We are pleased to announce that today, March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Yet another study shows no weight loss benefit for low-carb
Replies
-
If he can't do basic math why would I trust the number of calories he said he consumed? If 3.4 is 4 is his mind then maybe when he ate 600g of carbs he screwed that up too and only ate 400g resulting in a calorie difference of 800. I didn't read his entire blog, but what I'm gathering is he's saying he increased his calories, kept exercise the same, and yet somehow lost weight which seems to violate thermodynamics. His inaccuracy discredits him.
Holy smokes! It doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics! Thermo would state you have to lose at least the amount of fat required to provide the energy to cover a calorie deficit. There is nothing in thermo that says you can't lose more than that!
I'm not sure why he used the 3.4. He might have a very good reason.0 -
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.
I'm saying that to understand the body in detail, requires advance modeling (math) and life science knowledge. Life science people often say that any loss past what a deficit demands is breaking thermodynamic laws. Those trained in thermodynamics know that is not true. I only gave my background to state I have a thermodynamics background and know what I'm talking about when conservation of energy and thermodynamics are talked about. I do not have a lot of life sciences training. Lots of life science people obviously don't have much thermo training. Attia has both. I don't know Taubes background.
I'm not sure what you think I'm avoiding.0 -
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.
Not all CI is converted to energy. Stored fat is not converted to other energy forms 100% efficiently including heat and glucose. I don't know if fat can be liberated without giving off energy and is simply excreted.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
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?
I think you partially are getting what I'm talking about but not completely. If the body has to make glucose out of fat because your not eating carbs or too much protein, then that conversion of fat potential energy to glucose potential energy isn't 100% efficient. I don't know the efficiency, but please people don't say these ideas violate the laws of thermodynamics. I'm not talking about poop!1 -
I think you partially are getting what I'm talking about but not completely. If the body has to make glucose out of fat because your not eating carbs or too much protein, then that conversion of fat potential energy to glucose potential energy isn't 100% efficient. I don't know the efficiency, but please people don't say these ideas violate the laws of thermodynamics. I'm not talking about poop!
And what do you believe the impact of this thermodynamic effect is? A bump of 1%? 5%?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
And what do you believe the impact of this thermodynamic effect is? A bump of 1%? 5%?
In Attia's case it was very significant. I think for people with IR it can be very significant.2 -
In Attia's case it was very significant. I think for people with IR it can be very significant.
What does "significant" mean? What about those who aren't IR? Why come into every thread and get so worked up about this when it is irrelevant or insignificant for the majority of the population? You are probably excreting more calories tilting at this windmill arguing about this than you are because you chose a LCHF diet...6 -
All of the debating about the hypothetical effect of micro effects in metabolism ignore the fact that we know what happens. When you do a controlled study, and you keep calories and protein the same in both groups, there is no difference in fat loss. That's it. The rest is just white noise. And that has been replicated several times. It's like someone still wants to parse a million arcane details to claim the earth is flat. No. We put satellites in space. We have pictures.
15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
What does "significant" mean? What about those who aren't IR? Why come into every thread and get so worked up about this when it is irrelevant or insignificant for the majority of the population? You are probably excreting more calories tilting at this windmill arguing about this than you are because you chose a LCHF diet...
In the case of Attia, significant means in two years going from 195 to 170, 20% bf to 7% while increasing calories and not working out any more! I don't think I've gotten very worked up but it does get tedious when people say ridiculous, rude, or dismissive things. I've had people e-mail me and tell me I'm clueless and an idiot. I've asked for an explanation and they said, "I will leave that up to others who could explain it better". This general board is very hostile to anything but CICO and many falsely believe losing more than CICO is a violation physics when it is not! A lot of people seem to be incapable to having a civil conversation. I've said many times, CICO is sufficient to lose weight but other things can help (especially for those who would have to have ridiculously low cal intake to get a deficit). That seems to fall on deaf ears. I'm pretty open minded. A lot of people are not. Also, IR people are people too. What if a person has extreme difficulty losing weight and these ideas can help. A lot of people are so dismissive anything other than CICO that the ideas are not even given a chance or considered even though there is a lot of evidence other things can help.3 -
In the case of Attia, significant means in two years going from 195 to 170, 20% bf to 7% while increasing calories and not working out any more! I don't think I've gotten very worked up but it does get tedious when people say ridiculous, rude, or dismissive things. I've had people e-mail me and tell me I'm clueless and an idiot. I've asked for an explanation and they said, "I will leave that up to others who could explain it better". This general board is very hostile to anything but CICO and many falsely believe losing more than CICO is a violation physics when it is not! A lot of people seem to be incapable to having a civil conversation. I've said many times, CICO is sufficient to lose weight but other things can help (especially for those who would have to have ridiculously low cal intake to get a deficit). That seems to fall on deaf ears. I'm pretty open minded. A lot of people are not. Also, IR people are people too. What if a person has extreme difficulty losing weight and these ideas can help. A lot of people are so dismissive anything other than CICO that the ideas are not even given a chance or considered even though there is a lot of evidence other things can help.
I was trying to be generous thinking that you were looking for ways to increase calorie burn and this accelerate weight loss above and beyond what would be achieved through a standard deficit, but if you are citing someone who was eating in a calorie surplus and still lost 25 lbs of measurable weight then I too am going to call BS on the principles of thermodynamics... do you have other examples besides this one, someone who had more rigorous controls?
I didn't say that people with IR are less important, simply that even if your statements are accurate that these methods are beneficial for those who are IR, that is not relevant for the majority of the population.
And just to reiterate, do you acknowledge that a calorie deficit is required for weight loss? if a person is in a 500 cal deficit on a 2000 cal diet to lose 1 lb/week, what additional benefit do you think they may get from following your LCHF "excretion bump"? Burning an extra 15 cals? 50 cals? Wouldn't it be easier to simply not eat those calories, then to try to game your thermodynamic system?6 -
@blambo61 You might find Feltham's self experimentation interesting. He tries different diets at 5000kcal per day for 21 days and logs his results. I know he has done LCHF and HCLF vegan diets. Of course his experiences will not prove true for all others. It's his own n=1, but I found them interesting. http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/0
-
@blambo61 You might find Feltham's self experimentation interesting. He tries different diets at 5000kcal per day for 21 days and logs his results. I know he has done LCHF and HCLF vegan diets. Of course his experiences will not prove true for all others. It's his own n=1, but I found them interesting. http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
Yikes almost 3000k in nuts in one day???
Thats a lotta nuts!!!!0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »
LOL He puts my love of nuts to shame.0 -
Lc is about satiety to me. I have been watching my weight since I was 11 and I can honestly say lc with the slow add back of low glycemic load carbs to medium load is the easiest for me to stick to.
I eat healthier and better fats too. It works. I eat way more vegetables than the other way... so it works for me. As long as my doctor sees no problem I don't know what anyone else has to say about the matter0 -
In the case of Attia, significant means in two years going from 195 to 170, 20% bf to 7% while increasing calories and not working out any more! I don't think I've gotten very worked up but it does get tedious when people say ridiculous, rude, or dismissive things. I've had people e-mail me and tell me I'm clueless and an idiot. I've asked for an explanation and they said, "I will leave that up to others who could explain it better". This general board is very hostile to anything but CICO and many falsely believe losing more than CICO is a violation physics when it is not! A lot of people seem to be incapable to having a civil conversation. I've said many times, CICO is sufficient to lose weight but other things can help (especially for those who would have to have ridiculously low cal intake to get a deficit). That seems to fall on deaf ears. I'm pretty open minded. A lot of people are not. Also, IR people are people too. What if a person has extreme difficulty losing weight and these ideas can help. A lot of people are so dismissive anything other than CICO that the ideas are not even given a chance or considered even though there is a lot of evidence other things can help.
The reason we argue against his blog is because it seems like he's trying to pin it as the magic bullet that everyone has been waiting for. It makes it seem like "I can eat way more than my calculated energy expenditur and lose weight" which is why we keep saying you're trying to make it seem like keto is somehow magical. We got fat by eating too much and it seems he's saying it's because we eat too many carbs that we got fat. For some, like women with PCOS, diabetic patients, or anyone with IR, yes, keto can be life changing (also those with epilepsy). I recommended to a coworker the other day that his wife try keto because she has PCOS. But I'm sorry, one guy's blog (with noted inaccuracies) is not going to make me switch up my lifestyle and think that I can eat way more calories than what my body needs and lose weight.
If you believe so heavily in his work then please, by all means, try it for 6 months; making sure that you are not in a calorie deficit, and show us your weight before and after. Sometimes scientists have to try things out on themselves to get the world to listen (see the discovery that H. pylori causes ulcers). I'm halfway tempted to try it myself but first off I
carbs, second when I did try keto (3 times) my liver HURT, and third I don't buy that I can eat more and lose and I've worked too hard to lose the weight. 6 -
I dont claim to have any real knowledge on this, or to have followed this exactly, but am I reading it right?
When we "burn" fat, water and hydrogen are produced as a by product and excreted/exhaled.
It is being claimed that a keto diet does what? Increase that 'burn'?
That somehow that exhalation/excretion is relevant on a keto diet? Doesnt happen on a higher carb diet?
And as Winogelato has tried to pursue - is it significant if measured in calories?
So far as I know, it happens regardless of diet type. It just happens when you are burning fat.
Which makes the whole thing read as a red herring/straw man to me.
Unless I have completely missed the point, which wouldnt be the first time
2 -
Not all CI is converted to energy. Stored fat is not converted to other energy forms 100% efficiently including heat and glucose. I don't know if fat can be liberated without giving off energy and is simply excreted.
Yes, but as you stay on a ketogenic diet your body makes adaptations to become more efficient at using ketones for fuel and performing all the metabolic processes associated with converting fat to energy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367001/
http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/ketones.html
Efficiency is less wasteful, and we're talking SCRUB affects here.
Long-term ketogenic diets are not any more beneficial than any other diet.5 -
Keto is not just about appetite suppression (ie calories in calories out). Its about improving insulin sensitivity. Most overweight people have higher than optimum AC1 numbers approaching prediabetes or may even have T2 diabetes already. If you are a "sugar" (carb) burner, you need to eat fairly frequent. Each time you have that low calorie high carb rice cake or piece of healthy fruit your insulin spikes. These frequent insulin spikes from low calorie but high glycemic index foods contribute to a progression of hormonal malfunction of insulin (increasing your blood sugar levels). So long as you have higher than normal blood sugar levels you will not break down fat for energy. Your body doesn't need to. Calories in calories out do count, but not nearly as much as how your food choices impact the release of insulin in your body. Its in the carb macros and the protein macros. Too high of protein will convert to glucose so that is why a well constructed Keto Diet is Low Carb Moderate Protein with the fat simply filling out the calorie to bring you to your overall calorie goal. All foods spike insulin to some degree, but the lower you can keep those spikes, the more you can burn body fat and if you do it long enough, you can even reverse insulin resistance and reverse Type 2 Diabetes. Look up Dr. Jason Fung . . . he sites all sorts of research on this.0
-
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Lc is about satiety to me. I have been watching my weight since I was 11 and I can honestly say lc with the slow add back of low glycemic load carbs to medium load is the easiest for me to stick to.
I think this is a good reason (not that you need one) to eat low carb, and much more sensible than the "you will lose more fat!" claim. As I said above, somewhat lower carbs is more satisfying to me, because of what it makes room for in my diet and personal preference. Doesn't have a thing to do with GL for me (although a lot of my carbs are probably from low GL sources), but overall diet. I think potatoes are high GL, and I find them quite sating, although I do tend to eat smaller portions of them probably when I eat them to make room for other things, again.
What I'm curious about -- although you obviously don't have to answer -- is the following:I eat healthier and better fats too. It works. I eat way more vegetables than the other way... so it works for me.
Why would this be? There is nothing in NOT eating low carb that would cause someone to eat less healthy fats or fewer veg. Indeed, the number of veg I eat would be a problem for ketosis, sometimes, at least according to some ideas of what keto requires, and -- more to the point -- if one is concerned about a healthy diet why wouldn't one eat lots of veg (if one likes them, of course) before going low carb. I find it confusing when people connect low carb and eating more veg (mostly carbs), as if this wasn't something they easily could and should have done before going low carb. Same with eating more protein, for that matter.
The diet I ate by FAR the most vegetables on was my semi WFPB way of eating, and although it was quite high carb compared to how I normally eat (and perfectly sating and I wasn't hungry), I had other issues, but obviously some like that way of eating and I respect that (kind of wish I did, but I like how I eat now anyway so oh well).
And back to blambo's stuff, according to those studies showing slight differences between low fat and low carb for IR and IS people, I would in theory lose more on WFPB, as it was quite low fat (when I did it anyway), and I'm IS.As long as my doctor sees no problem I don't know what anyone else has to say about the matter
Of course. Are you interpreting the arguments against extreme claims made for the superiority of the low carb/keto diet to objections to anyone doing it? So often people who do low carb seem to do that, so I will say again that I don't think keto is the best of all possible diets or superior, but I think it can be a perfectly good diet and is the right choice (or one possible right choice) for plenty of people.1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »
Yes. Yes it is.2 -
Wouldn't the metabolic cost of producing keytones and gluconeogenesis support what I've been saying?
Please take a look at the full thing i said. The short term increase was due to the initial metabolic requirement to incresse ketone production. But also at the same time fat loss did not occur and the increse energy did not increase overall fat loss against a low fat, higher sugar diet.
Also, if people are pm'ing you please send me a pm with their message and name. The admins will address it.2 -
All of the debating about the hypothetical effect of micro effects in metabolism ignore the fact that we know what happens. When you do a controlled study, and you keep calories and protein the same in both groups, there is no difference in fat loss. That's it. The rest is just white noise. And that has been replicated several times. It's like someone still wants to parse a million arcane details to claim the earth is flat. No. We put satellites in space. We have pictures.
I dont know how many times this needs to be stated and reinforced. Dr. Attia didnt do his experiment in the confines of a lab and restrict variables. His N=1 means nothing as compared to the many studies that you and i have posted on this keto.8 -
spinningmadlyon wrote: »Keto is not just about appetite suppression (ie calories in calories out). Its about improving insulin sensitivity. Most overweight people have higher than optimum AC1 numbers approaching prediabetes or may even have T2 diabetes already. If you are a "sugar" (carb) burner, you need to eat fairly frequent. Each time you have that low calorie high carb rice cake or piece of healthy fruit your insulin spikes. These frequent insulin spikes from low calorie but high glycemic index foods contribute to a progression of hormonal malfunction of insulin (increasing your blood sugar levels). So long as you have higher than normal blood sugar levels you will not break down fat for energy. Your body doesn't need to. Calories in calories out do count, but not nearly as much as how your food choices impact the release of insulin in your body. Its in the carb macros and the protein macros. Too high of protein will convert to glucose so that is why a well constructed Keto Diet is Low Carb Moderate Protein with the fat simply filling out the calorie to bring you to your overall calorie goal. All foods spike insulin to some degree, but the lower you can keep those spikes, the more you can burn body fat and if you do it long enough, you can even reverse insulin resistance and reverse Type 2 Diabetes. Look up Dr. Jason Fung . . . he sites all sorts of research on this.
Worry about insulin only matters when you have a damaged metabolic system. The majority, even those who are predibetic, do not or many not have to worry about carbs. Often weight loss alone will improve things and exercise can improve insulin sensitivity. Taking into consideration that US standards for prediabetes does not align to the rest of the world, it can be hard to tell when a person needs or will greatly benefit from carb restriction outside of personal preference.
And substrate utilization mainly only matters to endurance athletics, especially consider fat is largely the primary energy source during daily life.
Personally, since i am trying to build muscle while losing weight, i want high carb to spike insulin, as its anticatabolic, which will allow proteins to be used to repair and potentially build muscle. The goal is to have protein synthesis overcome protein degradation.
5 -
All of the debating about the hypothetical effect of micro effects in metabolism ignore the fact that we know what happens. When you do a controlled study, and you keep calories and protein the same in both groups, there is no difference in fat loss. That's it. The rest is just white noise. And that has been replicated several times. It's like someone still wants to parse a million arcane details to claim the earth is flat. No. We put satellites in space. We have pictures.
agree...seriously majoring in the minors...
you can play around with macros for 1% improvement or focus on calorie deficit and exercise for the best improvement in fat loss and body comp ...
0 -
spinningmadlyon wrote: »Keto is not just about appetite suppression (ie calories in calories out). Its about improving insulin sensitivity. Most overweight people have higher than optimum AC1 numbers approaching prediabetes or may even have T2 diabetes already.
That's overstated, and of course lots of people who do get their numbers back to normal just by losing weight. Another great way to increase insulin sensibility for most people is exercise.
Also, does keto actually improve insulin sensitivity (outside of weight loss)? Or does it reduce the need for insulin (with respect to carbs anyway) so that IR is less of a problem? The test would be whether one can do keto for a while, without weight loss as a contributing factor, control blood glucose levels that way, and then reintroduce carbs and respond as an IS to them. I don't think that's normally the case. If it leads to weight loss, of course, that often cures the problem.If you are a "sugar" (carb) burner, you need to eat fairly frequent.
I don't get this idea that people are "sugar burners" or "fat burners." People burn both, in percentages consistent with what they eat (and with body fat being used to make up for any deficit). You don't have to be on a low carb, let alone keto diet to burn fat. We all burn fat, especially when sedentary or exercising at a low level (walking, sitting, sleeping).
And no, you don't need to eat all that frequently. People did fine on three meals a day with typical diets with carbs as the largest source of calories. People follow similar eating patterns on high carb diets all over the world in various cultures. I personally always found that they easiest diet, even when eating higher carbs--I think the need to eat a bunch is cultural, we have food offered all the time, not about macros. And even without being on keto it has never been that big a deal to me to fast for a day (and others do various forms of IF without doing low carb).Each time you have that low calorie high carb rice cake or piece of healthy fruit your insulin spikes. These frequent insulin spikes from low calorie but high glycemic index foods contribute to a progression of hormonal malfunction of insulin (increasing your blood sugar levels). So long as you have higher than normal blood sugar levels you will not break down fat for energy. Your body doesn't need to. Calories in calories out do count, but not nearly as much as how your food choices impact the release of insulin in your body.
This is just wrong. People lose fine on high carb diets. When you have a deficit you burn the carbs, but then still need to burn fat when they are gone -- there's no difference, that claim that you can't lose eating carbs makes no sense and is part of keto rhetoric that is a lie. Also, blue zone diets and lots of other very healthy diets are higher carb than the US diet, and yet people are normal weight and don't have problems with IR or T2D. So scaremongering about fruit makes no sense.4 -
Honestly even IF studies were to indicate one day that you could eat more calories on LCHF than you burn it STILL wouldn't be for me.
I'd rather have less fruits, veggies and potatos than more butter or nuts!!
2 -
I've been sick so have been away from MFP for the past few days. I'm still not feeling very well, but let me see if I have this straight:
Has blambo been saying that it theoretically doesn't violate any thermodynamic principals for more fat to be burned than would be accounted for in the CICO model given the correct substrate ratio and is offering Peter Attia to back up this theory while ignoring the fact that in controlled conditions, such an effect has not been observed?0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I've been sick so have been away from MFP for the past few days. I'm still not feeling very well, but let me see if I have this straight:
Has blambo been saying that it theoretically doesn't violate any thermodynamic principals for more fat to be burned than would be accounted for in the CICO model given the correct substrate ratio and is offering Peter Attia to back up this theory while ignoring the fact that in controlled conditions, such an effect has not been observed?
I think the notion is that in certain foods not all calories are turned into energy and just wasted (i.e., if you eat 1000 cals of nuts, not all 1000 calories would be converted into energy). But who knows because actuals studies confirm otherwise.1 -
I think the notion is that in certain foods not all calories are turned into energy and just wasted (i.e., if you eat 1000 cals of nuts, not all 1000 calories would be converted into energy). But who knows because actuals studies confirm otherwise.
My reading is that he's claiming that this happens not so much with certain foods (although it could be that our usual counts are somewhat off on some things, like nuts, and will be corrected eventually), but with certain ways of eating. Some months ago I remember he was off on the theory that if you ate a huge amount of calories in one sitting you would excrete a lot of them without using the calories (hmm, a theme?), and now it's supposedly keto does this. But like you say, the studies haven't supported this, and I still don't see a logical mechanism whereby the body would do this. I mean, sure, initially converting to ketones might require a bit of excess output (which is what the studies seem to show) and maybe making glucose from fat takes some extra (as does making fat from carbs, actually), but that is unlikely to be meaningful--mostly you don't need to make glucose from carbs when on keto (you need a little bit of glucose for the brain, but usually you aren't that low and anyway it's not that many calories).
Beyond that, the idea that your body would, in essence, waste calories when in keto probably seems appealing if one needs to lose weight or wants to eat more than maintenance, but it would not be an efficient or useful thing for the body to do, so why would it have evolved to do this? Indeed, the body tends to interpret keto as starvation or food scarcity, so the idea that it starts wasting calories in keto makes no sense to me.
Might there be more energy to fuel food search or some such or diminished hunger? Sure, that could make sense. Might IR people have impaired energy output with higher carb diets (since they are not able to effectively convert the carbs to energy properly)? Yeah, that makes sense to me. But a major wastage of calories as suggested? Don't see it.
I also think wanting that reads as messed up to me, but this could be my own food biases. The idea that there's some desirable state of eating a lot and having calories go through us feels wrong to me (even if it were possible to achieve, which I don't believe). How would that be different in kind from that horrible stomach pump device that has been talked about in the forums?1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
My reading is that he's claiming that this happens not so much with certain foods (although it could be that our usual counts are somewhat off on some things, like nuts, and will be corrected eventually), but with certain ways of eating. Some months ago I remember he was off on the theory that if you ate a huge amount of calories in one sitting you would excrete a lot of them without using the calories (hmm, a theme?), and now it's supposedly keto does this. But like you say, the studies haven't supported this, and I still don't see a logical mechanism whereby the body would do this. I mean, sure, initially converting to ketones might require a bit of excess output (which is what the studies seem to show) and maybe making glucose from fat takes some extra (as does making fat from carbs, actually), but that is unlikely to be meaningful--mostly you don't need to make glucose from carbs when on keto (you need a little bit of glucose for the brain, but usually you aren't that low and anyway it's not that many calories).
Beyond that, the idea that your body would, in essence, waste calories when in keto probably seems appealing if one needs to lose weight or wants to eat more than maintenance, but it would not be an efficient or useful thing for the body to do, so why would it have evolved to do this? Indeed, the body tends to interpret keto as starvation or food scarcity, so the idea that it starts wasting calories in keto makes no sense to me.
Might there be more energy to fuel food search or some such or diminished hunger? Sure, that could make sense. Might IR people have impaired energy output with higher carb diets (since they are not able to effectively convert the carbs to energy properly)? Yeah, that makes sense to me. But a major wastage of calories as suggested? Don't see it.
I also think wanting that reads as messed up to me, but this could be my own food biases. The idea that there's some desirable state of eating a lot and having calories go through us feels wrong to me (even if it were possible to achieve, which I don't believe). How would that be different in kind from that horrible stomach pump device that has been talked about in the forums?
Yes. All of this. It is partially remembering the conversations and his thoughts regarding OMAD being a mechanism to outwit CICO through excretion which are underpinning what I'm trying to glean from his posts here.
I admit that the engineering talk is over my head, but I do believe he's trying to say that it's possible. Here's the post:Life science people often say that any loss past what a deficit demands is breaking thermodynamic laws. Those trained in thermodynamics know that is not true. I only gave my background to state I have a thermodynamics background and know what I'm talking about when conservation of energy and thermodynamics are talked about. I do not have a lot of life sciences training. Lots of life science people obviously don't have much thermo training. Attia has both.
This isn't about TEF (which would mean certain foods). This is about understanding thermodynamics itself and in Attia's case, I think it's working back from where he ended and fitting the data to his theory here. Heck, even Attia does that since he never tested things like his RMR or his energy output during exercise (and this is a point I made that blambo keeps missing -- you can exercise less and burn more if you're exercising at greater intensity).4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions