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.
Is There a Metabolic Advantage to a Ketogenic Diet?
Options
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
The first nations of Canada mostly ate lower carb, depending on season, especially on the plains and in the north. I imagine much of northern Europe was fairly low carb on average. Keto at time and moderate carb at others.
I imagine it is quite different closer to the equator.
If we look at Neanderthal diet for Ice Age Europe, then actually no: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161027094135.htm - far more likely moderate carb, which is not keto. Even at times when plants may have been scarcer, they were more high protein/low fat: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329132245.htm (and Neanderthals may have specifically evolved to deal with that), which again is not the high fat/low carb most doing keto here adhere to.
Interesting... I do doubt that their diet was high protein though. Large animals are high in fat. Bison and such all have a LOT of fat in them, and people ate them when they were at their fattiest for ease of storage and to maintain good health - from what I understand.
Even in they ate exclusively meat, which most peoples did not do, they would probably have a fat/protein split of 80/20 up to maybe 65/35 which is getting into high protein. Keto'er who aim for zero carb, and eat a carnivorous diet of just meat, tend to get splits around 75/25 to 70/30, give or take a few percentages.
What do they think people/neanderthals were eating on the mammoth steppe in terms of plant matter? I'm curious. It looks a lot like Mongolia - grasses and dry. I can't imagine there was a lot to eat there. I doubt the Mongols ate a lot of plants too. Sort of like the first nations plains people here. There are some berries an roots they would eat but calorie wise it was a minority amount.
Just to clarify where I am coming from, I consider moderate carbs to be over 150g per day, and up to 45-50% of your total calories.
Well, the current science is disagreeing with you sorry, for Neanderthals anyway
. I would have to delve deeper to answer your question re what plants they were eating, which I unfortunately don't have time to do right now. perhaps another day
And obviously the definition of 'low carb' comes into this. My carb intake is generally between 100-160g a day (though it can be higher depending on my overall calorie intake and also what kind of activity I'm doing, it's not often over 200g though), and I don't consider myself low carb (I'd put myself in the moderate range). Did our Palaeolithic ancestors eat lower carb than what most people do today? Yep, almost undoubtably, especially in colder climates. But not as low as keto levels, which is what this discussion is about, and the statement I originally quoted and took issue with (that previously people 'naturally ate in a ketogenic way').
Human diet has historically been a tricky area for archaeologists, because plant remains generally don't survive in the archaeological record (other than under very specific circumstances). Hence the emphasis on animal remains, and the (erroneous) assumptions about heavily meat-based diets. But advances in terms of the types of analysis that can be undertaken using modern techniques are changing that, and the evidence is showing a much higher plant consumption than previously thought. Not high carb, but definitely not keto.
This IS interesting. I wonder what the neanderthals did to get so high protein... Avoided large game or just ate muscle meat maybe? Not fatty seafood?
Raw or rare meat tends to have a higher degree of carbs in it. So does very fresh meat. Perhaps that affected it?
I don't think many ancient cultures or peoples ate ketogenic. The ones I listed - maybe. It's debateable if those cultures (like the Inuit) were in ketosis or not. I do agree that they were probably much lower carb than people eat today. I think many food guides still recommend over 50% of calories from carbs. My guess, only a guess, is that ancient northern people ate low carb to moderate carb.
By most diet definitions, you do eat low carb. Moderately low carb. Low carb is usually considered below 100 to 150g of carbs per day. Ketosis (very low carb) is usually considered to be under 50g per day but some go higher with that label if they time carbs around exercise or they are very active. Those with metabolic issues tend to eat under 50g; I'm usually 20-30g.
Haha, they definitely didn't avoid large game!! And they would have utilised as much of the animal as they could. But even a harsh winter diet of woolly mammoth isn't going to provide you with an 80% fat intake (not that I can for the life of me find the nutritional info for woolly mammoth, but one caught late autumn/early winter would have had a pretty substantial fat layer), unless they didn't eat the leaner meat, which is silly from a logic point of view, and which science indicates isn't the case. They most definitely were exploiting marine resources, fish and shellfish: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023768; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024026 (that first link also talks more about plant consumption and gives a reference to what was available where that you can follow), though probably not fatty fish (which tend to be 'offshore' fish), and most shellfish species are pretty crap on fat content (though mussel, the dominant species in the link above, is better than many, with a mighty 2.25ish grams of lipids per 100g of flesh).
But, it seems we're in agreement, ancient populations weren't 'naturally ketogenic'
We are in agreement. I doubt they lived in a constant ketogenic state.
Look into ground beef for an approximate 80/20 macro split. That does not include all the fattiest bits (marrow, brain, tongue) nor the leanest bits, but normal ground beef is around that split.
80% fat? I've never seen that. Standard (non lean) ground beef is more like 80% lean, no? Cheaper is lower, but not 20%. And the cheapest cows are grain-fed, so fattier than they naturally would be (although they still have no bearing on what wild animals would be like and they vary a bunch due to climate, of course). I get grass-fed beef from a local farm, including ground beef without any specific fat percentage, and based on appearance and taste it's even lower fat than the 80-20 (although I log it as such to be safe), and certainly nowhere near 80% fat.
I see regular ground beef as 73% protein and 27% fat. Using googled macros for 4oz we get: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/great-value/ground-beef-73-27
28g fat and 18g protein. That is 252 calories of fat and 72 calories of protein, If you add them together that is 324 calories. Of that, fat is about 78% of the calories and protein is about 22%... I guess I am a bit off.
I`ve never understood why they call it 73 or 80% lean when it is not how the calories work out.
That's something that someone had specially made, or they don't understand beef numbers and pulled something out of their butt. Now, Wagyu and Angus beef cuts can get that high, but at that point, we're no longer talking supermarket ground beef, and I hope your wallet is amazing.
http://www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com/ibccut.aspx?id=90547§ion=explore#details
Note: 14g fat, 21g protein in 70% lean, so it would be skewed upward even more in 73/27. The ratios are figured by raw weight, not calories.
So fat is 126 calories and protein is 84 calories for a total of 210. That's 60% fat and 40% protein...
Wikipedia has 73% lean ground beef at 30g fat and 14g protein, or 270 kcal and 56 kcal. That's 326 kcal with 83% fat and 17% protein... Not a lot of consistency, eh?
I butcher my own beef, and it is pretty high fat. I don't leave a lot for the coyotes. It's cheaper this way.
But when I do buy beef in the store, the less lean it is the cheaper it is.
Oh definitely. I can get 73/27 for like $1.89/lbs., and up to 93/7 for like $3.25. Make the jump to 95/5 though, and it's suddenly closer to $6. Given the exponential price increase, god help us all if they ever make 100/0.1 -
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »LucasWilland wrote: »Bottom line: all the metabolic ward studies have consistently shown the same thing: there is no advantage for fat loss on a Ketogenic diet compared to one that is higher in carbohydrates.
Takeaway points: If you are on a ketogenic diet and truly enjoy it and it is working great for you, then by all means continue to do it, but don't think that you can scarf down as many grass- fed steaks as you want without there being consequences, in spite of low insulin or not.
Takeaway point number two: If the next time you are at an Italian restaurant and your best friend says that you can't have pasta because it will make you fat, proceed to:
a. slap the person silly
b. Show them this article and kindly explain to them what insulin actually does.
Since you are a good person, I predict that you will take the second option, but if your friend still doesn't listen, proceed to shrug and say, "oh, well, more yummy stuff for me."
http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/
Yes any time one increases both the number and health of their mitochondria it is a metabolic advantage. Most any metabolic advantage that lowers one's risk for premature death from diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attack, etc is a good thing as LCHF and other WOE's may offer.
eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-ii
Its simple called, dont be over weight, exercise and have good genetics. If you are still overweight, dont exercise and eat keto or vegan or whatever, you'd still be at a higher risk than those who are at a good weight, exercising and following whatever diet.
Thank goodness, i am lean, exercise and have long life in my family where people commom live in the 90s or early 100s.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1540458/Effects of Exercise on Mitochondrial Content and Function in Aging Human Skeletal Muscle
Both our way of eating and moving are major factors in good health for sure.
Any way of eating that increases nutrient dense foods, that helps you lose weight, will improve health markers. Exercise is a huge driver on top of that as well, as demonstrated by this initial review.
So do you do intense exercise or do you rely solely on diet?
I walk min of 1/4 mile daily.. Other than keeping my carbs around 50 grams daily by guess I eat all I want most days (2000-3000 calories).
Keeping my pain levels well managed by LCHF and supplements to increase my mitochondrial quantity and quality high seems to keep my metabolism elevated so my muscle mass keeps increasing.
Gale, it's wonderful you're managing your pain.
My question: how are you gaining muscle mass unless you are intentionally trying to do so by weight lifting and eating a good amount of protein?3 -
conormallon668 wrote: »
Yes, this pretty chart says it all.
Any diet will work as long as you eat at a calorie deficit, and no diet will work if you don't.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »LucasWilland wrote: »Bottom line: all the metabolic ward studies have consistently shown the same thing: there is no advantage for fat loss on a Ketogenic diet compared to one that is higher in carbohydrates.
Takeaway points: If you are on a ketogenic diet and truly enjoy it and it is working great for you, then by all means continue to do it, but don't think that you can scarf down as many grass- fed steaks as you want without there being consequences, in spite of low insulin or not.
Takeaway point number two: If the next time you are at an Italian restaurant and your best friend says that you can't have pasta because it will make you fat, proceed to:
a. slap the person silly
b. Show them this article and kindly explain to them what insulin actually does.
Since you are a good person, I predict that you will take the second option, but if your friend still doesn't listen, proceed to shrug and say, "oh, well, more yummy stuff for me."
http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/
Yes any time one increases both the number and health of their mitochondria it is a metabolic advantage. Most any metabolic advantage that lowers one's risk for premature death from diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attack, etc is a good thing as LCHF and other WOE's may offer.
eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-ii
Its simple called, dont be over weight, exercise and have good genetics. If you are still overweight, dont exercise and eat keto or vegan or whatever, you'd still be at a higher risk than those who are at a good weight, exercising and following whatever diet.
Thank goodness, i am lean, exercise and have long life in my family where people commom live in the 90s or early 100s.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1540458/Effects of Exercise on Mitochondrial Content and Function in Aging Human Skeletal Muscle
Both our way of eating and moving are major factors in good health for sure.
Any way of eating that increases nutrient dense foods, that helps you lose weight, will improve health markers. Exercise is a huge driver on top of that as well, as demonstrated by this initial review.
So do you do intense exercise or do you rely solely on diet?
I walk min of 1/4 mile daily.. Other than keeping my carbs around 50 grams daily by guess I eat all I want most days (2000-3000 calories).
Keeping my pain levels well managed by LCHF and supplements to increase my mitochondrial quantity and quality high seems to keep my metabolism elevated so my muscle mass keeps increasing.
You walk 1/4 mile a day? As in a quarter of a mile? And you think this is increasing your muscle mass?
@VintageFeline the quarter of mile reply was to the question that I was asked. No health claims were stated based on that one daily activity. Do you think that LCHF alone could be responsible for my muscle mass increase?
No which is why I asked. You were asked if you exercised and only mentioned the walking, therefore it is fair for me to assume that's all you do and thus cannot be gaining any appreciable muscle mass.
It is hard to know. I can walk down and back up the steep hill quickly without resting unlike needing to resting 10+ times before I went off of sugar and all grains over 2 years ago.
It's highly likely losing a lot of weight had a fair bit to do with that, rather than *how* you lost the weight.2 -
I think whatever your diet is, you should only be eating that food because you like it. I personally had to go Keto because I was constantly "hungry" (though I later discovered much of it was just cravings) when I had low-fat and a higher carb intake. I just never felt full, even though I only ate clean sources of carbs, and always wanted to stuff my face with more and more of them. As soon as I went Keto (or pretty soon after), the cravings stopped and I could finally distinguish between hunger and craving. Now, I just do low-carb to my pleasure, and eat what I like (mainly staying in Keto-carb-range, anyways). If I feel like having some spring rolls, I'm having spring rolls, and ain't anyone keeping me from having my banana! It's just about finding what works best for you. Low-carb definitely worked for me, but I do not believe that carbs make you fat. You want rice, you eat rice. Can't no one tell you anything about it.5
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
I think I love you!
2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »What I love about keto and I think this is why people lose weight so much on it is because you don't get sugar spikes, therefore you eat what you can eat and feel full, if you overeat of course you're going to not drop the weight. I have a cheat day once a week and get back onto it the next day only because I weight train and I don't want my base calories to drop below 1400 when shredding. On keto I struggle to hit this 1400 and can easily go on 1000 calories and thats where the weightloss comes in and nd reason why I track my calories to ensure I'm eating enough to energise my body. But high carb diets work to so long as you don't mix fat and carbs together you are okay
wrong, protein causes insulin to spike almost as much as carbs do. So if you are Keto, which is by nature high protein, you are getting a similar insulin spike.
You've clearly not paid attention to all of the people swearing by a 5/20/75 macro split. Ugh...just, how is that even possible without literally eating butter wrapped in cheese?
Pretty sure I've seen people proclaiming they do this and how sating and wonderful it is. How it keeps them going for many hours of fat burning blissful glory.
So instead of the average daily activity level (outside of exercise) of burning 90-95% fat as energy source, they burned 93-98% fat?
I've never understood their comments about burning primarily fat, as if they didn't understand that's what they were burning anyway, except for the brain on carbs.
Now they burn keto for the brain. Not that huge a difference.4 -
RosieRose7673 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »BrendaMHirst wrote: »Only reason carbs are so popular now is due to the fact the population is so big we would not be able to feed everyone if it was not for carbohydrates. back many years ago we naturally ate in a ketogenic way due to grains being scarce but now we eat for pleasure not nutrition and thats why we tend to over eat.
When exactly was this supposedly happening? Y'see, I'm an archaeologist, and have a fairly good grasp of human evolution and evolution of the human diet. I'm at a loss to identify a time period where the human diet would have been consistently low carb enough to qualify as ketogenic, particularly the super high fat/super low carb version we usually see advocated here.
I think I love you!
Aw thanks 0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »LucasWilland wrote: »Bottom line: all the metabolic ward studies have consistently shown the same thing: there is no advantage for fat loss on a Ketogenic diet compared to one that is higher in carbohydrates.
Takeaway points: If you are on a ketogenic diet and truly enjoy it and it is working great for you, then by all means continue to do it, but don't think that you can scarf down as many grass- fed steaks as you want without there being consequences, in spite of low insulin or not.
Takeaway point number two: If the next time you are at an Italian restaurant and your best friend says that you can't have pasta because it will make you fat, proceed to:
a. slap the person silly
b. Show them this article and kindly explain to them what insulin actually does.
Since you are a good person, I predict that you will take the second option, but if your friend still doesn't listen, proceed to shrug and say, "oh, well, more yummy stuff for me."
http://shreddedbyscience.com/ketogenic-diets-actually-work-study-review/
Yes any time one increases both the number and health of their mitochondria it is a metabolic advantage. Most any metabolic advantage that lowers one's risk for premature death from diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attack, etc is a good thing as LCHF and other WOE's may offer.
eatingacademy.com/nutrition/ketosis-advantaged-or-misunderstood-state-part-ii
Its simple called, dont be over weight, exercise and have good genetics. If you are still overweight, dont exercise and eat keto or vegan or whatever, you'd still be at a higher risk than those who are at a good weight, exercising and following whatever diet.
Thank goodness, i am lean, exercise and have long life in my family where people commom live in the 90s or early 100s.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1540458/Effects of Exercise on Mitochondrial Content and Function in Aging Human Skeletal Muscle
Both our way of eating and moving are major factors in good health for sure.
Any way of eating that increases nutrient dense foods, that helps you lose weight, will improve health markers. Exercise is a huge driver on top of that as well, as demonstrated by this initial review.
So do you do intense exercise or do you rely solely on diet?
I walk min of 1/4 mile daily.. Other than keeping my carbs around 50 grams daily by guess I eat all I want most days (2000-3000 calories).
Keeping my pain levels well managed by LCHF and supplements to increase my mitochondrial quantity and quality high seems to keep my metabolism elevated so my muscle mass keeps increasing.
Gale, it's wonderful you're managing your pain.
My question: how are you gaining muscle mass unless you are intentionally trying to do so by weight lifting and eating a good amount of protein?
@SLLRunner I am lifting my body weight when I walk. Since my pain is going lower and lower I can move faster. Since I no longer need help getting in and out of cars, etc my legs are lifting more too. I do not know the roll that ketones may play but did find the below.
https://ketoschool.com/the-43-health-benefits-of-ketogenic-dieting-in-addition-to-weight-loss-1e4ee4743f1f
"...Gaining muscle and improving endurance
BHB, specifically, has been shown to promote muscle gain. Combined with tons of anecdotal evidence over the years, there is an entire movement behind bodybuilders using a ketogenic approach to gain more muscle and less fat (typically muscle gain also comes with fat gain, so there’s understandable attention being given toward preventing this).
In addition, Dr. Stephen Phinney and Dr. Jeff Volek have a number of papers published about ketogenic dieting for ultra-endurance athletes. In short, once these athletes are fully fat-adapted, there is evidence to suggest that mental and physical performance is significantly improved beyond a “normal” carbohydrate-rich diet.
And last but not least, curbing diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome while sparing muscle loss
Of course, there are over 160 research papers currently on Pubmed with the words “diabetes” and “ketosis” or “ketogenic” in the title alone. It’s beyond clear that ketogenic dieting is extremely effective for many people with both type I and type II diabetes for all the reasons discussed above related to keeping blood sugar levels and insulin in check.
In addition, recent papers within the last few years investigating the effect of ketogenic dieting on obesity conclude that it’s an extremely effective way to not only lose fat, but spare muscle loss while curbing many disorders related to obesity as well (many of which have been discussed above), including the set of symptoms and risk factors known as Metabolic Syndrome (i.e. abdominal obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol)..."
nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.html
Beyond weight loss: a review of the therapeutic uses of very-low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diets.
Abstract
"Very-low-carbohydrate diets or ketogenic diets have been in use since the 1920s as a therapy for epilepsy and can, in some cases, completely remove the need for medication. From the 1960s onwards they have become widely known as one of the most common methods for obesity treatment. Recent work over the last decade or so has provided evidence of the therapeutic potential of ketogenic diets in many pathological conditions, such as diabetes, polycystic ovary syndrome, acne, neurological diseases, cancer and the amelioration of respiratory and cardiovascular disease risk factors. The possibility that modifying food intake can be useful for reducing or eliminating pharmaceutical methods of treatment, which are often lifelong with significant side effects, calls for serious investigation. This review revisits the meaning of physiological ketosis in the light of this evidence and considers possible mechanisms for the therapeutic actions of the ketogenic diet on different diseases. The present review also questions whether there are still some preconceived ideas about ketogenic diets, which may be presenting unnecessary barriers to their use as therapeutic tools in the physician’s hand."
There are over 100 references at the end of this paper that anyone can check out for validity if interested.
In my case just nutritional ketosis stopped at least 75% of my joint and muscle pain in just 30 days after I cut out added sweeteners of any type and all forums of all grains. I expect me being able to more freely to move lead me to move more and build more muscles plus its muscle sparing side effect.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Of course, there are over 160 research papers currently on Pubmed with the words “diabetes” and “ketosis” or “ketogenic” in the title alone.
But are they good science? Some papers aren't worth printing.GaleHawkins wrote: »In addition, recent papers within the last few years investigating the effect of ketogenic dieting on obesity conclude that it’s an extremely effective way to not only lose fat, but spare muscle loss while curbing many disorders related to obesity as well (many of which have been discussed above), including the set of symptoms and risk factors known as Metabolic Syndrome (i.e. abdominal obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol)..."
Again, it needs to pointed out that losing weight cures those things, using *any* way of eating.8 -
@GaleHawkins
While the article is interesting summation of the benefits of keto, its supporting documentation is a bit lacking. If you look at the supporting NIH study from 1988, it only states the leucine is beneficial for muscle protein synthesis. I would say, we know that. But it doesnt actually have any supporting data to support muscle gain. In fact, its supoorting evidence is ketogains. A series of protocols the include either carb refeeds, cycled carbs increases or timed nutrients. It would also require a higher amount of protein than many keto'ers consume. Even more ao, it doesnt even address they large amount of bodybuilders who supplement with steroids. So in a essence, nothing supporting your positon.
And if you talking Phinney and Voley's work, it would support that lchf can be muscle sparring. In fact, i have seen the review to support this. What most don't see, because they read headlines and abstracts, is that in all of those studies, protein was increased... often at levels higher than many on ketogenic.
Taking into consideration all the protocols required to support growth and/or sustainment of muscle on keto, i am positive you not only did not gain but I'd be surprised if you didn't loss muscle like the average person. Quite simply, you did not engage in progressive resistance training (walking is cardio, not resistance training), nor do you sustain high levels of protein. And inam certain, based on waht you have described in the passed, that you are not following and form of ketogains protocols.
And coming from my experience and the people i have worked with on keto, these are all problems i commonly run into and quickly adjust. More often than not, people are not eating in a manner to support long term body goals.7 -
@GaleHawkins
While the article is interesting summation of the benefits of keto, its supporting documentation is a bit lacking. If you look at the supporting NIH study from 1988, it only states the leucine is beneficial for muscle protein synthesis. I would say, we know that. But it doesnt actually have any supporting data to support muscle gain. In fact, its supoorting evidence is ketogains. A series of protocols the include either carb refeeds, cycled carbs increases or timed nutrients. It would also require a higher amount of protein than many keto'ers consume. Even more ao, it doesnt even address they large amount of bodybuilders who supplement with steroids. So in a essence, nothing supporting your positon.
And if you talking Phinney and Voley's work, it would support that lchf can be muscle sparring. In fact, i have seen the review to support this. What most don't see, because they read headlines and abstracts, is that in all of those studies, protein was increased... often at levels higher than many on ketogenic.
Taking into consideration all the protocols required to support growth and/or sustainment of muscle on keto, i am positive you not only did not gain but I'd be surprised if you didn't loss muscle like the average person. Quite simply, you did not engage in progressive resistance training (walking is cardio, not resistance training), nor do you sustain high levels of protein. And inam certain, based on waht you have described in the passed, that you are not following and form of ketogains protocols.
And coming from my experience and the people i have worked with on keto, these are all problems i commonly run into and quickly adjust. More often than not, people are not eating in a manner to support long term body goals.
I can't remember what they set protein at. Was it 20-25% at maintenance? It was higher percentage while losing because of fewer calories, if I remember correctly.1 -
@GaleHawkins
While the article is interesting summation of the benefits of keto, its supporting documentation is a bit lacking. If you look at the supporting NIH study from 1988, it only states the leucine is beneficial for muscle protein synthesis. I would say, we know that. But it doesnt actually have any supporting data to support muscle gain. In fact, its supoorting evidence is ketogains. A series of protocols the include either carb refeeds, cycled carbs increases or timed nutrients. It would also require a higher amount of protein than many keto'ers consume. Even more ao, it doesnt even address they large amount of bodybuilders who supplement with steroids. So in a essence, nothing supporting your positon.
And if you talking Phinney and Voley's work, it would support that lchf can be muscle sparring. In fact, i have seen the review to support this. What most don't see, because they read headlines and abstracts, is that in all of those studies, protein was increased... often at levels higher than many on ketogenic.
Taking into consideration all the protocols required to support growth and/or sustainment of muscle on keto, i am positive you not only did not gain but I'd be surprised if you didn't loss muscle like the average person. Quite simply, you did not engage in progressive resistance training (walking is cardio, not resistance training), nor do you sustain high levels of protein. And inam certain, based on waht you have described in the passed, that you are not following and form of ketogains protocols.
And coming from my experience and the people i have worked with on keto, these are all problems i commonly run into and quickly adjust. More often than not, people are not eating in a manner to support long term body goals.
I can't remember what they set protein at. Was it 20-25% at maintenance? It was higher percentage while losing because of fewer calories, if I remember correctly.
Protein for most are closer 25-30%. But they generally hit the range of 1.5-2.2g/kg. But exercise, more specifically lifting or other resistance training, is a key component.
If people want to discuss a metabolic advantage, it's protein, fiber and resistance training. Carbs vs fat is negligible at best. Heck, if you want to see the impacts of protein, look at all the poorly designed "low carb" studies that show a 300+ calorie metabolic increase. Protein is much higher in the LCHF group
4 -
One thing I would like to note: there is a significant difference between what can occur with a diet, than what will actually occur following part of a diet. With things like muscle sparring and/or growth, one cannot expect to maintain, let alone gain muscle, if they are not following the specific protocols to achieve those goals. I can't tell you how many times we have these arguments, but yet, very few people actually follow all of the protocols to achieve those goals.
Personally, I am looking to squeeze everything out of my journey to get abs; yes, this most of what I am doing is majoring in the minors but I am looking for optimal. So I have a moderate deficit, 1g of pro per lb of weight, higher carbs (anti catabolic), and time nutrients; the only thing I do not do yet is take creatine since last time it gave me stomach cramps. Outside of that, I follow a 4 day upper/lower program that is based on compound lifts and is progressive overload in nature; the program is Bigger Leaner Strong. It's a basic linear progression program where 90% of my work is done at 85% of my 1RM; not theoretically, my actual 1RM. I am still considered a noob when it comes to lifting. I started at roughly 16% body fat and have since lost about 5 lbs. Now have I gained muscle... I don't know, but I certainly have a greater chance than the average person based on my knowledge and the fact that my strength gains are climbing quickly (I do equate most of that to CNS adaptations). But I wont' know exactly since I haven't had a DEXA scan. The only thing that would support muscle growth would be to gain inches which I won't look at for another 8 weeks or more.3 -
Great insight @psuLemon.
While I am studying how to do the keto way of living it is really only for the metabolic advantages (both physically and mentally) that it brings into my life as my only goal is to eat, move and think in a way that makes walking and talking until age 110 a reality in my case.
sciencealert.com/small-trial-shows-memory-loss-from-alzheimer-s-disease-can-be-reversed
"...The treatment - called metabolic enhancement for neurodegeneration, or MEND - is based on 36 different factors, including changes in diet, exercise, and sleeping habits, plus the integration of certain drugs, vitamins, and brain stimulation therapy to their regular routine.
These lifestyle changes and treatments were sustained for five to 24 months, and the team from UCLA and the Buck Institute for Research on Ageing in California reports that many of the patients showed real, life-altering improvements as a result...."
I would like to get a DEXA scan to monitor muscle mass going forward but I have not checked out the options in the Paducah KY area.
Best of continued success to reaching your objectives.0 -
One thing I would like to note: there is a significant difference between what can occur with a diet, than what will actually occur following part of a diet. With things like muscle sparring and/or growth, one cannot expect to maintain, let alone gain muscle, if they are not following the specific protocols to achieve those goals. I can't tell you how many times we have these arguments, but yet, very few people actually follow all of the protocols to achieve those goals.
Personally, I am looking to squeeze everything out of my journey to get abs; yes, this most of what I am doing is majoring in the minors but I am looking for optimal. So I have a moderate deficit, 1g of pro per lb of weight, higher carbs (anti catabolic), and time nutrients; the only thing I do not do yet is take creatine since last time it gave me stomach cramps. Outside of that, I follow a 4 day upper/lower program that is based on compound lifts and is progressive overload in nature; the program is Bigger Leaner Strong. It's a basic linear progression program where 90% of my work is done at 85% of my 1RM; not theoretically, my actual 1RM. I am still considered a noob when it comes to lifting. I started at roughly 16% body fat and have since lost about 5 lbs. Now have I gained muscle... I don't know, but I certainly have a greater chance than the average person based on my knowledge and the fact that my strength gains are climbing quickly (I do equate most of that to CNS adaptations). But I wont' know exactly since I haven't had a DEXA scan. The only thing that would support muscle growth would be to gain inches which I won't look at for another 8 weeks or more.
I recently picked up BLS myself, as I needed a new book. While I prefer 5/3/1's progression setup, I have taken Michael's advice regarding HIIT and shuffling my macros around (though I did keep protein higher than recommended, I dialed it back a LOT). It's a recent change, so no way to tell the effect yet, but time will tell. Feels decent, but we shall see.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »One thing I would like to note: there is a significant difference between what can occur with a diet, than what will actually occur following part of a diet. With things like muscle sparring and/or growth, one cannot expect to maintain, let alone gain muscle, if they are not following the specific protocols to achieve those goals. I can't tell you how many times we have these arguments, but yet, very few people actually follow all of the protocols to achieve those goals.
