Yet another study shows no weight loss benefit for low-carb
Replies
-
...You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility...
Anybody who knows anything about physiology would not discount the fact that exhalation is a mode of fat loss. That's commonly known. If anything, people may be disputing your belief that IF/Keto is somehow unique or magical in that regard. You lose fat through exhalation regardless of the macro composition of your diet or when you eat your food.
Taubes has very strong opinions indeed, and they're not backed by science. He's not a scientist and has no training in nutrition or physiology. He studied applied physics and aerospace engineering, and has a Master's degree in journalism. In short, he's a tinfoil hat crackpot with some crazy ideas and just enough intelligence to know how to cherry pick scientific studies and twist the logic enough to sound convincing so he can sell books and get paid for speaking engagements. He's been solidly discredited by numerous scientific researchers, yet he refuses to relent on his dogma because it would just make him look like an even bigger fool at this point.
I don't know how many times I need to explain it isn't magical. Your belief that loss without a deficit would be "magical" shows me you are not considering excretion as a mode of energy loss. I don't know what else to say.
Applied physics and aerospace engineering isn't science? Those people (I'm one of them) have more math, stats, and physical system dynamics training than a nutritionist or physiologist every thought of having. It allows them to thing of things in terms of energy a lot better than the nutritionist or physiologist. You have your opinions about Taubes and his ideas but I KNOW your idea that a loss without a deficit does not break any themo, energy laws which I've studied quite a bit. Both camps need to learn from each other (the life sciences need more math and the math guys need more life sciences). Together much more can be learned. My background is in engineering with a BS in mechanical engineering (lots of thermo) and a MS in electrical engineering (lots of physical systems dynamics modeling). I think you are cherry picking because I've provided references that back up that lc/if/keto helps.
am I the only one not understanding what the heck you are trying to say here?
Someone explain to me what he's saying, because he's going on about his background in engineering now and still avoiding the question.4 -
I think he means not all your food gets properly digested/processed and it comes out in #2.
Which, I guess if you're getting a lot of Calories from nuts or corn, it's at least possible.
Obviously, I could be wrong at what he's getting at.4 -
I think he means not all your food gets properly digested/processed and it comes out in #2.
Which, I guess if you're getting a lot of Calories from nuts or corn, it's at least possible.
Obviously, I could be wrong at what he's getting at.
I think you're eating the corn and then excreting it through exhaling and sweating, without processing it.5 -
rainbowbow wrote: »...You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility...
Anybody who knows anything about physiology would not discount the fact that exhalation is a mode of fat loss. That's commonly known. If anything, people may be disputing your belief that IF/Keto is somehow unique or magical in that regard. You lose fat through exhalation regardless of the macro composition of your diet or when you eat your food.
Taubes has very strong opinions indeed, and they're not backed by science. He's not a scientist and has no training in nutrition or physiology. He studied applied physics and aerospace engineering, and has a Master's degree in journalism. In short, he's a tinfoil hat crackpot with some crazy ideas and just enough intelligence to know how to cherry pick scientific studies and twist the logic enough to sound convincing so he can sell books and get paid for speaking engagements. He's been solidly discredited by numerous scientific researchers, yet he refuses to relent on his dogma because it would just make him look like an even bigger fool at this point.
I don't know how many times I need to explain it isn't magical. Your belief that loss without a deficit would be "magical" shows me you are not considering excretion as a mode of energy loss. I don't know what else to say.
Applied physics and aerospace engineering isn't science? Those people (I'm one of them) have more math, stats, and physical system dynamics training than a nutritionist or physiologist every thought of having. It allows them to thing of things in terms of energy a lot better than the nutritionist or physiologist. You have your opinions about Taubes and his ideas but I KNOW your idea that a loss without a deficit does not break any themo, energy laws which I've studied quite a bit. Both camps need to learn from each other (the life sciences need more math and the math guys need more life sciences). Together much more can be learned. My background is in engineering with a BS in mechanical engineering (lots of thermo) and a MS in electrical engineering (lots of physical systems dynamics modeling). I think you are cherry picking because I've provided references that back up that lc/if/keto helps.
am I the only one not understanding what the heck you are trying to say here?
Someone explain to me what he's saying, because he's going on about his background in engineering now and still avoiding the question.
There seems to be this inherent desire to identify some ADDITIONAL benefit above and beyond a calorie deficit for weight loss that can be attributed to a particular way of eating (in this case LCHF) and the purported mechanism for this additional benefit is via excretion.
What this ignores is that the entire energy balance model is based on estimates, and that even if it were possible to burn additional calories and expel them via excretion simply from eating a certain way, it would be impossible to quantify that impact as it would be negligible in the grand scheme of things.
It's similar to people who bang on about the TEF and how certain foods burn more calories during digestion than others. I don't remember the exact numbers from the study off the top of my head but I believe it was something like an estimated 7 additional calories in an overall caloric intake of 2000. Yeah, that would fall into the category of "majoring in the minors" for me, and not at all worth the effort to try to consume more of those foods.
I think it was @lemurcat12 who pointed out upthread that if people find a certain way of eating easier to adhere to, and easier to maintain a calorie deficit eating that way - that is far more valuable from a mental standpoint than agonizing over trying to find foods that you can eat that will result in bigger poops or more sweat or heavier breathing... to me it seems like a way to try to "game the system" rather than just focusing on the areas that are likely to have the largest overall impact - calorie deficit, a balanced nutritious diet, managing any medical conditions, satiety, and enjoyment.
Figuring out how to eat to make more calories come out in my poop?
9 -
rainbowbow wrote: »
am I the only one not understanding what the heck you are trying to say here?
Someone explain to me what he's saying, because he's going on about his background in engineering now and still avoiding the question.
What I get he is trying to say, is that fat that has been stored in your body can be directly excreted without being used as fuel. That body fat can be lost without being burned. I'm a bit unclear on what the excretion method is.
He's wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is what he is saying.
6 -
I think he means not all your food gets properly digested/processed and it comes out in #2.
Which, I guess if you're getting a lot of Calories from nuts or corn, it's at least possible.
Obviously, I could be wrong at what he's getting at.
so basically eat enough exlax and you can lose weight even in a calorie surplus..
I think I just found my million dollar idea....the exlax diet coming to an infomercial near you!7 -
Nm0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »
am I the only one not understanding what the heck you are trying to say here?
Someone explain to me what he's saying, because he's going on about his background in engineering now and still avoiding the question.
What I get he is trying to say, is that fat that has been stored in your body can be directly excreted without being used as fuel. That body fat can be lost without being burned. I'm a bit unclear on what the excretion method is.
He's wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is what he is saying.
So whats the point of just passing something through? Satisfy hunger? If there is no nutritional benefit since it just passes through couldn't we eat a paper towel and get the same benefit? I guess I don't understand either.
NOTE: I do not advocate eating a paper towel!:)
Except, as far as I read it, that isn't what he is saying. He isn't talking about food just passing through, he is saying that food is consumed, turned to fat and then that fat is excreted without being burned because of ????.
Hell, if it was food just passing through and not getting stored, that would make more sense.2 -
I thought it was a good point, but won't respond if you've thought better of bothering.0
-
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.
No, the bond breaking is not exothermic. Bond breaking is NEVER exothermic. If it was, bonds would just fall apart spontaneously. Basically, a bond won't form if you would release energy by breaking it.
What is exothermic in the ATP -> ADP reaction is the formation of other bonds as part of the overall reaction. The energy released by forming those new bonds offsets the energy input required to break the O-P bond when a phosphate is removed from ATP.
/chemistry professor rant off. (I give almost this exact speech every semester when teaching about bonding. Mostly, I blame science fiction, but poorly taught biology also plays into this very common misconception.)6 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.
No, the bond breaking is not exothermic. Bond breaking is NEVER exothermic. If it was, bonds would just fall apart spontaneously. Basically, a bond won't form if you would release energy by breaking it.
What is exothermic in the ATP -> ADP reaction is the formation of other bonds as part of the overall reaction. The energy released by forming those new bonds offsets the energy input required to break the O-P bond when a phosphate is removed from ATP.
/chemistry professor rant off. (I give almost this exact speech every semester when teaching about bonding. Mostly, I blame science fiction, but poorly taught biology also plays into this very common misconception.)
A lightbulb went off. Yes, got you.
But seriously though, do you understand what he's trying to say here? Others are saying poop but I'm thinking he was saying he could somehow exhale more fat via "x" mechanism.1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.
No, the bond breaking is not exothermic. Bond breaking is NEVER exothermic. If it was, bonds would just fall apart spontaneously. Basically, a bond won't form if you would release energy by breaking it.
What is exothermic in the ATP -> ADP reaction is the formation of other bonds as part of the overall reaction. The energy released by forming those new bonds offsets the energy input required to break the O-P bond when a phosphate is removed from ATP.
/chemistry professor rant off. (I give almost this exact speech every semester when teaching about bonding. Mostly, I blame science fiction, but poorly taught biology also plays into this very common misconception.)
A lightbulb went off. Yes, got you.
But seriously though, do you understand what he's trying to say here? Others are saying poop but I'm thinking he was saying he could somehow exhale more fat via "x" mechanism.
Pretty certain he's talking poop, since he uses the word "excretion" a lot. Exhalation isn't excretion the last time I looked.
If it is, chances are you're doing it wrong.
11 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.
No, the bond breaking is not exothermic. Bond breaking is NEVER exothermic. If it was, bonds would just fall apart spontaneously. Basically, a bond won't form if you would release energy by breaking it.
What is exothermic in the ATP -> ADP reaction is the formation of other bonds as part of the overall reaction. The energy released by forming those new bonds offsets the energy input required to break the O-P bond when a phosphate is removed from ATP.
/chemistry professor rant off. (I give almost this exact speech every semester when teaching about bonding. Mostly, I blame science fiction, but poorly taught biology also plays into this very common misconception.)
A lightbulb went off. Yes, got you.
But seriously though, do you understand what he's trying to say here? Others are saying poop but I'm thinking he was saying he could somehow exhale more fat via "x" mechanism.
Pretty certain he's talking poop, since he uses the word "excretion" a lot. Exhalation isn't excretion the last time I looked.
If it is, chances are you're doing it wrong.
Eewwww3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.
No, the bond breaking is not exothermic. Bond breaking is NEVER exothermic. If it was, bonds would just fall apart spontaneously. Basically, a bond won't form if you would release energy by breaking it.
What is exothermic in the ATP -> ADP reaction is the formation of other bonds as part of the overall reaction. The energy released by forming those new bonds offsets the energy input required to break the O-P bond when a phosphate is removed from ATP.
/chemistry professor rant off. (I give almost this exact speech every semester when teaching about bonding. Mostly, I blame science fiction, but poorly taught biology also plays into this very common misconception.)
A lightbulb went off. Yes, got you.
But seriously though, do you understand what he's trying to say here? Others are saying poop but I'm thinking he was saying he could somehow exhale more fat via "x" mechanism.
Pretty certain he's talking poop, since he uses the word "excretion" a lot. Exhalation isn't excretion the last time I looked.
If it is, chances are you're doing it wrong.
Oh, there are plenty here who seem to do just that.1 -
Maybe your skin just starts producing oil like crazy, lol. The fat just leaks out of your pores...4
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.
No, the bond breaking is not exothermic. Bond breaking is NEVER exothermic. If it was, bonds would just fall apart spontaneously. Basically, a bond won't form if you would release energy by breaking it.
What is exothermic in the ATP -> ADP reaction is the formation of other bonds as part of the overall reaction. The energy released by forming those new bonds offsets the energy input required to break the O-P bond when a phosphate is removed from ATP.
/chemistry professor rant off. (I give almost this exact speech every semester when teaching about bonding. Mostly, I blame science fiction, but poorly taught biology also plays into this very common misconception.)
A lightbulb went off. Yes, got you.
But seriously though, do you understand what he's trying to say here? Others are saying poop but I'm thinking he was saying he could somehow exhale more fat via "x" mechanism.
Pretty certain he's talking poop, since he uses the word "excretion" a lot. Exhalation isn't excretion the last time I looked.
If it is, chances are you're doing it wrong.
If its like previous arguments, it is about undigested calories in poop.2 -
I think he means not all your food gets properly digested/processed and it comes out in #2.
Which, I guess if you're getting a lot of Calories from nuts or corn, it's at least possible.
Obviously, I could be wrong at what he's getting at.
It is what he's saying. It's completely wrong as has been shown to him many times before, but you know how it is.
BTW. average rate of energy consumption is 90% in the worst case, and up to 99% in best cases. Yeah, there was a study where they measured how many calories were left in poop and they compared it with kinds of gut bacteria.
So the average person would have their TDEE point to an absorption rate of about 95% because of the way the TDEE calculations were determined (population statistic between how many calories go in and weight change over time, stuff like this is part of that implicitly). What's left is a possible 5% difference in the absolute worst case scenario unless you've got a medical condition, so... 100 calories extra if your TDEE estimate tells you to eat 2000 for your loss.
Good ol' majoring in the minors as we like to call it.4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »...You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility...
Anybody who knows anything about physiology would not discount the fact that exhalation is a mode of fat loss. That's commonly known. If anything, people may be disputing your belief that IF/Keto is somehow unique or magical in that regard. You lose fat through exhalation regardless of the macro composition of your diet or when you eat your food.
Taubes has very strong opinions indeed, and they're not backed by science. He's not a scientist and has no training in nutrition or physiology. He studied applied physics and aerospace engineering, and has a Master's degree in journalism. In short, he's a tinfoil hat crackpot with some crazy ideas and just enough intelligence to know how to cherry pick scientific studies and twist the logic enough to sound convincing so he can sell books and get paid for speaking engagements. He's been solidly discredited by numerous scientific researchers, yet he refuses to relent on his dogma because it would just make him look like an even bigger fool at this point.
I don't know how many times I need to explain it isn't magical. Your belief that loss without a deficit would be "magical" shows me you are not considering excretion as a mode of energy loss. I don't know what else to say.
Applied physics and aerospace engineering isn't science? Those people (I'm one of them) have more math, stats, and physical system dynamics training than a nutritionist or physiologist every thought of having. It allows them to thing of things in terms of energy a lot better than the nutritionist or physiologist. You have your opinions about Taubes and his ideas but I KNOW your idea that a loss without a deficit does not break any themo, energy laws which I've studied quite a bit. Both camps need to learn from each other (the life sciences need more math and the math guys need more life sciences). Together much more can be learned. My background is in engineering with a BS in mechanical engineering (lots of thermo) and a MS in electrical engineering (lots of physical systems dynamics modeling). I think you are cherry picking because I've provided references that back up that lc/if/keto helps.
am I the only one not understanding what the heck you are trying to say here?
Someone explain to me what he's saying, because he's going on about his background in engineering now and still avoiding the question.
There seems to be this inherent desire to identify some ADDITIONAL benefit above and beyond a calorie deficit for weight loss that can be attributed to a particular way of eating (in this case LCHF) and the purported mechanism for this additional benefit is via excretion.
What this ignores is that the entire energy balance model is based on estimates, and that even if it were possible to burn additional calories and expel them via excretion simply from eating a certain way, it would be impossible to quantify that impact as it would be negligible in the grand scheme of things.
It's similar to people who bang on about the TEF and how certain foods burn more calories during digestion than others. I don't remember the exact numbers from the study off the top of my head but I believe it was something like an estimated 7 additional calories in an overall caloric intake of 2000. Yeah, that would fall into the category of "majoring in the minors" for me, and not at all worth the effort to try to consume more of those foods.
I think it was @lemurcat12 who pointed out upthread that if people find a certain way of eating easier to adhere to, and easier to maintain a calorie deficit eating that way - that is far more valuable from a mental standpoint than agonizing over trying to find foods that you can eat that will result in bigger poops or more sweat or heavier breathing... to me it seems like a way to try to "game the system" rather than just focusing on the areas that are likely to have the largest overall impact - calorie deficit, a balanced nutritious diet, managing any medical conditions, satiety, and enjoyment.
Figuring out how to eat to make more calories come out in my poop?
7 calories per 1000 calories ingested per 10% of protein increase compared to the macro distribution you're comparing it to.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »...You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility...
Anybody who knows anything about physiology would not discount the fact that exhalation is a mode of fat loss. That's commonly known. If anything, people may be disputing your belief that IF/Keto is somehow unique or magical in that regard. You lose fat through exhalation regardless of the macro composition of your diet or when you eat your food.
Taubes has very strong opinions indeed, and they're not backed by science. He's not a scientist and has no training in nutrition or physiology. He studied applied physics and aerospace engineering, and has a Master's degree in journalism. In short, he's a tinfoil hat crackpot with some crazy ideas and just enough intelligence to know how to cherry pick scientific studies and twist the logic enough to sound convincing so he can sell books and get paid for speaking engagements. He's been solidly discredited by numerous scientific researchers, yet he refuses to relent on his dogma because it would just make him look like an even bigger fool at this point.
I don't know how many times I need to explain it isn't magical. Your belief that loss without a deficit would be "magical" shows me you are not considering excretion as a mode of energy loss. I don't know what else to say.
Applied physics and aerospace engineering isn't science? Those people (I'm one of them) have more math, stats, and physical system dynamics training than a nutritionist or physiologist every thought of having. It allows them to thing of things in terms of energy a lot better than the nutritionist or physiologist. You have your opinions about Taubes and his ideas but I KNOW your idea that a loss without a deficit does not break any themo, energy laws which I've studied quite a bit. Both camps need to learn from each other (the life sciences need more math and the math guys need more life sciences). Together much more can be learned. My background is in engineering with a BS in mechanical engineering (lots of thermo) and a MS in electrical engineering (lots of physical systems dynamics modeling). I think you are cherry picking because I've provided references that back up that lc/if/keto helps.
am I the only one not understanding what the heck you are trying to say here?
Someone explain to me what he's saying, because he's going on about his background in engineering now and still avoiding the question.
There seems to be this inherent desire to identify some ADDITIONAL benefit above and beyond a calorie deficit for weight loss that can be attributed to a particular way of eating (in this case LCHF) and the purported mechanism for this additional benefit is via excretion.
What this ignores is that the entire energy balance model is based on estimates, and that even if it were possible to burn additional calories and expel them via excretion simply from eating a certain way, it would be impossible to quantify that impact as it would be negligible in the grand scheme of things.
It's similar to people who bang on about the TEF and how certain foods burn more calories during digestion than others. I don't remember the exact numbers from the study off the top of my head but I believe it was something like an estimated 7 additional calories in an overall caloric intake of 2000. Yeah, that would fall into the category of "majoring in the minors" for me, and not at all worth the effort to try to consume more of those foods.
I think it was @lemurcat12 who pointed out upthread that if people find a certain way of eating easier to adhere to, and easier to maintain a calorie deficit eating that way - that is far more valuable from a mental standpoint than agonizing over trying to find foods that you can eat that will result in bigger poops or more sweat or heavier breathing... to me it seems like a way to try to "game the system" rather than just focusing on the areas that are likely to have the largest overall impact - calorie deficit, a balanced nutritious diet, managing any medical conditions, satiety, and enjoyment.
Figuring out how to eat to make more calories come out in my poop?
7 calories per 1000 calories ingested per 10% of protein increase compared to the macro distribution you're comparing it to.
And so, why wouldn't I just eat 14 less calories, if I'm on a 2000 calorie diet?0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.
No, the bond breaking is not exothermic. Bond breaking is NEVER exothermic. If it was, bonds would just fall apart spontaneously. Basically, a bond won't form if you would release energy by breaking it.
What is exothermic in the ATP -> ADP reaction is the formation of other bonds as part of the overall reaction. The energy released by forming those new bonds offsets the energy input required to break the O-P bond when a phosphate is removed from ATP.
/chemistry professor rant off. (I give almost this exact speech every semester when teaching about bonding. Mostly, I blame science fiction, but poorly taught biology also plays into this very common misconception.)
A lightbulb went off. Yes, got you.
But seriously though, do you understand what he's trying to say here? Others are saying poop but I'm thinking he was saying he could somehow exhale more fat via "x" mechanism.
Pretty certain he's talking poop, since he uses the word "excretion" a lot. Exhalation isn't excretion the last time I looked.
If it is, chances are you're doing it wrong.
He's talking all kinds of excretion. We had a long talk about poop on a different occasion.2 -
The only time that would happen is if you suffer from malabsorption and in that case you don't absorb calories from all macros.0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »...You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility...
Anybody who knows anything about physiology would not discount the fact that exhalation is a mode of fat loss. That's commonly known. If anything, people may be disputing your belief that IF/Keto is somehow unique or magical in that regard. You lose fat through exhalation regardless of the macro composition of your diet or when you eat your food.
Taubes has very strong opinions indeed, and they're not backed by science. He's not a scientist and has no training in nutrition or physiology. He studied applied physics and aerospace engineering, and has a Master's degree in journalism. In short, he's a tinfoil hat crackpot with some crazy ideas and just enough intelligence to know how to cherry pick scientific studies and twist the logic enough to sound convincing so he can sell books and get paid for speaking engagements. He's been solidly discredited by numerous scientific researchers, yet he refuses to relent on his dogma because it would just make him look like an even bigger fool at this point.
I don't know how many times I need to explain it isn't magical. Your belief that loss without a deficit would be "magical" shows me you are not considering excretion as a mode of energy loss. I don't know what else to say.
Applied physics and aerospace engineering isn't science? Those people (I'm one of them) have more math, stats, and physical system dynamics training than a nutritionist or physiologist every thought of having. It allows them to thing of things in terms of energy a lot better than the nutritionist or physiologist. You have your opinions about Taubes and his ideas but I KNOW your idea that a loss without a deficit does not break any themo, energy laws which I've studied quite a bit. Both camps need to learn from each other (the life sciences need more math and the math guys need more life sciences). Together much more can be learned. My background is in engineering with a BS in mechanical engineering (lots of thermo) and a MS in electrical engineering (lots of physical systems dynamics modeling). I think you are cherry picking because I've provided references that back up that lc/if/keto helps.
am I the only one not understanding what the heck you are trying to say here?
Someone explain to me what he's saying, because he's going on about his background in engineering now and still avoiding the question.
There seems to be this inherent desire to identify some ADDITIONAL benefit above and beyond a calorie deficit for weight loss that can be attributed to a particular way of eating (in this case LCHF) and the purported mechanism for this additional benefit is via excretion.
What this ignores is that the entire energy balance model is based on estimates, and that even if it were possible to burn additional calories and expel them via excretion simply from eating a certain way, it would be impossible to quantify that impact as it would be negligible in the grand scheme of things.
It's similar to people who bang on about the TEF and how certain foods burn more calories during digestion than others. I don't remember the exact numbers from the study off the top of my head but I believe it was something like an estimated 7 additional calories in an overall caloric intake of 2000. Yeah, that would fall into the category of "majoring in the minors" for me, and not at all worth the effort to try to consume more of those foods.
I think it was @lemurcat12 who pointed out upthread that if people find a certain way of eating easier to adhere to, and easier to maintain a calorie deficit eating that way - that is far more valuable from a mental standpoint than agonizing over trying to find foods that you can eat that will result in bigger poops or more sweat or heavier breathing... to me it seems like a way to try to "game the system" rather than just focusing on the areas that are likely to have the largest overall impact - calorie deficit, a balanced nutritious diet, managing any medical conditions, satiety, and enjoyment.
Figuring out how to eat to make more calories come out in my poop?
7 calories per 1000 calories ingested per 10% of protein increase compared to the macro distribution you're comparing it to.
And so, why wouldn't I just eat 14 less calories, if I'm on a 2000 calorie diet?
You not only just get 14 calories more, you also would have to increase the protein% of those 2000 by 20% compared to an isocaloric diet with 20% less. Yeah, eating 14 less is probably the smarter move.5 -
rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exdothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.
@rainbowbow
Bond breaking is always, always, always endothermic. Keep in mind it is not only ATP --> ADP, the reaction actually looks like this:
ATP4- (aq) + 2 H2O (l) → ADP3- (aq) + HPO42- (aq) + H3O+ (aq)
The fact that hydrolyzing the phosphate bond in ATP to form ADP releases energy, is the result of all bond changes, not just breaking of the phosphate bond.2 -
@blambo61 Have you seen these studies yet? https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/ Most of them support the idea that keto reduces the amount of food we eat so we lose, but there are a couple in there that tried for an isocaloric comparison between macros. For those with IR, like Attia, like me, LCHF is the winner by a few pounds and improved health markers.
The issue with pretty much every single of those low carb studies, is they don't hold protein constant. And often, the low carb group is 2-3x the amount of the low fat group and the RDA. And in some of them, the LF group is even lower than the RDA. Protein is a thermogenic. No one will dispute that. But people will set up studies wrongly to exploit that. Also, many of those studies are based on recall and other factors. What it may suggest, is along with increase protein (which largely drives satiety), that low carb might help compliance by driving protein up.
True. But a LCHF diet may not hold protein constant either. It isn't just one aspect, food or macro that makes a LCHF diet. It is the entire diet.
If a low carb diet has 28% protein and the higher carb diet had 20% protein, that is still the diet. If the LC group lost more weight with identical calories, it is is still the LCHF dietvthat was slightly more successful. Not just one part of it. No magical foods, right?
Sure it makes it harder to pin point what one thing, exactly it was, that made the diet more successful, but it may not be one thing.
If you designed a diet, where it was isocaloric, but the keto group was below the RDA for protein, but the low fat group was 3x the amount, the low fat would show favorable results. It's the protein that makes a difference, not the fat/carb distribution.
The same argument can be had about keto/LCHF diets being muscle sparring. While that can be true, it's not if protein levels are not high enough. Again, it's not the diet, is protein. But if you are looking to gain muscle while in a deficit, you have a greater ability to achieve that with moderate to high carb.
What both are these are demonstrating, is protein is what matters when you lose weight. The rest is personal preference. And lets face it, the latter is the largest driver for success.
Protein does matter when losing weight. Fat matters to a lesser degree. The numbers I've seen are up to 100kcal higher CO per day. That's close to a pound a month or 10-12 lbs per year. More weight lost than most LCHF studies show.
I do not believe it is only protein that has a slight thermogenic benefit, especially for the insulin resistant (almost half) portion of the population. It really is small though. Not worth switching diets for unless you should eat LCHF for health reasons.
Protein isn't everything, IMO. Some of these trials had a protein variation that wasn't large. Often 8-10%. Definitely not 3X larger. 1.1X larger?
I agree that a diet that you can stick with will be best for weight loss. No doubt about it.0 -
@blambo61 Have you seen these studies yet? https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/ Most of them support the idea that keto reduces the amount of food we eat so we lose, but there are a couple in there that tried for an isocaloric comparison between macros. For those with IR, like Attia, like me, LCHF is the winner by a few pounds and improved health markers.
Have not see it. The reference I gave listed other reasons for it helping besides deficits one of which was inefficiencies of using fat in gluconeogenesis. Thermo would state that any conversion of energy there will be losses.
0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.
No, the bond breaking is not exothermic. Bond breaking is NEVER exothermic. If it was, bonds would just fall apart spontaneously. Basically, a bond won't form if you would release energy by breaking it.
What is exothermic in the ATP -> ADP reaction is the formation of other bonds as part of the overall reaction. The energy released by forming those new bonds offsets the energy input required to break the O-P bond when a phosphate is removed from ATP.
/chemistry professor rant off. (I give almost this exact speech every semester when teaching about bonding. Mostly, I blame science fiction, but poorly taught biology also plays into this very common misconception.)
Ugh dangit... the chem professor beat me to it... stupid work and school
Pretty sure my chem prof beat the "bond breaking is endothermic, bond making is exothermic" chant into my brain so deeply that if i ever lose my mind I'll still remember that... and Molarity x Volume = moles. 2 -
stevencloser 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?
Well he can't do math apparently. The calculations for the number of calories he got from each of the macros is consistently wrong. So he either lied intentionally an. Example: 600g carbs is 2400 calories (4 cals/g) , not 2040 (3.4 cals/g). The only one he is correct on is fat at 9cals/g.
To be honest, yeah maybe he lied. It's just a blog by a guy who has an agenda to push keto diets cause he wants to be the hero that finds that one solution to the obesity epidemic (ever heard of hero syndrome). Wouldn't be the first person to lie about how something can cause drastic changes in the body when it may in fact NOT *cough vaccines and autism cough*
If he erred by posting too few calories, his results are even more impressive. I believe he was honest in his reporting.
As the saying goes, "you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts". The facts, which have been scientifically proven in peer-reviewed studies, is that there is no metabolic advantage to a ketogenic diet. What one chooses to believe in spite of science is entirely up to them.
[ETA:] IMO, there's nothing wrong with a ketogenic diet, per se - if it suits one's preferences and helps with satiety and adherence, great. I've tried it myself in the past and got on okay with it at least for a while. Where I personally have issues is when people ascribe mysterious magical powers to the keto diet and preach it as the One True Way. Especially when they do it by cherry-picking facts/studies and/or outright ignoring the science behind it. Taubes has outright said that even if NuSI (his own non-profit organization) dicovered research which contradicted his claims, he still wouldn't change his mind. That's not science, that's ignorance.
Here's a good article from last year about Taubes, Attia and NuSI (NSFW language).
Keto, LC, IF are not magical. I've never claimed they were. I believe they can help. I have issues with people that keep saying that it is magical to lose more than a calorie deficit demands when it is not. I does not violate any physical laws as I discussed earlier. You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility. A cal deficit is sufficient to lose fat but there could be other things that can contribute to it also, so no, LC or Keto isnt' the One True Way but could augment a calorie deficit in losing weight. Taubes must have some strong beliefs due to personal experience. Science is fallible (how many studies have been refuted with more work? How long has it been debated if coffee is good for you or not?) so I can see if he has some strong feeling due to experience that he might feel that way (he should be careful with that attitude though).
You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
I know you breath out the by-products. Still if keto, IF, etc. caused the fat to be metabolized and the body was heated up, that is different than an energy demand the body required.0 -
diviningrod1 wrote: »I will try to find it, but there was a study years ago in which they proved that weight loss is achieved by simply eating less calories than you burn. The nutrients and what the calories came from had no bearing on the parcipitants weight loss. The difference in your nutrients come in to play for other factors.
Of course you will lose in a deficit at least the amount the deficit demands. The question is can you lose more than that or not.
And the answer is no, as several peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown. There is no metabolic advantage to a ketogenic diet.diviningrod1 wrote: »I will try to find it, but there was a study years ago in which they proved that weight loss is achieved by simply eating less calories than you burn. The nutrients and what the calories came from had no bearing on the parcipitants weight loss. The difference in your nutrients come in to play for other factors.
Of course you will lose in a deficit at least the amount the deficit demands. The question is can you lose more than that or not.
And the answer is no, as several peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown. There is no metabolic advantage to a ketogenic diet.
Your "no" demands a 100% efficiency in conversion of food energy and a 100% conversion of fat potential energy going to supply a demand the body places on it. Both preposterous conclusions.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You keep bringing up Attia. I see nowhere on his site other than him mentioning DEXA and VO2 max scans what kind of testing he did.
A point I tried to make somewhere else you brought up Attia that got ignored is that people increasing their calories increase their exercise intensity.
I saw how he measured things like his VO2 max and things like that, but absent putting himself in a metabolic ward, he didn't prove anything about a metabolic advantage to what he was doing.
There is a very simple explanation for what Attia did, and people here on these forums experience it all the time. I stated it above. You don't need to exercise more to burn more.
He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating, in spite of what he thinks.
Edit: I will also add that everyone here giving anecdotes (and this includes Attia) of this supposed advantage of quicker loss wasn't losing under controlled conditions like in this study. Study after study done under either controlled conditions or long term shows NO difference between higher or lower carb. Riddle me that one.
Attia doesn't think he defied the laws of physics. What is the simple explanation you mention. The DEXA showed accurately what him BF% was. He said he didn't increase his exercise intensity and was a little less when he lost the weight. He proved something because he lost weight, improved %BF while increasing calorie intake and not doing more exercise.
Your statement, "He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating,.." makes me believe you didn't read what I wrote. Him losing weight, improving %bf, with no more exercise, and while increasing calories isn't defying the laws of physics if you include excretion into the model. I'm not talking about poop either. The majority of fat metabolism by-products are exhaled which is a form of excretion (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009). If the macro-content causes this fat to be liberated, then it can be excreted (through breathing).
Read down in the article (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.html) a little about benefits of ketosis and weight loss (not due to calorie restrictions). Also studies where mice (or rats I forget) lost more fat through IF dieting although that group and a control group ate the same amount of cals for the whole week. Riddle me that!
He demonstrated something we already know. IR + carbs is not a good mix. He is not an examplar for other people out there who don't have IR. IR and PCOS has already been demonstrated to have lower metabolic rates and the prolong periods of insulin would decrease CO. So when you tailor back the carbs, you have shorter periods of lipogensis which enables more energy to be burned which increases CO.
@nvmomketo and most PCOS people experience the same thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1307008/slow-metabolism-maybe-related-to-pcos-or-insulin-resistance/p1
Trying to apply science as it relates to a disease state, to non disease state is not beneficial.
ETA: Hell, I have a study or two that would compare those with IR vs IS (insulin sensitive) and varied carb rates. Those with IR responded better to low carb. Those who were IS, responded better to a moderate carb diet.
There is a good chance I believe that a lot of fat people could be IR.
You can believe it, but doesn't mean it's true. And honestly, I do not understand why you are trying to justify a response or have an argument based off an N=1. At best, in the first study, there was a short term increase in EE while transition to ketosis, but there also wasn't fat loss and by the end, total fat loss was equivalent. I haven't found it, but there was a discussion between KH and I believe Attia or Volek, where KH suggested that the reason for the increase in EE was the initial metabolic cost of producing additional Ketones.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.full
Now, if you wanted to argue compliance or other factors, I could many understand that. Personally, if a person is obese and non active, there probably would be a benefit from reducing carbs. But I would also recommend reducing carbs to increase protein and fiber, and then modifying fat and carbs based on satiety and energy requirements. I personally cycle carbs/calories. My low carb days are a bit rough, but this technique has allowed me to have greater compliance. My high carb days (320g+), I struggle often to get enough carbs, as they tend to fill me up.
Wouldn't the metabolic cost of producing keytones and gluconeogenesis support what I've been saying?0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
What about the cost of making ketones and glucose from fat. What about not converting CI 100% efficiently?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions