Hitler var en kaloriräknare
Vissa menar att om man nämner Hitler eller nazister i en nätdiskussion så har man automatiskt förlorat. Men det här var så roligt att jag måste tipsa.
Studie efter studie visar mer viktnedgång på lågkolhydratkost, utan att tänka på kalorier. En ny studie bevisade dessutom att deltagare som åt mindre kolhydrater förbrände mer kalorier. Men vissa kan ändå inte släppa sina föråldrade ViktVäktar-tabeller, eller den överförenklade dogmen om ”kalorier in o ut”. Ungefär som Hitler i den här videon:
För några år sedan (kanske 3 eller 4) träffade jag via mitt jobb en kund som jag då knappt kände igen. Hon var otroligt slank, smal och vacker. Hon hade varit med i viktväktarna och var så lycklig över sin nya figur. Idag träffade jag henne igen, och nu var hon var hon "bara" vacker! De flesta (eller fler) av hennes överflödskilon hade ovälkomna återvänt. Men; och nu är det risk för lite skryt, hon kände inte igen MEJ! Jag har nämligen minskat minst 20 kg, och känner knappt igen mej själv. För att göra en lång historia kort, imorgon börjar min kund med LCHF!!! SO, WAS SAGEN SIE DARUM, MEINE LIEBEN FREUNDE...?
Det som är bra med den här studien är att man presenterade resultatet på individnivå och då ser man att det inte är så enkelt som att lågkolhydratkosten gav högre förbränning.
En annan sak som är konstig är ju att lågkolhydratkostens högre förbränning då inte resulterade i någon viktminskning i den viktstabila fasen där det var där dieterna jämfördes då det var samma energiintag dieterna emellan.
"Bodyweight was virtually identical during all three isocaloric diet phases which to me, as a rational indvidual whose head has never been embedded in his culo, quickly refutes the famous low-carb claim that greater weight loss will occur on a low-carb diet at a given caloric intake. At the caloric level calculated by the researchers to maintain weight, the low-carb diet did exactly what the other diets did – it maintained weight. It did not magically produce further weight loss while the other diets simply maintained the status quo.
I could by all rights end the discussion there, but the interesting thing about this study is that the lack of difference in weight status during the 3 diets is being roundly ignored by the very same low-carb advocates who are parading this study as proof of a metabolic weight loss advantage.
Instead, they are wanking on and on about an allegedly greater increase in resting energy expenditure and total energy expenditure experienced by the participants during the low-carb phase. This increase in REE and TEE, they are claiming, is proof that low-carb diets produce greater weight loss – even though the low-carb diet didn’t produce any weight loss at all."
"Anyway, in between each diet (dot) you’ll notice a straight line drawn. This line represents the increase or decrease in REE and TEE that occurred in each subject from one diet to another. As an example, cast your eyes on the 1st vertical row of dots in the TEE graph. Look at the dot second from the bottom; it shows a drop on TEE on the low-fat diet of around 1000 calories per day, but the line rises to the low-GI dot, which shows a drop of only 400 cals a day. The line then plunges back to almost 1000 calories a day again as it arrives at the low-carb dot.
Yes, that’s right – in this subject, the low-carb diet caused a similar greater drop in TEE as the low-fat diet when compared to the low-GI diet. I guess his low-carb “metabolic advantage” went AWOL or something…as it evidently did for numerous other participants. If you track the line from the low-GI diet to the low-carb diet on the REE graph, you’ll see that five participants experienced greater drops in REE and one experienced little change on the low-carb diet when compared to the low-GI diet. Compared to the low-fat diet, these subjects experienced similar or greater declines in REE. In other words, they experienced the exact opposite of what the low-carb cheerleaders are proclaiming about this study.
On the TEE graph, 8 of 21 subjects experienced greater declines in TEE on the low-carb diet when compared to the low-GI diet, and four of these folks experienced similar or greater declines in TEE than they did on the low-fat diet.
So you can see that the true story is a little more complicated and somewhat different to the one low-carb shills are trying to portray. Rather than a clear-cut case of reduced drops in REE and TEE during a low-carb diet, the indvidual results are in fact much more haphazard, with some subjects in fact showing markedly greater drops in REE and TEE during the low-carb diet."
http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=3680