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.
Meta analysis- low carb ain't all it's cracked up to be!
Options
100_PROOF_
Posts: 1,168 Member
in Debate Club
A meta analysis that shows no advantage for keto if cals and protein are held constant.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/
"Figure 2B shows differences in the rate of body fat change between diets with the pooled weighted mean difference of 16 g/d (P <.0001) greater body fat loss in favor of the lower fat diets. These results are in the opposite direction to the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model, but the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless. In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/
"Figure 2B shows differences in the rate of body fat change between diets with the pooled weighted mean difference of 16 g/d (P <.0001) greater body fat loss in favor of the lower fat diets. These results are in the opposite direction to the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model, but the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless. In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat."
19
Replies
-
Here's the link, it didn't work the first time I tried posting
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/6 -
Interesting in light of all the claims made in favor of keto in these environs lately! Thanks for posting. Turns out all the people who are saying calories are what matters for weight loss are right!12
-
Enjoying the read whilst waiting for dinner. 2 -
A bit sad that the concept of "equal Calories = equal weight loss" needs to be studied so extensively when everything we know about how the body and energy work points there.
And in a few days there will still be someone who says you somehow won't lose as much if you have an occasional Twinkie.18 -
Great read.
From the abstract:While low-carbohydrate diets have been suggested to partially subvert these processes by increasing energy expenditure and promoting fat loss, our meta-analysis of 32 controlled feeding studies with isocaloric substitution of carbohydrate for fat found that both energy expenditure (26 kcal/d; P <.0001) and fat loss (16 g/d; P <.0001) were greater with lower fat diets.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »A bit sad that the concept of "equal Calories = equal weight loss" needs to be studied so extensively when everything we know about how the body and energy work points there.
And in a few days there will still be someone who says you somehow won't lose as much if you have an occasional Twinkie.
Found something on a site when I was ordering some probiotics for my grandmother, interesting read following the links the MD's posted in support of gut health and fiber on calorie absorption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257631/
"The digestive and viscosity characteristics of dietary fiber are the likely modes of action which affect diabetes and obesity risk. These mechanisms appear to decrease nutrient absorption, therefore, decreasing metabolizable energy. Dietary fiber may also be able to decrease gross energy of a food due to its lower energy density."0 -
Interesting read.
So the conclusion is a LCHF or VLCHF diet model is just as optimal as the IIFYM diet model.
Both getting to the final conclusion CICO from differing routes.
It is disappointing to find out that a Low Carb diet model is ONLY as good as a IIFYM / Calorie Counting model
18 -
LOltennisdude2004 wrote: »Interesting read.
So the conclusion is a LCHF or VLCHF diet model is just as optimal as the IIFYM diet model.
Both getting to the final conclusion CICO from differing routes.
It is disappointing to find out that a Low Carb diet model is ONLY as good as a IIFYM / Calorie Counting model
The main benefit for low carb does seem to be that if people do not have a force calorie intake, like in a study, that the majority will tend to naturally eat less making weight loss easier and faster. No magic, just easier reduced calorie intake for most. That seems to be the overall thinking behind the lower carb groups around here too. JMO
There are a few who seem to lose a bit faster than expected when low carb, like me, but those tend to have IR, and it is only a few pounds a year faster.
I skimmed this article pretty quickly late last night, did I see where it looks like gaining is harder with low carbs or is that just from trying to read this too late at night? I'll have to go back and look later.... That would confirm n=1 experiments like Sam Feltham's in his smash the fat website.
It would be interesting if they ever looked into why appetite is usually suppressed on low carb, and why some don't experience that. Is it ghrelin, leptin, ketones, absence of high carbs, presence of high fat, more protein or a protein to carbs or fat ratio, does insulin play any role or is it something else?
Hall guessed it was the presence of ketones but that doesn't explain appetite suppression for those who are just low carb (below 100-150g) and not in ketosis at most times. I doubt it's ketones.15 -
An interesting, and quasi-related, discussion of statistics and data analysis (as it relates to misinterpretations by low-carb advocates, in this case): https://www.lesslikely.com/statistics/low-carb-errors/13
-
An interesting, and quasi-related, discussion of statistics and data analysis (as it relates to misinterpretations by low-carb advocates, in this case): https://www.lesslikely.com/statistics/low-carb-errors/
Excellent!2 -
Ha, not news to me; "bastardized" keto/higher protein emphasis it has been for quite some time now.
I am quite confused by many in the low-carb/keto community/advocates who believe protein will make them gain weight due to gluconeogenesis/lack of ketosis (kcals @ the end of the day is what matters)5 -
I was thinking of posting a thread!
“Meta analysis - IIFYM Calorie Counting isn’t all it’s cracked up to be - it’s only as good as a low carb diet”!18 -
I'm still not sure what is being debated in this thread.... Something along the lines of "why low carb is woo" is my best guess at this point.7
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I was thinking of posting a thread!
“Meta analysis - IIFYM Calorie Counting isn’t all it’s cracked up to be - it’s only as good as a low carb diet”!
Except nobody following calorie counting or IIFYM ever claimed otherwise, or tried to claim that there was any mechanism other than CICO governing fat loss.
18 -
LOltennisdude2004 wrote: »Interesting read.
So the conclusion is a LCHF or VLCHF diet model is just as optimal as the IIFYM diet model.
Both getting to the final conclusion CICO from differing routes.
It is disappointing to find out that a Low Carb diet model is ONLY as good as a IIFYM / Calorie Counting model
The main benefit for low carb does seem to be that if people do not have a force calorie intake, like in a study, that the majority will tend to naturally eat less making weight loss easier and faster. No magic, just easier reduced calorie intake for most. That seems to be the overall thinking behind the lower carb groups around here too. JMO
There are a few who seem to lose a bit faster than expected when low carb, like me, but those tend to have IR, and it is only a few pounds a year faster.
I skimmed this article pretty quickly late last night, did I see where it looks like gaining is harder with low carbs or is that just from trying to read this too late at night? I'll have to go back and look later.... That would confirm n=1 experiments like Sam Feltham's in his smash the fat website.
It would be interesting if they ever looked into why appetite is usually suppressed on low carb, and why some don't experience that. Is it ghrelin, leptin, ketones, absence of high carbs, presence of high fat, more protein or a protein to carbs or fat ratio, does insulin play any role or is it something else?
Hall guessed it was the presence of ketones but that doesn't explain appetite suppression for those who are just low carb (below 100-150g) and not in ketosis at most times. I doubt it's ketones.
The reason many people find it easier to control hunger ad litibum while following low carb is because th subsequent increase in protein and often fiber due to the restricted nature of the diet.
On ketogenic diets, there is some evidence to suggest ketone production does correlate to hunger suppression but i am not sure that is confirmed.
Letpin will decrease and ghrelin will increase regardless, if calories are dropped. That is why high carb refeeds are beneficial... Because a two day of carbs has been shown to normalize those levels.
Also, there is some evidence that insulin suppresses appetite, contrary to the belief that some have.6 -
johnslater461 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I was thinking of posting a thread!
“Meta analysis - IIFYM Calorie Counting isn’t all it’s cracked up to be - it’s only as good as a low carb diet”!
Except nobody following calorie counting or IIFYM ever claimed otherwise, or tried to claim that there was any mechanism other than CICO governing fat loss.
And nobody following calorie counting or IIFYM ever claimed that keto wasn't an effective means of losing weight, as long as a calorie deficit is maintained. Nor has anybody ever claimed that calorie counting/IIFYM confers any kind of "metabolic advantage" in regards to weight loss. The claims under debate are all the mystical magick and wizardry so often attributed to keto.
As stated in the study linked above:...In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat."13 -
LOltennisdude2004 wrote: »Interesting read.
So the conclusion is a LCHF or VLCHF diet model is just as optimal as the IIFYM diet model.
Both getting to the final conclusion CICO from differing routes.
It is disappointing to find out that a Low Carb diet model is ONLY as good as a IIFYM / Calorie Counting model
The main benefit for low carb does seem to be that if people do not have a force calorie intake, like in a study, that the majority will tend to naturally eat less making weight loss easier and faster. No magic, just easier reduced calorie intake for most. That seems to be the overall thinking behind the lower carb groups around here too. JMO
There are a few who seem to lose a bit faster than expected when low carb, like me, but those tend to have IR, and it is only a few pounds a year faster.
I skimmed this article pretty quickly late last night, did I see where it looks like gaining is harder with low carbs or is that just from trying to read this too late at night? I'll have to go back and look later.... That would confirm n=1 experiments like Sam Feltham's in his smash the fat website.
It would be interesting if they ever looked into why appetite is usually suppressed on low carb, and why some don't experience that. Is it ghrelin, leptin, ketones, absence of high carbs, presence of high fat, more protein or a protein to carbs or fat ratio, does insulin play any role or is it something else?
Hall guessed it was the presence of ketones but that doesn't explain appetite suppression for those who are just low carb (below 100-150g) and not in ketosis at most times. I doubt it's ketones.
The reason many people find it easier to control hunger ad litibum while following low carb is because th subsequent increase in protein and often fiber due to the restricted nature of the diet.
On ketogenic diets, there is some evidence to suggest ketone production does correlate to hunger suppression but i am not sure that is confirmed.
Letpin will decrease and ghrelin will increase regardless, if calories are dropped. That is why high carb refeeds are beneficial... Because a two day of carbs has been shown to normalize those levels.
Also, there is some evidence that insulin suppresses appetite, contrary to the belief that some have.
I believe that may be true for those who increase protein, but it does not explain those who do not increase protein. There are a number of people who make an effort to keep protein to the lower end of moderate, or even low, for various reasons (some valid, some not) yet they still experience the satiating effects of low carb. I doubt my protein is that high compared to those on a higher carb diet.
Then there are the volume eaters who have tried keto or low carb, and said they were hungrier so they went back to more whole plants and volume for better satiation, possibly reducing protein while doing so. Who knows, perhaps their fibre is enough to compensate.
Like protein, some increase fibre and some don't when they switch to lower carb levels. My own fibre is quite low lately yet the appetite suppressing effect is stil there (my protein is usually between 70-100g or around 20-25%).
I've never heard it said that insulin increases hunger, unless you consider the effect BG swings may have after insulin does its job.... The hangries.
I don't believe ketones have been confirmed as a hunger suppressor. If it had, exogenous ketones would be a LOT more popular than it is now.
Carbs normalize leptin and ghrelin? I've not seen that. So higher carb = more stable? Do you have any sources on that?4 -
LOltennisdude2004 wrote: »Interesting read.
So the conclusion is a LCHF or VLCHF diet model is just as optimal as the IIFYM diet model.
Both getting to the final conclusion CICO from differing routes.
It is disappointing to find out that a Low Carb diet model is ONLY as good as a IIFYM / Calorie Counting model
The main benefit for low carb does seem to be that if people do not have a force calorie intake, like in a study, that the majority will tend to naturally eat less making weight loss easier and faster. No magic, just easier reduced calorie intake for most. That seems to be the overall thinking behind the lower carb groups around here too. JMO
There are a few who seem to lose a bit faster than expected when low carb, like me, but those tend to have IR, and it is only a few pounds a year faster.
I skimmed this article pretty quickly late last night, did I see where it looks like gaining is harder with low carbs or is that just from trying to read this too late at night? I'll have to go back and look later.... That would confirm n=1 experiments like Sam Feltham's in his smash the fat website.
It would be interesting if they ever looked into why appetite is usually suppressed on low carb, and why some don't experience that. Is it ghrelin, leptin, ketones, absence of high carbs, presence of high fat, more protein or a protein to carbs or fat ratio, does insulin play any role or is it something else?
Hall guessed it was the presence of ketones but that doesn't explain appetite suppression for those who are just low carb (below 100-150g) and not in ketosis at most times. I doubt it's ketones.
The reason many people find it easier to control hunger ad litibum while following low carb is because th subsequent increase in protein and often fiber due to the restricted nature of the diet.
On ketogenic diets, there is some evidence to suggest ketone production does correlate to hunger suppression but i am not sure that is confirmed.
Letpin will decrease and ghrelin will increase regardless, if calories are dropped. That is why high carb refeeds are beneficial... Because a two day of carbs has been shown to normalize those levels.
Also, there is some evidence that insulin suppresses appetite, contrary to the belief that some have.
I believe that may be true for those who increase protein, but it does not explain those who do not increase protein. There are a number of people who make an effort to keep protein to the lower end of moderate, or even low, for various reasons (some valid, some not) yet they still experience the satiating effects of low carb. I doubt my protein is that high compared to those on a higher carb diet.
Then there are the volume eaters who have tried keto or low carb, and said they were hungrier so they went back to more whole plants and volume for better satiation, possibly reducing protein while doing so. Who knows, perhaps their fibre is enough to compensate.
Like protein, some increase fibre and some don't when they switch to lower carb levels. My own fibre is quite low lately yet the appetite suppressing effect is stil there (my protein is usually between 70-100g or around 20-25%).
I've never heard it said that insulin increases hunger, unless you consider the effect BG swings may have after insulin does its job.... The hangries.
I don't believe ketones have been confirmed as a hunger suppressor. If it had, exogenous ketones would be a LOT more popular than it is now.
Carbs normalize leptin and ghrelin? I've not seen that. So higher carb = more stable? Do you have any sources on that?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1&qsp=8&q=leptin+and+ghrelin+"high+carbohydrate+diet"#d=gs_qabs&p=&u=#p=RGboW2RZ3GcJ
Kinda cool, although they did not study Ketosis in this study.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.22051
I believe this one says exogenous ketones actually do suppress appetite. So two articles that prove both can work. Every"body" is different and it just matters what makes you feel best and what feels sustainable long term. 😎1 -
LOltennisdude2004 wrote: »Interesting read.
So the conclusion is a LCHF or VLCHF diet model is just as optimal as the IIFYM diet model.
Both getting to the final conclusion CICO from differing routes.
It is disappointing to find out that a Low Carb diet model is ONLY as good as a IIFYM / Calorie Counting model
The main benefit for low carb does seem to be that if people do not have a force calorie intake, like in a study, that the majority will tend to naturally eat less making weight loss easier and faster. No magic, just easier reduced calorie intake for most. That seems to be the overall thinking behind the lower carb groups around here too. JMO
There are a few who seem to lose a bit faster than expected when low carb, like me, but those tend to have IR, and it is only a few pounds a year faster.
I skimmed this article pretty quickly late last night, did I see where it looks like gaining is harder with low carbs or is that just from trying to read this too late at night? I'll have to go back and look later.... That would confirm n=1 experiments like Sam Feltham's in his smash the fat website.
It would be interesting if they ever looked into why appetite is usually suppressed on low carb, and why some don't experience that. Is it ghrelin, leptin, ketones, absence of high carbs, presence of high fat, more protein or a protein to carbs or fat ratio, does insulin play any role or is it something else?
Hall guessed it was the presence of ketones but that doesn't explain appetite suppression for those who are just low carb (below 100-150g) and not in ketosis at most times. I doubt it's ketones.
The reason many people find it easier to control hunger ad litibum while following low carb is because th subsequent increase in protein and often fiber due to the restricted nature of the diet.
On ketogenic diets, there is some evidence to suggest ketone production does correlate to hunger suppression but i am not sure that is confirmed.
Letpin will decrease and ghrelin will increase regardless, if calories are dropped. That is why high carb refeeds are beneficial... Because a two day of carbs has been shown to normalize those levels.
Also, there is some evidence that insulin suppresses appetite, contrary to the belief that some have.
I believe that may be true for those who increase protein, but it does not explain those who do not increase protein. There are a number of people who make an effort to keep protein to the lower end of moderate, or even low, for various reasons (some valid, some not) yet they still experience the satiating effects of low carb. I doubt my protein is that high compared to those on a higher carb diet.
Then there are the volume eaters who have tried keto or low carb, and said they were hungrier so they went back to more whole plants and volume for better satiation, possibly reducing protein while doing so. Who knows, perhaps their fibre is enough to compensate.
Like protein, some increase fibre and some don't when they switch to lower carb levels. My own fibre is quite low lately yet the appetite suppressing effect is stil there (my protein is usually between 70-100g or around 20-25%).
I've never heard it said that insulin increases hunger, unless you consider the effect BG swings may have after insulin does its job.... The hangries.
I don't believe ketones have been confirmed as a hunger suppressor. If it had, exogenous ketones would be a LOT more popular than it is now.
Carbs normalize leptin and ghrelin? I've not seen that. So higher carb = more stable? Do you have any sources on that?
There is an entire refeed thread that has all the science behind refeeds and diet breaks; it includes multiple papers and videos from some of the leading researcher with this stuff. But a well designed refeed, low fat, ultra high carb and maintenance calories will increase leptin and decrease ghrelin. It was found that those who Incorporated refeeds lost as much weight as those who didn't.
If you really want to know the science of hormones and various diets, you should look at Lyle McDonald. He was one of the OGs involved in researching and promoting the ketogenic diet and overall has lead the way in nutritional research.6 -
LOltennisdude2004 wrote: »Interesting read.
So the conclusion is a LCHF or VLCHF diet model is just as optimal as the IIFYM diet model.
Both getting to the final conclusion CICO from differing routes.
It is disappointing to find out that a Low Carb diet model is ONLY as good as a IIFYM / Calorie Counting model
The main benefit for low carb does seem to be that if people do not have a force calorie intake, like in a study, that the majority will tend to naturally eat less making weight loss easier and faster. No magic, just easier reduced calorie intake for most. That seems to be the overall thinking behind the lower carb groups around here too. JMO
There are a few who seem to lose a bit faster than expected when low carb, like me, but those tend to have IR, and it is only a few pounds a year faster.
I skimmed this article pretty quickly late last night, did I see where it looks like gaining is harder with low carbs or is that just from trying to read this too late at night? I'll have to go back and look later.... That would confirm n=1 experiments like Sam Feltham's in his smash the fat website.
It would be interesting if they ever looked into why appetite is usually suppressed on low carb, and why some don't experience that. Is it ghrelin, leptin, ketones, absence of high carbs, presence of high fat, more protein or a protein to carbs or fat ratio, does insulin play any role or is it something else?
Hall guessed it was the presence of ketones but that doesn't explain appetite suppression for those who are just low carb (below 100-150g) and not in ketosis at most times. I doubt it's ketones.
The reason many people find it easier to control hunger ad litibum while following low carb is because th subsequent increase in protein and often fiber due to the restricted nature of the diet.
On ketogenic diets, there is some evidence to suggest ketone production does correlate to hunger suppression but i am not sure that is confirmed.
Letpin will decrease and ghrelin will increase regardless, if calories are dropped. That is why high carb refeeds are beneficial... Because a two day of carbs has been shown to normalize those levels.
Also, there is some evidence that insulin suppresses appetite, contrary to the belief that some have.
I believe that may be true for those who increase protein, but it does not explain those who do not increase protein. There are a number of people who make an effort to keep protein to the lower end of moderate, or even low, for various reasons (some valid, some not) yet they still experience the satiating effects of low carb. I doubt my protein is that high compared to those on a higher carb diet.
Then there are the volume eaters who have tried keto or low carb, and said they were hungrier so they went back to more whole plants and volume for better satiation, possibly reducing protein while doing so. Who knows, perhaps their fibre is enough to compensate.
Like protein, some increase fibre and some don't when they switch to lower carb levels. My own fibre is quite low lately yet the appetite suppressing effect is stil there (my protein is usually between 70-100g or around 20-25%).
I've never heard it said that insulin increases hunger, unless you consider the effect BG swings may have after insulin does its job.... The hangries.
I don't believe ketones have been confirmed as a hunger suppressor. If it had, exogenous ketones would be a LOT more popular than it is now.
Carbs normalize leptin and ghrelin? I've not seen that. So higher carb = more stable? Do you have any sources on that?
Insulin definitely increases hunger. Ask any insulin dependent diabetic. Mental institutions in the 1930s used to use insulin injections to torture noncompliant patients by inducing severe hunger pains.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions