient composition, fibre content and energy density. SUBJECTS: Nineteen overweight and obese women, weight-stable, with moderate hyperinsulinaemia (age: 34-65 years, body mass index: 25-47 kg m(-2), fasting insulin: 49-156 pmol l(-1)). MEASUREMENTS: Dietary intake, body weight and composition after each 12-week intervention. Subjectively rated appetite and short-term ad libitum energy intake at a snack and lunch meal following fixed lower and higher GI test breakfasts (GI 52 vs 64) in a laboratory setting. RESULTS: Free-living diets differed in GI by 8.4 units (55.5 vs 63.9), with key foods providing 48% of carbohydrate intake during both periods. There were no differences in energy intake, body weight or body composition between treatments. On laboratory investigation days, there were no differences in subjective ratings of hunger or fullness, or in energy intake at the snack or lunch meal. CONCLUSION: This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.

[Monger]

Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

Raatz SK, Torkelson CJ, Redmon JB, Reck KP, Kwong CA, Swanson JE, Liu C, Thomas W, Bantle JP. General Clinical Research Center, Department of Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. raatz@med.umn.edu

Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets. Obese subjects (n = 29) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 diets providing 3138 kJ less than estimated energy needs: high glycemic index (HGI), low glycemic index (LGI), or high fat (HF). For the first 12 wk, all food was provided to subjects (feeding phase). Subjects (n = 22) were instructed to follow the assigned diet for 24 additional weeks (free-living phase). Total body weight was obtained and body composition was assessed by skinfold measurements. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the homeostasis model (HOMA). At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (-9.3 +/- 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, -9.9 +/- 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and -8.4 +/- 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity. Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition. In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.

[Pinoy Badboy**]

I agree about the TEF, the extra calories burned add up to jack shit.

I never bought into that frequent meals bullshit. If anything, i feel overloaded and crappy eating that way, like i'm not letting my body function everytime i have my mini-meal.

[Rowan11088]

Monger, I'm not sure those studies prove quite what you're claiming. Of course two isocaloric diets with no change in protein intake or meal timing will produce extremely similar numbers...though note that the low GI diets did tend to produce slightly better weight loss. But what about body composition? The point of low GI is to avoid insulin spikes, so that fat is burned rather than stored and muscle preserved.

Also, it's important to remember that the obese will respond to diet in a different manner than someone who's already at a 'healthy' weight and has much more muscle mass. We have to worry about catabolism far more.

[Monger]

Originally Posted by Rowan11088

Monger, I'm not sure those studies prove quite what you're claiming. Of course two isocaloric diets with no change in protein intake or meal timing will produce extremely similar numbers...though note that the low GI diets did tend to produce slightly better weight loss. But what about body composition? The point of low GI is to avoid insulin spikes, so that fat is burned rather than stored and muscle preserved.

Also, it's important to remember that the obese will respond to diet in a different manner than someone who's already at a 'healthy' weight and has much more muscle mass. We have to worry about catabolism far more.

What I'm claiming is that GI has little significance under calorie controlled situations for fat gain/loss. I never mentioned muscle mass. Maintaining muscle mass has nothing to do with GI. It has to do with adequate protein and preferably with resistance training.

Yes, there are situations that don't apply. The very obese and people with significant insulin resistance can fall in to this category but they are not even close to being the majority of people trying to lose weight.

EDITED due to confusion...

What does avoiding an insulin spike have to do with preserving muscle?

[Kellogg's]

I heard somewhere (that opener is usually the root of great idiocy but whatever) that fat is the last thing in your body that gets used as nourishment. Which is the point of fat: storing energy for when it is needed the most which is when there is no other energy source.

Kinda makes sense to me, but since I think I may have heard it during some morning news show "fitness corner" I may also, technically, be a moron.

Anyway, a calorie is a basic unit of energy: 1 calorie is the ammount of energy that is required to heat 1 litre of water by 1 degree celcius. Now I know that is right.

[Rowan11088]

Originally Posted by Monger

What I'm claiming is that GI has little significance under calorie controlled situations for fat gain/loss. I never mentioned muscle mass. Maintaining muscle mass has nothing to do with GI. It has to do with adequate protein and preferably with resistance training.

Yes, there are situations that don't apply. The very obese and people with significant insulin resistance can fall in to this category but they are not even close to being the majority of people trying to lose weight.

EDITED due to confusion...

What does avoiding an insulin spike have to do with preserving muscle?

Okay I feel very uncomfortable trying to argue with you, but here's what I THINK is correct anyway:

It's not so much avoiding the insulin, but slowing digestion. When you have ****bolic crashes like those caused by simple carbs, muscle begins to be digested as soon as the sugar is gone. So you store fat, then burn muscle, and repeat. The alternative with low GI is a steady burning of fat throughout, at least theoretically. It's the same as with fast vs. slow digesting proteins. Of course, if your protein intake is quite high, then this is less of a factor.

An consistent blood sugar profile seems preferable for a number of reasons beyond just "total" weight loss.

[MikeMartial]

That's some damn fine posting, Monger. I'm really surprised at the last one, though, regarding insulin sensitivity, especially due to the fact it's with obese subjects.