Documentary On Twins Going Fat-free Or Carbs-free For A Month

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
One twin gave up sugar, the other gave up fat. Their experiment could change YOUR life | Daily Mail Online
Sugar v Fat, 2013-2014, Horizon - BBC Two

The results after a month are :

Carbs :

-improved insulin sensitivity (but the doc says this is only temporary , long term it would get awful no doubt)
-very minor weight loss, lost only fat
-performed better in physical and mental activity

Fats:
-worse insulin sensitivity
-worse physical and mental performance
-lost much more weight but mostly muscle mass

The problem with the experiment (besides their assumptions that a long term high carb diet would be bad for health when the only evidence from the experiment is that short term it's great) is that we don't know how much proteins each of them ate, but I don't know if it was any different.
An other flaw is that the experiment was sponsored by @Westside PUFAs and @Stryker .
 

WestCoaster

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2016
Messages
130
Location
Vancouver, BC
They didn't lose muscle mass, neither of them did, but especially the one consuming fat. Lean body mass includes water, and most of the weight loss in the first 1-4 weeks on low carb high fat diet is water. It actually is extremely difficult to lose muscle mass. One would have to completely starve themselves for a decent period of time before muscle breakdown ensues. There is also a period of time that can take anywhere from 2 days up to 6 weeks known as the carb flu which can leave someone miserable during the type of fat adaption.

It also often takes longer than 1 month for someone to get fat adapted who is completely glucose reliant. Once fat adaption hits, the difference in physical and mental clarity are light years ahead of glucose adaption simply because the insulin levels are low enough and your body has a constant energy supply, whereas as a glucose dependent person does not. Don't eat, BG drops and the person becomes one angry SOB, this doesn't happen with a fat adapted individual.

Fyi, there are a plethora of long-term studies out there done on groups sometimes as large as tens of thousands of people comparing LcHF diets to HcLF diets showing the results and differences, and it does not favor the high carb group ever.
 

EIRE24

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2015
Messages
1,792
They didn't lose muscle mass, neither of them did, but especially the one consuming fat. Lean body mass includes water, and most of the weight loss in the first 1-4 weeks on low carb high fat diet is water. It actually is extremely difficult to lose muscle mass. One would have to completely starve themselves for a decent period of time before muscle breakdown ensues. There is also a period of time that can take anywhere from 2 days up to 6 weeks known as the carb flu which can leave someone miserable during the type of fat adaption.

It also often takes longer than 1 month for someone to get fat adapted who is completely glucose reliant. Once fat adaption hits, the difference in physical and mental clarity are light years ahead of glucose adaption simply because the insulin levels are low enough and your body has a constant energy supply, whereas as a glucose dependent person does not. Don't eat, BG drops and the person becomes one angry SOB, this doesn't happen with a fat adapted individual.

Fyi, there are a plethora of long-term studies out there done on groups sometimes as large as tens of thousands of people comparing LcHF diets to HcLF diets showing the results and differences, and it does not favor the high carb group ever.
Really? Never favours high carb? Do you not have a high carb diet like most on here that adhere to peat principles?
 
OP
W

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
They didn't lose muscle mass, neither of them did, but especially the one consuming fat. Lean body mass includes water, and most of the weight loss in the first 1-4 weeks on low carb high fat diet is water. It actually is extremely difficult to lose muscle mass. One would have to completely starve themselves for a decent period of time before muscle breakdown ensues. There is also a period of time that can take anywhere from 2 days up to 6 weeks known as the carb flu which can leave someone miserable during the type of fat adaption.

It also often takes longer than 1 month for someone to get fat adapted who is completely glucose reliant. Once fat adaption hits, the difference in physical and mental clarity are light years ahead of glucose adaption simply because the insulin levels are low enough and your body has a constant energy supply, whereas as a glucose dependent person does not. Don't eat, BG drops and the person becomes one angry SOB, this doesn't happen with a fat adapted individual.

Fyi, there are a plethora of long-term studies out there done on groups sometimes as large as tens of thousands of people comparing LcHF diets to HcLF diets showing the results and differences, and it does not favor the high carb group ever.


Can you share some of those studies? I'm interested as there's a good amount of positive anecdotical feedback on ketogenic diets. However I have to admit I'm not sure how the body would run without glucose when performing physically, same for brain function. In a podcast @haidut mentioned ketogenic diets being beneficial to slow down alzheimer's disease but brain function got worse .
I'm not sure I can agree on your idea that the brother lost water and not muscle mass, they are pretty clear about it , so while the doctor could be wrong I have no way to prove or disprove it.
The trend that I seem to see is that going all glucose or all fat seems to be pretty good for many individuals, better than having somewhat of a mix of the two (randle cycle?). One other thing is that there's a lot of evidence towards epigenetics and adaptation towards the environment, so checking the diets of our ancestors could maybe give clues as to what diets we should favor.
 

Ewelina

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2014
Messages
95
Location
UK
Another flaw was that the high fat diet was quite high in PUFA and processed meat. Can't be good for anybody.
 
OP
W

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
A ketogenic diet is most of the time high in PUFAS from what I see. Of course someone interested in Peat would focus on quality dairy and maybe some red meat .
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
They didn't lose muscle mass, neither of them did, but especially the one consuming fat. Lean body mass includes water, and most of the weight loss in the first 1-4 weeks on low carb high fat diet is water. It actually is extremely difficult to lose muscle mass. One would have to completely starve themselves for a decent period of time before muscle breakdown ensues. There is also a period of time that can take anywhere from 2 days up to 6 weeks known as the carb flu which can leave someone miserable during the type of fat adaption.

It also often takes longer than 1 month for someone to get fat adapted who is completely glucose reliant. Once fat adaption hits, the difference in physical and mental clarity are light years ahead of glucose adaption simply because the insulin levels are low enough and your body has a constant energy supply, whereas as a glucose dependent person does not. Don't eat, BG drops and the person becomes one angry SOB, this doesn't happen with a fat adapted individual.

Fyi, there are a plethora of long-term studies out there done on groups sometimes as large as tens of thousands of people comparing LcHF diets to HcLF diets showing the results and differences, and it does not favor the high carb group ever.

Welcome on behalf of the RPF
 

paymanz

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
2,707
No matter how long your on a ketogenic diet, your body always needs/keeps certain level of blood sugar, and your body is very serious about it,your cortisol level on a ketogenic diet for sure is higher than a carb diet.same for adrenaline.

A high fat diet also negatively effects your thyroid function.

All of the healthy populations/cultures on earth are high carb eaters.none of them are not ketogenic eaters for sure!
 
Last edited:

Drareg

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
4,772
If your ancestors Epigentically adapted to high fat or high glucose it doesn't mean high fat is better in any case,the fact still remains you can and should adapt for the times we live in,for example fruits and vegetables that normally only grow in hot climates can be found in countries where this produce will not grow well,like sweet oranges in Norway for example,why not take advantage of this?
All that aside we are metabolising a bit of both at all times,in truth we don't even know the entire complexity of metabolism, some high fat dieters consume cream which contains some carbohydrate.

Anothe fallacy with this line of thinking is colder climate persons must be better with fat adaptation because fruit abundance was not present for their ancestors, a lot of dairy,mushrooms,berries are available in colder climates even in December,all with carbohydrate,fruits and vegetables can be dried and fermented which is all possible with older generations in said climates.

I can see this point on epigentics popping up more,my ancestors ate this way so it's better for me,its another form of paleo on the rise,wait and see,who will have the first website?
Is it a lack of energy to engage the future that we must claim past diets are the best,diets we really know little about?
They speculated for years on the Neanderthal diet until they found oyster shells in a vast amount,their skull structure indicates high androgens?
Perhaps they were Peaty and the high estrogen PUFA loving humans went psychotic and wiped them out for not following their religion of the times(paleo diet?Vegan?)

A better question Imo is ,what is the future of human food consumption and what foods are best to increase intelligence?
The other problem are those who define intelligence for us,if they have their way we will all be eating seeds and epigentically adapting to resemble Parrots,perfect species for those in "power".
 

Gl;itch.e

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
732
Age
41
Location
New Zealand
They didn't lose muscle mass, neither of them did, but especially the one consuming fat. Lean body mass includes water, and most of the weight loss in the first 1-4 weeks on low carb high fat diet is water. It actually is extremely difficult to lose muscle mass. One would have to completely starve themselves for a decent period of time before muscle breakdown ensues. There is also a period of time that can take anywhere from 2 days up to 6 weeks known as the carb flu which can leave someone miserable during the type of fat adaption.

It also often takes longer than 1 month for someone to get fat adapted who is completely glucose reliant. Once fat adaption hits, the difference in physical and mental clarity are light years ahead of glucose adaption simply because the insulin levels are low enough and your body has a constant energy supply, whereas as a glucose dependent person does not. Don't eat, BG drops and the person becomes one angry SOB, this doesn't happen with a fat adapted individual.

Fyi, there are a plethora of long-term studies out there done on groups sometimes as large as tens of thousands of people comparing LcHF diets to HcLF diets showing the results and differences, and it does not favor the high carb group ever.
Boy, you're a long way from home I reckon.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2018
Messages
765
If your ancestors Epigentically adapted to high fat or high glucose it doesn't mean high fat is better in any case,the fact still remains you can and should adapt for the times we live in,for example fruits and vegetables that normally only grow in hot climates can be found in countries where this produce will not grow well,like sweet oranges in Norway for example,why not take advantage of this?
All that aside we are metabolising a bit of both at all times,in truth we don't even know the entire complexity of metabolism, some high fat dieters consume cream which contains some carbohydrate.

Anothe fallacy with this line of thinking is colder climate persons must be better with fat adaptation because fruit abundance was not present for their ancestors, a lot of dairy,mushrooms,berries are available in colder climates even in December,all with carbohydrate,fruits and vegetables can be dried and fermented which is all possible with older generations in said climates.

I can see this point on epigentics popping up more,my ancestors ate this way so it's better for me,its another form of paleo on the rise,wait and see,who will have the first website?
Is it a lack of energy to engage the future that we must claim past diets are the best,diets we really know little about?
They speculated for years on the Neanderthal diet until they found oyster shells in a vast amount,their skull structure indicates high androgens?
Perhaps they were Peaty and the high estrogen PUFA loving humans went psychotic and wiped them out for not following their religion of the times(paleo diet?Vegan?)

A better question Imo is ,what is the future of human food consumption and what foods are best to increase intelligence?
The other problem are those who define intelligence for us,if they have their way we will all be eating seeds and epigentically adapting to resemble Parrots,perfect species for those in "power".
Exactly, we can eat like our ancestors and still follow most if not all of Peat’s diet principles
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom