Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Maintenance calories and macro nutrient ratio
ForecasterJason
Posts: 2,577 Member
I want to discuss how much influence macro ratios have on how many calories one needs to maintain weight. It seems to me like there is some anecdotal evidence that some people following a LCHF diet (or at least one that has fat as the largest source of calories) do not need as many calories to maintain as compared to eating a diet much higher in carbs.
I was once in a discussion on another forum with someone who I believe is eating LCHF. As a very small guy, I mentioned that my activity level was high enough such that I needed about 2500 calories to maintain my weight. This guy is 80 lbs heavier than me and stated that I must be "incredibly active to use that much energy each day at my body weight", as that is about what he maintains at. I don't think I was as active as he was thinking.
This idea is also supported by Mark Sisson.
Thoughts?
I was once in a discussion on another forum with someone who I believe is eating LCHF. As a very small guy, I mentioned that my activity level was high enough such that I needed about 2500 calories to maintain my weight. This guy is 80 lbs heavier than me and stated that I must be "incredibly active to use that much energy each day at my body weight", as that is about what he maintains at. I don't think I was as active as he was thinking.
This idea is also supported by Mark Sisson.
Thoughts?
0
Replies
-
Body composition has the biggest impact on BMR, NEAT and TEA. Macros have minimial impact on TEF. Protein > carbs > fat
I have a desk job and only exercise 5-6 hours week. I maintain at 3000 calories.0 -
Regarding the person I mentioned from another forum, I misinterpreted him, so that comparison is now irrelevant. He was saying his BMR is closer to my maintenance, which is more plausible.
I had forgotten about the TEF when trying to evaluate any differences in macros having an influence on maintenance. That does make sense then that there wouldn't be much variation.0 -
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 tried to address this. "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance".
They claimed an effect of composition " During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity. "
0 -
This is something to look at if people do Evgeni's experiment.0
-
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 tried to address this. "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance".
They claimed an effect of composition " During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity. "
Don't Hall's papers basically refute the metabolic advantage argument?
Personally, after much reading there might or mightn't be a difference - it seems to be confounded by Atwater factors and actual diet compositions so that these differences are induced by lab diet.0 -
I don't think Hall has done a clean study that just looks at metabolism in maintenance successfully. I also feel he has an agenda. He's a bright guy and should get back to modelling work to come up with a model that accurately predicts outcomes over short timescales.
The Hall study in the news didn't achieve maintenance </end>
ETA: Also Hall's work doesn't trump the above, it's just another data point.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is something to look at if people do Evgeni's experiment.
I'm afraid not. My little experiment won't have any control on CICO except for my self reported logging (mediocre at best) vs someone else. Our diet variance is high enough that we won't be able to really look at energy balance comparisons. In short - this isn't a metabolic ward study.0 -
I don't think Hall has done a clean study that just looks at metabolism in maintenance successfully. I also feel he has an agenda. He's a bright guy and should get back to modelling work to come up with a model that accurately predicts outcomes over short timescales.
The Hall study in the news didn't achieve maintenance </end>
ETA: Also Hall's work doesn't trump the above, it's just another data point.
Not the recent Hall study. One of the earlier non-modeling studies.
But speaking only of the modelling work...
"Our model simulations show that present limitations on the precision of measuring energy expenditure before a diet intervention result in a substantial expected inter-individual variability of weight loss, since a given diet results in an uncertain degree of energy deficit."
In other words, metabolic advantage gets lost in that.
Sure, he seems to have an agenda of fighting an agenda.0 -
I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel
Which Hall study are you referring to then ?
If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.
Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.0 -
I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel
Which Hall study are you referring to then ?
If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.
Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.
I'll have to look in my files - I may be confusing it with a Eugene Fine study.
I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692
By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.
I would argue that Hall's work is objective and transparent. What happens in public and the whole response to Taubes is reasonable. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to remain ensconced in lab while others make what you believe to be unreasonable claims.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel
Which Hall study are you referring to then ?
If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.
Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.
I'll have to look in my files - I may be confusing it with a Eugene Fine study.
I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692
By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.
I would argue that Hall's work is objective and transparent. What happens in public and the whole response to Taubes is reasonable. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to remain ensconced in lab while others make what you believe to be unreasonable claims.
@EvgeniZyntx This is the study I suspect everyone is referring to. I don't believe it's been published though.0 -
I don't think Hall has done a clean study that just looks at metabolism in maintenance successfully. I also feel he has an agenda. He's a bright guy and should get back to modelling work to come up with a model that accurately predicts outcomes over short timescales.
The Hall study in the news didn't achieve maintenance </end>
ETA: Also Hall's work doesn't trump the above, it's just another data point.
I would question that Hall has an agenda. And considering you are the one who turned me onto his studies that he has done supporting low carb, I would question how you came to that conclusion. KH supports LCHF diets, especially in free-living conditions, but his last two studies (5 day study and the subsequent 8 week study to evaluate the effects of Keto to address the critics) aimed to disprove insulin theory, which it's seems it has.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel
Which Hall study are you referring to then ?
If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.
Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.
I'll have to look in my files - I may be confusing it with a Eugene Fine study.
I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692
By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.
I would argue that Hall's work is objective and transparent. What happens in public and the whole response to Taubes is reasonable. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to remain ensconced in lab while others make what you believe to be unreasonable claims.
@EvgeniZyntx This is the study I suspect everyone is referring to. I don't believe it's been published though.
