Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Eating and Exercise Plans > Weight Loss Plans > JUDDD
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2014, 07:27 PM   #91
Big Yapper!!!!
 
Librarygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 9,166
Gallery: Librarygirl
Stats: HW 207/(JUDDD) 198/CW 172/GW 150 5'4 49 yo
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: Low calorie 6/12 ; Low carb 9/12/ ; JUDDD 11/13/12
Quote:
Originally Posted by adillenal View Post
In my world ED means Emotionally Disturbed.
Maybe we could come up with some new acronyms...CJ, Cajetaically Challenged, or WO, wino, oops that wasn't exactly right.
Librarygirl is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 01-14-2014, 12:06 AM   #92
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tyrone Georgia U.S.A.
Posts: 1,252
Gallery: E.W.
Stats: 312/310/ a lot less
WOE: Low Carb
Start Date: restart again 10/27/2014
In skimming over the post in this thread I noticed a couple of people mentioning that
eating 500 calories on the diet day prevented the muscle mass loss found from doing a total fast every other day. But I don't think anyone comented on what was said on page 55. That eating 45% fat 15% protein 40% carbs for this 500 calories caused 17% more weight loss, 32% more fat loss and a 8% GAIN in muscle mass when compaired to eating low fat for these 500 calories. They commented that it looks like eating the high fat foods on the diet day is more satisfying so most people cheat less. I personaly wonder if it is also because you would also be eating low carb on this diet day.
E.W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 12:37 AM   #93
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,984
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/212/147 or size 8/10
WOE: 2000/1000 rotations, moderate carb
Start Date: 11/3/14; JUDDD 7/11/12
Good point, E.W.! I don't quite get it though. If total fasting lead to a greater loss in lean body mass, then it doesn't make sense that fewer calories by cheating less (eating less) would lead to a gain in muscle mass. (I looked at page 55 and the low fat group gained no muscle mass at all). Unless 25% really is the magic number! Any other theories out there? 15% doesn't seem like much protein either. I've never heard of fat preserving muscle mass? Interesting study results, though.
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 07:26 AM   #94
Senior LCF Member
 
FrostyBeav's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Warshington
Posts: 739
Gallery: FrostyBeav
Stats: 211/200.2/165
WOE: EOD JUDDD
Start Date: 11/12/13
Quote:
Originally Posted by calichris View Post
I've never heard of fat preserving muscle mass?
It doesn't but carb does. If your glycogen stores are "topped off" before the fast, you should sail right through a DD without using excess protein. However, people that eat VLC should probably get extra protein on a DD to make sure you have enough for gluconeogenesis. Otherwise, you could end up losing muscle mass.
FrostyBeav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 07:32 AM   #95
Major LCF Poster!
 
Sirtain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: DFW area
Posts: 1,807
Gallery: Sirtain
Stats: 202then/154March/Xnow/140soon
WOE: Paleo+JUDDD
Start Date: March 2013
I checked the OMG book out of the library (twice) and thought it DID have some very good, and out-of-the-ordinary advice. But...I put it in a book cover, which I have never done with any other book. The title was just too embarrassing!!!
Sirtain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2014, 07:21 AM   #96
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,946
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/105/105-110
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance.
Start Date: 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by E.W. View Post
I don't think anyone comented on what was said on page 55. That eating 45% fat 15% protein 40% carbs for this 500 calories caused 17% more weight loss, 32% more fat loss and a 8% GAIN in muscle mass when compaired to eating low fat for these 500 calories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calichris View Post
...it doesn't make sense that fewer calories by cheating less (eating less) would lead to a gain in muscle mass. (I looked at page 55 and the low fat group gained no muscle mass at all).
Do they footnote which study this is please? (So I can make sure that I'm looking at the correct one?)
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2014, 12:32 PM   #97
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,984
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/212/147 or size 8/10
WOE: 2000/1000 rotations, moderate carb
Start Date: 11/3/14; JUDDD 7/11/12
SS, that particular page does not have a footnote, but refers to chapter 1, where the study is:
Klempel, M.C., et al. "Alternate Day Fasting (ADF) with a High-Fat Diet Produces Similar Weight Loss and Cardio-Protection as ADF with a Low-Fat Diet." Metabolism 62, no.1 (January 2013): 137-43.

However, that study appears to show that lean mass was unchanged. I'll keep looking.

Last edited by calichris; 01-18-2014 at 12:37 PM..
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2014, 12:49 PM   #98
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,984
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/212/147 or size 8/10
WOE: 2000/1000 rotations, moderate carb
Start Date: 11/3/14; JUDDD 7/11/12
I can't find any additional information, and I didn't want to pay to read the whole study ... I just read the abstract, so I am not sure if this is what she is referring to or not. Here's the quote from the chapter:
"You'll recall from chapter 1, some of my studies have explored whether eating high or low fat food on Diet Day plays any role in how much weight you lose. In one of those studies, I divided up participants into two groups: one group ate high-fat foods on Diet Day and the other ate low-fat foods. The folks on the high-fat diet (45% fat, 15% protein, 40% carbohydrates) had the following results:
- They lost 17% more weight
- They lost 32% more body fat
- They had an 8% increase in muscle (lean body mass), while the low-fat group had no increase."

I can't find a reference to another study with high fat vs. low fat.
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2014, 03:40 PM   #99
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
shirlc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,153
Gallery: shirlc
Stats: 144/134/130-5'5"
WOE: Low/Mod Carb, JUDDD (JUDDD, 10/25/11 at 141.5)
Start Date: March, 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by calichris View Post
"You'll recall from chapter 1, some of my studies have explored whether eating high or low fat food on Diet Day plays any role in how much weight you lose. In one of those studies, I divided up participants into two groups: one group ate high-fat foods on Diet Day and the other ate low-fat foods. The folks on the high-fat diet (45% fat, 15% protein, 40% carbohydrates) had the following results:
- They lost 17% more weight
- They lost 32% more body fat
- They had an 8% increase in muscle (lean body mass), while the low-fat group had no increase."
Thanks for this Christina, very interesting! (I guess not surprising, though.)
shirlc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2014, 03:55 PM   #100
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,946
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/105/105-110
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance.
Start Date: 2011
Thanks, Christina. The rest of this post is a longwinded way of saying that the claim in the book is mistaken and should be disregarded until such time as an erratum is provided that indicates it is a different study with uncannily similar results.

It's deplorable that the study isn't clearly footnoted or referenced, it's just not good enough and I think the publisher has to take some responsibility here. I don't care if they think the target demographic for the book would be unlikely to consult references or footnotes, they should be clear and available in some form.

One of the problems is that the titles make it seem as if they have published 'salami' papers from the same expt./group of participants and published the data several times with different emphases (this is a practice that is much frowned upon and messes up data for many reasons). However, having read through Klempel's thesis where the results/MS are present, it does seem as if several papers may be the one study group. (Because it's part of Klempel's thesis, the papers are available to read as a journal waiver has been granted. However, the fact that it's not immediately obvious as to what happened or whether they're different groups of participants is wretched.)

Klempel does have publications that seem to be a different study group - but it really shouldn't be this tricky to sort out and this is the study that I complained about previously. It reports:
Quote:
Fat free mass remained unchanged throughout the course of the trial in both groups
Klempel et al Nutr Diabetes. 2013 May 27.Benefit of a low-fat over high-fat diet on vascular health during alternate day fasting.

Klempel et al 2013 Metabolism Alternate day fasting (ADF) with a high-fat diet produces similar weight loss and cardio-protection as ADF with a low-fat diet.

You're correct, the Metabolism paper does report:
Quote:
Body weight was reduced (P<0.0001) by ADF-HF (4.8%±1.1%) and by ADF-LF (4.2%±0.8%). Fat mass decreased (P<0.0001) by ADF-HF (5.4±1.5 kg) and ADF-LF (4.2±0.6 kg). Fat free mass remained unchanged. [My emphasis.]
So, a tad

Likewise the Nutr Diabetes paper reports:
Quote:
Fat free mass did not change during the course of the trial.
I have to confess myself baffled. I've now checked through 40 of Varady's papers (whether lead author or not) and I can't find confirmation of her claim in the part you've summarised/quoted. And the results summary is that from the Metabolism paper (translated into lbs and inches rather than the kgs and cms in the paper).
__________________
Motto: SINS - Simple Is the New Sustainable

Dec 2014 A DXA scan reported very low muscle mass (sarcopenia) so I'm still thinking about how to cope with that. I have some joint surgery to schedule. I may miss questions that people ask me or personals. Apologies if I do, it's not intentional.
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2014, 04:19 PM   #101
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,984
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/212/147 or size 8/10
WOE: 2000/1000 rotations, moderate carb
Start Date: 11/3/14; JUDDD 7/11/12
Maybe I'll ask her on her FB page!
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2014, 02:22 PM   #102
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,984
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/212/147 or size 8/10
WOE: 2000/1000 rotations, moderate carb
Start Date: 11/3/14; JUDDD 7/11/12
Dr. Varady pointed me to the study below, and this time I noticed that the high fat group lost more pounds of fat than pounds on the scale, which would seem to indicate an increase in lean body mass. The phrase "lean body mass was unchanged" seems to refer to the low fat group , for which the scale pounds and fast mass pounds lost were the same.

Alternate day fasting (ADF) with a high - PubMed Mobile
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2014, 03:05 PM   #103
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
SlowSure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London/Herts UK
Posts: 3,946
Gallery: SlowSure
Stats: 157/105/105-110
WOE: JUDDD Maintenance.
Start Date: 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by calichris View Post
Dr. Varady pointed me to the study below, and this time I noticed that the high fat group lost more pounds of fat than pounds on the scale, which would seem to indicate an increase in lean body mass. The phrase "lean body mass was unchanged" seems to refer to the low fat group , for which the scale pounds and fast mass pounds lost were the same.

Alternate day fasting (ADF) with a high - PubMed Mobile
The data are available in Klempel's thesis and I have read them. I don't think:
Quote:
They lost 17% more weight
- They lost 32% more body fat
- They had an 8% increase in muscle (lean body mass), while the low-fat group had no increase." [my emphasis]
can map to:
Quote:
During the baseline period (weeks 1-2), both the ADF-HF and ADF-LF groups lost weight (P < 0.001),despite being given diets that provided 100% of their energy needs (Figure 2). During the ADF weightloss period (weeks 3-10), body weight was reduced (P < 0.0001) by 4.9 ± 1.1% (4.4 ± 1.0 kg) in the ADF-HF group and by 4.2 ± 0.8% (3.7 ± 0.7 kg) in the ADF-LF group. There were no differences between groups for weight loss at any time point. BMI decreased (P < 0.0001) by 1.7 ± 0.4 and 1.5 ± 0.3 kg/m2, respectively, in the ADF-HF and ADF-LF groups during the weight loss period. Changes in body composition are reported in Table 3. Fat mass and fat free mass did not change during the baseline weight maintenance period. During the weight loss period, fat mass decreased (P < 0.0001) in the ADF-HF and ADF-LF groups by 5.6 ± 1.5 kg and 4.2 ± 0.6 kg, respectively. There were no differences between groups for fat mass at any time. Fat free mass remained unchanged throughout the course of the trial. Waist circumference did not change during the baseline period in either intervention group. During the weight loss period, waist circumference decreased (P < 0.001) by 7.5 ± 1.5 cm and 7.3 ± 0.9 cm in the ADF-HF group and ADF-LF group, respectively...

Body composition was also favorably altered with both diets. To elaborate, fat mass decreased to asimilar extent in the ADF-HF group (5.6 kg) and the ADF-LF group (4.2 kg). As for fat free mass, non-significant increases were noted for both the HF diet (1.2 kg) and LF diet (0.5 kg). These data suggest that the weight loss observed with ADF results from a decrease in fat mass, and not fat free mass. Our findings also indicate that this regimen may allow for the retention of lean mass during periods of dietary restriction. [My emphasis.]
If it's non-significant, it's non-significant. The footnote 2 for Table 3 (where the seemingly odd data are reported) notes:
Quote:
No differences between the ADF-HF and ADF-LF groups for absolute change in any body composition parameter (Independent samples t-test)
And, without going into this too much, when your study participants are mostly female, there will be variances in fat free mass that are simply things such as the influence of the menstrual cycle on the gall bladder. Also, while I take the point that the high fat diet in this case might not have been substantially higher in fat than SAD, it might have been enough to increase (say) gall bladder size or those bits of the digestive system that cope with metabolising fat. These are all reasons why when figures are small enough to be non-significant, then they are non-significant.

There is a distinction between fat free mass and actual muscle, if Dr Varady specifically means muscle but although I've read through the thesis version, I can't find that they did the sort of incredibly sophisticated analysis that would allow researchers specifically to single out muscle gain.

I disagree with the wording of the book and can not find data in the studies to support that wording. If the fault lies with my understanding, that's unfortunate but I do think there's a lack of clarity.

Last edited by SlowSure; 01-19-2014 at 03:10 PM..
SlowSure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2014, 08:18 PM   #104
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
calichris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 3,984
Gallery: calichris
Stats: 273.7/212/147 or size 8/10
WOE: 2000/1000 rotations, moderate carb
Start Date: 11/3/14; JUDDD 7/11/12
I see your point. I don't know ... it does seem unclear. To my mind, 1.2 kg (2.65 pounds) of lean mass doesn't seem insignificant, unless it really is not muscle. We need more information!
calichris is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.