Question about ketosis... does it really help you burn fat faster than CICO?
Replies
-
That's not true. I lost the majority of my weight doing no exercise and was on a keto plan. And I have never in my life eaten "garbage".
To the OP - I suspect I would have lost the same amount of weight on a non-keto plan since all you really need is a calorie deficit, but keto was great for controlling my appetite and made it easier for me to stick to my diet. [/quote]
I agree with the poster above, I did the same thing. I felt amazing and my skin was just beautiful!
0 -
I do some of my runs and bike rides before breakfast. And blow up a lot earlier and a lot harder. And it hurts. The aim being for my body to better utilise fat stores as a source of energy during long rides/runs.
You might want to read up on "keto-adaptation." If you stay in ketosis long enough (3+ weeks), your body starts utilizing both ketones and fats more effectively for fuel. It's kind of cool, and it'll prevent bonking. Some endurance athletes are doing it, but it works for n00b runners like me, too.
This is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin...
Give it a shot, and maybe I'll give you a lesson on mitochondrial biogenesis.
There isn't a single world class "running" athlete training and successfully competing while in ketosis.
Not one.
There really isn't anything else that needs to be said.
There is one more thing. If being in ketosis for a while makes your body use it more "effectively", then you'd use less, and thus lose slower, not faster.0 -
Serum lipid profile is improved by losing body fat, regardless of how one accomplishes the fat loss.
Bumping this thread to post an interesting study done by Volek and crew last year.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113605
This looks directly at carb impact on serum TG and SFA in a hypocaloric context by varying carb intake to get a dose-response profile. Lots of good stuff in the study, but the two primary findings were 1) that triglycerides go up with carb intake even during weight loss, and 2) that saturated fat in the blood isn't affected by saturated fat in the diet.
Bought to you by:
Funding: This work was funded by a grant from Dairy Research Institute, The Beef Checkoff, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Foundation.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »There is one more thing. If being in ketosis for a while makes your body use it more "effectively", then you'd use less, and thus lose slower, not faster.
+10 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »I do some of my runs and bike rides before breakfast. And blow up a lot earlier and a lot harder. And it hurts. The aim being for my body to better utilise fat stores as a source of energy during long rides/runs.
You might want to read up on "keto-adaptation." If you stay in ketosis long enough (3+ weeks), your body starts utilizing both ketones and fats more effectively for fuel. It's kind of cool, and it'll prevent bonking. Some endurance athletes are doing it, but it works for n00b runners like me, too.
This is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin...
Give it a shot, and maybe I'll give you a lesson on mitochondrial biogenesis.
There isn't a single world class "running" athlete training and successfully competing while in ketosis.
Not one.
There really isn't anything else that needs to be said.
There is one more thing. If being in ketosis for a while makes your body use it more "effectively", then you'd use less, and thus lose slower, not faster.
I used the word "effectively" instead of "efficiently" specifically to avoid that incorrect interpretation. "Adapted" athletes have been shown to have a higher peak rate of fat oxidation than non-adapted.Serum lipid profile is improved by losing body fat, regardless of how one accomplishes the fat loss.
Bumping this thread to post an interesting study done by Volek and crew last year.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113605
This looks directly at carb impact on serum TG and SFA in a hypocaloric context by varying carb intake to get a dose-response profile. Lots of good stuff in the study, but the two primary findings were 1) that triglycerides go up with carb intake even during weight loss, and 2) that saturated fat in the blood isn't affected by saturated fat in the diet.
Bought to you by:
Funding: This work was funded by a grant from Dairy Research Institute, The Beef Checkoff, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Foundation.
I was waiting for that one, but I posted it anyway in case some people might be interested in the actual science rather than weak attempts at discrediting the authors of the study.
That was the only study I've read that took a dose-response approach to studying carb intake, but if you're aware of others, contradictory or not, I'm interested.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I do some of my runs and bike rides before breakfast. And blow up a lot earlier and a lot harder. And it hurts. The aim being for my body to better utilise fat stores as a source of energy during long rides/runs.
You might want to read up on "keto-adaptation." If you stay in ketosis long enough (3+ weeks), your body starts utilizing both ketones and fats more effectively for fuel. It's kind of cool, and it'll prevent bonking. Some endurance athletes are doing it, but it works for n00b runners like me, too.
This is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin...
Give it a shot, and maybe I'll give you a lesson on mitochondrial biogenesis.
There isn't a single world class "running" athlete training and successfully competing while in ketosis.
Not one.
There really isn't anything else that needs to be said.
There is one more thing. If being in ketosis for a while makes your body use it more "effectively", then you'd use less, and thus lose slower, not faster.
I used the word "effectively" instead of "efficiently" specifically to avoid that incorrect interpretation. "Adapted" athletes have been shown to have a higher peak rate of fat oxidation than non-adapted.Serum lipid profile is improved by losing body fat, regardless of how one accomplishes the fat loss.
Bumping this thread to post an interesting study done by Volek and crew last year.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113605
This looks directly at carb impact on serum TG and SFA in a hypocaloric context by varying carb intake to get a dose-response profile. Lots of good stuff in the study, but the two primary findings were 1) that triglycerides go up with carb intake even during weight loss, and 2) that saturated fat in the blood isn't affected by saturated fat in the diet.
Bought to you by:
Funding: This work was funded by a grant from Dairy Research Institute, The Beef Checkoff, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Foundation.
I was waiting for that one, but I posted it anyway in case some people might be interested in the actual science rather than weak attempts at discrediting the authors of the study.
That was the only study I've read that took a dose-response approach to studying carb intake, but if you're aware of others, contradictory or not, I'm interested.
Most research is funded by someone other than the researcher... if we ignore all the research NOT funded by a source with an interest there'd be a lot fewer studies to discuss. And this goes for the "eat whole grains" (as opposed to none? or as opposed to bleached, enriched grains) studies, the "your body doesn't know the difference between sugar and HFCS" studies, and the lipid hypothesis studies on both side.
We shouldn't automatically assume the researchers cooked the data. But should look at the studies with a critical eye. And we should also critically view research where the researcher casts aside his own professional dogma and goes where the data leads. And we know those studies exist.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I do some of my runs and bike rides before breakfast. And blow up a lot earlier and a lot harder. And it hurts. The aim being for my body to better utilise fat stores as a source of energy during long rides/runs.
You might want to read up on "keto-adaptation." If you stay in ketosis long enough (3+ weeks), your body starts utilizing both ketones and fats more effectively for fuel. It's kind of cool, and it'll prevent bonking. Some endurance athletes are doing it, but it works for n00b runners like me, too.
This is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin...
Give it a shot, and maybe I'll give you a lesson on mitochondrial biogenesis.
There isn't a single world class "running" athlete training and successfully competing while in ketosis.
Not one.
There really isn't anything else that needs to be said.
There is one more thing. If being in ketosis for a while makes your body use it more "effectively", then you'd use less, and thus lose slower, not faster.
I used the word "effectively" instead of "efficiently" specifically to avoid that incorrect interpretation. "Adapted" athletes have been shown to have a higher peak rate of fat oxidation than non-adapted.Serum lipid profile is improved by losing body fat, regardless of how one accomplishes the fat loss.
Bumping this thread to post an interesting study done by Volek and crew last year.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113605
This looks directly at carb impact on serum TG and SFA in a hypocaloric context by varying carb intake to get a dose-response profile. Lots of good stuff in the study, but the two primary findings were 1) that triglycerides go up with carb intake even during weight loss, and 2) that saturated fat in the blood isn't affected by saturated fat in the diet.
Bought to you by:
Funding: This work was funded by a grant from Dairy Research Institute, The Beef Checkoff, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Foundation.
I was waiting for that one, but I posted it anyway in case some people might be interested in the actual science rather than weak attempts at discrediting the authors of the study.
That was the only study I've read that took a dose-response approach to studying carb intake, but if you're aware of others, contradictory or not, I'm interested.
So what? Fat is a slower energy source. Carbs are high performance fuel(anaerobic glycolysis doesn't use fat as a substrate). You can't change physiology to fit your dogma.
http://www.mysportscience.com/#!A-problem-with-the-reporting-of-effects-of-ketogenic-diet/cjds/558011140cf28827c188c6e5
0 -
Yeah, this has already been discussed. The advantage to an endurance athlete is simply one of fuel partitioning, not speed. If you don't want to burn more fat, there's no need for ketosis. 0
-
This is the definition of ketosis:
ke·to·sis/kēˈtōsis/
noun Medicine
noun: ketosis
1. a condition characterized by raised levels of ketone bodies in the body, associated with abnormal fat metabolism and diabetes mellitus or starvation.
2. accumulation of excessive amounts of ketone bodies in body tissues and fluids, occurring when fatty acids are incompletely metabolized.
3. the abnormal accumulation of ketones in the body as a result of excessive breakdown of fats caused by a deficiency or inadequate use of carbohydrates. Fatty acids are metabolized instead, and the end products, ketones, begin to accumulate. This condition is seen in starvation, occasionally in pregnancy if the intake of protein and carbohydrates is inadequate, and most frequently in diabetes mellitus. It is characterized by ketonuria, loss of potassium in the urine, and a fruity odor of acetone on the breath.
Ketosis is a metabolic process that occurs when the body does not have enough glucose for energy. Stored fats are broken down, resulting in a build-up of acids called ketones within the body. Some people encourage ketosis by following a diet called the ketogenic or low-carb diet.
So, yes, ketosis breaks down fat.0 -
That's also one of the sources of fear about ketogenic diets. Even doctors usually only study ketosis in the context of ketoacidosis -- a side effect of T1D. If you want to get past that fear and misunderstanding, you don't have to be much of a google ninja....0
-
CICO guarantees weight loss, but that doesn't mean it'll be fat loss. I'm not saying that keto is any better for that, but the idea that CICO will result in fat loss regardless of the food source is just wrong.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »I do some of my runs and bike rides before breakfast. And blow up a lot earlier and a lot harder. And it hurts. The aim being for my body to better utilise fat stores as a source of energy during long rides/runs.
You might want to read up on "keto-adaptation." If you stay in ketosis long enough (3+ weeks), your body starts utilizing both ketones and fats more effectively for fuel. It's kind of cool, and it'll prevent bonking. Some endurance athletes are doing it, but it works for n00b runners like me, too.
This is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin...
Give it a shot, and maybe I'll give you a lesson on mitochondrial biogenesis.
There isn't a single world class "running" athlete training and successfully competing while in ketosis.
Not one.
There really isn't anything else that needs to be said.
There is one more thing. If being in ketosis for a while makes your body use it more "effectively", then you'd use less, and thus lose slower, not faster.
I used the word "effectively" instead of "efficiently" specifically to avoid that incorrect interpretation. "Adapted" athletes have been shown to have a higher peak rate of fat oxidation than non-adapted.Serum lipid profile is improved by losing body fat, regardless of how one accomplishes the fat loss.
Bumping this thread to post an interesting study done by Volek and crew last year.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113605
This looks directly at carb impact on serum TG and SFA in a hypocaloric context by varying carb intake to get a dose-response profile. Lots of good stuff in the study, but the two primary findings were 1) that triglycerides go up with carb intake even during weight loss, and 2) that saturated fat in the blood isn't affected by saturated fat in the diet.
Bought to you by:
Funding: This work was funded by a grant from Dairy Research Institute, The Beef Checkoff, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Foundation.
I was waiting for that one, but I posted it anyway in case some people might be interested in the actual science rather than weak attempts at discrediting the authors of the study.
That was the only study I've read that took a dose-response approach to studying carb intake, but if you're aware of others, contradictory or not, I'm interested.
That STILL means they're using more fuel for the same amount of work.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »cordreyrich wrote: »CICO guarantees weight loss, but that doesn't mean it'll be fat loss. I'm not saying that keto is any better for that, but the idea that CICO will result in fat loss regardless of the food source is just wrong.
If you eat less than you burn, you're losing fat. You don't have to eat specific foods to lose fat. I ate what I wanted and lost 75 pounds. What did I lose then? All bone and muscle?
Depending on your intake, and starting point, you will lose significant muscle, yes. Ever hear the term "skinny fat"?
Lower weight does not automatically equate to better health. There are lots of skinny diabetics and future heart attack victims out there.
I've lost significant weight as well, and the content of diet is extremely important to body composition. I can be the weight I want to be by eating junk, sure. But it comes at the cost of carrying a higher bf%. I'd rather be authentically healthy by eating real food.0 -
cordreyrich wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »cordreyrich wrote: »CICO guarantees weight loss, but that doesn't mean it'll be fat loss. I'm not saying that keto is any better for that, but the idea that CICO will result in fat loss regardless of the food source is just wrong.
If you eat less than you burn, you're losing fat. You don't have to eat specific foods to lose fat. I ate what I wanted and lost 75 pounds. What did I lose then? All bone and muscle?
Depending on your intake, and starting point, you will lose significant muscle, yes. Ever hear the term "skinny fat"?
Lower weight does not automatically equate to better health. There are lots of skinny diabetics and future heart attack victims out there.
I've lost significant weight as well, and the content of diet is extremely important to body composition. I can be the weight I want to be by eating junk, sure. But it comes at the cost of carrying a higher bf%. I'd rather be authentically healthy by eating real food.
Yeah, just look at him, those probably aren't abs but fat deposits.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I do some of my runs and bike rides before breakfast. And blow up a lot earlier and a lot harder. And it hurts. The aim being for my body to better utilise fat stores as a source of energy during long rides/runs.
You might want to read up on "keto-adaptation." If you stay in ketosis long enough (3+ weeks), your body starts utilizing both ketones and fats more effectively for fuel. It's kind of cool, and it'll prevent bonking. Some endurance athletes are doing it, but it works for n00b runners like me, too.
This is wrong in so many ways it's hard to know where to begin...
Give it a shot, and maybe I'll give you a lesson on mitochondrial biogenesis.
There isn't a single world class "running" athlete training and successfully competing while in ketosis.
Not one.
There really isn't anything else that needs to be said.
There is one more thing. If being in ketosis for a while makes your body use it more "effectively", then you'd use less, and thus lose slower, not faster.
I used the word "effectively" instead of "efficiently" specifically to avoid that incorrect interpretation. "Adapted" athletes have been shown to have a higher peak rate of fat oxidation than non-adapted.Serum lipid profile is improved by losing body fat, regardless of how one accomplishes the fat loss.
Bumping this thread to post an interesting study done by Volek and crew last year.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113605
This looks directly at carb impact on serum TG and SFA in a hypocaloric context by varying carb intake to get a dose-response profile. Lots of good stuff in the study, but the two primary findings were 1) that triglycerides go up with carb intake even during weight loss, and 2) that saturated fat in the blood isn't affected by saturated fat in the diet.
Bought to you by:
Funding: This work was funded by a grant from Dairy Research Institute, The Beef Checkoff, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Foundation.
I was waiting for that one, but I posted it anyway in case some people might be interested in the actual science rather than weak attempts at discrediting the authors of the study.
That was the only study I've read that took a dose-response approach to studying carb intake, but if you're aware of others, contradictory or not, I'm interested.
That STILL means they're using more fuel for the same amount of work.
Yeah, some people want to burn fat. Crazy, eh? Might have something to do with how much you store on your body vs glycogen.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
cordreyrich wrote: »CICO guarantees weight loss, but that doesn't mean it'll be fat loss. I'm not saying that keto is any better for that, but the idea that CICO will result in fat loss regardless of the food source is just wrong.
Actually, CICO will always guarantee fat loss. But it doesn't guarantee that you wont also lose lean body mass. I have yet to ever see a study where a person is in a deficit and only lost muscle, tissue, water, etc..
0 -
cordreyrich wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »cordreyrich wrote: »CICO guarantees weight loss, but that doesn't mean it'll be fat loss. I'm not saying that keto is any better for that, but the idea that CICO will result in fat loss regardless of the food source is just wrong.
If you eat less than you burn, you're losing fat. You don't have to eat specific foods to lose fat. I ate what I wanted and lost 75 pounds. What did I lose then? All bone and muscle?
Depending on your intake, and starting point, you will lose significant muscle, yes. Ever hear the term "skinny fat"?
Lower weight does not automatically equate to better health. There are lots of skinny diabetics and future heart attack victims out there.
I've lost significant weight as well, and the content of diet is extremely important to body composition. I can be the weight I want to be by eating junk, sure. But it comes at the cost of carrying a higher bf%. I'd rather be authentically healthy by eating real food.
Ah yes, just look at how "skinny fat" @asflatasapancake is.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »cordreyrich wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »cordreyrich wrote: »CICO guarantees weight loss, but that doesn't mean it'll be fat loss. I'm not saying that keto is any better for that, but the idea that CICO will result in fat loss regardless of the food source is just wrong.
If you eat less than you burn, you're losing fat. You don't have to eat specific foods to lose fat. I ate what I wanted and lost 75 pounds. What did I lose then? All bone and muscle?
Depending on your intake, and starting point, you will lose significant muscle, yes. Ever hear the term "skinny fat"?
Lower weight does not automatically equate to better health. There are lots of skinny diabetics and future heart attack victims out there.
I've lost significant weight as well, and the content of diet is extremely important to body composition. I can be the weight I want to be by eating junk, sure. But it comes at the cost of carrying a higher bf%. I'd rather be authentically healthy by eating real food.
Yeah, just look at him, those probably aren't abs but fat deposits.
I wish my fat were shaped like that!0 -
Is protein powder real food?cordreyrich wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »cordreyrich wrote: »CICO guarantees weight loss, but that doesn't mean it'll be fat loss. I'm not saying that keto is any better for that, but the idea that CICO will result in fat loss regardless of the food source is just wrong.
If you eat less than you burn, you're losing fat. You don't have to eat specific foods to lose fat. I ate what I wanted and lost 75 pounds. What did I lose then? All bone and muscle?
Depending on your intake, and starting point, you will lose significant muscle, yes. Ever hear the term "skinny fat"?
Lower weight does not automatically equate to better health. There are lots of skinny diabetics and future heart attack victims out there.
I've lost significant weight as well, and the content of diet is extremely important to body composition. I can be the weight I want to be by eating junk, sure. But it comes at the cost of carrying a higher bf%. I'd rather be authentically healthy by eating real food.
0 -
cordreyrich wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »cordreyrich wrote: »CICO guarantees weight loss, but that doesn't mean it'll be fat loss. I'm not saying that keto is any better for that, but the idea that CICO will result in fat loss regardless of the food source is just wrong.
If you eat less than you burn, you're losing fat. You don't have to eat specific foods to lose fat. I ate what I wanted and lost 75 pounds. What did I lose then? All bone and muscle?
Depending on your intake, and starting point, you will lose significant muscle, yes. Ever hear the term "skinny fat"?
Lower weight does not automatically equate to better health. There are lots of skinny diabetics and future heart attack victims out there.
I've lost significant weight as well, and the content of diet is extremely important to body composition. I can be the weight I want to be by eating junk, sure. But it comes at the cost of carrying a higher bf%. I'd rather be authentically healthy by eating real food.
Losing weight is primarily ruled by diet.
Body composition is primarily ruled by exercise routine.
Yes, both have an affect on the other, but minimally.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions