Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Ketogenic overfeeding n=1 experiment by Wittrock
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »The nuts too. Easily 1000kcal with nuts.Well, on day 8 he is now a 147 lb man instead of 148. That surprised me I thought he'd be up a bit and not over a pound below where he started.
Not really surprising. What I find surprising is that for some reason, my 3 heaviest days of the week are the morning after my low carb days and my lowest are the mornings after my carbs are the highest. Haven't figured that one out, lol. Although, it could be the ice cream.
I watched the first 4 days and it seems interesting. It should be noted, that guy is lean as hell, so calorie partitioning will definitely be on his side.
What I am interested in is seeing how it would play out at the 3 week mark. Even though, it can be debated that may not exactly be enough time. I know weight loss, I tend to get better trend analysis with 4 to 6 weeks.
LOL I don't think he'd make 4 to 6 weeks, although I agree that it would have been nice to see. He was either struggling to eat today, or is good at struggling to eat. You can tell this is a guy who has never had issues with food - he doesn't know how to overeat. LOL The guy needs more cheese and bacon.
I am surprised he doesn't do cheese much. I'd be eating blocks of Kerry gold. But i guess he does it to minimize protein.
I still don't think a guy they fit and who works out that much will maintain at 2k. I suspect he is closer to 3k like most of the males on here. Watching almost all the videos, his workouts tend to be fairly long. The one day he was gone for 2 hours, grant it, i recognize there was some travel time.
I agree. My guess is just under 3k. He might get by on 2k though. The guy is definitely in touch with his hunger and fullness cues.
Didn't that other guy you referenced that did this eat like 2k or 3k in nuts alone?
Well, that's sort of cheating a bit, though, depending on the nut eaten. A lot of that doesn't get absorbed at all.
We could say that about any food with fibre then. It's sort of cheating if it has fibre because it slows digestion? How well you cook meat and at what temperature will affect digestion too. Raw vs cooked veggies...
I understand what you are saying, but unless it is a really large caloric difference, it doesn't mean much. It's interesting but it's sort of majoring in the minors.
And yeah, Sam Feltham, who did the 5000 kcal challenge ate close to 3000 kcal per day in walnuts, pecans and almonds.
No, it's not fiber that affects the mechanism of calories absorbed with nuts. It's the structure of the cell walls that inhibits the absorption of the fat, IIRC. The fiber in them is a separate issue.
This isn't majoring in the minors when you're effectively taking in up to 30% less calories than you think you are (depending on the nut).
This is NOT thermic effect here.
No. No one's talking thermogenic effect here. It could be fibre in the cell wall or just the structure of that type of cell wall. Perhaps it is protective chemicals. They'e not too sure what it is, just that it is in nuts, legumes and grains.
I think Feltham ate green beans every day for the higher carb part of his 21 day 5000kcal challenge.... I wonder if they have that undigestible effect too. Perhaps to a lesser extent.
I think picking on the digestibility of the food is a bit, well, picky. Whole grains are less digestible than more refined and processed grains. When someone from MFP eats their steel cut oats or their instant oatmeal, they are probably thinking about the caloric total and not trying to figure out the calories that were non-digestible. Those who are lactose intolerant are getting less from their dairy than those who produce lactase. People probably aren't thinking of digestibility when they decide between rare or well-done, or tofu/meat substitute for that matter. I doubt it's a consideration when people choose their protein macro either. I know I don't think about (lower) digestibility of my raw veggies when I eat them. I just prefer the crunch.,,, Well, except broccoli. Broccoli must be cooked or it's digestibility is front and centre - that veggie can really mess with my insides.
Anyway, my guess is that a whole foods, moderate to higher carb diet probably has more foods that have lower digestibility than a low carb or keto diet. Those of us on under 2000 kcal per day don't eat nuts like Wittrock and Feltham. It probably all evens out in the end. Perhaps not so much for the diets incorporating more refined carbohydrates or with higher levels of sugars and sugar substitutes.
2 -
-
As for nuts, I've had a rough week - ate more than 2 lbs. of various nuts in the last 3 days - Brazil nuts, walnuts, and pecans. If it is true, perhaps my gain won't be as bad as expected from based on calories alone.0
-
leanjogreen18 wrote: »
He needs to say you can eat way over TDEE on Almonds (whatever nut it was) not Keto.
