Anssi Manninen, M.H.S.'s views on Low Carb Diets.

[chosenone28]

I was reading this guys articles on Mind n Muscle and he has three articles in which he discusses things such as how "a calorie still isnt a calorie" and that low carb/low GI diets have scientifically been proven to actually enhance fat loss, etc. Now under condition of a caloric defecit I was under the impression that macronutrient breakdown would have little to no affect on body composition or the rate of fat loss (not weight loss, but actual body fat). The same being for GI. Now I want to make it clear I eat mainly "clean" foods and the worst food GI wise even now that I am less carb-phobic is probably an occassional oat flour pancake or sweet potato.) Unless I have misinterpreted him I think he is professing that this is not the case. Could someone please clarify/chime in on this guys views/credentials and explain to me if my understanding is just flawed.

(I ask because I intially lost most of my fat by following an EXTREMELY LOW FAT and LOW CARB diet. I think my diet was composed of something like 75% protein. However, I started to add healthy fats and carb sources back into my diet and my fat loss was still the same as far as I could tell. The only change was a gradual increase in overall energy levels. Thinking back on it I was just taking in an extremely small amount of calories and training extremely hard, creating a huge caloric defecit. So after reading books like Girth Control, etc. I have come to equate my fat loss mainly with the fact that I was in a caloric defecit and not necessarily that I wasnt eating bread or potatoes and being someone who enjoys carb rich foods, I want to make sure that when I enter my next cutting phase, which I planed on doing with moderate carbs and fat, that I am not sabotaging my efforts).

1.Debunking the Debunkers: ACSM 'Exercise Physiologists' and Contagion of Nutritional Nonsense

2.How to Get Ripped to the Bone

3.Very Low Carbohydrate Diets and Fat Loss: The Fat Truth

Here is the link: http://www.mindandmuscle.net/author-list/


If you are too lazy to read his articles here is a short exerpt:

"A number of well-controlled scientific studies have demonstrated that a very low carbohydrate diet promotes fat loss while maintaining or even increasing muscle mass. For example, Dr. Young and co-workers compared three diets containing the same amounts of calories (1,800 kcal/day) and protein (115 grams/day) but differing in carbohydrate content. After nine weeks on the 30-g, 60-g and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8 and 11.9 kg and fat accounted for 95, 84, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively. So, the authors concluded,
"Weight loss, fat loss, and percent of weight loss as fat appeared to be inversely related to the level of carbohydrate in the isocaloric, isoprotein diets.?

Anyone who can set me straight...Id greatly appreciate it.
(I apologize for any lack of clarity or grammatical errors in advance).

[Phosphate bond]

he discusses things such as how "a calorie still isnt a calorie"

A calorie is a calorie but I suspect the micronutrient requirements to fully use each different type calorie may be different.

For example, I think micronutrient requirements for carbs may be slightly higher than those for fats. However, as long as the diet is sufficiently nutritious differences between calories in and calories out shouldn't be evident no matter what the macro split is.

[chosenone28]

A calorie is a calorie but I suspect the micronutrient requirements to fully use each different type calorie may be different.

For example, I think micronutrient requirements for carbs may be slightly higher than those for fats. However, as long as the diet is sufficiently nutritious differences between calories in and calories out shouldn't be evident no matter what the macro split is.

Thats what I thought. Thinking on the terms of basic thermodynamics like Alan Aragan talks about in his book, it makes sense to me that this would be the case. The only reason that in and of itself doesnt fully quench my fear is I know the body and its hormones do some crazy things, but I cant rationalize how they would defy the laws of physics and chemistry. (I am far from a scientist). Thanks for your input as always though!

[Emma-Leigh]

A calorie is a calorie but I suspect the micronutrient requirements to fully use each different type calorie may be different.

For example, I think micronutrient requirements for carbs may be slightly higher than those for fats. However, as long as the diet is sufficiently nutritious differences between calories in and calories out shouldn't be evident no matter what the macro split is.
^^

Yes.
And no.

Individual insulin sensitivity/ hormonal issues/ genetics/ training etc etc also all come into play...

So a person who is extremely insulin sensitive, or someone who has a good thermogenic response to food, or someone who is well trained (aerobically) is going to respond differently to carbs / fats/ protein than a person who has a blunted response to insulin, someone who has a thrifty genotype/phenotype or someone with other metabolic issues.

[chosenone28]

^^

Yes.
And no.

Individual insulin sensitivity/ hormonal issues/ genetics/ training etc etc also all come into play...

So a person who is extremely insulin sensitive, or someone who has a good thermogenic response to food, or someone who is well trained (aerobically) is going to respond differently to carbs / fats/ protein than a person who has a blunted response to insulin, someone who has a thrifty genotype/phenotype or someone with other metabolic issues.

Ok thanks Emma. Heres my question for you then. I am 5'5 and 130lbs, with 9-10% bodyfat. I eat oatmeal, Sweet potatoes, mostly medium to low GI carbs at least once a day, somtimes twice. Usually preworkout(breakfast) and maybe once again later in the day. I was able to attain my current bodyfat more or less with this level of consumption. Prob. 60-100 grams of complex carbs a day at best. Based on this info how exactly could I tell or anyone get a general idea about their level of carb sensitivity?

Thanks.

[Emma-Leigh]

Ok thanks Emma. Heres my question for you then. I am 5'5 and 130lbs, with 9-10% bodyfat. I eat oatmeal, Sweet potatoes, mostly medium to low GI carbs at least once a day, somtimes twice. Usually preworkout(breakfast) and maybe once again later in the day. I was able to attain my current bodyfat more or less with this level of consumption. Prob. 60-100 grams of complex carbs a day at best. Based on this info how exactly could I tell or anyone get a general idea about their level of carb sensitivity?

Thanks.
No.

Most of the time people simply 'gauge' their 'response over time to different diets' that determines there 'rough' sensitivity.


If you want a little more info - then doing a fasting insulin blood test, or an oral glucose tolerance tests, would be the next step.
If you want an exact measure of your insulin sensitivity then you would need to do something such as a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp study....

if you want more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_resistance

[chosenone28]

No.

Most of the time people simply 'gauge' their 'response over time to different diets' that determines there 'rough' sensitivity.


If you want a little more info - then doing a fasting insulin blood test, or an oral glucose tolerance tests, would be the next step.
If you want an exact measure of your insulin sensitivity then you would need to do something such as a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp study....

if you want more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_resistance

Thanks for the info! I imagine these tests are not cheap. So I guess in terms of understanding how I personally react to carbs will just require me to continue to train hard and eat healthy nutritious and minamally processed foods/carb sources and monitor my body.

Edit: Interesting to note, I had more of the symptoms of IR when I totally cut out carbs then when actually consuming them.

[Phosphate bond]

^^

Yes.
And no.

Individual insulin sensitivity/ hormonal issues/ genetics/ training etc etc also all come into play...



Okay but how is insulin sensitivity involved then? Insulin sensitivity drops when adipose becomes too full right?

So it is an energy intake to energy expenditure problem after all and not a "macro problem".

You see my point? Energy balance matters more than Macros for the purposes of predicting insulin sensitivity.

[Phosphate bond]

genetics/ training etc etc also all come into play...



Definitely training affects how calories are used. (No argument here). Same with Genetics.

For example endurance athletes at rest supposedly burn a higher proportion of their calories as fat than "untrained" people.

The irony is that these same people usually use a lot of carbs in the process of getting into this "trained state".

[Jay Rawd]

I was reading this guys articles on Mind n Muscle and he has three articles in which he discusses things such as how "a calorie still isnt a calorie" and that low carb/low GI diets have scientifically been proven to actually enhance fat loss, etc. Now under condition of a caloric defecit I was under the impression that macronutrient breakdown would have little to no affect on body composition or the rate of fat loss (not weight loss, but actual body fat). The same being for GI. Now I want to make it clear I eat mainly "clean" foods and the worst food GI wise even now that I am less carb-phobic is probably an occassional oat flour pancake or sweet potato.) Unless I have misinterpreted him I think he is professing that this is not the case. Could someone please clarify/chime in on this guys views/credentials and explain to me if my understanding is just flawed.

(I ask because I intially lost most of my fat by following an EXTREMELY LOW FAT and LOW CARB diet. I think my diet was composed of something like 75% protein. However, I started to add healthy fats and carb sources back into my diet and my fat loss was still the same as far as I could tell. The only change was a gradual increase in overall energy levels. Thinking back on it I was just taking in an extremely small amount of calories and training extremely hard, creating a huge caloric defecit. So after reading books like Girth Control, etc. I have come to equate my fat loss mainly with the fact that I was in a caloric defecit and not necessarily that I wasnt eating bread or potatoes and being someone who enjoys carb rich foods, I want to make sure that when I enter my next cutting phase, which I planed on doing with moderate carbs and fat, that I am not sabotaging my efforts).

1.Debunking the Debunkers: ACSM 'Exercise Physiologists' and Contagion of Nutritional Nonsense

2.How to Get Ripped to the Bone

3.Very Low Carbohydrate Diets and Fat Loss: The Fat Truth

Here is the link: http://www.mindandmuscle.net/author-list/


If you are too lazy to read his articles here is a short exerpt:

"A number of well-controlled scientific studies have demonstrated that a very low carbohydrate diet promotes fat loss while maintaining or even increasing muscle mass. For example, Dr. Young and co-workers compared three diets containing the same amounts of calories (1,800 kcal/day) and protein (115 grams/day) but differing in carbohydrate content. After nine weeks on the 30-g, 60-g and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8 and 11.9 kg and fat accounted for 95, 84, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively. So, the authors concluded,
"Weight loss, fat loss, and percent of weight loss as fat appeared to be inversely related to the level of carbohydrate in the isocaloric, isoprotein diets.?

Anyone who can set me straight...Id greatly appreciate it.
(I apologize for any lack of clarity or grammatical errors in advance).
That's because they lost more water.

[determined4000]

That's because they lost more water.
x2
Also look at what their source of extra carbs were

[RossDB]

That's because they lost more water.

"A number of well-controlled scientific studies have demonstrated that a very low carbohydrate diet promotes fat loss while maintaining or even increasing muscle mass. For example, Dr. Young and co-workers compared three diets containing the same amounts of calories (1,800 kcal/day) and protein (115 grams/day) but differing in carbohydrate content. After nine weeks on the 30-g, 60-g and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8 and 11.9 kg and fat accounted for 95, 84, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively. So, the authors concluded,
"Weight loss, fat loss, and percent of weight loss as fat appeared to be inversely related to the level of carbohydrate in the isocaloric, isoprotein diets.?

[Jay Rawd]

"A number of well-controlled scientific studies have demonstrated that a very low carbohydrate diet promotes fat loss while maintaining or even increasing muscle mass. For example, Dr. Young and co-workers compared three diets containing the same amounts of calories (1,800 kcal/day) and protein (115 grams/day) but differing in carbohydrate content. After nine weeks on the 30-g, 60-g and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8 and 11.9 kg and fat accounted for 95, 84, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively. So, the authors concluded,
"Weight loss, fat loss, and percent of weight loss as fat appeared to be inversely related to the level of carbohydrate in the isocaloric, isoprotein diets.?
Awesome. I don't doubt that.

Most people could do well on low carb diets. Unfortunately, "most people" is a very flawed idea and the reality is that there are many (like myself) who fail miserably on low carb diets.

BTW, were any of these low carb diets ketogenic?