Low Carb É Realmente Melhor Para Composição Corporal?

[fast_chicken 681]

 

2 horas atrás, perverso disse:

 

É só preparar um balde com chicória, broto de alfafa, couve crua e repolho roxo e comer o dia inteiro ! Vai até emagrecer de tanto mastigar ! 

O problema é que o dragão quer só pizza, frituras e doces...e a culpa vai para a compulsão. 

Negativo, compulsão não escolhe alimento. Alguns disparam mais ou menos o episódio de compulsão, mas de forma geral bixo, é de comer? Então vai que vai. Quem me dera se fosse só com porcaria. Mas isso não tem base científica, isso aí é o que eu vivo mesmo. 

Editado Maio 16, 2017 às 21:55 por fast_chicken

[krebz 3662]

20 horas atrás, planeta disse:

Se vcs gostassem de estudar ao invés de passar vergonha em fórum da internet saberiam

 

Engraçado ouvir isso de você, depois de muitos posts seus na área de suplementação, EAS e recentemente Caio Bottura. Quem sabe levar botinada e passar vergonha libera dopamina também, talvez por isso continua no forum e não no facebook

 

---

 

Por falar em dopamina, essa linha de pensamento que é a mesma do Daves, é simplista para um problema complexo.

 

Beleza, dopamina esta relacionada à vícios, ninguem contesta isso. Dai aparece uma pesquisa bosta dessas:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/

Faz noticia, vende livros, pessoal segue mesma linha de pensamento e tipifica um problema complexo com uma explicação simples.

 

Mas vicio vai além de dopamina, é por isso que na pesquisa utilizaram também YFAS e DSM-IV (http://www.midss.org/content/yale-food-addiction-scale-yfas / https://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm/)

 

Fica pra leitura ai pessoal:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5174153/

 

https://carbsanity.blogspot.com.br/2016/07/weight-loss-on-very-low-fat-high-sugar.html

https://carbsanity.blogspot.com.br/2014/04/oh-rats-i-usefulness-of-rat-studies.html

https://carbsanity.blogspot.com.br/2013/11/sugar-addiction-and-prelude-to-review.html

[ZOOM 399]

Em 2017-5-16 at 16:03, lukao1993 disse:

Além de que é mais fácil extrapolar no carbo+fat do que fat+prot por conta da saciedade

 

De fato, muito mais fácil..

 

Além disso, um eventual excesso calórico advindo de proteína dificilmente se transformaria em gordura corporal tão facilmente quanto um carbo.

[krebz 3662]

Citar

Low Carb Cultists

• Carbs and carbs only are the reason people are fat.
• Insulin is what makes you fat – from eating too many carbs
• Calories don’t matter – it’s all about hormones
• Steer clear of fruit and veggies that might raise your blood sugar
• Whether it’s a twinkie or an apple – it will all make you fat.
• Exercise doesn’t do anything to for fat loss
• “Good Calories, Bad Calories” is infallible.
• Atkins was infallible (and wasn’t fat when he died).
• You should actually keep protein low compared to fat as protein can produce insulin
• Vegetarian/vegan diets will make you sick and fat.
• Low carb eating should be the default diet for everybody when it comes to optimal health and fat loss.
• We should only eat according to how our Palaeolithic ancestors ate – which is very low carb.
• Low carb works because of a metabolic advantage
• Omega-6 fatty acids should be avoided like the plague
• Ketogenic diets are optimal for fat loss
• Hunger and appetite function strictly on physiological pathways.
• Weight stall or gains are almost always “carb creep” or too much protein (insulin)
• Fat people eat no more than skinny people.
• Anyone with a tattoo of a fictional Palaeolithic character.

https://www.diet-blog.com/11/nutritional_fanaticism_i_extreme_low_carbers_pt_2.php

 

É basicamente a descrição de dois aqui do forum, não creio que tenha realmente seres do tipo em outros paises...

[Torf 11505]

Uma dúvida breve:

 

Se a quantidade de calorias näo importa e os carboidratos e alimentos de origem vegetal promovem o acúmulo de gordura, por que os povos da África Subsaariana, onde a dieta é paupérrima em proteínas e gorduras e riquíssima em carboidratos, näo säo os povos mais obesos do mundo?

[Born4Run 2165]

1 hora atrás, Torf disse:

Uma dúvida breve:

 

Se a quantidade de calorias näo importa e os carboidratos e alimentos de origem vegetal promovem o acúmulo de gordura, por que os povos da África Subsaariana, onde a dieta é paupérrima em proteínas e gorduras e riquíssima em carboidratos, näo säo os povos mais obesos do mundo?

A resposta seria o Bioma.

Mas, interpretando Low Carb é o estilo de vida caçador-coletor que não deixa engordar.(acho)

Editado Maio 22, 2017 às 16:41 por Born4Run

[Torf 11505]

Agora, Born4Run disse:

A resposta seria o Bioma.

Se for ver os factores climáticos, por ser temperaturas próximas às do corpo humano, ou seja, näo precisa ficar gastanto energia para aquecimento do corpo. Deveria ser mais gordo ainda.

1 minuto atrás, Born4Run disse:

Mas,..interpretando Low Carb é o estilo de vida caçador-coletor que não deixa engordar.(acho)

E quem diabos, fora os cacadores, tem estilo de vida de cacador? =P =P

[Torf 11505]

Sei que é um tópico sério, mas vi isso daqui e lembrei do tópico:

[krebz 3662]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316911061_A_Calorie_is_Still_a_Calorie_According_to_Rigorous_New_Evidence

A Calorie is Still a Calorie, According to Rigorous New Evidence

Scott Howell, PhD1*, Richard Kones MD, FAHA, FESC, FRSM, FCCP, FAGS, FRSH2

Published date: May 13, 2017

 

Citar

In contrast with the classical, accepted paradigm of excessive dietary calories as the most important cause of weight gain, a new “carbohydrate–insulin model” has been proposed[7,8]. According to this model, individuals may consume far fewer calories than they need to maintain their weight-according to conventional calculations-and still gain weight[7]. This theory posits that carbohydrate (CHO) intake drives insulin release, which partitions energy storage in adipose tissue, rather than allowing fat oxidation. The brain responds to this internal energy deficit in working cells by increasing hunger and depressing the metabolic rate, furthering fat deposition. Low CHO diets therefore, “release” this partitioning, and allow oxidation of fat by working cells, eg, muscle, leading to weight loss. Hence, the number of calories consumed is unimportant compared to the type of macronutrient, and is alone irrelevant in the pathogenesis of obesity. The “metabolic advantage” purportedly associated with a low
CHO diet offered is a unique ability to oxidize great amounts of fat. In contrast with prior alternative theories of obesity, the CHO-insulin hypothesis may be verified directly, provided that dietary intakes and energy variables are meticulously controlled and measured.

 

This bold theory, however, is at odds with much metabolic data collected over the preceding decades, and is not supported by specific new data. For instance, isocaloric overfeeding results in weight gain whether fat or CHO is consumed[9]. Despite much discussion and theoretical debate, followed by screening for outstanding credentialed experimentalists, a series of rigorous experiments was commissioned by proponents, including Taubes, the cofounder of Nutritional Science Initiative
(NuSI), and cosponsored by the National Institutes of Health. In a highly-controlled metabolic ward study, Hall andThis bold theory, however, is at odds with much metabolic data collected over the preceding decades, and is not supported by specific new data. For instance, isocaloric overfeeding results in weight gain whether fat or CHO is consumed[9]. Despite much discussion and theoretical debate, followed by screening for outstanding credentialed experimentalists, a series of rigorous experiments was commissioned by proponents, including Taubes, the cofounder of Nutritional Science Initiative (NuSI), and cosponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

 

In a highly-controlled metabolic ward study, Hall and coworkers[10] randomly assigned 19 obese female and male subjects to either a diet with a 30% calorie restriction in CHO or a diet with 30% calorie restriction in fat. Participants were exposed to these two diets separated by a wash-out period in a cross-over fashion; RQ, body composition, rates of metabolism, fat oxidation and fat loss were measured along with insulin and other hormones. Despite a decrease in insulin levels associated
with the low-CHO diet, there was no corresponding rise in weight loss. Specifically, during the low-CHO diet period, there was an average loss of ~245 g body fat, compared to a higher average loss of body fat, ~463 g, during the low-fat diet period.

 

Another rigorously-controlled feeding study sought to determine changes in energy expenditure, respiratory quotient (RQ) and body composition using an isocaloric low-CHO ketogenic diet (KD)[11]. Seventeen overweight or obese men were fed a high-CHO baseline diet (BD) on a restricted ward for 4 weeks, and a ketogenic diet (KD) with clamped protein intake for another 4 weeks. Two days weekly, each subject was placed in a metabolic chamber for measurement of energy expenditure (EE), sleeping EE (SEE), and RQ. The average EE expended during the two diet periods, baseline versus low-CHO, rose by a biologically insignificant ~151 kcal/d, accompanied by a fall in both the rate of body fat oxidation and loss of fat-free mass. According to the CHO-insulin hypothesis, lower CHO intakes, as compared with isocaloric amounts of fat, would be associated with increased EE, increased fat oxidation, and loss of body fat. Contrary to the hypothesis, the data in the aforementioned
metabolic study demonstrated that the low CHO-KD was associated with barely measurable rises in EE and no increase in loss of body fat. The authors’ interpretation was that the absence of physiologically important changes in EE or body using the two isocaloric diets confirms that “a calorie is a calorie.” The principle investigator in these two studies subsequently published a review which placed the findings in perspective[12].

 

Pra variar o taubes está errado...

 

mas já estava errado faz tempo por sinal

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full

Citar

CONCLUSION

We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.

 

[Born4Run 2165]

A má ciência acabou com o melhor tópico do fórum.