I don't recall Attia singling out the nuts as the reason he could eat high calories over TDEE but he specified the "Keto diet".
Nuts are a part of Keto but to me the distinction should be made.
I still disagree. Almonds are not a keto exclusive food. Most people eat nuts. "Normal" people eat nuts and they overeat them too. Nuts are not a magic keto food. They just may lose some digestibility. 25%. Legumes and grains are similar. We keto'ers aren't getting the benefit of the undigestibility of grains and legumes. Seems fair enough.
And TBH, keto'ers don't eat a lot of almonds or pistachios because their carb content can throw off our macros. One ounce of nuts has between 4 and 10g of carbs, depending on the nut. One ounce is not much - just 8-24 nuts depending on the nut.
Cashews have over 9g of carbs per ounce. If I ate 2 oz, that's just 36 nuts but I would be really close to my carb limit for the day. Plus that's probably 300 kcals or so... or maybe just 220 kcals of digestible calories. LOL 1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »As for nuts, I've had a rough week - ate more than 2 lbs. of various nuts in the last 3 days - Brazil nuts, walnuts, and pecans. If it is true, perhaps my gain won't be as bad as expected from based on calories alone.
@midwesterner85 I guess you could potentially ignore 75% of the nuts' calories. Did it have any effect on your insulin needs for your high nut meals? 25% less insulin used? I'm curious.
1 -
Day 9 was promote your sponsor day. LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGgt-8Y1aeA
He got his initial labs back. Total LDL was high, HDL was 79 and Triglycerides were at 80 something. His hs-CRP was perfect.
I think he was 147 lbs again.0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »
He needs to say you can eat way over TDEE on Almonds (whatever nut it was) not Keto.
I don't recall Attia singling out the nuts as the reason he could eat high calories over TDEE but he specified the "Keto diet".
Nuts are a part of Keto but to me the distinction should be made.
I still disagree. Almonds are not a keto exclusive food. Most people eat nuts. "Normal" people eat nuts and they overeat them too. Nuts are not a magic keto food. They just may lose some digestibility. 25%. Legumes and grains are similar. We keto'ers aren't getting the benefit of the undigestibility of grains and legumes. Seems fair enough.
And TBH, keto'ers don't eat a lot of almonds or pistachios because their carb content can throw off our macros. One ounce of nuts has between 4 and 10g of carbs, depending on the nut. One ounce is not much - just 8-24 nuts depending on the nut.
Cashews have over 9g of carbs per ounce. If I ate 2 oz, that's just 36 nuts but I would be really close to my carb limit for the day. Plus that's probably 300 kcals or so... or maybe just 220 kcals of digestible calories. LOL
I totally agree! You actually made my point better than I did re nuts lol.
My problem is at least with Attia he implied Keto was the reason he could eat way over TDEE. To me that means one could eat bacon, cheese or any fat etc over TDEE and not gain.
So I think at least in Attia's case where he ate 1000's of calories in nuts it was misleading. It wasn't all Keto, he chose nuts that may not be fully digested and pass through.
0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »
He needs to say you can eat way over TDEE on Almonds (whatever nut it was) not Keto.
I don't recall Attia singling out the nuts as the reason he could eat high calories over TDEE but he specified the "Keto diet".
Nuts are a part of Keto but to me the distinction should be made.
I still disagree. Almonds are not a keto exclusive food. Most people eat nuts. "Normal" people eat nuts and they overeat them too. Nuts are not a magic keto food. They just may lose some digestibility. 25%. Legumes and grains are similar. We keto'ers aren't getting the benefit of the undigestibility of grains and legumes. Seems fair enough.
And TBH, keto'ers don't eat a lot of almonds or pistachios because their carb content can throw off our macros. One ounce of nuts has between 4 and 10g of carbs, depending on the nut. One ounce is not much - just 8-24 nuts depending on the nut.
Cashews have over 9g of carbs per ounce. If I ate 2 oz, that's just 36 nuts but I would be really close to my carb limit for the day. Plus that's probably 300 kcals or so... or maybe just 220 kcals of digestible calories. LOL
I totally agree! You actually made my point better than I did re nuts lol.
My problem is at least with Attia he implied Keto was the reason he could eat way over TDEE. To me that means one could eat bacon, cheese or any fat etc over TDEE and not gain.
So I think at least in Attia's case where he ate 1000's of calories in nuts it was misleading. It wasn't all Keto, he chose nuts that may not be fully digested and pass through.
Sure but who's to say he didn't eat nuts before?
And Attia ate 1000's of calories of nuts? I don't think he did. In this run down of his ketogenic diet, he ate about 300-400 kcals of nuts in a week. That's a difference of 100 kcals from a nut's undigestibility.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/what-i-actually-eat
Now Feltham did eat a LOT of nuts. But he posted his diet so people knew exactly what he ate everyday of his 5000 kcal challenge. Even if he did "lose" that 700 or so kcals per day to the nuts not being fully digested, that accounts for about 4 lbs not gained over 21 days. It doesn't account for the rest of the weight he didn't gain. I think it was another 4 lbs or there abouts.1 -
^^^Yes thanks for the clarification I got them mixed up.
Some men can hold up to 10 lbs of poo:) how does this factor in:)
Ack posted before I finished. Lol
It would just be nice to throw nuts out then that to me inflates the calorie count.
But honestly it doesn't really matter to me. I had no idea nuts weren't fully digested so I learned something new today:).
0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »^^^Yes thanks for the clarification I got them mixed up.
Some men can hold up to 10 lbs of poo:) how does this factor in:)
Ack posted before I finished. Lol
It would just be nice to throw nuts out then that to me inflates the calorie count.
But honestly it doesn't really matter to me. I had no idea nuts weren't fully digested so I learned something new today:).
Me too. I want to look into that more and see whether my beloved macadamias are the same, as well as snap peas and green beans. Love those too.
I'll let someone else look up the grains. 2 -
And 10 lbs? Eek!0
-
-
I guess people will say this guy is lying too if the outcome doesn't fit their world view.0
-
-
I guess people will say this guy is lying too if the outcome doesn't fit their world view.
If there's a legitimate mechanism behind it, it would be good to actually pin it down. "Fat doesn't make you fat" isn't a legitimate mechanism on it's own, considering how easy it is for the body to store fat, compared to the other three macros.4 -
It's not saying he's lying to call out the lack of scientific controls in how his "experiment" was carried out.
Gallowmere's bulked using keto. Shall we ask him what his experience was? Will that be valid? Why are these you tube breathless day by day accounts the only valid ones?
There's a whole forum over on bodybilding.com of people who bulked on keto. You can obviously gain weight eating keto.
3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Mead is an English thing. At least as far as this first generation Scot knows......
Mead isn't in the slightest an "English" thing
It was made right across Europe, Africa and Asia for several thousand years but fell out of favour in the last few hundred as distilled spirts became available.
Either way our N=1 isn't likely to be chugging any in this experiment
BTW is it just me or does he eat very little actual food to get to his 4K. I'd be having much more fun getting there I think.
3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »As for nuts, I've had a rough week - ate more than 2 lbs. of various nuts in the last 3 days - Brazil nuts, walnuts, and pecans. If it is true, perhaps my gain won't be as bad as expected from based on calories alone.
@midwesterner85 I guess you could potentially ignore 75% of the nuts' calories. Did it have any effect on your insulin needs for your high nut meals? 25% less insulin used? I'm curious.
No, in fact the nuts seemed to make me need even more insulin than what would have been expected; though it is tough to say because I ate other things around the same time.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »
You aren't exactly metabolically healthy. Considering that Type I is not exactly a very common condition. So using you as a model, wouldn't exactly be appropriate.2 -
I guess people will say this guy is lying too if the outcome doesn't fit their world view.
I wouldn't say he is lying. My biggest argument is he didn't baseline caloric requirements before he started this experiment. Saying, "oh, I eat roughly 2000 calories a day, so 4000 calories must make me gain like crazy", is a bit ill informed. If you spend more than 10 minutes in the gaining weight section (largely those who are really into lifting and taking their physique to the next level - like Jason), you will easily recognize where people's TDEE actually sit. Most guys in that group maintain at roughly 3000 calories. Most women are 2400. Heck, there are a lot of 5'2, 100lb women who maintain at 1800 calories without exercise. So what is the likelihood, that a 5'7, 147 (as of day 9), extremely fit male who exercises almost daily (depending on how he feels), with a young child, and is metabolically healthy actually maintains at 2000 calories?
I actually find this experiment interesting and have been following it. I laugh when he vilifies carbs and throws in his promotions, but overall, it's pretty good advice.... and I might have to look up that keto mousse. That looks amazing.
ETA: because apparently, I fail English.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It's not saying he's lying to call out the lack of scientific controls in how his "experiment" was carried out.
Gallowmere's bulked using keto. Shall we ask him what his experience was? Will that be valid? Why are these you tube breathless day by day accounts the only valid ones?
There's a whole forum over on bodybilding.com of people who bulked on keto. You can obviously gain weight eating keto.
If we did, it sure wasn't pretty as he just got fat. IIRC, he current bulk has been a lot more successful and it's not keto based.0 -
I guess people will say this guy is lying too if the outcome doesn't fit their world view.
I guess all the low carbes will latch on to his outcome as undeniable truth, no matter the unscientificness of the whole thing as compared to actual science. But of course only if it fits in their world view.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It's not saying he's lying to call out the lack of scientific controls in how his "experiment" was carried out.
Gallowmere's bulked using keto. Shall we ask him what his experience was? Will that be valid? Why are these you tube breathless day by day accounts the only valid ones?
There's a whole forum over on bodybilding.com of people who bulked on keto. You can obviously gain weight eating keto.
If we did, it sure wasn't pretty as he just got fat. IIRC, he current bulk has been a lot more successful and it's not keto based.
That is correct. Some seem to do fine with keto bulks. I just got fat and weak on an SKD surplus, so switched to CKD. Then I just got fat, even though the strength was better.
ETA: the really hilarious part, is that the bulk was through my noob gains phase, so that's the least likely time one should have put on the kind of fat I did, running the relatively light surplus that I was. 2800/week for two months of keto gave me 2.5 lbs./week, and a bunch of lard that took me a month and a half of RFL to cut off. This time I'm averaging 3800/week for 1.1/week (40/30/30 p/f/c), been at it for two and a half months, and my estimates so far figure that two weeks of the same cut method will set me back to start again.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I guess people will say this guy is lying too if the outcome doesn't fit their world view.
I guess all the low carbes will latch on to his outcome as undeniable truth, no matter the unscientificness of the whole thing as compared to actual science. But of course only if it fits in their world view.
Not this low-carb. My reality and experience has told me calories matter. That is why I am still even logging constantly and in this forum lurking around.
I predict *kitten* is going to get real, and he'll start gaining within the next week. Right now his metabolism is doing damage control like it is supposed to. He's already having a damn hard time continuing to eat that much. Plus, I suspect the bathroom effect is kicking in, like I mentioned before, due to all the oil, and he's dropped water as a result. And we don't know how much more he's doing at the gym, as I suspect he's probably doing more subconsciously due to the increased energy available.
And like psuLemon said, how accurate was he about his maintenance threshold?
It's not going to be gospel, at least not for people that have any sense.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It's not saying he's lying to call out the lack of scientific controls in how his "experiment" was carried out.
Gallowmere's bulked using keto. Shall we ask him what his experience was? Will that be valid? Why are these you tube breathless day by day accounts the only valid ones?
There's a whole forum over on bodybilding.com of people who bulked on keto. You can obviously gain weight eating keto.
If we did, it sure wasn't pretty as he just got fat. IIRC, he current bulk has been a lot more successful and it's not keto based.
Fat's not a good calorie source for muscle building I'm guessing?0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It's not saying he's lying to call out the lack of scientific controls in how his "experiment" was carried out.
Gallowmere's bulked using keto. Shall we ask him what his experience was? Will that be valid? Why are these you tube breathless day by day accounts the only valid ones?
There's a whole forum over on bodybilding.com of people who bulked on keto. You can obviously gain weight eating keto.
If we did, it sure wasn't pretty as he just got fat. IIRC, he current bulk has been a lot more successful and it's not keto based.
Fat's not a good calorie source for muscle building I'm guessing?
Insulin is very important for mps. Fat doesn't exactly do much to provoke it. Even a higher protein intake than what most think of with keto didn't help; or at least didn't help as much as carbs are this bulk.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It's not saying he's lying to call out the lack of scientific controls in how his "experiment" was carried out.
Gallowmere's bulked using keto. Shall we ask him what his experience was? Will that be valid? Why are these you tube breathless day by day accounts the only valid ones?
There's a whole forum over on bodybilding.com of people who bulked on keto. You can obviously gain weight eating keto.
If we did, it sure wasn't pretty as he just got fat. IIRC, he current bulk has been a lot more successful and it's not keto based.
Fat's not a good calorie source for muscle building I'm guessing?
Insulin is very important for mps. Fat doesn't exactly do much to provoke it. Even a higher protein intake than what most think of with keto didn't help; or at least didn't help as much as carbs are this bulk.
Yeah, carbs and lean gains go best together due to insulin. Bulking on keto can be done, people are doing it, but it isn't as fast or effective as with carbs.
Wittrock achieved his physique before keto. At this point, I think he is going for maintaining it while keto... I don't think you could improve his physique much.
0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »It's not saying he's lying to call out the lack of scientific controls in how his "experiment" was carried out.
Gallowmere's bulked using keto. Shall we ask him what his experience was? Will that be valid? Why are these you tube breathless day by day accounts the only valid ones?
There's a whole forum over on bodybilding.com of people who bulked on keto. You can obviously gain weight eating keto.
If we did, it sure wasn't pretty as he just got fat. IIRC, he current bulk has been a lot more successful and it's not keto based.
Fat's not a good calorie source for muscle building I'm guessing?
Insulin is very important for mps. Fat doesn't exactly do much to provoke it. Even a higher protein intake than what most think of with keto didn't help; or at least didn't help as much as carbs are this bulk.
Yeah, carbs and lean gains go best together due to insulin. Bulking on keto can be done, people are doing it, but it isn't as fast or effective as with carbs.
Wittrock achieved his physique before keto. At this point, I think he is going for maintaining it while keto... I don't think you could improve his physique much.
Depends on how you look at it. Compared to a lot of high end powerlifters, dude is really tiny. I've seen some seriously lean 190+ guys at 5'1"-5'3". Granted, this isn't "normal" or "natty", but there's always room for improvement.0 -
baconslave wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I guess people will say this guy is lying too if the outcome doesn't fit their world view.
I guess all the low carbes will latch on to his outcome as undeniable truth, no matter the unscientificness of the whole thing as compared to actual science. But of course only if it fits in their world view.
Not this low-carb. My reality and experience has told me calories matter. That is why I am still even logging constantly and in this forum lurking around.
I predict *kitten* is going to get real, and he'll start gaining within the next week. Right now his metabolism is doing damage control like it is supposed to. He's already having a damn hard time continuing to eat that much. Plus, I suspect the bathroom effect is kicking in, like I mentioned before, due to all the oil, and he's dropped water as a result. And we don't know how much more he's doing at the gym, as I suspect he's probably doing more subconsciously due to the increased energy available.
And like psuLemon said, how accurate was he about his maintenance threshold?
It's not going to be gospel, at least not for people that have any sense.
This is my guess too. He's due for a bit of a bump upwards. I wouldn't be surprised if he passes 150 next week.
If his maintenance was 3K, he should be gaining 2 lbs per week. On average. I doubt he'll hit 152 by day 14, but you never know. I completely agree that calories matter. They just aren't everything. How much it matters is going to vary a lot between people.
You know what I think would be a lot of fun would be to get proponents/ personalities of various diets and have them eat each other's diets for a month, and then their own. Like freelee banana girl and Rob Wolff (paleo) or Jimmy Moore and Pritkin. LOL Have bod pods, measurements, and blood work done before and after each diet. I'd like to watch that.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As for nuts, I've had a rough week - ate more than 2 lbs. of various nuts in the last 3 days - Brazil nuts, walnuts, and pecans. If it is true, perhaps my gain won't be as bad as expected from based on calories alone.
@midwesterner85 I guess you could potentially ignore 75% of the nuts' calories. Did it have any effect on your insulin needs for your high nut meals? 25% less insulin used? I'm curious.
No, in fact the nuts seemed to make me need even more insulin than what would have been expected; though it is tough to say because I ate other things around the same time.
Hmm. Maybe you are like me and tend to take more nuts than you had planned. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions