Yet another study shows no weight loss benefit for low-carb
Replies
-
I'm on a low carb diet not keto. I'm no expert so I can be wrong. I don't like keto because you have to cut out fruits , vegetables and yogurt etc. They're super foods that benefit your health enormously. I'm eating whole food and I've cut out starches such as bread, sugar, fast food, rice, noodles, anything that has light or diet label on, soda and flour etc... I can never cut out food that benefits my overall health. I started Dec26, my body fat was 36% and I'm now at 25.2%. I still eat within my calorie each day to lose my water weight as it's still high at 55%.
What I'm trying to point out is that I'm more focused on my health than just weight loss. Sure, you will lose weight by cutting out all the carbs and eat fried chicken every day but how's it good for your heart and other organs? In my opinion, doing keto diet is like you're robbing your health to look good.8 -
nomorepuke wrote: »I'm on a low carb diet not keto. I'm no expert so I can be wrong. I don't like keto because you have to cut out fruits , vegetables and yogurt etc. They're super foods that benefit your health enormously. I'm eating whole food and I've cut out starches such as bread, sugar, fast food, rice, noodles, anything that has light or diet label on, soda and flour etc... I can never cut out food that benefits my overall health. I started Dec26, my body fat was 36% and I'm now at 25.2%. I still eat within my calorie each day to lose my water weight as it's still high at 55%.
What I'm trying to point out is that I'm more focused on my health than just weight loss. Sure, you will lose weight by cutting out all the carbs and eat fried chicken every day but how's it good for your heart and other organs? In my opinion, doing keto diet is like you're robbing your health to look good.
I feel similarly unless you have a medical condition that requires keto.1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Dr Attia- His update in March 2016...
These days I’m eating about as freely as I have in 7 years. I’m still carb-restricted by the standards of most Americans, but nowhere near the ketogenic lines of 2011, 2012, and 2013. I almost always skip breakfast, and lunch is usually a salad (“in a bowl larger than my head,” if possible). Dinner is usually a serving of meat with more salad and veggies. I’m more liberal on fruit and even occasionally rice or potatoes. Also, in moments of weakness I sometimes lean into my kid’s crappy food.
Doesn't seem like he stayed Keto. I wonder why?
He found he did not need it any longer. Those who stick with keto tend to do so for theraputic reasons. His insulin resistance was largely resolved. He increased his carbs (to about 100g if I remember right) and feels good there. He still recommends low carb to the clients in his practices, which is focused on longevity at this time.
Many people who try and stay keto feel a need for it. Why else would people walk away from high GI fruits like mangos and raisens, or avoid baked goods like muffines or scones? It isn't because it is easier or more fun, although some may try it for the challenge.
And those who don't have a good reason for keto (anymore) stop doing it.4 -
^^interesting, thanks.
He wears some sort of watch that monitors his glucose I think I read.1 -
What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.8 -
I am eating keto level carbs (20g and under) and I get my blood work done next month and I will be able to compare it to my last ones. I am interested to see if my cholesterol and triglyceride levels have risen and if they have then I will be modifying something...maybe more olive/avocado oil in place of coconut? We shall see. As for the way of eating itself I am aware that cico is what it's all about to begin with, but I do find this way of eating easier to adhere to for cico for me. I do plan on bringing myself back up to 100 - 150 carbs per day, but not until I have lost most of the weight I plan to lose and then I will reintroduce more carbs slowly, and yes I am aware of the weight I most likely will put back on at first (ie water/glycerol stores) or maybe that doesn't happen when you reintroduce slowly. For me this way of eating has also curbed my cravings for cake, ice cream, donuts, and potato chips, I am concerned about self control when I do eat these things again as I've been known to go a bit overboard with eating them.4
-
Just a nitpicky thing because I think it is important for discussion:As for the way of eating itself I am aware that cico is what it's all about to begin with, but I do find this way of eating easier to adhere to for cico for me.
You know that CICO merely refers to the fact that calories in vs. calories out determines whether you lose, gain, or maintain, and that you can achieve CI<CO through any diet and it is still CICO. People say you don't need to do anything but focus on CICO, but that doesn't mean there's a "CICO" way of eating that could be easier or harder to adhere to than keto -- keto, when it works, is also working because of CICO. Some people seem to have the idea that CICO = calorie counting or even that it is some particular macro mix or "not changing the diet at all but for portions," and it is none of these things (although they all could be examples of it, as keto also is). IMO, trying to cut calories by not changing the diet at all but for portions, especially if you know you eat a not very filling or nutrient dense diet would of course be hard and no one recommends it (except if people really want to do it they are told they can). Even "eat what you like/currently do in smaller portions" assumes common sense and that you will cut more on portions of high cal/low nutrient things and not, for example, meat and veg.I do plan on bringing myself back up to 100 - 150 carbs per day, but not until I have lost most of the weight I plan to lose and then I will reintroduce more carbs slowly, and yes I am aware of the weight I most likely will put back on at first (ie water/glycerol stores) or maybe that doesn't happen when you reintroduce slowly. For me this way of eating has also curbed my cravings for cake, ice cream, donuts, and potato chips, I am concerned about self control when I do eat these things again as I've been known to go a bit overboard with eating them.
I also think it's interesting that the "carbs" people tend to focus on as not filling or things they cut on low carb and notice most are things that get half their calories from carbs -- these are hardly "carbs" (although I am sure they are too high carb for keto diets) but simply "junk food" (meaning high cal, low nutrient), and like most "junk foods" they are high in fat as well as carbs. I wonder if you went to 100-150 carbs with whole food carbs like legumes, potatoes and sweet potatoes (not fried or with lots of added cream and butter), whole grains, and fruit if you would find the same cravings for more food. Maybe you would, maybe you won't, maybe that won't even happen with the junk food once you've taken a break from it and found you are more interested in maintaining than a second donut. But if it's simply carbs that cause the diet to be less sating/cravings to happen, that would happen more from foods that actually are mostly carbs than these fat/carb mixes, I think.
IMO, lots of people who go keto dumb high cal/low nutrient foods (fat and carbs) by necessity and have to fill their diet with other things which tends to include more meat or other sources of protein and (ironically, since they are mostly carbs and you should have been eating them already) vegetables, which makes a diet more filling, but not necessarily due to keto.
I do think a subset of these people really do find keto valuable in controlling appetite, though -- probably the ketones.9 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-304940090 -
Are there any comparisons with body temperature on low-carb vs low-fat? That would be interesting. The most basic definition of calorie/Calorie having to do with heating water. Someone with a higher body temperature *must* be using more calories to maintain that, right?1
-
leanjogreen18 wrote: »^^interesting, thanks.
He wears some sort of watch that monitors his glucose I think I read.
I believe it is a continous glucose monitor. Instead of sticking your finger and testing blood glucose repeatedly throughout the day, the continuous glucometre is a small device with a tiny needle inserted into you, usually on the trunk somewhere, that monitors BG all day. It sends a signal to remote devices, including alarms if there is a low. They are a real blessing for thos with T1D and a helpful tool for those with IR.1 -
Keto worked for me.....................when I competed. The less hungry I felt, the easier it was to stay on a calorie deficit. Cuts came in pretty easy (after 12 weeks). Unfortunately my strength and endurance suffered, but hey when doing a bodybuilding contest, you're not lifting weights or moving around a lot.
Not a sustainable diet for me because I ENJOY eating meals with my family and not worrying about restricting.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Just a nitpicky thing because I think it is important for discussion:As for the way of eating itself I am aware that cico is what it's all about to begin with, but I do find this way of eating easier to adhere to for cico for me.
You know that CICO merely refers to the fact that calories in vs. calories out determines whether you lose, gain, or maintain, and that you can achieve CI<CO through any diet and it is still CICO. People say you don't need to do anything but focus on CICO, but that doesn't mean there's a "CICO" way of eating that could be easier or harder to adhere to than keto -- keto, when it works, is also working because of CICO. Some people seem to have the idea that CICO = calorie counting or even that it is some particular macro mix or "not changing the diet at all but for portions," and it is none of these things (although they all could be examples of it, as keto also is). IMO, trying to cut calories by not changing the diet at all but for portions, especially if you know you eat a not very filling or nutrient dense diet would of course be hard and no one recommends it (except if people really want to do it they are told they can). Even "eat what you like/currently do in smaller portions" assumes common sense and that you will cut more on portions of high cal/low nutrient things and not, for example, meat and veg.I do plan on bringing myself back up to 100 - 150 carbs per day, but not until I have lost most of the weight I plan to lose and then I will reintroduce more carbs slowly, and yes I am aware of the weight I most likely will put back on at first (ie water/glycerol stores) or maybe that doesn't happen when you reintroduce slowly. For me this way of eating has also curbed my cravings for cake, ice cream, donuts, and potato chips, I am concerned about self control when I do eat these things again as I've been known to go a bit overboard with eating them.
I also think it's interesting that the "carbs" people tend to focus on as not filling or things they cut on low carb and notice most are things that get half their calories from carbs -- these are hardly "carbs" (although I am sure they are too high carb for keto diets) but simply "junk food" (meaning high cal, low nutrient), and like most "junk foods" they are high in fat as well as carbs. I wonder if you went to 100-150 carbs with whole food carbs like legumes, potatoes and sweet potatoes (not fried or with lots of added cream and butter), whole grains, and fruit if you would find the same cravings for more food. Maybe you would, maybe you won't, maybe that won't even happen with the junk food once you've taken a break from it and found you are more interested in maintaining than a second donut. But if it's simply carbs that cause the diet to be less sating/cravings to happen, that would happen more from foods that actually are mostly carbs than these fat/carb mixes, I think.
IMO, lots of people who go keto dumb high cal/low nutrient foods (fat and carbs) by necessity and have to fill their diet with other things which tends to include more meat or other sources of protein and (ironically, since they are mostly carbs and you should have been eating them already) vegetables, which makes a diet more filling, but not necessarily due to keto.
I do think a subset of these people really do find keto valuable in controlling appetite, though -- probably the ketones.
yes, I am aware of what CICO means and then it can be done on any way of eating and when I say reintroduce carbs per say I am speaking of more vegetables (which I love), a few more fruits, and some whole grains...think oatmeal, quinoa and such. I also plan on having cake and ice cream at birthday parties, something I refrain from doing at this point, because I know I have had issues in the past with how much I eat of them. Most of my weight gain however came from over indulging in pasta, rice, oatmeal and such and not "junk" food as you may think, and I'm not focused on sweets and junk food, I just stated that I was concerned that I may still not have very good control over myself if I bring them back into my diet.
I hate legumes and I rarely ate "junk food", it's just when I did it wasn't just 1 piece of cake, but 3 or 4, not just 1/2 cup of ice cream but 1 pint. Not a single serving of chips, but 1/2 a bag at least.
1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw 5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
I like this. Essentially, every 10kg of fat lost = 39kg of total loss, although 29kg of that was taken in to mobilize and remove the fat, but we won't count that, because losing 39kg sounds awesome
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.8 -
TEF is already accounted for. And raising of body temperature would result in a couple of things. Excessive sweating to cool it (usually from physical activity) or getting a fever. I don't think you want the latter to happen.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the body would burn hotter due to the macros eaten (more than required to digest the stuff) so that more weight would be lost.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
5 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
1: nope. Your body can store fat as fat with absolutely no help from raised insulin levels. Even if it couldn't, protein by itself raises said levels enough to allow for said storage. I mean, I guess we could start advocating for a 100% fat diet. I've heard that muscle wasting and organ catabolism make for some pretty solid weightloss.
2: there is definitely less poop with keto, especially if it's really heavy in unprocessed meats. The absorption of those tends to be in the 97% range or better, assuming that you're not swallowing a buttload of refuse (indigestible bits) along with said meat.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.23 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
1: nope. Your body can store fat as fat with absolutely no help from raised insulin levels. Even if it couldn't, protein by itself raises said levels enough to allow for said storage. I mean, I guess we could start advocating for a 100% fat diet. I've heard that muscle wasting and organ catabolism make for some pretty solid weightloss.
2: there is definitely less poop with keto, especially if it's really heavy in unprocessed meats. The absorption of those tends to be in the 97% range or better, assuming that you're not swallowing a buttload of refuse (indigestible bits) along with said meat.
Keto people do eat a lot of fat as I'm sure you know. Insulin plays a role in efficiency of storage and macros effect insulin. We don't use CI 100% efficiently.
What happens to the body with meds that causes fat to be excreted without an energy demand? Does this fat loss cause a body temp rise or is the fat liberated via other pathways? Could a keto diet act similarly and liberate fat independent of energy demands? I see nothing wrong with the idea of a fat setpoint the body heads towards independent of energy demands. The question I have is what would drive this (Keto?) and would the liberated fat have to release heat to be liberated or not?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
1: nope. Your body can store fat as fat with absolutely no help from raised insulin levels. Even if it couldn't, protein by itself raises said levels enough to allow for said storage. I mean, I guess we could start advocating for a 100% fat diet. I've heard that muscle wasting and organ catabolism make for some pretty solid weightloss.
2: there is definitely less poop with keto, especially if it's really heavy in unprocessed meats. The absorption of those tends to be in the 97% range or better, assuming that you're not swallowing a buttload of refuse (indigestible bits) along with said meat.
Keto people do eat a lot of fat as I'm sure you know. Insulin plays a role in efficiency of storage and macros effect insulin. We don't use CI 100% efficiently.
What happens to the body with meds that causes fat to be excreted without an energy demand? Does this fat loss cause a body temp rise or is the fat liberated via other pathways? Could a keto diet act similarly and liberate fat independent of energy demands? I see nothing wrong with the idea of a fat setpoint the body heads towards independent of energy demands. The question I have is what would drive this (Keto?) and would the liberated fat have to release heat to be liberated or not?
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Fat is one of the most efficiently digested macros.7 -
I find it interesting in these types of threads about ways of eating that restrict/eliminate food groups (vegan and LCHF/keto especially) that people will often state that unless you are doing it for ethical/medical reasons it's not sustainable. Why not? If you find something that makes it easier for you to restrict calories, why wouldn't you be able to continue eating that way once you get to maintenance if that's your plan? Or when you get to maintenance implement a plan that reintroduces those foods in a controlled manner?
As for studies that show that *99% of people who lose weight by restricting [calories/food groups/eating windows/whatever] gain it back and then some, studies show that the same percentage of people who lose weight any old way gain it back.
*made up statistic3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.
There is a lot of Ifs but there is evidence LC helps people lose faster than simple CICO model. Peter Attia being a data point. I lost a lot faster than predicted by logging also when I did IF. There are studies with mice/rats that show that IF causes them to lose more weight when they are fed the same weekly calories as a control group but do fast for a couple of days during the week (they are given more on the other days to make up for the cals not consumed the other days). Please explain how that could happen with a simple CICO model. Their fast days are low carb of course and they are consuming stored fat to fuel themselves.1 -
I find it interesting in these types of threads about ways of eating that restrict/eliminate food groups (vegan and LCHF/keto especially) that people will often state that unless you are doing it for ethical/medical reasons it's not sustainable. Why not? If you find something that makes it easier for you to restrict calories, why wouldn't you be able to continue eating that way once you get to maintenance if that's your plan? Or when you get to maintenance implement a plan that reintroduces those foods in a controlled manner?
As for studies that show that *99% of people who lose weight by restricting [calories/food groups/eating windows/whatever] gain it back and then some, studies show that the same percentage of people who lose weight any old way gain it back.
*made up statistic
I think it is just human nature to do what is easy. Why do "hard" unless you have to.
I eat gluten free because I have too. Celiac disease. I can't even use the toaster when visiting relatives because it would contaminate my food. I can't use their butter because there are crumbs on it. I can't eat out without taking a substantial risk. It makes me feel better but I would NEVER eat so strictly GF unless I had to. Others without celiac disease may find they feel better mostly GF but can still eat out and consume small amounts of gluten - easier.
I think of LCHF and keto diets like that. LCHF is pretty easy to maintain for a lot of people. Eating under 150g of carbs per day leaves you with a LOT of options. It's more do-able. Ketosis (under 50g per day) removes a lot of food options. Its harder for most people. Unless there are some major (health) benefits, most people won't stick with it.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.
There is a lot of Ifs but there is evidence LC helps people lose faster than simple CICO model. Peter Attia being a data point. I lost a lot faster than predicted by logging also when I did IF. There are studies with mice/rats that show that IF causes them to lose more weight when they are fed the same weekly calories as a control group but do fast for a couple of days during the week (they are given more on the other days to make up for the cals not consumed the other days). Please explain how that could happen with a simple CICO model. Their fast days are low carb of course and they are consuming stored fat to fuel themselves.
In being my own critic, the mice study would have to look at how much activity did the fasting group have compared to the control group (did the ones fasting run around looking for food on their fast days?) also at teh end of the study, they should let the fasting group eat without fasting for awhile to get rid of the water loss effect they may be experiencing by fasting to see what the true fat loss was. Maybe they measured the fat loss directly after the studies, I would need to go back and read them carefully.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.
There is a lot of Ifs but there is evidence LC helps people lose faster than simple CICO model. Peter Attia being a data point. I lost a lot faster than predicted by logging also when I did IF. There are studies with mice/rats that show that IF causes them to lose more weight when they are fed the same weekly calories as a control group but do fast for a couple of days during the week (they are given more on the other days to make up for the cals not consumed the other days). Please explain how that could happen with a simple CICO model. Their fast days are low carb of course and they are consuming stored fat to fuel themselves.
I had a period where I was losing faster eating high carbs too. Single data points mean nothing.
There might be people here who remember me under my old user name during the one summer where weight was pouring off me and I was wondering if something was wrong with my thyroid because I was losing so fast. It was crazy. (There was nothing wrong with my thyroid, in fact, it was a little slow.)
Ifs mean nothing.
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.
There is a lot of Ifs but there is evidence LC helps people lose faster than simple CICO model. Peter Attia being a data point. I lost a lot faster than predicted by logging also when I did IF. There are studies with mice/rats that show that IF causes them to lose more weight when they are fed the same weekly calories as a control group but do fast for a couple of days during the week (they are given more on the other days to make up for the cals not consumed the other days). Please explain how that could happen with a simple CICO model. Their fast days are low carb of course and they are consuming stored fat to fuel themselves.
I had a period where I was losing faster eating high carbs too. Single data points mean nothing.
There might be people here who remember me under my old user name during the one summer where weight was pouring off me and I was wondering if something was wrong with my thyroid because I was losing so fast. It was crazy.
Ifs mean nothing.
Totally dismissing ifs ins't very scientific either, especially when the reason for being dismissive has no basis (e.g. the false notion of anything violating simple CICO is violating laws of thermo/conservation of energy). There are a lot of data points not just a few.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.
There is a lot of Ifs but there is evidence LC helps people lose faster than simple CICO model. Peter Attia being a data point. I lost a lot faster than predicted by logging also when I did IF. There are studies with mice/rats that show that IF causes them to lose more weight when they are fed the same weekly calories as a control group but do fast for a couple of days during the week (they are given more on the other days to make up for the cals not consumed the other days). Please explain how that could happen with a simple CICO model. Their fast days are low carb of course and they are consuming stored fat to fuel themselves.
I had a period where I was losing faster eating high carbs too. Single data points mean nothing.
There might be people here who remember me under my old user name during the one summer where weight was pouring off me and I was wondering if something was wrong with my thyroid because I was losing so fast. It was crazy.
Ifs mean nothing.
Totally dismissing ifs ins't very scientific either, especially when the reason for being dismissive has no basis (the falsity of anything violating simple CICO is violating laws of thermo/conservation of energy). There are a lot of data points not just a few.
Your ifs are scientific? CICO isn't an exact science no matter how precise you think you're being and no one pretends it is, so your whole proposition of "well, if it's all CICO..." is flawed from the outset.
Again, I'm trying to figure out why you're trying to major in the minors here. Why can't you just enjoy the way you eat because it suits your preferences/lifestyle? Why does there have to be a winner? An edge to the way of eating? Can't you just like the food you eat and how it enhances your goals?
Azdak posted a study that refutes your(general) assertions that there's an advantage and poster after poster comes on here and acts like someone kicked a puppy.
I don't get it.
Eat the way you like, but don't argue the science with ifs.14 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.
There is a lot of Ifs but there is evidence LC helps people lose faster than simple CICO model. Peter Attia being a data point. I lost a lot faster than predicted by logging also when I did IF. There are studies with mice/rats that show that IF causes them to lose more weight when they are fed the same weekly calories as a control group but do fast for a couple of days during the week (they are given more on the other days to make up for the cals not consumed the other days). Please explain how that could happen with a simple CICO model. Their fast days are low carb of course and they are consuming stored fat to fuel themselves.
I had a period where I was losing faster eating high carbs too. Single data points mean nothing.
There might be people here who remember me under my old user name during the one summer where weight was pouring off me and I was wondering if something was wrong with my thyroid because I was losing so fast. It was crazy.
Ifs mean nothing.
Totally dismissing ifs ins't very scientific either, especially when the reason for being dismissive has no basis (the falsity of anything violating simple CICO is violating laws of thermo/conservation of energy). There are a lot of data points not just a few.
Your ifs are scientific? CICO isn't an exact science no matter how precise you think you're being and no one pretends it is, so your whole proposition of "well, if it's all CICO..." is flawed from the outset.
Again, I'm trying to figure out why you're trying to major in the minors here. Why can't you just enjoy the way you eat because it suits your preferences/lifestyle? Why does there have to be a winner? An edge to the way of eating? Can't you just like the food you eat and how it enhances your goals?
I don't think you understand my position. I KNOW you will lose at least the amount the simple CICO model predicts due to conservation of energy principles (fat cant be stored faster than CI because the energy has to come from somewhere, also fat has to be burned at least as much as a deficit demands also because the energy has to come from somewhere). What I'm saying is that all CI ins't used which causes a bigger deficit, also other things may liberate stored fat beyond the bodies energy demands thereby increasing CO and also increasing deficits.
It is not majoring in the minors, some people have had significant success on the LC/IF type of diets. Is it all due to calorie deficit? I don't think so, Peter Attia's experience sure points otherwise.
It is a principle of being "scientific" to question things and understand them more, especially if there is a lot of anecdotal evidence around (also some hard studies that back up my points also).
I think you can win totally with the simple CICO model. I also think you may lose even more with LC/IF which is also a win. I have done LC intentionally maybe two days in my life so far (the last two) due to working on blood glucose levels. I don't plan on making that a way of life if I don't have to cause I love carbs. I do think IF and LC can help people lose weight extra fast, but ins't necessary to lose weight.2
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