Ketogenic diets and the $33-billion diet gimmick

saintor1

This is the actual title of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oePve0-8W0I

Interesting how the initial weight loss is more associated with muscle loss. This video ultimately demonstrates that going low-carb makes you lose weight slower than low-fat.

bmeadows380

*rushes to get a front seat for the show while munching on lightly salted popcorn*

This is going to go south fast

NorthCascades

Pass the popcorn. Want some bread with oil and vinegar?

NovusDies

This proves that being completely anti-keto can pay some bills too.

Of course some less reputable people will using the initial water loss to hook people by their wallet but I believe most of the misinterpretation of initial results happens when the "expert" that has been on keto for 3 weeks is educating the person who has been on keto for 3 days. After 6 weeks the previous 3 week expert has quit keto and moved on and the 3 day person has graduated to "expert" to help the next 3 day person.

kimny72

Nutritionfacts. org is a vegan propaganda site that is also trying to build up an online community of consumers, so I'm not sure if there's much value to what they have to say about keto.

That's like holding up a preacher's video explaining why the popularity of atheism is bogus as an objective source.

DaddieCat

kimny72 wrote: »

Nutritionfacts. org is a vegan propaganda site that is also trying to build up an online community of consumers, so I'm not sure if there's much value to what they have to say about keto.

That's like holding up a preacher's video explaining why the popularity of atheism is bogus as an objective source.

I'd not heard of this one. I went to check it out and as a long time vegan... whoo... that site is a joke. I would not recommend anything from there to anyone interested in fact based information on any topic.

MikePTY

I didn't watch the video, but I can see already from the two sentence description one major misrepresentation of Keto weight loss. The original "woosh" loss with low carb isn't associated with muscle loss. It's water weight loss from depleting your glyocgen stores. While this is classified as "lean" weight and not fat, it is not the same thing as muscle. It's true that this initial water weight loss is part of what is used to hook people into low carb diets as a "lose weight quick" option, even though it is not genuine fat loss. But it's not muscle loss either.

By and large, in most long term studies, low carb diets perform about as well as non-low carb diets. What matters for weight loss is calorie restriction, no matter what type of diet you eat to accomplish it. So Keto is not the be all and end all diet that it is made out to be. It works for some if it is a easier way for them to maintain a calorie deficit. But it doesn't have special powers. But just like I am against when Ketovangelists misrepresent the diet to try to attract people to it, I don't think that going the opposite way and misrepresenting it to attack it is beneficial either.

saintor1

True, this site has an agenda and has been against low-carb/keto since the Atkins era. He will not publish much that won't fit it, but personally I enjoy 70% + of this youtube channel site and its content. It was a big influence to make me adopt a mostly a plant-based diet, although still a moderate carnivore (twice a week).

Having said that, this video is a gem. He didn't create what was reported in it. Since 1976, 19 of the 20 major studies on fat loss experiences low-carb vs low-fat favored low-fat. Jump to 3:55 to see it.

I didn't watch the video, but I can see already from the two sentence description one major misrepresentation of Keto weight loss. The original "woosh" loss with low carb isn't associated with muscle loss

Not misrepresented at all in the video, if any maybe by me. By the time you wrote this reply, it wouldn't have been longer to watch this video and it totally agrees with you.

AlabasterVerve

Kevin Hall certainly seems to think his work is misrepresented in this video. Here's his response from twitter:

I have some thoughts on a recent video posted at http://NutritionFacts.org by @nutrition_facts called “Keto Diet Results for Weight Loss” that relied heavily on our research to criticize ketogenic diets.

The video cites our 2015 Cell_Metabolism paper that didn’t investigate a keto diet. We even refused to call the diet “low carb” because the calorie restriction achieved by selectively cutting carbs resulted in a diet ~30% of total calories from carbs.

Our study was NOT an efficacy study as portrayed in the nutrition_facts video. Rather, it was designed to nvestigate the physiology of selective restriction of carbs vs fat &the effects on insulin secretion and body fat. The body fat differences were clinically meaningless!

Similarly meaningless body fat differences were found in our cited meta-analysis investigating *controlled feeding studies* employing isocaloric manipulations of diet carbs:fat while keeping protein constant.

Plenty of randomized diet trials *that did not control food intake* have shown that lower fat diets result in similarly disappointing long-term weight and body fat loss vs lower carb diets. If anything, there’s a slight benefit of lower carb diets.

While diet differences often dissipate over the long term, early on people randomly assigned to low carb diets seem to be able to cut more calories and lose more weight than those assigned to a low fat diet.

That’s why we our latest research has turned to studying ad libitum food intake in diets varying widely in carbs:fat whereas our past studies focused on energy expenditure, fat oxidation, and body fat differences during isocaloric controlled feeding.

Besides body weight and fat loss, low carb diets likely have other advantages compared to high carb diets when it comes to glycemic control and insulin secretion as we recently reviewed. --Kevin Hall

References:
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26278052
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28193517
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26527510
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30672127
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03878108
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677013

magnusthenerd

saintor1 wrote: »

True, this site has an agenda and has been against low-carb/keto since the Atkins era. He will not publish much that won't fit it, but personally I enjoy 70% + of this youtube channel site and its content. It was a big influence to make me adopt a mostly a plant-based diet, although still a moderate carnivore (twice a week).

Having said that, this video is a gem. He didn't create what was reported in it. Since 1976, 19 of the 20 major studies on fat loss experiences low-carb vs low-fat favored low-fat. Jump to 3:55 to see it.

I didn't watch the video, but I can see already from the two sentence description one major misrepresentation of Keto weight loss. The original "woosh" loss with low carb isn't associated with muscle loss

Not misrepresented at all in the video, if any maybe by me. By the time you wrote this reply, it wouldn't have been longer to watch this video and it totally agrees with you.

Since 1976, there have only been 20 make studies in fat loss? Seriously, less than one a year? That's clearly a very narrow and proprietary use of major studies on fat loss to say there are only 20.

What I bet Gregor won't tell you: how much protein is associated with weight loss and weight loss success, particularly ad libitum where it can reduce calorie intake. I especially doubt he'll discuss how strongly low fat dairy helps in weight loss.
Gregor's use of studies is like a stumbling drunk's use of a lamp post: for support instead of illumination.

psuLemon

If you want to hear an argument against, you can read the below article.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

It even raises the 20 studies by 3.

What's interesting is the above link largely has studies having subjects eating ad libitum (similar to what KH plans on investigating). The one thing to note in almost all of those studies, is protein is higher in the low carb group.

saintor1

psuLemon wrote: »

If you want to hear an argument against, you can read the below article.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

It even raises the 20 studies by 3.

I saw it, two days ago I posted this link in the comments of this youtube video.

Saintor on youtube wrote:

Why does this link support exactly the *opposite*, stating that most of the 23 studies that lasted 3-4+ months lost more weight on low-carb than low-fat? I have an hard time that it would be more lean mass (muscle) lost.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section7

Azdak

magnusthenerd wrote: »

saintor1 wrote: »

True, this site has an agenda and has been against low-carb/keto since the Atkins era. He will not publish much that won't fit it, but personally I enjoy 70% + of this youtube channel site and its content. It was a big influence to make me adopt a mostly a plant-based diet, although still a moderate carnivore (twice a week).

Having said that, this video is a gem. He didn't create what was reported in it. Since 1976, 19 of the 20 major studies on fat loss experiences low-carb vs low-fat favored low-fat. Jump to 3:55 to see it.

I didn't watch the video, but I can see already from the two sentence description one major misrepresentation of Keto weight loss. The original "woosh" loss with low carb isn't associated with muscle loss

Not misrepresented at all in the video, if any maybe by me. By the time you wrote this reply, it wouldn't have been longer to watch this video and it totally agrees with you.

Since 1976, there have only been 20 make studies in fat loss? Seriously, less than one a year? That's clearly a very narrow and proprietary use of major studies on fat loss to say there are only 20.

What I bet Gregor won't tell you: how much protein is associated with weight loss and weight loss success, particularly ad libitum where it can reduce calorie intake. I especially doubt he'll discuss how strongly low fat dairy helps in weight loss.
Gregor's use of studies is like a stumbling drunk's use of a lamp post: for support instead of illumination.

As a part-time amateur polemicist, I can only salute your last sentence.

Well played, sir.

magnusthenerd

Azdak wrote: »

magnusthenerd wrote: »

saintor1 wrote: »

True, this site has an agenda and has been against low-carb/keto since the Atkins era. He will not publish much that won't fit it, but personally I enjoy 70% + of this youtube channel site and its content. It was a big influence to make me adopt a mostly a plant-based diet, although still a moderate carnivore (twice a week).

Having said that, this video is a gem. He didn't create what was reported in it. Since 1976, 19 of the 20 major studies on fat loss experiences low-carb vs low-fat favored low-fat. Jump to 3:55 to see it.

I didn't watch the video, but I can see already from the two sentence description one major misrepresentation of Keto weight loss. The original "woosh" loss with low carb isn't associated with muscle loss

Not misrepresented at all in the video, if any maybe by me. By the time you wrote this reply, it wouldn't have been longer to watch this video and it totally agrees with you.

Since 1976, there have only been 20 make studies in fat loss? Seriously, less than one a year? That's clearly a very narrow and proprietary use of major studies on fat loss to say there are only 20.

What I bet Gregor won't tell you: how much protein is associated with weight loss and weight loss success, particularly ad libitum where it can reduce calorie intake. I especially doubt he'll discuss how strongly low fat dairy helps in weight loss.
Gregor's use of studies is like a stumbling drunk's use of a lamp post: for support instead of illumination.

As a part-time amateur polemicist, I can only salute your last sentence.

Well played, sir.

To be fair, it isn't my analogy, but an old one. I think it is commonly attributed to Churchill, but it seems it comes from Andrew Lang.