LOW CARBOHYDRATE DIET INDUCES WEIGHT LOSS AND CHANGES IN FUEL OXIDATION DURING EXERCISE IN OBESE ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low carbohydrate (CHO)/high protein (PRO) diets are claimed to be among the most effective treatments for weight loss. The data to support such claims are conflicting, suggesting glycogen depletion and diuresis as the causes of weight reduction. PURPOSE To estimate changes in body mass (BM) and composition and macronutrient oxidation (Ox) at rest and during exercise (E) at 65\% VO2max in young obese adults on a 14 day low CHO (< 20g/day) ad libitum diet. METHODS 6 females (F) and 7 males (M) were tested before and after the diet for body composition and indirect calorimetry corrected for PRO Ox (24hr urinary urea) at rest and at 15 and 30 min of E at 65\% VO2peak. RESULTS Food diaries indicated that the low CHO diet results in a decrease in daily caloric (2599 ± vs. 1473 ± kcal, p < 0.05) and CHO intake (4.6 ± .4 vs. 0.3 ± .002 g-kg−1-day−1, p < 0.05), an increase in PRO (1.3 ± .2 vs. 1.6 ± .1 g-kg−1-day−1, p < 0.05) but no change in daily fat intake (1.4 ± .2 vs. 1.3 ± .1 g-kg−1-day−1, p < 0.05) before and during the diet. F and M lost body mass (Δ1.7 ± .5 and Δ4.9 ± .6 kg respectively, p < 0.05; significant gender difference, p < 0.05) and fat mass (Δ1.9 ± .4 and Δ2.8 ± .5 kg respectively, p < 0.05); lean body mass remained unchanged in F but decreased in M (Δ2.1 ± .7 kg, p < 0.05). CHO Ox ceased at rest and decreased 25\% by 15 min of E (p < 0.05), stabilizing thereafter. PRO Ox increased 38\% at rest (p < 0.05) and remained elevated during E. Fat Ox was slightly, but insignificantly, increased at rest. There was a 50\% increase (p < 0.05) in fat Ox at 15 min of E with no further increase thereafter, in response to the diet. CONCLUSIONS A low CHO diet induces a decrease in CHO (rest and exercise) and an increase in PRO (rest) and fat (exercise) Ox. Weight and fat mass loss seem to result from a combined effect of decreased caloric intake and increasaed fat Ox during physical activity. Lean body mass loss in M but not F may be related to greater glycogen and water loss and higher gluconeogenic activity. Supported by the University of Ottawa Development Fund.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".