Personally, I am looking to squeeze everything out of my journey to get abs; yes, this most of what I am doing is majoring in the minors but I am looking for optimal. So I have a moderate deficit, 1g of pro per lb of weight, higher carbs (anti catabolic), and time nutrients; the only thing I do not do yet is take creatine since last time it gave me stomach cramps. Outside of that, I follow a 4 day upper/lower program that is based on compound lifts and is progressive overload in nature; the program is Bigger Leaner Strong. It's a basic linear progression program where 90% of my work is done at 85% of my 1RM; not theoretically, my actual 1RM. I am still considered a noob when it comes to lifting. I started at roughly 16% body fat and have since lost about 5 lbs. Now have I gained muscle... I don't know, but I certainly have a greater chance than the average person based on my knowledge and the fact that my strength gains are climbing quickly (I do equate most of that to CNS adaptations). But I wont' know exactly since I haven't had a DEXA scan. The only thing that would support muscle growth would be to gain inches which I won't look at for another 8 weeks or more.
I recently picked up BLS myself, as I needed a new book. While I prefer 5/3/1's progression setup, I have taken Michael's advice regarding HIIT and shuffling my macros around (though I did keep protein higher than recommended, I dialed it back a LOT). It's a recent change, so no way to tell the effect yet, but time will tell. Feels decent, but we shall see.
Which program you following, the 3,4 or 5? I am doing the 4.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Great insight @psuLemon.
While I am studying how to do the keto way of living it is really only for the metabolic advantages (both physically and mentally) that it brings into my life as my only goal is to eat, move and think in a way that makes walking and talking until age 110 a reality in my case.
sciencealert.com/small-trial-shows-memory-loss-from-alzheimer-s-disease-can-be-reversed
"...The treatment - called metabolic enhancement for neurodegeneration, or MEND - is based on 36 different factors, including changes in diet, exercise, and sleeping habits, plus the integration of certain drugs, vitamins, and brain stimulation therapy to their regular routine.
These lifestyle changes and treatments were sustained for five to 24 months, and the team from UCLA and the Buck Institute for Research on Ageing in California reports that many of the patients showed real, life-altering improvements as a result...."
I would like to get a DEXA scan to monitor muscle mass going forward but I have not checked out the options in the Paducah KY area.
Best of continued success to reaching your objectives.
I am not even sure what's the point of the link? There are 36 factors that help with cognitive improvements and it only mentioned diet (not specific). So unless you have been genetic tested to have the genetic defect that leads to Alzheimer's (which no one in my family has ever had it), then I am not sure what point you are making. If anything, get genetic tested and get involved in the MEND program because it's more than just one factor that slows the onset.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »One thing I would like to note: there is a significant difference between what can occur with a diet, than what will actually occur following part of a diet. With things like muscle sparring and/or growth, one cannot expect to maintain, let alone gain muscle, if they are not following the specific protocols to achieve those goals. I can't tell you how many times we have these arguments, but yet, very few people actually follow all of the protocols to achieve those goals.
Personally, I am looking to squeeze everything out of my journey to get abs; yes, this most of what I am doing is majoring in the minors but I am looking for optimal. So I have a moderate deficit, 1g of pro per lb of weight, higher carbs (anti catabolic), and time nutrients; the only thing I do not do yet is take creatine since last time it gave me stomach cramps. Outside of that, I follow a 4 day upper/lower program that is based on compound lifts and is progressive overload in nature; the program is Bigger Leaner Strong. It's a basic linear progression program where 90% of my work is done at 85% of my 1RM; not theoretically, my actual 1RM. I am still considered a noob when it comes to lifting. I started at roughly 16% body fat and have since lost about 5 lbs. Now have I gained muscle... I don't know, but I certainly have a greater chance than the average person based on my knowledge and the fact that my strength gains are climbing quickly (I do equate most of that to CNS adaptations). But I wont' know exactly since I haven't had a DEXA scan. The only thing that would support muscle growth would be to gain inches which I won't look at for another 8 weeks or more.
I recently picked up BLS myself, as I needed a new book. While I prefer 5/3/1's progression setup, I have taken Michael's advice regarding HIIT and shuffling my macros around (though I did keep protein higher than recommended, I dialed it back a LOT). It's a recent change, so no way to tell the effect yet, but time will tell. Feels decent, but we shall see.
Which program you following, the 3,4 or 5? I am doing the 4.
Amusingly, after comparing my current 5/3/1 OSfS setup, it's nearly identical to the 4 in BLS. The only difference is the way the primary lift progression is structured.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions