Low Carb É Realmente Melhor Para Composição Corporal?

[Born4Run]

Low carbohydrate diets may increase risk of neural tube defects

Bad Science

[Dartagnan.]

Eu acho que cheguei a falar lá pra trás do tópico, mas tem muito mais divergências de forma do que de conteúdo exatamente nessa questão das calorias. Acho que o pessoal do 'Emagrecer de vez' (dr. Souto e o outro magrinho lá) não tá se expressando muito bem nessa questão. Que o balanço calórico é importante, sempre pensei que fosse quase um ponto pacífico, nem é coisa pra se discutir (carboidratos à parte).

 

E boa resposta do Aragon no tweet aí.

 

[Born4Run]

UNTIMELY IMMUNE CELL CLOCKS MAY CONTRIBUTE TO OBESITY AND DIABETES IN SHIFT WORKERS

"About 15 million Americans don’t have a typical nine-to-five workday, and many of these—nurses, firefighters and flight attendants, among many other professions—may see their schedule change drastically one week to the next. As a result, these shift workers’ biological clocks, which keep track of the time of day, cannot keep accurate time, potentially making the negative effects of a high fat diet on metabolic disorders even more pronounced, according to new research published in The FASEB Journal."

[Gabriel de Abreu]

Associação de Low Carb com dislipidemia para falar um pouco sobre a estratégia: - Low carb não é mais eficiente para emagrecimento do que Low fat a longo prazo
- Perde-se mais peso incialmente na Low Carb por causa da água que é armazenada junto ao glicogênio
- Se seguida por um longo período, dependendo da restrição do carboidrato, pode ocorrer diminuição dos hormônios: testosterona, T3 e aumento do cortisol, T3 reverso e prolactina, o que estaria associada ao catabolismo muscular e estagnação da perda da gordura corporal, através da redução da taxa metabólica basal
- A longo prazo, é uma estratégia de baixa adesão e que pode causar compulsão alimentar e perda do resultado conquistado
- Sobre a sua aplicabilidade, Low Carb pode ser eficiente para: redução da gordura corporal, melhor controle ou prevenção do diabetes, síndrome do ovário policístico e hipertrigliceridemia
- Low Carb não uma estratégia eficiente para hipertrofia muscular, o que não quer dizer, que seja impossível que aconteça
- Low carb é contra indicado, na maioria das vezes, para indivíduos ectomorfos, visto que, os mesmos, pelo gasto energético elevado, é mais difícil se manterem em balanço energético positivo, principalmente, pela saciedade promovida pelas gorduras e proteínas
- Em se tratando da performance esportiva, é consenso que, a sua melhora, está relacionada com uma maior ingestão de carboidrato, o que não significa, que não seja possível se adaptar a low carb e ter um bom desempenho
- Low Carb não é a melhor estratégia, e nem a pior, pois da mesma maneira que o resultado pode ser excelente, existem polimorfismos que podem ser identificados por testes genéticos, que impedem que determinados indivíduos, não respondam muito bem a estratégia.

Antes que me questionem, eu não sou contra Low Carb, apenas não a encaro como estilo de vida, e sim, como uma estratégia.

Ocorreu um erro, e acabou saindo 2 Tópicos 

 

[krebz]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2673150?redirect=true

 

Citar

February 20, 2018

Effect of Low-Fat vs Low-Carbohydrate Diet on 12-Month Weight Loss in Overweight Adults and the Association With Genotype Pattern or Insulin SecretionThe DIETFITS Randomized Clinical Trial

Christopher D. Gardner, PhD¹; John F. Trepanowski, PhD¹; Liana C. Del Gobbo, PhD¹; et alMichelle E. Hauser, MD¹; Joseph Rigdon, PhD²; John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc^1,3,4,5; Manisha Desai, PhD^2,3,4,5; Abby C. King, PhD^1,3

Author Affiliations

JAMA. 2018;319(7):667-679. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.0245

 

 

 

FullText

Key Points

Question  What is the effect of a healthy low-fat (HLF) diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate (HLC) diet on weight change at 12 months and are these effects related to genotype pattern or insulin secretion?

Findings  In this randomized clinical trial among 609 overweight adults, weight change over 12 months was not significantly different for participants in the HLF diet group (−5.3 kg) vs the HLC diet group (−6.0 kg), and there was no significant diet-genotype interaction or diet-insulin interaction with 12-month weight loss.

Meaning  There was no significant difference in 12-month weight loss between the HLF and HLC diets, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss.

Abstract

Importance  Dietary modification remains key to successful weight loss. Yet, no one dietary strategy is consistently superior to others for the general population. Previous research suggests genotype or insulin-glucose dynamics may modify the effects of diets.

Objective  To determine the effect of a healthy low-fat (HLF) diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate (HLC) diet on weight change and if genotype pattern or insulin secretion are related to the dietary effects on weight loss.

Design, Setting, and Participants  The Diet Intervention Examining The Factors Interacting with Treatment Success (DIETFITS) randomized clinical trial included 609 adults aged 18 to 50 years without diabetes with a body mass index between 28 and 40. The trial enrollment was from January 29, 2013, through April 14, 2015; the date of final follow-up was May 16, 2016. Participants were randomized to the 12-month HLF or HLC diet. The study also tested whether 3 single-nucleotide polymorphism multilocus genotype responsiveness patterns or insulin secretion (INS-30; blood concentration of insulin 30 minutes after a glucose challenge) were associated with weight loss.

Interventions  Health educators delivered the behavior modification intervention to HLF (n = 305) and HLC (n = 304) participants via 22 diet-specific small group sessions administered over 12 months. The sessions focused on ways to achieve the lowest fat or carbohydrate intake that could be maintained long-term and emphasized diet quality.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Primary outcome was 12-month weight change and determination of whether there were significant interactions among diet type and genotype pattern, diet and insulin secretion, and diet and weight loss.

Results  Among 609 participants randomized (mean age, 40 [SD, 7] years; 57% women; mean body mass index, 33 [SD, 3]; 244 [40%] had a low-fat genotype; 180 [30%] had a low-carbohydrate genotype; mean baseline INS-30, 93 μIU/mL), 481 (79%) completed the trial. In the HLF vs HLC diets, respectively, the mean 12-month macronutrient distributions were 48% vs 30% for carbohydrates, 29% vs 45% for fat, and 21% vs 23% for protein. Weight change at 12 months was −5.3 kg for the HLF diet vs −6.0 kg for the HLC diet (mean between-group difference, 0.7 kg [95% CI, −0.2 to 1.6 kg]). There was no significant diet-genotype pattern interaction (P = .20) or diet-insulin secretion (INS-30) interaction (P = .47) with 12-month weight loss. There were 18 adverse events or serious adverse events that were evenly distributed across the 2 diet groups.

Conclusions and Relevance  In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss. In the context of these 2 common weight loss diet approaches, neither of the 2 hypothesized predisposing factors was helpful in identifying which diet was better for whom.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01826591

 

[mootley]

2 horas atrás, krebz disse:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2673150?redirect=true

 

 

Essa pesquisa está bombando nas redes. O Dr Souto fez um post gigantesco comentando, e confirmando o resultado da pesquisa. Afinal, ele é um dos grandes fãs do pesquisador principal,  Dr. Gardner, reconhecidíssimo pesquisador de Harvard. E foi financiada pelo NuSI, do Gary Taubes. E o resultado é o que todos sabemos: para perda de peso, tanto faz low carb ou low fat. E a insulina nada tem a ver com isso... Taubes deve estar chorando até agora.

Mas ela inovou em 2 aspectos: (i) o grande achado foi a qualidade da comida, nada de pós ou industrializados. Só comida de verdade, preparada em casa. (ii) Como comida de verdade sacia, não houve contagem de calorias. Ambos os grupos  comeram nas quantidades que quiseram. Resultado? teve gente que perdeu ~30kg em ambos os grupos. E gente que engordou... então, se você não sofre de nenhuma compulsão específica (vá se tratar), também não precisa contar calorias. Coma de acordo com a fome. Mas se sofre, vai precisar de um acompanhamento.

E uma notícia bombástica: a nutrigenômica pode ser o grande mico do momento. Fizeram vários testes genéticos, e nenhum foi conclusivo quanto a termos uma determinação genética para sermos melhores queimadores de gordura ou carboidrato. Não se encontrou nenhuma pista de que é possível prescrever dietas a partir de testes genéticos. Mas neste campo ainda haverá mais estudos, porque o resultado desapontou bastante os pesquisadores.

Em tempo: a amostra contou com ~600 pessoas, e a experiência durou 1 ano!

[krebz]

1 hora atrás, mootley disse:

Essa pesquisa está bombando nas redes. O Dr Souto fez um post gigantesco comentando, e confirmando o resultado da pesquisa. Afinal, ele é um dos grandes fãs do pesquisador principal,  Dr. Gardner, reconhecidíssimo pesquisador de Harvard. E foi financiada pelo NuSI, do Gary Taubes. E o resultado é o que todos sabemos: para perda de peso, tanto faz low carb ou low fat. E a insulina nada tem a ver com isso... Taubes deve estar chorando até agora.

Mas ela inovou em 2 aspectos: (i) o grande achado foi a qualidade da comida, nada de pós ou industrializados. Só comida de verdade, preparada em casa. (ii) Como comida de verdade sacia, não houve contagem de calorias. Ambos os grupos  comeram nas quantidades que quiseram. Resultado? teve gente que perdeu ~30kg em ambos os grupos. E gente que engordou... então, se você não sofre de nenhuma compulsão específica (vá se tratar), também não precisa contar calorias. Coma de acordo com a fome. Mas se sofre, vai precisar de um acompanhamento.

E uma notícia bombástica: a nutrigenômica pode ser o grande mico do momento. Fizeram vários testes genéticos, e nenhum foi conclusivo quanto a termos uma determinação genética para sermos melhores queimadores de gordura ou carboidrato. Não se encontrou nenhuma pista de que é possível prescrever dietas a partir de testes genéticos. Mas neste campo ainda haverá mais estudos, porque o resultado desapontou bastante os pesquisadores.

Em tempo: a amostra contou com ~600 pessoas, e a experiência durou 1 ano!

 

Não vi a choadeira postagem do Souto ainda pra poder opinar ou rir.

Estou tentando achar a pesquisa por completo, mas parece que (ainda) não tem de graça pra achar, queria ter visto essa parte de calorias mesmo.

 

Mas concordo, realmente low carb(proteina+gordura) geralmente sacia mais a maioria das pessoas, masss dependendo "da fome do corpinho" da pessoa, essa saciedade vai ter calorias pra cacete e engordou igual, vai ter que fazer contagem de qualquer forma.

 

O bom de que com essa quantidade de amostra, essas discrepancias (engordar ou perder peso para kct) acabam sendo "atenuadas" na hora de levantar os dados e calculos estatistico.

[Ricardo Queiroz]

Desse estudo aí, tem a review da examine. pela forma como foi escrita parece que alguns pontos do post do Souto foi baseado nela

https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/

 

E tem um resumo do Brad Dieter também

https://sciencedrivennutrition.com/nail-low-carb-coffin/

 

Ambos bacanas, também ainda ão achei o full (requisitei no researchgate, vejamos se serão caridosos rsrsrs), o mais próximo que achei foi a lista de apêndices

https://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/JAMA/936761/JOI180008supp2_prod.pdf

 

 

[krebz]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29439068

 

Citar

BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 8;8(2):e018449. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018449.

Does high-carbohydrate intake lead to increased risk of obesity? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sartorius K^1,2,3, Sartorius B^1,2, Madiba TE^2,4, Stefan C⁵.

Author information

 

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The present study aimed to test the association between high and low carbohydrate diets and obesity, and second, to test the link between total carbohydrate intake (as a percentage of total energy intake) and obesity.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND OUTCOME MEASURES:

We sought MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar for observation studies published between January 1990 and December 2016 assessing an association between obesity and high-carbohydrate intake. Two independent reviewers selected candidate studies, extracted data and assessed study quality.

RESULTS:

The study identified 22 articles that fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and quantified an association between carbohydrate intake and obesity. The first pooled strata (high-carbohydrate versus low-carbohydrate intake) suggested a weak increased risk of obesity. The second pooled strata (increasing percentage of total carbohydrate intake in daily diet) showed a weak decreased risk of obesity. Both these pooled strata estimates were, however, not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS:

On the basis of the current study, it cannot be concluded that a high-carbohydrate diet or increased percentage of total energy intake in the form of carbohydrates increases the odds of obesity. A central limitation of the study was the non-standard classification of dietary intake across the studies, as well as confounders like total energy intake, activity levels, age and gender. Further studies are needed that specifically classify refined versus unrefined carbohydrate intake, as well as studies that investigate the relationship between high fat, high unrefined carbohydrate-sugar diets.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:

CRD42015023257.

 

Mais uma meta-análise pra chuta a bunda do charlatão Gary Taubes e outros fanboys

[Born4Run]

O que me chama atençao é crescente fobia dos carboidratos

Editado Fevereiro 23, 2018 às 21:45 por Born4Run

[yuuuriiii]

 

 

Pelo que vi o Ricardo já postou o link do estudo, mas aqui vai de novo:

https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fat-vs-low-carb-for-weight-loss/

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2673150

[Dawkinator]

O que dizem deste?

 

''DEPOIS DA FASE DE ADAPTAÇÃO DIETAS LOW CARB TRANSFORMAM ATLETAS EM INCINERADOR DE GORDURA''

 

Endurance athletes who have been on a low-carbohydrate diet for quite some time will burn considerably more fat than endurance athletes with a traditional carbohydrate-rich diet. Even at an intensity where their muscles can not derive their energy from fat according to the textbooks, these athletes mainly burn fat. American sports scientist Jeff Volek reported this in Metabolism in 2016.

 

 

Study
Volek studied 20 well-trained endurance athletes. Some of them were ultrarunners, some Ironman triathletes. Ten athletes followed a traditional diet: 60 percent of their energy came from carbohydrates, 15 percent from protein and 25 percent from fat. Ten other athletes had switched autonomously to a low-carbohydrate diet at least 9 months earlier: 70 percent of their energy came from fat, 20 percent from protein and the remaining 10 percent from carbohydrates.

 

Results
Volek had his test subjects run on a treadmill with increasing intensity. For the athletes who followed a traditional diet, fat burning was maximal at an intensity of 55 percent of the VO2max. With more intensive exercise, the muscles had to burn more carbohydrates. That is more or less in accordance with the textbooks.

 

The athletes who followed a low-carbohydrate diet, however, burned most fats per minute at an intensity of 70 percent of the VO2max. And that is definitely not in accordance with the textbooks.

 

 

 

On another occasion, Volek let his subjects run for 3 hours with an intensity of 64 percent of their VO2max. Just before that, the subjects were given a shake with a nutritional profile that was consistent with their diet.

 

The low-carbohydrate athletes mainly burned fat, the carbohydrate athletes mainly burned carbohydrates.

 

 

 

Before and after this test, Volek determined the glycogen concentration in the muscle cells of the athletes. This concentration was - contrary to what you might expect - almost identical in both groups of athletes. After endurance efforts, muscle cells recover optimally if they contain sufficient glycogen.

 

 

 

Conclusion

"These results provide the first documentation of the metabolic adaptations associated with long-term consumption of a very low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet in highly trained keto-adapted ultra-endurance athletes", Volek wrote. "The enhanced ability to oxidize fat during exercise across a range of intensities is striking, as is the ability to maintain 'normal' glycogen concentrations in the context of limited carbohydrate intake."

 

 

"Keto-adaptation provides an alternative to the supremacy of the high-carbohydrate paradigm for endurance athletes."

 

Source:
Metabolism. 2016 Mar;65(3):100-10.

[krebz]

23 horas atrás, Dawkinator disse:

O que dizem deste?

 

''DEPOIS DA FASE DE ADAPTAÇÃO DIETAS LOW CARB TRANSFORMAM ATLETAS EM INCINERADOR DE GORDURA''

 

Endurance athletes who have been on a low-carbohydrate diet for quite some time will burn considerably more fat than endurance athletes with a traditional carbohydrate-rich diet. Even at an intensity where their muscles can not derive their energy from fat according to the textbooks, these athletes mainly burn fat. American sports scientist Jeff Volek reported this in Metabolism in 2016.

 

 

Study
Volek studied 20 well-trained endurance athletes. Some of them were ultrarunners, some Ironman triathletes. Ten athletes followed a traditional diet: 60 percent of their energy came from carbohydrates, 15 percent from protein and 25 percent from fat. Ten other athletes had switched autonomously to a low-carbohydrate diet at least 9 months earlier: 70 percent of their energy came from fat, 20 percent from protein and the remaining 10 percent from carbohydrates.

 

Results
Volek had his test subjects run on a treadmill with increasing intensity. For the athletes who followed a traditional diet, fat burning was maximal at an intensity of 55 percent of the VO2max. With more intensive exercise, the muscles had to burn more carbohydrates. That is more or less in accordance with the textbooks.

 

The athletes who followed a low-carbohydrate diet, however, burned most fats per minute at an intensity of 70 percent of the VO2max. And that is definitely not in accordance with the textbooks.

 

 

 

On another occasion, Volek let his subjects run for 3 hours with an intensity of 64 percent of their VO2max. Just before that, the subjects were given a shake with a nutritional profile that was consistent with their diet.

 

The low-carbohydrate athletes mainly burned fat, the carbohydrate athletes mainly burned carbohydrates.

 

 

 

Before and after this test, Volek determined the glycogen concentration in the muscle cells of the athletes. This concentration was - contrary to what you might expect - almost identical in both groups of athletes. After endurance efforts, muscle cells recover optimally if they contain sufficient glycogen.

 

 

 

Conclusion

"These results provide the first documentation of the metabolic adaptations associated with long-term consumption of a very low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet in highly trained keto-adapted ultra-endurance athletes", Volek wrote. "The enhanced ability to oxidize fat during exercise across a range of intensities is striking, as is the ability to maintain 'normal' glycogen concentrations in the context of limited carbohydrate intake."

 

 

"Keto-adaptation provides an alternative to the supremacy of the high-carbohydrate paradigm for endurance athletes."

 

Source:
Metabolism. 2016 Mar;65(3):100-10.

Da uma lida em algumas paginas atrás, Volek é um dos pesquisadores que financia pesquisas low-carb e sempre da resultados maravilhosos para low carb...

 

Por sinal, ele tambem tem livros e se nao me engano uma empresa(nao lembro de cabeca se era ele ou outro vendedor) vendendo a ideia low-carb

[mpcosta82]

Em 02/03/2018 em 03:01, Dawkinator disse:

O que dizem deste?

 

''DEPOIS DA FASE DE ADAPTAÇÃO DIETAS LOW CARB TRANSFORMAM ATLETAS EM INCINERADOR DE GORDURA''

 

 Coma mais gordura e o corpo usará mais gordura como fonte de combustível; coma mais carboidrato e o corpo usará mais glicose. Simples assim.

 

O corpo queima mais gordura proporcionalmente, mas a energia fotos gasta é a mesma, ou seja, o saldo calórico é o mesmo.

[Born4Run]

Nao entendo...essas "vantagens em endurance" nunca sao comprovadas na pratica.

Nao sei de nenhum grande maratonista que segue ...se fosse tao vantajoso seria ao contrario.

[mpcosta82]

2 horas atrás, Born4Run disse:

Nao entendo...essas "vantagens em endurance" nunca sao comprovadas na pratica.

Nao sei de nenhum grande maratonista que segue ...se fosse tao vantajoso seria ao contrario.

Não existe vantagem para maratonas.

 

No entanto, em ultramaratonas é possível seguir uma dieta low carb e manter a performance, porque a intensidade é mais baixa do que em uma maratona, há paradas para comer, etc.

[Born4Run]

3 horas atrás, mpcosta82 disse:

Não existe vantagem para maratonas.

 

No entanto, em ultramaratonas é possível seguir uma dieta low carb e manter a performance, porque a intensidade é mais baixa do que em uma maratona, há paradas para comer, etc.

Questiono isso tbm.

Ser possível é diferente de ser melhor.

[VictorS28]

To com uma duvida.

To fazendo bulking limpo, tenho 19% bf, porem pouquissima massa muscular.

Seria vantajoso focar nas gorduras e deixar o carbo de lado?

[SaBiih]

7 minutos atrás, VictorS28 disse:

To com uma duvida.

To fazendo bulking limpo, tenho 19% bf, porem pouquissima massa muscular.

Seria vantajoso focar nas gorduras e deixar o carbo de lado?

Com esse BF, eu não faria bulking, mesmo que limpo.

Maaaaaaaaas, se quiser continuar bulkando, eu não trocaria os carbos por gordura, apenas controlaria o superavit de calorias para bem pouca coisa acima da TMB, já que o BF está relativamente alto.

[VictorS28]

6 minutos atrás, SaBiih disse:

Com esse BF, eu não faria bulking, mesmo que limpo.

Maaaaaaaaas, se quiser continuar bulkando, eu não trocaria os carbos por gordura, apenas controlaria o superavit de calorias para bem pouca coisa acima da TMB, já que o BF está relativamente alto.

Entendi, valeu mano.

estava pensando, se eu fizer cutting, vou ficar só cabeça e orelha kkkkk

[Dawkinator]

1HR DE SCHOENFELD FALANDO SOBRE KETO

edit: começa aos 42:00 ,inutos

 

 

 

Editado Março 31, 2018 às 12:55 por Dawkinator

[Mc Mae]

Fiquei sem entender a parte da glutamina nesse tipo de dieta quando Dave Barr se mostrou contra...

 

Alguém poderia explanar esse assunto? Fiquei com duvida quanto aos impactos dele nesse tipo de dieta.

 

obrigado

[Lucas, o Schrödinger]

48 minutos atrás, Mc Mae disse:

Fiquei sem entender a parte da glutamina nesse tipo de dieta quando Dave Barr se mostrou contra...

 

Alguém poderia explanar esse assunto? Fiquei com duvida quanto aos impactos dele nesse tipo de dieta.

 

obrigado

Glutamina não serve basicamente pra nada... Bem, saúde do intestino, sistema imunológico pós maratonas e atividades de endurance muito desgastantes e talvez uma ou outra aplicação desse tipo. Pra composição corporal não faz nada.

[Visitante]

52 minutos atrás, Mc Mae disse:

Fiquei sem entender a parte da glutamina nesse tipo de dieta quando Dave Barr se mostrou contra...

 

Alguém poderia explanar esse assunto? Fiquei com duvida quanto aos impactos dele nesse tipo de dieta.

 

obrigado

 

O grau de comprovação de que a ingestão de Glutamina tem realmente algum efeito é muito baixo.

[Mc Mae]

12 minutos atrás, Shrödinger disse:

Glutamina não serve basicamente pra nada... Bem, saúde do intestino, sistema imunológico pós maratonas e atividades de endurance muito desgastantes e talvez uma ou outra aplicação desse tipo. Pra composição corporal não faz nada.

Estou nessa dieta a quase 2 meses... to tendo ganhos surpreendentes (claro tem a suplementação) faço uso da glutamina pela pegada que tenho no dia...

Desde que comecei a tomar ela (glutamina), minha saúde melhorou bastante.

Achei que o uso dele faria a insulina ficar alta demais e atrapalhar os ganhos esperados da dieta...

 

11 minutos atrás, Mr Nobody disse:

 

O grau de comprovação de que a ingestão de Glutamina tem realmente algum efeito é muito baixo.

Cara digo por experiencia, a glutamina faz diferença sim, ajuda muito na recuperação... pra mim está ajudando. 

[Visitante]

5 horas atrás, Mc Mae disse:

Estou nessa dieta a quase 2 meses... to tendo ganhos surpreendentes (claro tem a suplementação) faço uso da glutamina pela pegada que tenho no dia...

Desde que comecei a tomar ela (glutamina), minha saúde melhorou bastante.

Achei que o uso dele faria a insulina ficar alta demais e atrapalhar os ganhos esperados da dieta...

 

Cara digo por experiencia, a glutamina faz diferença sim, ajuda muito na recuperação... pra mim está ajudando. 

 

O que pode ser só efeito placebo, tem gente que diz sentir melhoras na performance com Dilatex - que não tem nenhum ingrediente que o faria ter.

[krebz]

Só pra reforçar o que já sabemos:

que low-carb é bom para diabeticos, mas não tem nada de mais para perda de peso, é apenas mais uma opção de dieta apenas

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29178536

Citar

Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Apr;20(4):858-871. doi: 10.1111/dom.13164. Epub 2017 Dec 20.

Effects of an energy-restricted low-carbohydrate, high unsaturated fat/low saturated fat diet versus a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in type 2 diabetes: A 2-year randomized clinical trial.

Tay J^1,2,3, Thompson CH², Luscombe-Marsh ND¹, Wycherley TP⁴, Noakes M¹, Buckley JD⁴, Wittert GA², Yancy WS Jr^5,6, Brinkworth GD¹.

Author information

 

Abstract

AIM:

To examine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-unsaturated/low-saturated fat diet (LC) improves glycaemic control and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS:

A total of 115 adults with T2D (mean [SD]; BMI, 34.6 [4.3] kg/m² ; age, 58 [7] years; HbA1c, 7.3 [1.1]%) were randomized to 1 of 2 planned energy-matched, hypocaloric diets combined with aerobic/resistance exercise (1 hour, 3 days/week) for 2 years: LC: 14% energy as carbohydrate, 28% as protein, 58% as fat (<10% saturated fat); or low-fat, high-carbohydrate, low-glycaemic index diet (HC): 53% as CHO, 17% as protein, 30% as fat (<10% saturated fat). HbA1c, glycaemic variability (GV), anti-glycaemic medication effect score (MES, calculated based on the potency and dosage of diabetes medication), weight, body composition, CVD and renal risk markers were assessed before and after intervention.

RESULTS:

A total of 61 (LC = 33, HC = 28) participants completed the study (trial registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au/, ANZCTR No. ACTRN12612000369820). Reductions in weight (estimated marginal mean [95% CI]; LC, -6.8 [-8.8,-4.7], HC, -6.6 [-8.8, -4.5] kg), body fat (LC, -4.3 [-6.2, -2.4], HC, -4.6 [-6.6, -2.7] kg), blood pressure (LC, -2.0 [-5.9, 1.8]/ -1.2 [-3.6, 1.2], HC, -3.2 [-7.3, 0.9]/ -2.0 [-4.5, 0.5] mmHg), HbA1c (LC, -0.6 [-0.9, -0.3], HC, -0.9 [-1.2, -0.5] %) and fasting glucose (LC, 0.3 [-0.4, 1.0], HC, -0.4 [-1.1, 0.4] mmol/L) were similar between groups (P ≥ 0.09). Compared to HC, the LC achieved greater reductions in diabetes medication use (MES; LC, -0.5 [-0.6, -0.3], HC, -0.2 [-0.4, -0.02] units; P = 0.03), GV (Continuous Overall Net Glycemic Action calculated every 1 hour (LC, -0.4 [-0.6, -0.3], HC, -0.1 [-0.1, 0.2] mmol/L; P = 0.001), and 4 hours (LC, -0.9 [-1.3, -0.6], HC, -0.2 [-0.6, 0.1] mmol/L; P = 0.02)); triglycerides (LC, -0.1 [-0.3, 0.2], HC, 0.1 [-0.2, 0.3] mmol/L; P = 0.001), and maintained HDL-C levels (LC, 0.02 [-0.05, 0.1], HC, -0.1 [-0.1, 0.01] mmol/L; P = 0.004), but had similar changes in LDL-C (LC, 0.2 [-0.1, 0.5], HC, 0.1 [-0.2, 0.4] mmol/L; P = 0.85), brachial artery flow mediated dilatation (LC, -0.5 [-1.5, 0.5], HC, -0.4 [-1.4, 0.7] %; P = 0.73), eGFR and albuminuria.

CONCLUSIONS:

Both diets achieved comparable weight loss and HbA1c reductions. The LC sustained greater reductions in diabetes medication requirements, and in improvements in diurnal blood glucose stability and blood lipid profile, with no adverse renal effects, suggesting greater optimization of T2D management.

 

 

[cassioramos.cr]

Em 29/03/2018 em 03:10, krebz disse:

Só pra reforçar o que já sabemos:

que low-carb é bom para diabeticos, mas não tem nada de mais para perda de peso, é apenas mais uma opção de dieta apenas

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29178536

 

 

Acredito que o mesmo seja válido para pré-diabéticos e pessoas que tendem a perder a sensibilidade à insulina com mais facilidade também...

EDIT: Para o restante, low-carb é apenas mais uma alternativa de dieta a ser seguida, podendo também ser usada em determinadas estratégias de forma periodizada. 

Editado Abril 4, 2018 às 04:06 por Hannibal Lecter

[krebz]

https://www.bodyforwife.com/keto-is-the-dumbfuck-diet-cult-du-jour-but-that-wont-last/

 

Spoiler

“Hey, Bob. How are you?”

“I’m keto.”

“What-o?”

“Keto. Key-toe. Keeeeeyyyyy-tooooeeee. Ketogenic diet. State of ketosis. Makin’ ketones! It’s the best. Because grains are evil, fruit is toxic, and fat is amazing. Big Carb has been lying to us all along. Gotta eat fat to burn fat or you’ll be a fatty fat fat fatso. Don’t be a dirty sugar burner …”

Go back a few years, and you can replace all the “keto” words with “paleo.”

 

Despite being the scientology of diets, paleo had its day. It was a brilliant marketing concept because “pussification” of men and gotta be caveman and “ancestral health” even though it was lauding a time when babies were dying like flies on a windshield. Now, as revealed by this Google Trends screenshot from 2004 to present, the paleo diet has jumped the shark.

Alas, our penchant for dietary dumbfuckery abhors a vacuum. Humanity needed something equally stupid to replace it. Enter keto.

Here’s the Google Trends search results for keto from the last five years:

It’s the hot new thing that isn’t actually new.

 

The diet, which involves dramatic carbohydrate restriction in favor of a very high fat diet, first became popular in the 20s and 30s as a treatment for epilepsy. It fell out of favor when new anticonvulsant drugs were developed. Although it was still used, mostly in children, for whom said drugs didn’t work. Nowadays, people who really need to shut the fuck up are pushing keto as a bullshit cancer cure. Unfortunately, there are doctors who promote the keto diet, but it’s worth noting just how terrible nutrition education is for physicians. I’m married to one.

 

Variations on low carb have been at the forefront of fad diets over the past half century for a couple of reasons. The first such explanation is that, for someone who eats a significant amount of highly refined carbohydrates (which is a lot of people), suddenly cutting way back on that can result in a de facto restriction of calories, leading to weight loss. This happens despite many low carb proselytisers proclaiming low carb diets violate the physical laws of the universe regarding how weight loss works. What’s more, carb restriction can lead to a higher protein intake, which is beneficial to satiety.

 

This isn’t intended to say low carb is some amazing diet—it fares no better over the long term than most other diets. That is to say, poorly. Adherence is what matters most, and some find LC to work because of its low rule complexity. “Don’t eat carbs” is a pretty simple rule.

 

But going very low carb sucks if you’re athletic. Beyond that, to see my articles about why high fat diets aren’t great for either weight loss or health, read this, and this, and this. And should you think sugar toxic, well, it is. But the dose makes the poison. My piece here. And sugar addiction? About that: this and this.