Didn't we already go through the whole discussion of this one?
cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(15)00350-20 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel
Which Hall study are you referring to then ?
If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.
Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.
I'll have to look in my files - I may be confusing it with a Eugene Fine study.
I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692
By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.
I would argue that Hall's work is objective and transparent. What happens in public and the whole response to Taubes is reasonable. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to remain ensconced in lab while others make what you believe to be unreasonable claims.
@EvgeniZyntx This is the study I suspect everyone is referring to. I don't believe it's been published though.
Didn't we already go through the whole discussion of this one?
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2
Kind of. KH did an 8 week metabolic ward study comparing Keto against a LF baseline. It looks at adaption period and fat loss.
I suspect he did this to address the haters. And further disapprove insulin theory.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel
Which Hall study are you referring to then ?
If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.
Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.
I'll have to look in my files - I may be confusing it with a Eugene Fine study.
I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692
By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.
I would argue that Hall's work is objective and transparent. What happens in public and the whole response to Taubes is reasonable. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to remain ensconced in lab while others make what you believe to be unreasonable claims.
@EvgeniZyntx This is the study I suspect everyone is referring to. I don't believe it's been published though.
Didn't we already go through the whole discussion of this one?
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2
Kind of. KH did an 8 week metabolic ward study comparing Keto against a LF baseline. It looks at adaption period and fat loss.
I suspect he did this to address the haters. And further disapprove insulin theory.
I suspect he did that to address the reasonable issues found in the first study. It takes a while to set up a proper ward study (from funding to approval). Still, I'd hope he would do more crossover work.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel
Which Hall study are you referring to then ?
If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.
Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.
I'll have to look in my files - I may be confusing it with a Eugene Fine study.
I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692
By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.
I would argue that Hall's work is objective and transparent. What happens in public and the whole response to Taubes is reasonable. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to remain ensconced in lab while others make what you believe to be unreasonable claims.
@EvgeniZyntx This is the study I suspect everyone is referring to. I don't believe it's been published though.
Didn't we already go through the whole discussion of this one?
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2
Kind of. KH did an 8 week metabolic ward study comparing Keto against a LF baseline. It looks at adaption period and fat loss.
I suspect he did this to address the haters. And further disapprove insulin theory.
I suspect he did that to address the reasonable issues found in the first study. It takes a while to set up a proper ward study (from funding to approval). Still, I'd hope he would do more crossover work.
There is a video posted in the one I linked and he preliminary walks through some of this data. It's fairly interesting.0 -
"EvgeniZyntx wrote: »I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692
By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.
With no adaptation period between diets that would just repeat the problems with Hall's 6 day wonder where the second diet is a period of change not at a consistent state.
It should be eucaloric not isocaloric surely, ie both arms should maintain weight not be at the same calorie intake - that prejudges and may influence the outcome.
In the reference above "In the ad libitum study, energy intakes were 154 kcal/d lower on the HF-LC than the MF-MC diet (P < 0.05) (Table 1), and weight loss was correspondingly greater (6.3 ± 2.2 vs. 4.4 ± 2.6 kg in 4 wk, P < 0.01). In the isocaloric study, despite being served food of the same energy content, intake was slightly lower (66 kcal/d) and weight loss greater (7.2 ± 2.3 vs. 4.7 ± 1.0 kg in 4 wk, P < 0.05), on the HF-LC diet after correction for unconsumed food. - See more at: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2007-0692#sthash.K3BBmc3E.dpuf " so it wasn't a weight maintenance protocol. "Subjects felt significantly (P 0.014) less hungry (4.6 on the VAS) while following the LC ketogenic diet than while following the MC nonketogenic diet".
By the way I couldn't see any measured metabolic rate data.0 -
I would question that Hall has an agenda. And considering you are the one who turned me onto his studies that he has done supporting low carb, I would question how you came to that conclusion.
He has allowed his results to be presented in ways which are not justified by the data. Perhaps someone else is responsible for this, but it has his name on it.
I dislike the notions you use of studies done to support something, or to disapprove (sic) something. By all means do an experiment to test a hypothesis but leave the bias at home.0 -
I would question that Hall has an agenda. And considering you are the one who turned me onto his studies that he has done supporting low carb, I would question how you came to that conclusion.
He has allowed his results to be presented in ways which are not justified by the data. Perhaps someone else is responsible for this, but it has his name on it.
I dislike the notions you use of studies done to support something, or to disapprove (sic) something. By all means do an experiment to test a hypothesis but leave the bias at home.
His studied were done to test insulin theory. He allowed of an adaption period in his latest one, and he is presenting results based on his methods. It is not KH that is misrepresenting data, its people reporting on KH's results. It's no different than all other media when the same crap happens with low carb studies.
Perhaps the problem is you don't like the result. But at this time, his latest paper hasn't been published. The only thing that has, is a video discussing the results.0 -
I haven't seen the results of the latest one, so I have no opinion on it yet. The clinical trial record does not contain the word "insulin" so I query your assertion about the purpose of the study. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01967563
The primary outcomes stated were "To determine 24hr energy expenditure, respiratory quotient, and sleeping energy expenditure following a 4-week eucaloric ketogenic diet as compared to 4 weeks of consuming an energy-balanced standard diet". Didn't seem to be the primary outcome of the PR spin.
KH's last Cell paper did have a misleading title not supported by the data. Not sure what its NCT number was.
Clinical trials are in the pipeline from elsewhere, like https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02417350 so not all eggs are in one basket. Reproducing results is a key part of the scientific method.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions