What *ACTUALLY* boosts metabolism

13»

Replies

  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.

    So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.

    I have learned to evaluate the new evidence, compare it to existing, find if new evidence is credible, and then incorporate it into my ideas. Yes, it is tainted by personal opinion, but we are human. I have recently slightly changes my thoughts on fat. So, we either keep learning or die.

    So i will ask you, do macros matter when it comes to weight loss?

    This question is too vague to allow for a meaningful answer.

    If you mean: do macros matter assuming the variation is within a healthy range, diets are otherwise healthy, and calories are controlled (which means taking into account the small TEF difference that will exist within healthy range macros and depending on amount of fiber), then no, it appears not, with Hall's studies being among the evidence.

    If you mean: assuming ad libitum eating or someone counting and struggling with compliance, do macros matter? They certainly might for individuals and seem to on average, especially (perhaps solely) protein, although there are other aspects of diet that I think are as important, so macros tend to be over-focused on (again, assuming within a healthy range). (There is at least some research suggesting the benefit from protein on appetite levels out once it's in a healthy range, however, so while I think the answer is "on average, yes, but individuals vary," some would say "evidence is too conflicting to say.") But again I think there are other aspects of diet more significant.

    If you mean: "for someone lean, trying to get leaner, and also trying to maintain muscle"? Then protein matters, although again once one is in a healthy range it isn't going to matter as much as is often suggested (and it matters more for muscle maintenance or gain than weight loss specifically, and really for quite lean people).

    Not sure, however, what this has to do with the debate over whether spicy foods or ginger meaningfully affect metabolism such that OP should start eating enormous amounts. (They are tasty in reasonable amounts, IMO.)

    Once TEF is taken into account, I don't think the real effect, such as it is, from macros on weight loss is metabolism. (I know there have been some studies that suggest increases to metabolism from some diets, but they conflict with other studies and you can never take single studies as proving things.)

    While I can't completely speak for the question asker.... me personally thinks it was a "set up" question....

    Perhaps. If you mean that the asker thinks he knows what the answer is and was either trying to solicit an admission or slam the expected answer, sure, I think so too, I don't think he was looking for advice (or needs it).

    However, if the point was intended to be "if you answer this the wrong way you don't follow the literature or are close-minded," that's why the fact it was too vague too allow for a meaningful answer is an important thing to note. (I somehow failed to read your response before making mine, but yours is basically a more succinct way of saying the same thing. I'm chronically long-winded, as we all know.) ;-)

    I still don't see what it has to do with the effect of ginger, and that seemed to me the conversation it was intended to relate to, but sometimes things get past me!

    First, I would agree the metabolic impacts are ginger, spicy foods, cold water, etc.. is very negligible (like 5 calories). This would also apply for the use of turmeric in foods as it relates to reductions in inflammation. The dosage requirement is generally higher than that found in a typical diet.

    Second, I asked a vague question, because I was legitimately curious to see the response since I recognize @pyscod878 as a fairly knowledgeable person. It was a solid answer, but the condition in what is being referencing does matter because of context.

    Third, what I don't agree with is that some people are willing to accept new evidence unless it aligns to their current beliefs.

    Bringing up the KH does is good example of when macros don't matter. Why? Because protein is equated for and it's done in a metabolic ward. There is plenty of evidence that if you equate for calories, but don't equate for protein, the group that has higher protein will lose more weight. You see this in almost every low carb vs low fat study. And it's often why in ad libitum eating studies, the low carb group yields better results.

    Agreed on the low carb vs low fat issue. Most people will subtract carbs and add protein on lower carb diets. I will state i think increasing protein at the expense of carbs can be effective. I think one can get many of the benefits of a keto style diet by doing this. My only issue with you stating protein did not matter on the KH study was as @lemurcat2 pointed out to me in a different post... while the diets were equated for all macros, the less processed group had to eat less calories to possibly meet a protein threshold. Do o think the PL hypothesis was the only factor that led to a decrease on calorie intake? No... I think it was multi mechanistic. A
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.

    So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.

    Absolutely. I learn more all the time.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.

    So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.

    Absolutely. I learn more all the time.

    One of the reason I like you ma'am. Also, you are just super nice....🤟
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.

    So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.

    Absolutely. I learn more all the time.

    Totally agree. It is always prudent to be willing to evaluate new information and adjust course.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    To me, someone who is knowledgable is someone who has read and understands the scientific literature in regards to diet and weight loss rather than someone who reads blogs and can not differentiate between someones cherry-picked opinions and solid science. Someone who has a solid foundation but always has the quest to continue learning rather than believing they are experts who know a lot. I guess that means they think like I do in regards to weight loss because I always like my views to be backed by what science tells us.

    So if there is evidence contrary to your belief, do you change your belief? I see a lot of people suggesting they are evidence based who only want to validate their current opinion.

    I have learned to evaluate the new evidence, compare it to existing, find if new evidence is credible, and then incorporate it into my ideas. Yes, it is tainted by personal opinion, but we are human. I have recently slightly changes my thoughts on fat. So, we either keep learning or die.

    So i will ask you, do macros matter when it comes to weight loss?

    This question is too vague to allow for a meaningful answer.

    If you mean: do macros matter assuming the variation is within a healthy range, diets are otherwise healthy, and calories are controlled (which means taking into account the small TEF difference that will exist within healthy range macros and depending on amount of fiber), then no, it appears not, with Hall's studies being among the evidence.

    If you mean: assuming ad libitum eating or someone counting and struggling with compliance, do macros matter? They certainly might for individuals and seem to on average, especially (perhaps solely) protein, although there are other aspects of diet that I think are as important, so macros tend to be over-focused on (again, assuming within a healthy range). (There is at least some research suggesting the benefit from protein on appetite levels out once it's in a healthy range, however, so while I think the answer is "on average, yes, but individuals vary," some would say "evidence is too conflicting to say.") But again I think there are other aspects of diet more significant.

    If you mean: "for someone lean, trying to get leaner, and also trying to maintain muscle"? Then protein matters, although again once one is in a healthy range it isn't going to matter as much as is often suggested (and it matters more for muscle maintenance or gain than weight loss specifically, and really for quite lean people).

    Not sure, however, what this has to do with the debate over whether spicy foods or ginger meaningfully affect metabolism such that OP should start eating enormous amounts. (They are tasty in reasonable amounts, IMO.)

    Once TEF is taken into account, I don't think the real effect, such as it is, from macros on weight loss is metabolism. (I know there have been some studies that suggest increases to metabolism from some diets, but they conflict with other studies and you can never take single studies as proving things.)

    While I can't completely speak for the question asker.... me personally thinks it was a "set up" question....

    Perhaps. If you mean that the asker thinks he knows what the answer is and was either trying to solicit an admission or slam the expected answer, sure, I think so too, I don't think he was looking for advice (or needs it).

    However, if the point was intended to be "if you answer this the wrong way you don't follow the literature or are close-minded," that's why the fact it was too vague too allow for a meaningful answer is an important thing to note. (I somehow failed to read your response before making mine, but yours is basically a more succinct way of saying the same thing. I'm chronically long-winded, as we all know.) ;-)

    I still don't see what it has to do with the effect of ginger, and that seemed to me the conversation it was intended to relate to, but sometimes things get past me!

    First, I would agree the metabolic impacts are ginger, spicy foods, cold water, etc.. is very negligible (like 5 calories). This would also apply for the use of turmeric in foods as it relates to reductions in inflammation. The dosage requirement is generally higher than that found in a typical diet.

    Second, I asked a vague question, because I was legitimately curious to see the response since I recognize @pyscod878 as a fairly knowledgeable person. It was a solid answer, but the condition in what is being referencing does matter because of context.

    Third, what I don't agree with is that some people are willing to accept new evidence unless it aligns to their current beliefs.

    Bringing up the KH does is good example of when macros don't matter. Why? Because protein is equated for and it's done in a metabolic ward. There is plenty of evidence that if you equate for calories, but don't equate for protein, the group that has higher protein will lose more weight. You see this in almost every low carb vs low fat study. And it's often why in ad libitum eating studies, the low carb group yields better results.

    And as you can see I mentioned the ad libitum situation, although I think it often has more to do with than protein (i.e., you see the same thing with several other types of diets), and there is some evidence that is to the contrary as to how much protein is needed to control appetite.

    The usual US macros are not high protein by percentage, but often are high protein by gram (given total cals), which is why I think there's more to it than macros and that macros are often overly emphasized at the expense of other important things. (I also don't think this is about metabolism.)
  • conniewilkins56
    conniewilkins56 Posts: 3,391 Member
    Drinking ice water, chewing gum and eating spicy foods will give you a mild boost....google it!
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    conniewilkins56 wrote: »
    Drinking ice water, chewing gum and eating spicy foods will give you a mild boost....google it!

    I also googled "are politicians honest" and read several sites that said they were...😉
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Third, what I don't agree with is that some people are willing to accept new evidence unless it aligns to their current beliefs.

    Bringing up the KH does is good example of when macros don't matter. Why? Because protein is equated for and it's done in a metabolic ward. There is plenty of evidence that if you equate for calories, but don't equate for protein, the group that has higher protein will lose more weight. You see this in almost every low carb vs low fat study. And it's often why in ad libitum eating studies, the low carb group yields better results.

    Agreed on the low carb vs low fat issue. Most people will subtract carbs and add protein on lower carb diets. I will state i think increasing protein at the expense of carbs can be effective. I think one can get many of the benefits of a keto style diet by doing this. My only issue with you stating protein did not matter on the KH study was as @lemurcat2 pointed out to me in a different post... while the diets were equated for all macros, the less processed group had to eat less calories to possibly meet a protein threshold. Do o think the PL hypothesis was the only factor that led to a decrease on calorie intake? No... I think it was multi mechanistic. A

    To psulemon--I haven't found that people aren't willing to accept new evidence. I do think it's appropriate to be skeptical of individual studies, especially in that in many areas there are studies that conflict and are not reproducible.

    To @psychod787--I think we are pretty much in agreement. However, I'm not sure, but I think the Kevin Hall studies that psulemon was referring to were the low carb vs low carb ones in a ward to control for other differences. I think the one you mentioned, the processed vs not one is especially interesting, since there they controlled for protein (and other macros) in the initial meal but had seconds (and thirds, etc.) available. What happened was that despite having identical amounts of protein in their initial meals, those on the less processed diets did not tend to continue to eat, whereas those on the ultraprocessed diets did (and what they chose was largely fat+carbs).

    I think this might give some insight into two things:

    (1) The typical US diet is NOT low protein, in fact it tends to be higher protein compared to the world as a whole especially if we look at total grams and not percentage. It's very easy to take a typical US diet, reduce fat and carbs, and leave protein as it was and end up with a highish protein diet (percentage wise) based on total grams plus lower cals. I get some people may have been eating lower protein, but I think meat, especially, is so very common in the US diet that inadequate protein is unlikely to be why people are overeating in an unrestricted food environment. Or at least not the main reason, certainly.

    (2) If we look at the unrestricted low carb (50 g or less, say) vs. low fat (30% or less, usually) diet studies, what we see is an initial advantage to low carb. One likely cause is that to get carbs so low the low carb diet usually jumps protein significantly, whereas that does not happen in the low fat (as psulemon says).

    But I think another important cause is that to go from a typical diet to one that is 30% or less fat requires little change -- the SAD is something like 35% fat. And even if fat were cut somewhat more, you'd still be able to eat basically the same diet. To go to under 50 g (or even under 30 g, as some are), or even under 100 g, most would have to change food choice significantly and eat much more mindfully, at least at first. And much of what they would have to give up are junk foods and fast foods and hyperpalatable foods like pasta, even when over half of the cals from those foods were fat. In essence, at least at first, they would be going to a much more restrictive diet and likely pick as substitutes many foods that were more satiating (veg, meat) at least until they learned what high fat/low carb junk food substitutes existed.

    What we also see with those studies is that the advantage of low carb tends to be gone within a year (and everyone loses less than one would expect with the planned calorie deficit, even at first). I think there are two likely explanations for the adjustment by the end of the year (or even 6 months) -- the new diet is not sustainable, or they figured out what extra foods they enjoyed and craved on the new diet to the point of overeating.

    The point is that in both the US diet in general and the low carb experimental diet, the advantage of higher protein does not seem to prevent people from ALSO eating tons of extra cals of other foods, at least not in the longer term.

    This is partially why I say that macros are not really that important when it comes to weight loss in general.

    Might they help individuals feel more satisfied, especially when combined with other tactics? Sure, of course.

    Are they important for other things, like health and muscle maintenance? Again, sure, of course (and I generally advise people losing to think about protein), although this just requires within a healthy range.

    I also agree that adherence is a MAJOR issue. One of the reasons I think Keto is highly unsustainable. I doubt eating a cookie or two a couple times a week will make one regain weigh if the rest of their diet and lifestyle is in line. Eating a box of cookies a couple times a week might. I am speaking of ad librium intake btw. The AVE tends to be an issue with hyper restrictive diets. I personally have something small several times a week. My only thought on why "Americans" eat more protein, but still fall within that 14-16% range is... Americans are heavier in general than the rest of the world. Thus having more lean mass and having an greater protein nees. I don't have any evidence to back this up at the moment, but will be looking into it soon.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    psychod787 wrote: »
    conniewilkins56 wrote: »
    Drinking ice water, chewing gum and eating spicy foods will give you a mild boost....google it!

    I also googled "are politicians honest" and read several sites that said they were...😉
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Third, what I don't agree with is that some people are willing to accept new evidence unless it aligns to their current beliefs.

    Bringing up the KH does is good example of when macros don't matter. Why? Because protein is equated for and it's done in a metabolic ward. There is plenty of evidence that if you equate for calories, but don't equate for protein, the group that has higher protein will lose more weight. You see this in almost every low carb vs low fat study. And it's often why in ad libitum eating studies, the low carb group yields better results.

    Agreed on the low carb vs low fat issue. Most people will subtract carbs and add protein on lower carb diets. I will state i think increasing protein at the expense of carbs can be effective. I think one can get many of the benefits of a keto style diet by doing this. My only issue with you stating protein did not matter on the KH study was as @lemurcat2 pointed out to me in a different post... while the diets were equated for all macros, the less processed group had to eat less calories to possibly meet a protein threshold. Do o think the PL hypothesis was the only factor that led to a decrease on calorie intake? No... I think it was multi mechanistic. A

    To psulemon--I haven't found that people aren't willing to accept new evidence. I do think it's appropriate to be skeptical of individual studies, especially in that in many areas there are studies that conflict and are not reproducible.

    To @psychod787--I think we are pretty much in agreement. However, I'm not sure, but I think the Kevin Hall studies that psulemon was referring to were the low carb vs low carb ones in a ward to control for other differences. I think the one you mentioned, the processed vs not one is especially interesting, since there they controlled for protein (and other macros) in the initial meal but had seconds (and thirds, etc.) available. What happened was that despite having identical amounts of protein in their initial meals, those on the less processed diets did not tend to continue to eat, whereas those on the ultraprocessed diets did (and what they chose was largely fat+carbs).

    I think this might give some insight into two things:

    (1) The typical US diet is NOT low protein, in fact it tends to be higher protein compared to the world as a whole especially if we look at total grams and not percentage. It's very easy to take a typical US diet, reduce fat and carbs, and leave protein as it was and end up with a highish protein diet (percentage wise) based on total grams plus lower cals. I get some people may have been eating lower protein, but I think meat, especially, is so very common in the US diet that inadequate protein is unlikely to be why people are overeating in an unrestricted food environment. Or at least not the main reason, certainly.

    (2) If we look at the unrestricted low carb (50 g or less, say) vs. low fat (30% or less, usually) diet studies, what we see is an initial advantage to low carb. One likely cause is that to get carbs so low the low carb diet usually jumps protein significantly, whereas that does not happen in the low fat (as psulemon says).

    But I think another important cause is that to go from a typical diet to one that is 30% or less fat requires little change -- the SAD is something like 35% fat. And even if fat were cut somewhat more, you'd still be able to eat basically the same diet. To go to under 50 g (or even under 30 g, as some are), or even under 100 g, most would have to change food choice significantly and eat much more mindfully, at least at first. And much of what they would have to give up are junk foods and fast foods and hyperpalatable foods like pasta, even when over half of the cals from those foods were fat. In essence, at least at first, they would be going to a much more restrictive diet and likely pick as substitutes many foods that were more satiating (veg, meat) at least until they learned what high fat/low carb junk food substitutes existed.

    What we also see with those studies is that the advantage of low carb tends to be gone within a year (and everyone loses less than one would expect with the planned calorie deficit, even at first). I think there are two likely explanations for the adjustment by the end of the year (or even 6 months) -- the new diet is not sustainable, or they figured out what extra foods they enjoyed and craved on the new diet to the point of overeating.

    The point is that in both the US diet in general and the low carb experimental diet, the advantage of higher protein does not seem to prevent people from ALSO eating tons of extra cals of other foods, at least not in the longer term.

    This is partially why I say that macros are not really that important when it comes to weight loss in general.

    Might they help individuals feel more satisfied, especially when combined with other tactics? Sure, of course.

    Are they important for other things, like health and muscle maintenance? Again, sure, of course (and I generally advise people losing to think about protein), although this just requires within a healthy range.

    I also agree that adherence is a MAJOR issue. One of the reasons I think Keto is highly unsustainable. I doubt eating a cookie or two a couple times a week will make one regain weigh if the rest of their diet and lifestyle is in line. Eating a box of cookies a couple times a week might. I am speaking of ad librium intake btw. The AVE tends to be an issue with hyper restrictive diets. I personally have something small several times a week. My only thought on why "Americans" eat more protein, but still fall within that 14-16% range is... Americans are heavier in general than the rest of the world. Thus having more lean mass and having an greater protein nees. I don't have any evidence to back this up at the moment, but will be looking into it soon.

    One of the reasons why American's have more protein by grams is they also eat more calories compared to many countries. The below tool is pretty cool to play with. In comparison, America eats more on average than the rest of the world by almost 800 calories.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/

    At this point in my life, moderation was killing me. I am fairly lean already, and trying to incorporate treats just set up hunger signals. Interestingly enough, going keto not only has increase my adherence, it has altered my palate. I don't crave sweet things, but rather more salty. Ironically, there was some evidence (which I will try to find again) suggesting that low carb diets tend to have this impact on dieters... and even more so with women.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Third, what I don't agree with is that some people are willing to accept new evidence unless it aligns to their current beliefs.

    Bringing up the KH does is good example of when macros don't matter. Why? Because protein is equated for and it's done in a metabolic ward. There is plenty of evidence that if you equate for calories, but don't equate for protein, the group that has higher protein will lose more weight. You see this in almost every low carb vs low fat study. And it's often why in ad libitum eating studies, the low carb group yields better results.

    Agreed on the low carb vs low fat issue. Most people will subtract carbs and add protein on lower carb diets. I will state i think increasing protein at the expense of carbs can be effective. I think one can get many of the benefits of a keto style diet by doing this. My only issue with you stating protein did not matter on the KH study was as @lemurcat2 pointed out to me in a different post... while the diets were equated for all macros, the less processed group had to eat less calories to possibly meet a protein threshold. Do o think the PL hypothesis was the only factor that led to a decrease on calorie intake? No... I think it was multi mechanistic. A

    To psulemon--I haven't found that people aren't willing to accept new evidence. I do think it's appropriate to be skeptical of individual studies, especially in that in many areas there are studies that conflict and are not reproducible.

    To @psychod787--I think we are pretty much in agreement. However, I'm not sure, but I think the Kevin Hall studies that psulemon was referring to were the low carb vs low carb ones in a ward to control for other differences. I think the one you mentioned, the processed vs not one is especially interesting, since there they controlled for protein (and other macros) in the initial meal but had seconds (and thirds, etc.) available. What happened was that despite having identical amounts of protein in their initial meals, those on the less processed diets did not tend to continue to eat, whereas those on the ultraprocessed diets did (and what they chose was largely fat+carbs).

    I think this might give some insight into two things:

    (1) The typical US diet is NOT low protein, in fact it tends to be higher protein compared to the world as a whole especially if we look at total grams and not percentage. It's very easy to take a typical US diet, reduce fat and carbs, and leave protein as it was and end up with a highish protein diet (percentage wise) based on total grams plus lower cals. I get some people may have been eating lower protein, but I think meat, especially, is so very common in the US diet that inadequate protein is unlikely to be why people are overeating in an unrestricted food environment. Or at least not the main reason, certainly.

    (2) If we look at the unrestricted low carb (50 g or less, say) vs. low fat (30% or less, usually) diet studies, what we see is an initial advantage to low carb. One likely cause is that to get carbs so low the low carb diet usually jumps protein significantly, whereas that does not happen in the low fat (as psulemon says).

    But I think another important cause is that to go from a typical diet to one that is 30% or less fat requires little change -- the SAD is something like 35% fat. And even if fat were cut somewhat more, you'd still be able to eat basically the same diet. To go to under 50 g (or even under 30 g, as some are), or even under 100 g, most would have to change food choice significantly and eat much more mindfully, at least at first. And much of what they would have to give up are junk foods and fast foods and hyperpalatable foods like pasta, even when over half of the cals from those foods were fat. In essence, at least at first, they would be going to a much more restrictive diet and likely pick as substitutes many foods that were more satiating (veg, meat) at least until they learned what high fat/low carb junk food substitutes existed.

    What we also see with those studies is that the advantage of low carb tends to be gone within a year (and everyone loses less than one would expect with the planned calorie deficit, even at first). I think there are two likely explanations for the adjustment by the end of the year (or even 6 months) -- the new diet is not sustainable, or they figured out what extra foods they enjoyed and craved on the new diet to the point of overeating.

    The point is that in both the US diet in general and the low carb experimental diet, the advantage of higher protein does not seem to prevent people from ALSO eating tons of extra cals of other foods, at least not in the longer term.

    This is partially why I say that macros are not really that important when it comes to weight loss in general.

    Might they help individuals feel more satisfied, especially when combined with other tactics? Sure, of course.

    Are they important for other things, like health and muscle maintenance? Again, sure, of course (and I generally advise people losing to think about protein), although this just requires within a healthy range.

    I was referring to the metabolic ward studies, not the processed vs whole food. Probably should have made that clear.

    I think the bold is situational. I have seen some arguments, especially as it relates to diet efficacy and disease, that are contrary to a lot of the current meta analyses and RCTs I have seen. Overall, I think most of us understand the dietary and training pyramid and how to apply the evidence towards standard or less knowledgeable users. But I also think as a group, there tends to be too many generalizations and people jumping at the bit to "walk people off the led" of following a "diet" before we understand why they have chosen to follow that diet. Given that there is really no one diet that is yielding much greater compliance, it would be my opinion that one should understand a person's motives prior to sweeping generalizations or the standard myolean fitness pic.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Third, what I don't agree with is that some people are willing to accept new evidence unless it aligns to their current beliefs.

    Bringing up the KH does is good example of when macros don't matter. Why? Because protein is equated for and it's done in a metabolic ward. There is plenty of evidence that if you equate for calories, but don't equate for protein, the group that has higher protein will lose more weight. You see this in almost every low carb vs low fat study. And it's often why in ad libitum eating studies, the low carb group yields better results.

    Agreed on the low carb vs low fat issue. Most people will subtract carbs and add protein on lower carb diets. I will state i think increasing protein at the expense of carbs can be effective. I think one can get many of the benefits of a keto style diet by doing this. My only issue with you stating protein did not matter on the KH study was as @lemurcat2 pointed out to me in a different post... while the diets were equated for all macros, the less processed group had to eat less calories to possibly meet a protein threshold. Do o think the PL hypothesis was the only factor that led to a decrease on calorie intake? No... I think it was multi mechanistic. A

    To psulemon--I haven't found that people aren't willing to accept new evidence. I do think it's appropriate to be skeptical of individual studies, especially in that in many areas there are studies that conflict and are not reproducible.

    To @psychod787--I think we are pretty much in agreement. However, I'm not sure, but I think the Kevin Hall studies that psulemon was referring to were the low carb vs low carb ones in a ward to control for other differences. I think the one you mentioned, the processed vs not one is especially interesting, since there they controlled for protein (and other macros) in the initial meal but had seconds (and thirds, etc.) available. What happened was that despite having identical amounts of protein in their initial meals, those on the less processed diets did not tend to continue to eat, whereas those on the ultraprocessed diets did (and what they chose was largely fat+carbs).

    I think this might give some insight into two things:

    (1) The typical US diet is NOT low protein, in fact it tends to be higher protein compared to the world as a whole especially if we look at total grams and not percentage. It's very easy to take a typical US diet, reduce fat and carbs, and leave protein as it was and end up with a highish protein diet (percentage wise) based on total grams plus lower cals. I get some people may have been eating lower protein, but I think meat, especially, is so very common in the US diet that inadequate protein is unlikely to be why people are overeating in an unrestricted food environment. Or at least not the main reason, certainly.

    (2) If we look at the unrestricted low carb (50 g or less, say) vs. low fat (30% or less, usually) diet studies, what we see is an initial advantage to low carb. One likely cause is that to get carbs so low the low carb diet usually jumps protein significantly, whereas that does not happen in the low fat (as psulemon says).

    But I think another important cause is that to go from a typical diet to one that is 30% or less fat requires little change -- the SAD is something like 35% fat. And even if fat were cut somewhat more, you'd still be able to eat basically the same diet. To go to under 50 g (or even under 30 g, as some are), or even under 100 g, most would have to change food choice significantly and eat much more mindfully, at least at first. And much of what they would have to give up are junk foods and fast foods and hyperpalatable foods like pasta, even when over half of the cals from those foods were fat. In essence, at least at first, they would be going to a much more restrictive diet and likely pick as substitutes many foods that were more satiating (veg, meat) at least until they learned what high fat/low carb junk food substitutes existed.

    What we also see with those studies is that the advantage of low carb tends to be gone within a year (and everyone loses less than one would expect with the planned calorie deficit, even at first). I think there are two likely explanations for the adjustment by the end of the year (or even 6 months) -- the new diet is not sustainable, or they figured out what extra foods they enjoyed and craved on the new diet to the point of overeating.

    The point is that in both the US diet in general and the low carb experimental diet, the advantage of higher protein does not seem to prevent people from ALSO eating tons of extra cals of other foods, at least not in the longer term.

    This is partially why I say that macros are not really that important when it comes to weight loss in general.

    Might they help individuals feel more satisfied, especially when combined with other tactics? Sure, of course.

    Are they important for other things, like health and muscle maintenance? Again, sure, of course (and I generally advise people losing to think about protein), although this just requires within a healthy range.

    I was referring to the metabolic ward studies, not the processed vs whole food. Probably should have made that clear.

    I think the bold is situational. I have seen some arguments, especially as it relates to diet efficacy and disease, that are contrary to a lot of the current meta analyses and RCTs I have seen. Overall, I think most of us understand the dietary and training pyramid and how to apply the evidence towards standard or less knowledgeable users. But I also think as a group, there tends to be too many generalizations and people jumping at the bit to "walk people off the led" of following a "diet" before we understand why they have chosen to follow that diet. Given that there is really no one diet that is yielding much greater compliance, it would be my opinion that one should understand a person's motives prior to sweeping generalizations or the standard myolean fitness pic.

    I totally agree with this (and my own approach is that quite often following a diet -- other than something like the cabbage soup diet or other magazine fad things -- is fine, I try out different ways of eating myself). Specifically, my approach is to answer the question and, if I think the question calls for it (indicates complete lack of knowledge or struggling or trying to do something extremely difficult), I might ask if there's a reason they are wanting to do it and note that if they end up not liking it (or are finding it difficult to get started/haven't tried anything else), you can lose in any way that involves a calorie deficit, normally. I also tell them to ask for more information if they claim their doctor said they have to give up carbs to lose, since often that's misunderstood (the doctor in many cases probably means cut back on starchy food portions and desserts, not do carnivore, or even keto, especially if no specific diet advice (a handout with instructions) was given).

    It often seems as if just asking such a question, however nicely and even if combined with helpful advice, gets other posters (and occasionally the OP) getting mad and saying the question should never be asked, however.

    I do think some posters come in thinking that there's some need to get REALLY high amounts of protein and express difficulty, and in addition to giving advice on increasing protein, I think it can be helpful to say "no, as a woman at 5'2, aiming for 115, you likely should not be aiming for 200 g, even if your current weight is 200 and you read somewhere that a g per lb makes weight loss easier. And even though to some degree more protein may make you fuller (along with a lot of other things that matter for that).

Categories