Recent NuSI Ketogenic Study

raine291

I thought my low carb/ketogenic friends on MFP would enjoy this information. I rarely post, but I felt compelled to share this information to prevent the further spread of misinformation. As someone who was a research biologist for four years I am appalled at how Dr. Kevin Hall tried to spin the data from his NuSI study to fit his CICO agenda. He is a disgrace to scientists. It is definitely worth your time to watch. Here is the link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MiUyjMjuLl0&ebc=ANyPxKovj8JWInR6CvexmS3w78zJZNLKtQHz3QjfvJUxjD9D9vHXHSraz1nWlRBgUhxhfBOrMLlq

Dr. Eades, as many of you know, is a well-respected proponent of low carb diets. His response to this video is worth reading. It points out the scientific and statistical flaws of what Dr. Hall presented. This is the link to the article: https://proteinpower.com/drmike/2016/05/06/contradictions-and-cognitive-dissonance-the-kevin-hall-effect/

I tried to skim our group to make sure this wasn't posted already. If it was, I apologize in advance.

wabmester

This particular study seemed to just look at "metabolic advantage." I don't think a lot of people expect or rely on a metabolic advantage, but even the small one he found could be useful in the long term.

He hinted at effects on appetite regulation. Nobody's talking about that, but I think it's the key mechanism of low-carb diets.

The study was just accepted for publication (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition). I can't wait to read it.

raine291

I completely agree with you. I think the metabolic advantage is just one part of it. For him to blatantly ignore his own data is scientific blasphemy. Absolutely, the natural appetite regulation that occurs with a higher fat diet is a huge part as to why so many people are successful on low carb diets. I too am looking forward to reading the full peer-reviewed study. I wonder if they looked at hormones like leptin and cortisol.

wabmester

I don't know if he did in this study, but he looked at leptin in his "biggest loser" study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

As a computer geek, I kind of like the guy. His specialty is mathematical modeling of metabolism:
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/about-niddk/staff-directory/intramural/kevin-hall/pages/research-summary.aspx

But he clearly has a big ego, and he has strong opinions about Gary Taubes' carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis.

Foamroller

In the podcast on ketoevangelist with PhD Jacob Wilson, Wilson shares his thoughts and objections to how strong the recent Hall study is. It begins at roughly minute 38:30 and lasts 11-12 minutes. Cliffpoints:

• An isocaloric study will give a slight advantage to the diet macros that goes first. Cause as one lose weight, the BMR will reduce.
• The keto adaptation takes longer than 2 weeks, so the actual time spent "in keto" is too short to conclude anything. Less upregulation of mitochondria will impact weight loss.
• Protein % was too low for optimal weight loss.

https://www.ketovangelist.com/episode-56-dr-jacob-wilson-builds-muscle-on-keto/

I wonder if they tested the subjects for insulin resistance ? if they all had approximately the same numbers for elevated insulin, then a study like this adds to our understanding. But if there were subjects who DIDN'T have insulin resistance, then even a few subjects will skew the data output in small studies like this.

A learned man like Hall surely must know that just going keto is not enough for some people to lose weight. There are always outliers. Claiming "falsifying" anything is indeed very big words. I think the hypothesis of fatty pancreas, could possibly explain why some people have a really hard time losing weight, despite doing "everything".

I find the interviews with Wilson very refreshing and interesting, there's always some new little nuggets of information. He also does Periscope Q&A that they put out on Youtube

wabmester

Foamroller wrote: »

• An isocaloric study will give a slight advantage to the diet macros that goes first. Cause as one lose weight, the BMR will reduce.
• The keto adaptation takes longer than 2 weeks, so the actual time spent "in keto" is too short to conclude anything. Less upregulation of mitochondria will impact weight loss.
• Protein % was too low for optimal weight loss.

I guess we'll have to wait until the study is published, but I don't think this study was about weight loss. It was a test of one of the mechanisms proposed by Taubes.

Basically, Taubes says that on a high-carb diet fat cells sequester some of the available energy, making it unavailable for us to use, and that's the reason we eat more. So the test here is on energy expenditure on both high-carb and low-carb. If Taubes theory is correct, EE on high-carb will be lower than EE on low-carb.

So it wasn't about weight loss. The lead-in high-carb diet was supposed to be eucaloric, and if it had been, order wouldn't matter.

Eades has the best criticisms of the study so far, IMO.

wabmester

Exciting news for science geeks. It's a pubmed Hall and Ludwig smackdown!

Bascially Ludwig did an earlier (2012) study that found a larger "metabolic advantage" than Hall recently found.

So Hall says it's bogus:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432#cm22735432_16096

And Ludwig says it's not bogus:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432#cm22735432_16114

Sunny_Bunny_

Just wanted to highlight this statement as it's often echoed here...
Quoting Ludwig,
"Body weight can vary by 2 kg or more on a daily basis related to hydration status, amount of stool in the colon, and other physiological factors"
He mentions it in response to Halls calorie math deciding subjects should've shown scale weight loss that did not... He apparently doesn't understand the scale weighs more than just your fat, muscle, tissue and bone.