 

Think keto is superior to the first law of thermodynamics so calories don’t matter? Start here, then go here.

 

Nutrition expert extraordinaire Alan Aragon says you don’t have to have carbohydrates to survive, but adds, “There is a difference between surviving and thriving.” Yes, you can live on an extremely low carbohydrate diet, but it doesn’t mean it’s anywhere near an optimal eating strategy for living.

 

Why is keto the dumbfuck diet du jour? First, we need to understand why we have a rotating ream of ridiculous eating strategies that ebb and flow in popularity. Much of it has to do with our history of religious belief.

 

For my piece “Anti-Sugar Cultists Are Totally Fucking Batshit,” I interviewed religious studies professor Alan Levinovitz who spoke of how dietary restrictions have been part of religion for millennia as part of enforcing purity rules among the faithful and further creating an “us and them” mentality between followers and heathens. From the article:

“Dietary zealotry has been around forever,” Levinovitz said, “but nowadays science has occupied many spheres of authority that were once the domain of religion. What is new now is the masking of what is ultimately a spiritual belief with science. They wrap spiritual or ethical or religious beliefs about food in scientific rhetoric.”

 

Paleo had a coolness factor to it, coupled with (bullshit) evolutionary “science” to legitimize it in the eyes of the followers. I find it amusing they coined the oxymoronic term “ancestral health” to promote a diet that (poorly) mimicked a time when women lived to a ripe old age of died in childbirth.

 

Keto sounds cool too because you’re allegedly “hacking” your body to make keytone bodies while eating lots of bacon and butter because carbs are toxic and calories don’t matter. Teach your body to burn fat for fuel instead of sugar. All that bullshit. The diet wasn’t new, but the marketing push was. Now we have a plethora of new supplements, so you can keto even harder. If you saw the surge coming in this diet and got in on the ground floor, you could have made a fortune. Plenty of paleo folks got rich by jumping on the caveman dietary bandwagon early.

 

Dumbfuck diets come and go. This is not a new, modern thing.

 

Lord Byron popularized the vinegar and water diet in 1820. No word if he was an actual douchebag, although there were rumors of incest and spousal abuse.

In 1925 there was the Cigarette Diet, based on the appetite suppressing effects of nicotine.

There was a grapefruit diet in the 30s, and a cabbage soup diet in the 50s.

The “Master Cleanse” dates back to the 40s.

The Cookie Diet was all the rage in 1975.

Slimfast. Dexatrim. Ayds. Oprah’s liquid diet. South Beach. Gluten free. And whatever weird shit Gwyneth Paltrow is putting in her face right now. We’ve been dumb about diet for a long time now.

 

Keto is just the latest, but as history indicates, you won’t want to invest too heavily in the market for keto supplements, because the diet will eventually go the way of all the others (although it may be repackaged and find traction again years down the road). What will replace it? If you know the answer to that, please let me know. I have some money that could use a high return to help fund my retirement.

 

Whatever the next big diet fad is, I expect it will have a veneer of scientific legitimacy mixed with a coolness factor that makes people feel superior for being on it. We have a tendency to place moral value on food and define ourselves by what we eat. It’s all pretty stupid.

 

As problematic as he’s been in other areas by falsely promoting organic and saying, “If you can’t pronounce it, don’t eat it,” Michael Pollan did have some good advice regarding a simplified approach to eating, and not worrying overmuch about what we shove in our face holes.

 

A recent piece in Quartz about the hysteria over clean eating had a former college athlete lament: “By the middle of my university years, food took up a stunning amount of my mental energy. It was far more exhausting than running 40 miles a week.”

 

Here’s a hint: If your diet requires to pee on a stick to tell you if you’re doing it right, then you’re doing it wrong.

 

It need not be so complicated. Balance and moderation are not dirty words. You can find a healthy diet that works for you and doesn’t drive you bugshit. If you need professional assistance, that’s what registered dietitians are for. But stay away from anyone calling themselves a holistic nutritionist.

 

I also wrote a book. If you want the quick and dirty for weight loss, my Caloric Deficit Cheat Sheet is also popular.

 

I’m not sure what the next dumbass diet will be, but my advice is to start ignoring it in advance.

 

And to any keto lovers I’ve vexed, prior to commenting, please read this, then this.

 

[krebz]

Novela do dia:

 

https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-dollar40-million-nutrition-science-crusade-fell-apart/

 

NuSi, empresa de Gary Taubes, está perto da falência após depois de diversos infringimentos da integridade científica dos pesquisadores *após* resultados pré-eliminatórios falharam em comprovar a hipótese defendida por NuSi (e Gary Taubes)