Calorie is NOT a calorie: research

neanderthin

show previous quotes

Another interesting and little-discussed component is the likely effect of gut flora on obesity, which could affect everything from hunger signals to breakdown of food (thus determining how many calories you actually get from what you ingest).

This is a hot topic and there is a lot of literature on this out there.

Calories in/calories out, etc. is fine, but there are a lot of things affecting the calories in side of the equation that we still don't know a lot about.

So research is showing that obese people have gut flora that increase their calorie absorption from food?

I think most of the studies are still in animal models, but from what I understand, it has been shown that the efficiency of gut bacteria is variable and can affect nutrient and calorie absorption of the host -- this is among the many other things that gut bacteria affect (including the immune system and many cognitive functions). Differences in gut flora between obese and non-obese people have been shown. It's a really interesting area of research.

http://download.bioon.com.cn/view/upload/month_0909/20090925_419d79ec6710397fb9c2ugICFPvOQqPV.attach.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1241214

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19466205

Very interesting, thank you. I had no idea. So then the question becomes, why? Genetics, epigenetics? Cause or effect? Can you catch obesity like the flu? I have IBS, which I know effects nutrient absorption, and I have fewer attacks if I take a good probiotic. I know some can have it so badly it causes weight loss due to decreased time of food in the gut.

Good questions, don't know. The fact that transplantation of obese human intestinal flora into a mouse can induce obesity goes a little way to addressing Koch's postulates and establishing some causation, but I think a lot is still unknown.

The relationship between IBS and gut flora is really interesting, especially in regards to the gut-brain connection. From what I have read, not only can emotional stress trigger changes in the gut population, but changes in the GI flora can affect mood, behavior, and other brain functions. Fascinating stuff.

Good stuff.....I've never looked at this part of physiology and it has me intrigued. More research needed, thanks.:devil:

jofjltncb6

show previous quotes

Another interesting and little-discussed component is the likely effect of gut flora on obesity, which could affect everything from hunger signals to breakdown of food (thus determining how many calories you actually get from what you ingest).

This is a hot topic and there is a lot of literature on this out there.

Calories in/calories out, etc. is fine, but there are a lot of things affecting the calories in side of the equation that we still don't know a lot about.

So research is showing that obese people have gut flora that increase their calorie absorption from food?

I think most of the studies are still in animal models, but from what I understand, it has been shown that the efficiency of gut bacteria is variable and can affect nutrient and calorie absorption of the host -- this is among the many other things that gut bacteria affect (including the immune system and many cognitive functions). Differences in gut flora between obese and non-obese people have been shown. It's a really interesting area of research.

http://download.bioon.com.cn/view/upload/month_0909/20090925_419d79ec6710397fb9c2ugICFPvOQqPV.attach.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1241214

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19466205

Very interesting, thank you. I had no idea. So then the question becomes, why? Genetics, epigenetics? Cause or effect? Can you catch obesity like the flu? I have IBS, which I know effects nutrient absorption, and I have fewer attacks if I take a good probiotic. I know some can have it so badly it causes weight loss due to decreased time of food in the gut.

Good questions, don't know. The fact that transplantation of obese human intestinal flora into a mouse can induce obesity goes a little way to addressing Koch's postulates and establishing some causation, but I think a lot is still unknown.

The relationship between IBS and gut flora is really interesting, especially in regards to the gut-brain connection. From what I have read, not only can emotional stress trigger changes in the gut population, but changes in the GI flora can affect mood, behavior, and other brain functions. Fascinating stuff.

The "gut" truly is an interesting organ.

WhyLime113

show previous quotes

(lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb).

I am fine with lactose, but have problems with casein. Surely by your definitions this would make Casein 'bad' and lactose fine?
I don't think a subset of people being intolerant or worse should make something 'bad'.

I should have worded that better: it's a bad carb for the individual. It's not a bad carb universally. That's a huge part of the reason carbs are more complicated than fat, because it's signifigantly more personal.

I read between the lines and got this. But since you mention it, I wanna throw you another curve-ball. I seem to have "won" the genetic lottery in that my total cholesterol is super-low no matter what my diet, and whether I am overweight or not (my HDL is normal for a regularly heavy exerciser). What about the link between saturated fat (and/or cholesterol) and heart disease and diabetes? Can I just eat sticks of butter (IIFMyM, of course!) without worrying because my LDL is on par with that of the average infant? I tend to eat quite low fat anyway, because I want lots of protein and I like my carbs, but I'm still intellectually curious.

Your personal risk of heart disease and diabetes would probably increase, since you are still increasing your cholesterol and your unhealthy habits, but how you'll compare to other unhealthy eaters I'm not sure. I suspect your HDL would go down and you VLDL would go up. That said I'm not sure on the science of this one! It's really just what I would expect with my understanding, but I'm still a student; I may have a more concrete answer about that in another semester as I take more advanced courses on nutrition and health.

WalkingAlong

show previous quotes

No kidding? I had no idea. Why is all fat the most efficient source of nutrition for the body?

Fat has 9 calories per gram, vs. 4 for protein and carbs. The 'cost' of processing it is 2-3%, vs. 5-30% for carbs and protein.

I should add that I'm not saying that fat is the most efficient for NUTRITION, just purely as a fuel. If you were a car with no needs besides moving the most miles on the least inputs, you'd want fat over carbs or protein. Obviously, eating all fat would be disastrous.

Back to your thought about 'arguments against complex carbs' and how taxing they are to the body... There are people who follow a very low calorie diet because it has been shown to increase longevity and have other health benefits. Whether it's due to lessened demands on the body or what, I don't know. Or if it even is the case in humans.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/calorie-restriction-monkeys/

WhyLime113

I disagree with your remarks on fat. There's a reason studies show that when replacing saturated fat for carbohydrates that the incident of heart disease goes up, so we have to be careful when referring to a diet that recommends a reduction of saturated fat. Keep in mind that trans fats have always been categorized as a saturated fat along with regular saturated fat, when in fact it's an unsaturated fat that has been molecularity manipulated. Also when we replace the foods that have saturated fat that HDL is reduced and particle size of LDL is reduced which leads to a more atherogenic environment. Basically what they are recommending is to reduce the amount of refined foods and to distance ourselves from the SAD diet as much as possible......most of the saturated fats are found in refined bread and pastry products, so yeah, that will make a big difference, but if someone is reducing saturated fat in an otherwise healthy diet where whole food and minimally processed foods are consumed and replace those calories for carbs.........we're worse off health wise........

Keep in mind that I was just comparing fats to fats, not fats to carbs. It's a complex system, and if I were to get into every comparison, every in depth interaction, we could be here for hours upon hours! They have full courses just on the simple interactions after all!
Saturated fats aren't as bad as trans fats (IMO) but they aren't good. You don't need to obsess over removing them if you eat an otherwise healthy diet, but if you eat a high saturated fat diet, with low unsaturated fats, you will see a negative trends. The point is that if you're in a situation and need to choose between a food high in saturated fats and a food high in unsaturated fats (like choosing a cooking oil) you should probably go for the one higher in unsaturated fat

fruttibiscotti

show previous quotes

(lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb).

I am fine with lactose, but have problems with casein. Surely by your definitions this would make Casein 'bad' and lactose fine?
I don't think a subset of people being intolerant or worse should make something 'bad'.

I should have worded that better: it's a bad carb for the individual. It's not a bad carb universally. That's a huge part of the reason carbs are more complicated than fat, because it's signifigantly more personal.

I read between the lines and got this. But since you mention it, I wanna throw you another curve-ball. I seem to have "won" the genetic lottery in that my total cholesterol is super-low no matter what my diet, and whether I am overweight or not (my HDL is normal for a regularly heavy exerciser). What about the link between saturated fat (and/or cholesterol) and heart disease and diabetes? Can I just eat sticks of butter (IIFMyM, of course!) without worrying because my LDL is on par with that of the average infant? I tend to eat quite low fat anyway, because I want lots of protein and I like my carbs, but I'm still intellectually curious.

Your personal risk of heart disease and diabetes would probably increase, since you are still increasing your cholesterol and your unhealthy habits, but how you'll compare to other unhealthy eaters I'm not sure. I suspect your HDL would go down and you VLDL would go up. That said I'm not sure on the science of this one! It's really just what I would expect with my understanding, but I'm still a student; I may have a more concrete answer about that in another semester as I take more advanced courses on nutrition and health.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Eating saturated fats does not increase risk of cardiovascular disease. This has been debunked, refer below to studies published in medical journals.

1) Siri-Tarino PW, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010.

2) Mente A, et al. A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2009.

3) Dreon DM, et al. Change in dietary saturated fat intake is correlated with change in mass of large low-density-lipoprotein particles in men. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1998.

To add to this issue, low fat diets have been shown to cause harm, with the famous women's health initiative demonstrating great failure when they tried to prove low fat diets were superior (they proved the opposite instead). Here is literature on failure and harmful effects of low fat diets:

1) Howard BV, et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and weight change over 7 years: the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006.

2) Howard BV, et al. Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006.

3) Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: Risk Factor Changes and Mortality Results. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1982.

I also don't understand your statement about "poor eating habits causing diabetes". You are WRONG here too! There have been 20 randomized controlled trials have been conducted since 2002, which consistently show much better health outcomes than the typical low-fat diet. They cause more weight loss and improve all major risk factors for disease, including triglycerides, HDL and blood sugar levels.

1) Westman EC, et al. Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007.

2) Hession M, et al. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of low-carbohydrate vs. low-fat/low-calorie diets in the management of obesity and its comorbidities. Obesity Reviews, 2008.

3) Santos F, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials of the effects of low carbohydrate diets on cardiovascular risk factors. Obesity Reviews, 2012.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

fruttibiscotti

show previous quotes

I disagree with your remarks on fat. There's a reason studies show that when replacing saturated fat for carbohydrates that the incident of heart disease goes up, so we have to be careful when referring to a diet that recommends a reduction of saturated fat. Keep in mind that trans fats have always been categorized as a saturated fat along with regular saturated fat, when in fact it's an unsaturated fat that has been molecularity manipulated. Also when we replace the foods that have saturated fat that HDL is reduced and particle size of LDL is reduced which leads to a more atherogenic environment. Basically what they are recommending is to reduce the amount of refined foods and to distance ourselves from the SAD diet as much as possible......most of the saturated fats are found in refined bread and pastry products, so yeah, that will make a big difference, but if someone is reducing saturated fat in an otherwise healthy diet where whole food and minimally processed foods are consumed and replace those calories for carbs.........we're worse off health wise........

Keep in mind that I was just comparing fats to fats, not fats to carbs. It's a complex system, and if I were to get into every comparison, every in depth interaction, we could be here for hours upon hours! They have full courses just on the simple interactions after all!
Saturated fats aren't as bad as trans fats (IMO) but they aren't good. You don't need to obsess over removing them if you eat an otherwise healthy diet, but if you eat a high saturated fat diet, with low unsaturated fats, you will see a negative trends. The point is that if you're in a situation and need to choose between a food high in saturated fats and a food high in unsaturated fats (like choosing a cooking oil) you should probably go for the one higher in unsaturated fat

Whylime, you are so wrong and misguided. Read the medical literature links I just posted.

QuietBloom

show previous quotes

Another interesting and little-discussed component is the likely effect of gut flora on obesity, which could affect everything from hunger signals to breakdown of food (thus determining how many calories you actually get from what you ingest).

This is a hot topic and there is a lot of literature on this out there.

Calories in/calories out, etc. is fine, but there are a lot of things affecting the calories in side of the equation that we still don't know a lot about.

So research is showing that obese people have gut flora that increase their calorie absorption from food?

I think most of the studies are still in animal models, but from what I understand, it has been shown that the efficiency of gut bacteria is variable and can affect nutrient and calorie absorption of the host -- this is among the many other things that gut bacteria affect (including the immune system and many cognitive functions). Differences in gut flora between obese and non-obese people have been shown. It's a really interesting area of research.

http://download.bioon.com.cn/view/upload/month_0909/20090925_419d79ec6710397fb9c2ugICFPvOQqPV.attach.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1241214

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19466205

Very interesting, thank you. I had no idea. So then the question becomes, why? Genetics, epigenetics? Cause or effect? Can you catch obesity like the flu? I have IBS, which I know effects nutrient absorption, and I have fewer attacks if I take a good probiotic. I know some can have it so badly it causes weight loss due to decreased time of food in the gut.

Good questions, don't know. The fact that transplantation of obese human intestinal flora into a mouse can induce obesity goes a little way to addressing Koch's postulates and establishing some causation, but I think a lot is still unknown.

The relationship between IBS and gut flora is really interesting, especially in regards to the gut-brain connection. From what I have read, not only can emotional stress trigger changes in the gut population, but changes in the GI flora can affect mood, behavior, and other brain functions. Fascinating stuff.

It really is. The gut brain thing has been established before, but this adds another whole 'nother level of complexity.

The twin study with the mice is very provocative. It will be interesting to see where further research in this area leads us.

NavyKnightAh13

Bumping to read after I get some caffeine.

ninerbuff

A calorie is a unit of energy. /thread. If you mean that different macro's effect the body differently, they yes that's true.

THIS. It will always be argued that it's not, but it will be futile since people who don't really understand it will usually state comparisons in macros.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ninerbuff

Thermodynamics is a law, like gravity it will never change.

Actually gravity is a theory, but happens to be true.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Mr_Knight

So, are we saying that for overall better HEALTH, not just weight loss, but health, we need to balance complex carbs, good fat, and protein in some way? And try to somewhat consciously avoid "unhealthy fats" and "simple carbs" to the extent possible, without being a weirdo about it?

Just say it...you know you want to...

:laugh:

"eat clean"

Unknown

This content has been removed.

fruttibiscotti

show previous quotes

(lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb).

I am fine with lactose, but have problems with casein. Surely by your definitions this would make Casein 'bad' and lactose fine?
I don't think a subset of people being intolerant or worse should make something 'bad'.

I should have worded that better: it's a bad carb for the individual. It's not a bad carb universally. That's a huge part of the reason carbs are more complicated than fat, because it's signifigantly more personal.

I read between the lines and got this. But since you mention it, I wanna throw you another curve-ball. I seem to have "won" the genetic lottery in that my total cholesterol is super-low no matter what my diet, and whether I am overweight or not (my HDL is normal for a regularly heavy exerciser). What about the link between saturated fat (and/or cholesterol) and heart disease and diabetes? Can I just eat sticks of butter (IIFMyM, of course!) without worrying because my LDL is on par with that of the average infant? I tend to eat quite low fat anyway, because I want lots of protein and I like my carbs, but I'm still intellectually curious.

Your personal risk of heart disease and diabetes would probably increase, since you are still increasing your cholesterol and your unhealthy habits, but how you'll compare to other unhealthy eaters I'm not sure. I suspect your HDL would go down and you VLDL would go up. That said I'm not sure on the science of this one! It's really just what I would expect with my understanding, but I'm still a student; I may have a more concrete answer about that in another semester as I take more advanced courses on nutrition and health.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Eating saturated fats does not increase risk of cardiovascular disease. This has been debunked, refer below to studies published in medical journals.

1) Siri-Tarino PW, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010.

2) Mente A, et al. A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2009.

3) Dreon DM, et al. Change in dietary saturated fat intake is correlated with change in mass of large low-density-lipoprotein particles in men. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1998.

To add to this issue, low fat diets have been shown to cause harm, with the famous women's health initiative demonstrating great failure when they tried to prove low fat diets were superior (they proved the opposite instead). Here is literature on failure and harmful effects of low fat diets:

1) Howard BV, et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and weight change over 7 years: the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006.

2) Howard BV, et al. Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006.

3) Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: Risk Factor Changes and Mortality Results. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1982.

I also don't understand your statement about "poor eating habits causing diabetes". You are WRONG here too! There have been 20 randomized controlled trials have been conducted since 2002, which consistently show much better health outcomes than the typical low-fat diet. They cause more weight loss and improve all major risk factors for disease, including triglycerides, HDL and blood sugar levels.

1) Westman EC, et al. Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007.

2) Hession M, et al. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials of low-carbohydrate vs. low-fat/low-calorie diets in the management of obesity and its comorbidities. Obesity Reviews, 2008.

3) Santos F, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials of the effects of low carbohydrate diets on cardiovascular risk factors. Obesity Reviews, 2012.

I didn't read the links, but I've saved them for later when I'm extremely bored.

One thing though, is they always do these on obese people. Rarely do they study the effects on avg people or athletes. There are very few studies on these impacts to avg people or athletes. So, the data is skewed because I'm not obese and I react differently than an obese person. It's not the same. Just a comment about these kinds of studies in general.

Wrong! The nutritional ketosis work by Dr. steven Phinney is done on high performance athletes. Read the book "art and science of nutritional ketosis". Also, Dr Peter Attia, who is a high performance long distance swimmer, as well as a medical doctor, is deeply involved in conducting studies in this area too. Why do you think sports teams and Olympic athletes are doing keto? Check out the newspaper article on Kobe Bryant and the Lakers basketball team on low carb high fat diet: http://www.examiner.com/article/kobe-bryant-and-lakers-score-with-low-carb-high-protein-paleo-and-grass-fed-meat

fruttibiscotti

show previous quotes

Thermodynamics is a law, like gravity it will never change.

Actually gravity is a theory, but happens to be true.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Looks like people confuse the difference between theory and hypothesis.

cooky_monster

And there was me thinking weight loss was simple - eat less and do more :indifferent:

Fullsterkur_woman

show previous quotes

(lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb).

I am fine with lactose, but have problems with casein. Surely by your definitions this would make Casein 'bad' and lactose fine?
I don't think a subset of people being intolerant or worse should make something 'bad'.

I should have worded that better: it's a bad carb for the individual. It's not a bad carb universally. That's a huge part of the reason carbs are more complicated than fat, because it's signifigantly more personal.

I read between the lines and got this. But since you mention it, I wanna throw you another curve-ball. I seem to have "won" the genetic lottery in that my total cholesterol is super-low no matter what my diet, and whether I am overweight or not (my HDL is normal for a regularly heavy exerciser). What about the link between saturated fat (and/or cholesterol) and heart disease and diabetes? Can I just eat sticks of butter (IIFMyM, of course!) without worrying because my LDL is on par with that of the average infant? I tend to eat quite low fat anyway, because I want lots of protein and I like my carbs, but I'm still intellectually curious.

Your personal risk of heart disease and diabetes would probably increase, since you are still increasing your cholesterol and your unhealthy habits, but how you'll compare to other unhealthy eaters I'm not sure. I suspect your HDL would go down and you VLDL would go up. That said I'm not sure on the science of this one! It's really just what I would expect with my understanding, but I'm still a student; I may have a more concrete answer about that in another semester as I take more advanced courses on nutrition and health.

Thanks for your response, but I think you may have missed the part where I said that my cholesterol does not increase no matter whether I'm obese or "normal" weight range, and no matter what diet I follow. My total cholesterol has never been above 120, and my LDL has never been higher than 40, over the course of 15 years. I don't have genetic testing, but my hypothesis is heterozygous familial hypobetalipoproteinemia. I have pet theories about the effects on mental health, connective tissues and hormonal systems, but it's such a rare thing there's very little research on it. Also, why would my HDL go down if I maintain my athletic schedule? I'll check back with you in another semester. There's no shortage of mysteries about the human body!

Fullsterkur_woman

show previous quotes

Thermodynamics is a law, like gravity it will never change.

Actually gravity is a theory, but happens to be true.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Looks like people confuse the difference between theory and hypothesis.

They do, but that has nothing to do with the difference between theory and law, which is what is under discussion in this sub-conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_laws

QuietBloom

And there was me thinking weight loss was simple - eat less and do more :indifferent:

Aw, sweetie. It is that simple. For 99%* of people.

*Number was pulled out of bottom and has not been scientifically corroborated.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

geebusuk

And there was me thinking weight loss was simple - eat less and do more :indifferent:

BUT... what about the special flowers who it obviously doesn't apply to because it's all due to the types of bacteria in their gut?

QuietBloom

So, are we saying that for overall better HEALTH, not just weight loss, but health, we need to balance complex carbs, good fat, and protein in some way? And try to somewhat consciously avoid "unhealthy fats" and "simple carbs" to the extent possible, without being a weirdo about it?

Where is the fun in that?

Srsly, I think this is correct.

WalkingAlong

You know, there is really no reason to be so abrupt about our conversation. You can chill out and relax a bit and stop being so adamant with your views. I'm asking questions and were having conversation. No one in this thread is being absolute except you. It really makes you seem awfully pompous and insecure as well as probably not as informed as you pretend to be.

I've learned to just ignore posts that start with "WRONG", "um" or a gif.

Mr_Knight

Why do you think sports teams and Olympic athletes are doing keto? Check out the newspaper article on Kobe Bryant and the Lakers basketball team on low carb high fat diet: http://www.examiner.com/article/kobe-bryant-and-lakers-score-with-low-carb-high-protein-paleo-and-grass-fed-meat

Dude, Kobe Bryant is talking about reducing carb intake to around 50% of calories. For his effort level, that's 500g+ of carbs per day.

He isn't even in the same galaxy as Planet Ketosis.

QuietBloom

show previous quotes

And there was me thinking weight loss was simple - eat less and do more :indifferent:

BUT... what about the special flowers who it obviously doesn't apply to because it's all due to the types of bacteria in their gut?

Yeah, right? :huh: But really, if all they had to do was find one pair of twins where one was obese and the other was not, to get the results they wanted, one wonders exactly how MUCH of special flowers such people really are.

fruttibiscotti

show previous quotes

Why do you think sports teams and Olympic athletes are doing keto? Check out the newspaper article on Kobe Bryant and the Lakers basketball team on low carb high fat diet: http://www.examiner.com/article/kobe-bryant-and-lakers-score-with-low-carb-high-protein-paleo-and-grass-fed-meat

Dude, Kobe Bryant is talking about reducing carb intake to around 50% of calories. For his effort level, that's 500g+ of carbs per day.

He isn't even in the same galaxy as Planet Ketosis.

Quote from article: Turning the traditional food pyramid upside-down by encouraging players to get at least 50 percent of their calories from fat, and no more than 25 percent each from protein and carbohydrates

wild_wild_life

show previous quotes

And there was me thinking weight loss was simple - eat less and do more :indifferent:

BUT... what about the special flowers who it obviously doesn't apply to because it's all due to the types of bacteria in their gut?

No one is saying that anything is "all due" to any one factor or that a calorie deficit doesn't work for everyone.

Mr_Knight

show previous quotes

Why do you think sports teams and Olympic athletes are doing keto? Check out the newspaper article on Kobe Bryant and the Lakers basketball team on low carb high fat diet: http://www.examiner.com/article/kobe-bryant-and-lakers-score-with-low-carb-high-protein-paleo-and-grass-fed-meat

Dude, Kobe Bryant is talking about reducing carb intake to around 50% of calories. For his effort level, that's 500g+ of carbs per day.

He isn't even in the same galaxy as Planet Ketosis.

Quote from article: Turning the traditional food pyramid upside-down by encouraging players to get at least 50 percent of their calories from fat, and no more than 25 percent each from protein and carbohydrates

You are misinterpreting the quote, but even taking it at face value that is still 250g of carbs/day, and we are still talking about not being in the same galaxy as Planet Ketosis.

And we'll ignore the fact that he's having the worst season of his professional career...