If cutting cal= losing,y do people want ketosis?

IronPlayground

so I am still not sold that Keto is superior to any other method with respect to fat loss or muscle preservation ...

It's basic biochemistry. You can argue with it, but it's simply true.

When not ketogenic, technically every diet that involves a caloric deficit is, by nature, catabolic - meaning it will make you lose muscle. This is a fact. There are several reasons - anabolic hormones are reduced, any aerobic exercise in a deficit will burn a little fat, but WILL have a catabolic effect ...

The issue is when NOT keto-adapted, the body and brain needs glucose for fuel as it's preferred source. Thus gluconeogenesis causes us to convert protein into glucose. If we're at a deficit - the body still needs it's glucose ... if it doesn't get enough from carbs/protein (which it won't, because you're on a deficit) it catabolizes lean tissue. That's a fact.

Ketosis is different because when keto-adapted the brain prefers ketones over glucose, and the body utilizes fatty-acid beta-oxidization for cellular respiration. As such the body doesn't have to break down protein for energy, instead utilizing fat reserves.

You may not believe it, but to say that ignores the science and basic biochemistry - and you've shown no evidence to suggest it's otherwise, except your opinion, have you?

Wait... Are you making the assumption that if you're not on a ketogenic diet then you must be on a low fat diet?

likitisplit

I lost about 36 lbs of fat in 3 months being in state of ketosis and after getting Keto adapted. I ate way more calories than what MFP was recommending me to do lose 1.5 lbs a week. All the stuff you see on the internet is generic formulas.

Yeah. so did I. I just cut calories though.

For the first 4-6 weeks, I was losing around 4 pounds a week, though I was set to lose 0.5 pounds a week.

Good for you, if you lost all the fat. Congrats. Do what works for you.

Weeks 4 - 16, I was still set to lose 0.5 pounds a week and was still losing way more than that. I did a hydrostatic evaluation at week 4 and week 16. I lost about 20 pounds of fat and gained 4 pounds of lean mass.

whovian67

Too much info.. go to research studies and talk with your MD about surviving in ketosis.
I don't know why people don't see that ketosis is a serious move and you should seek medical advice rather than opinions.

heybales

It's basic biochemistry. You can argue with it, but it's simply true.

When not ketogenic, technically every diet that involves a caloric deficit is, by nature, catabolic - meaning it will make you lose muscle. This is a fact. There are several reasons - anabolic hormones are reduced, any aerobic exercise in a deficit will burn a little fat, but WILL have a catabolic effect ...

The issue is when NOT keto-adapted, the body and brain needs glucose for fuel as it's preferred source. Thus gluconeogenesis causes us to convert protein into glucose. If we're at a deficit - the body still needs it's glucose ... if it doesn't get enough from carbs/protein (which it won't, because you're on a deficit) it catabolizes lean tissue. That's a fact.

Ketosis is different because when keto-adapted the brain prefers ketones over glucose, and the body utilizes fatty-acid beta-oxidization for cellular respiration. As such the body doesn't have to break down protein for energy, instead utilizing fat reserves.

You may not believe it, but to say that ignores the science and basic biochemistry - and you've shown no evidence to suggest it's otherwise, except your opinion, have you?

Reading this better too, so thanks above for quoting it again.
Several facts here are not facts for the effects given, unless you want to look at extremes.

"technically every diet that involves a caloric deficit is, by nature, catabolic - meaning it will make you lose muscle. This is a fact."

You know better than that. There are plenty of studies that show either eating enough protein, like 2 x RDA level, or resistance training, can retain muscle mass in the face of sometimes even a steep deficit.
That is an exaggeration of always losing muscle.

"If we're at a deficit - the body still needs it's glucose ... if it doesn't get enough from carbs/protein (which it won't, because you're on a deficit) it catabolizes lean tissue. That's a fact."

At what level of low carb but not ketogenic do you think must be at to cause this, or extreme diet? The normal liver stores of 300-400 calories of glucose can supply your brain usually for a 12 hr fast. The muscle glycogen stores are never wiped out unless you do an extreme deficit and intense workouts and low carb.
Exaggeration again to use the worst examples of a diet like extreme deficit, not at all what was being talked about.

"keto-adapted the brain prefers ketones over glucose, and the body utilizes fatty-acid beta-oxidization for cellular respiration"

So at rest, lets say non-keto - what do you imagine the cellular respiration is using as energy source? You do know it's mainly fat already right?
You might want to review results of RMR tests of people you can find online, and what the RQ number is down around, and what 0.7 means in the sense of cellular respiration.
You might also want to review what happens when you do NOT supply enough oxygen for using fat as energy source, like when you start exercising more intense. Your being in keto state isn't going to change the fact of what is going to start being burned if there isn't enough oxygen.

I think this is why it breaks down to different strokes for different folks.

Because your person on normal deficit diet, not extreme, uses up those liver stores as normal diet or not. Any carbs in the next meal go to replacing those and immediate energy use.
If there was exercise enough to use up muscle glycogen stores, then extra carbs are shuttled off there.
If there is no need for the protein ingested for the 2-4 hrs insulin stays elevated, then some extra glucose found there and stored too.
If in it a diet you didn't eat as much as normal, insulin drops sooner than later, and back in to your normal resting fat burning mode.

In your ketosis state the brain is using the ketones since there is no carb usage after a meal, whatever little you ate went to the liver and isn't used, meaning fat was just used longer, with that great side effect of ketones.
But you are going to have excess protein still that can't be used as protein with insulin not elevated for very long at all, so that is converted to glucose and stored in normal way in liver if needed and muscles.

But if you want to look at possible side effects of extreme diet, then you can look at possible side effects of extreme ketosis diet too, where you can gain fat and weight by overeating, even if for many it's more difficult to do so.
The difference would be in extreme diet, the normal everyday breakdown of muscle that normally gets built back up doesn't occur as well, and especially not for muscle not being used. There it goes.
At least in ketogenic diet the available protein may be there to help with that negative effect.

But that gets in to the point several raised, where are the studies with protein kept the same, and only carbs go down and fat goes up, showing a benefit with equal protein?

albertabeefy

Wait... Are you making the assumption that if you're not on a ketogenic diet then you must be on a low fat diet?

No, I've made no assumptions and I've stated things clearly. If you're not on a ketogenic diet - your body prefers glucose for cellular-respiration and brain function. If you're on a ketogenic diet, and keto-adapted, your body prefers ketones/fatty-acids for cellular respiration and brain function - although it needs to use either gluconeogenesis or dietary carb intake for about 15-20g of glucose for the brain still.

albertabeefy

"technically every diet that involves a caloric deficit is, by nature, catabolic - meaning it will make you lose muscle. This is a fact."

You know better than that. There are plenty of studies that show either eating enough protein, like 2 x RDA level, or resistance training, can retain muscle mass in the face of sometimes even a steep deficit.
That is an exaggeration of always losing muscle.

No, it is true. If eating a caloric-deficit, you can minimize catabolism, but not eliminate it. Period. No study has every concluded otherwise. However multiple studies have concluded low-carb caloric-deficit diets are superior to other diets (of various macro profiles) for losing fat while retaining lean muscle. If you doubt this is true, show me ANY metabolic ward study that proves you can eat a deficit and NOT be catbolic.

"If we're at a deficit - the body still needs it's glucose ... if it doesn't get enough from carbs/protein (which it won't, because you're on a deficit) it catabolizes lean tissue. That's a fact."

At what level of low carb but not ketogenic do you think must be at to cause this, or extreme diet? The normal liver stores of 300-400 calories of glucose can supply your brain usually for a 12 hr fast. The muscle glycogen stores are never wiped out unless you do an extreme deficit and intense workouts and low carb.
Exaggeration again to use the worst examples of a diet like extreme deficit, not at all what was being talked about.

Where do you get your idea I'm exaggerating? Again, please show any evidence other than your opinion that there is no catabolism of lean tissue when in a caloric deficit. You won't be able to as It's an indisputable fact. Again, you can minimize it but not halt it. A low-carb ketogenic is proven superior in this regard in dozens of randomized controlled trials.

"keto-adapted the brain prefers ketones over glucose, and the body utilizes fatty-acid beta-oxidization for cellular respiration"

So at rest, lets say non-keto - what do you imagine the cellular respiration is using as energy source? You do know it's mainly fat already right?
You might want to review results of RMR tests of people you can find online, and what the RQ number is down around, and what 0.7 means in the sense of cellular respiration.
You might also want to review what happens when you do NOT supply enough oxygen for using fat as energy source, like when you start exercising more intense. Your being in keto state isn't going to change the fact of what is going to start being burned if there isn't enough oxygen.

At rest is 1/3 of our life, and our metabolism is considerably slowed. It just doesn't have the impact that our active metabolism has.

If you've read any of my posts on keto-adaptation and intense exercise you'll see I recommend people increase their carbohydrate intake when pushing into anaerobic threshold.

And I've likely studied the subject considerably more than you think. My under-graduate degree is in biochemistry.

FYI - I regularly push to 95% of my true maximum heart rate (I push into the mid 190's BPM range) 3-4x per week) and as such increase my dietary carbohydrate intake on those days (especially in my pre-workout meal) to accommodate the activity. I never leave ketosis, however.

In your ketosis state the brain is using the ketones since there is no carb usage after a meal, whatever little you ate went to the liver and isn't used, meaning fat was just used longer, with that great side effect of ketones.

Actually, even when keto-adapted the brain (although fueling much of it's activity with ketones) still requires 15-20g of glucose per day. Dietary glucose will be used for this. In it's absence, gluconeogenesis provides it.

But you are going to have excess protein still that can't be used as protein with insulin not elevated for very long at all, so that is converted to glucose and stored in normal way in liver if needed and muscles.

The point of the ketogenic diet isn't excess protein, it's moderate protein.

But if you want to look at possible side effects of extreme diet, then you can look at possible side effects of extreme ketosis diet too, where you can gain fat and weight by overeating, even if for many it's more difficult to do so.

The ketogenic diet isn't extreme - except to those who don't understand it or simply hate on it for whatever opinion they hold. You can gain fat/weight from overeating on ANY diet, fyi. That's not a "side-effect" of being ketogenic.

The difference would be in extreme diet, the normal everyday breakdown of muscle that normally gets built back up doesn't occur as well, and especially not for muscle not being used. There it goes.
At least in ketogenic diet the available protein may be there to help with that negative effect.

But that gets in to the point several raised, where are the studies with protein kept the same, and only carbs go down and fat goes up, showing a benefit with equal protein?

Any diet that reduces carbohydrate, increases fat to compensate, and maintains moderate protein is much-healthier in many respects to our Standard American / Western Diet.

The BIGGEST advantage of the ketogenic diet is in glycemic control for the insulin-resistant. Period. That is the single-biggest advantage. Especially to someone with an impaired glucose metabolism. The fact that it's protein-sparing simply helps with body composition.

heybales

"technically every diet that involves a caloric deficit is, by nature, catabolic - meaning it will make you lose muscle. This is a fact."

You know better than that. There are plenty of studies that show either eating enough protein, like 2 x RDA level, or resistance training, can retain muscle mass in the face of sometimes even a steep deficit.
That is an exaggeration of always losing muscle.

No, it is true. If eating a caloric-deficit, you can minimize catabolism, but not eliminate it. Period. No study has every concluded otherwise. However multiple studies have concluded low-carb caloric-deficit diets are superior to other diets (of various macro profiles) for losing fat while retaining lean muscle. If you doubt this is true, show me ANY metabolic ward study that proves you can eat a deficit and NOT be catbolic.

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full

"The findings regarding no loss of fat-free mass in the diet-only group are surprising, as some degree of obligatory loss of fat-free mass is expected with significant weight loss. The authors state that the high-fibre nature of the participants' diets may have decreased the insulin response to the participants' meals and facilitated lipolytic pathways, thereby sparing fat-free mass from breakdown and oxidation."
"The calorie level may be of greater importance in explaining retention of fat-free mass. Much of the work regarding changes in fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate in response to hypocaloric diets have implemented diets containing 800–1200 kilocalories per day. Such low calorie diets result in a severe calorie deficit and the need to oxidize protein. "

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10557024
as part of this study for how they got their measurements.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/431.full#ref-30

"Independent of sex, skeletal muscle mass was preserved within the exercise groups (P>0.05) but not diet alone (P<0.05)."

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6015252

"We observed that body weight and fat mass (FM) were significantly reduced (P < 0·05), while fat-free mass remained unchanged throughout the programme."

I can go on, because obviously there are studies that show no loss in muscle mass in a deficit, some tested resistance training, some tested more protein, some tested smaller deficit.

Now, one could claim that LBM or FFM remaining unchanged could still mean that in theory muscle mass was lost and replaced with ..... water?

albertabeefy

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full

"The findings regarding no loss of fat-free mass in the diet-only group are surprising, as some degree of obligatory loss of fat-free mass is expected with significant weight loss. The authors state that the high-fibre nature of the participants' diets may have decreased the insulin response to the participants' meals and facilitated lipolytic pathways, thereby sparing fat-free mass from breakdown and oxidation."
"The calorie level may be of greater importance in explaining retention of fat-free mass. Much of the work regarding changes in fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate in response to hypocaloric diets have implemented diets containing 800–1200 kilocalories per day. Such low calorie diets result in a severe calorie deficit and the need to oxidize protein. "

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10557024
as part of this study for how they got their measurements.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/431.full#ref-30

"Independent of sex, skeletal muscle mass was preserved within the exercise groups (P>0.05) but not diet alone (P<0.05)."

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6015252

"We observed that body weight and fat mass (FM) were significantly reduced (P < 0·05), while fat-free mass remained unchanged throughout the programme."

I can go on, because obviously there are studies that show no loss in muscle mass in a deficit, some tested resistance training, some tested more protein, some tested smaller deficit.

Now, one could claim that LBM or FFM remaining unchanged could still mean that in theory muscle mass was lost and replaced with ..... water?

... and not a single one of those was in a metabolic ward, so we don't know the exact deficit or precise makeup of the diet.

Also, the abstracts also do not show what they mean by "preservation" - It may mean minor loss, it depends on what the researchers would define as significant. I can assure you that all researchers know there is some expected catabolism of lean tissue.

They also speak of preserving lean mass / fat-free mass which isn't the same as preventing muscle catabolism. Lean/Fat-Free mass is comprised of not-just muscle, but also bones, skin, organs, and fluids.

We know increases in bone-density and hypervolemia (increased blood volume) come as a result of exercise. It's easy for a dieter who's exercising to catabolize lean tissue while increasing other components (of fat-free mass) and show no overall loss of fat-free mass.

No loss in FFM/LBM doesn't mean no loss/catabolism of muscle. It means no appreciable loss of mass.

As they weren't in a metabolic ward, and there was no indication of precision methodology being used to measure muscle-mass and/or loss, and as there's so many other confounders (bone density, hypervolemia, etc.) the studies you linked do not conclude that you can prevent catabolism.

As I've stated previously - exercise, resistance training, proper protein, etc. can help minimize catabolism - but there will be some catabolism when on a deficit. They cannot prevent it.

As your linked studies also show, many "diet-only" groups DO lose lean mass. If a person can't exercise (which is sometimes the case with morbidly obese) it makes sense for them to choose the diet which retains lean mass and provides better glycemic control.

psuLemon

Body keeps burning fat and carbs on calorie deficit.

Mainly fat when at rest, and increasing amount of carbs as exercise intensity goes up.

Usually about first 30 min of real exercise is slightly more carb ratio burn then what eventually it lowers to - but it is NOT total carb burn. It may be 50% fat / carbs, lowering to eventually 60% fat / 40% carbs doing the same effort.

Going in fasted or in ketosis usually means you start out at the 60/40 ratio - but you really aren't changing that ratio in any meaningful way by your diet. And you add up the difference is fat burned and it's ain't much.

What happens though is when you eat your next meal, the carbs are sent off to fill those stores in the muscle (after liver is topped off).
If you are in a deficit, there is less food to fill those stores with, so that process of elevated insulin to get those carbs to the muscles stops sooner than when not in a diet, because you are eating less.

Now you've gone back in to normal resting fat burning mode sooner than you would have eating at maintenance.

In ketosis though, there isn't much of any carbs to send off to muscles, so you are back quicker. Slowly but surely though the excess unused protein is converted to glycogen and then stored off in the muscles.
Eat too much in ketosis though and top those off, and that excess would be stored as fat too.

This isn't entirely true - the physiology/biochemsitry changes IF the person is keto-adapted vs. just being in ketosis.

When keto-adapted the body utilizes primarily ketolysis/lipolysis for cellular respiration, NOT glycolysis.

However the problem comes if you try a low-carb diet for weight loss, enter ketosis, but do NOT become keto-adapted. Which happens when people carb-up, cheat, etc.

Myself - I lost 70lbs of FAT in the first three months of a ketogenic diet without being able to exercise much at all. The first two weeks was NO exercise. Then 2 minutes a day, then 2 minutes twice a day, then after 3 months I was up to 10 minutes, twice a day. And at 2,800 calories daily I lost 70lbs in three months. Why? Because I was keto-adapted and the diet itself gave me a big metabolic advantage compared to what I'd been eating.

Research shows that ketogenic diets provide just as much or more weight-loss as low-fat or low-calorie diets, but also improve triglycerides more than low-fat diets, are protein/muscle-sparing and in many cases result in greater weight-loss and better overall body composition. The research shows the diet is more successful for those who are insulin-resistant as well.

Your telling me that you lose ~ 6 lbs of fat a week? That would mean your weekly deficit would 21,000 over your TDEE. That equates you burning around 5800 calories a day. Can I ask if you have dexa, hydro static or another various of proof to back that claim? I am intrigued.

Just going to bump my question in case it was missed. I am still intrigued how someone can lose ~ 6lbs of fat a week without excising.

tennisdude2004

Body keeps burning fat and carbs on calorie deficit.

Mainly fat when at rest, and increasing amount of carbs as exercise intensity goes up.

Usually about first 30 min of real exercise is slightly more carb ratio burn then what eventually it lowers to - but it is NOT total carb burn. It may be 50% fat / carbs, lowering to eventually 60% fat / 40% carbs doing the same effort.

Going in fasted or in ketosis usually means you start out at the 60/40 ratio - but you really aren't changing that ratio in any meaningful way by your diet. And you add up the difference is fat burned and it's ain't much.

What happens though is when you eat your next meal, the carbs are sent off to fill those stores in the muscle (after liver is topped off).
If you are in a deficit, there is less food to fill those stores with, so that process of elevated insulin to get those carbs to the muscles stops sooner than when not in a diet, because you are eating less.

Now you've gone back in to normal resting fat burning mode sooner than you would have eating at maintenance.

In ketosis though, there isn't much of any carbs to send off to muscles, so you are back quicker. Slowly but surely though the excess unused protein is converted to glycogen and then stored off in the muscles.
Eat too much in ketosis though and top those off, and that excess would be stored as fat too.

This isn't entirely true - the physiology/biochemsitry changes IF the person is keto-adapted vs. just being in ketosis.

When keto-adapted the body utilizes primarily ketolysis/lipolysis for cellular respiration, NOT glycolysis.

However the problem comes if you try a low-carb diet for weight loss, enter ketosis, but do NOT become keto-adapted. Which happens when people carb-up, cheat, etc.

Myself - I lost 70lbs of FAT in the first three months of a ketogenic diet without being able to exercise much at all. The first two weeks was NO exercise. Then 2 minutes a day, then 2 minutes twice a day, then after 3 months I was up to 10 minutes, twice a day. And at 2,800 calories daily I lost 70lbs in three months. Why? Because I was keto-adapted and the diet itself gave me a big metabolic advantage compared to what I'd been eating.

Research shows that ketogenic diets provide just as much or more weight-loss as low-fat or low-calorie diets, but also improve triglycerides more than low-fat diets, are protein/muscle-sparing and in many cases result in greater weight-loss and better overall body composition. The research shows the diet is more successful for those who are insulin-resistant as well.

Your telling me that you lose ~ 6 lbs of fat a week? That would mean your weekly deficit would 21,000 over your TDEE. That equates you burning around 5800 calories a day. Can I ask if you have dexa, hydro static or another various of proof to back that claim? I am intrigued.

Just going to bump my question in case it was missed. I am still intrigued how someone can lose ~ 6lbs of fat a week without excising.

I hope it was fat!

psuLemon

Your telling me that you lose ~ 6 lbs of fat a week? That would mean your weekly deficit would 21,000 over your TDEE. That equates you burning around 5800 calories a day. Can I ask if you have dexa, hydro static or another various of proof to back that claim? I am intrigued.

Just going to bump my question in case it was missed. I am still intrigued how someone can lose ~ 6lbs of fat a week without excising.

I hope it was fat!

I kind of doubt it was, if you look at the trend of his first 3 months vs the remainder of his lost (based on his profile), it would suggest there was a lot of water in the first three months (which is completely normal for any person who just started dieting. And for pretty much anyone who just started dieting, you can throw out the first 2-3 weeks because most of it will be water. And then add in, he went Keto, I would even be greater in terms of water weight.

mamaomefo

Bump for later reading

heybales

http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full

"The findings regarding no loss of fat-free mass in the diet-only group are surprising, as some degree of obligatory loss of fat-free mass is expected with significant weight loss. The authors state that the high-fibre nature of the participants' diets may have decreased the insulin response to the participants' meals and facilitated lipolytic pathways, thereby sparing fat-free mass from breakdown and oxidation."
"The calorie level may be of greater importance in explaining retention of fat-free mass. Much of the work regarding changes in fat-free mass and resting metabolic rate in response to hypocaloric diets have implemented diets containing 800–1200 kilocalories per day. Such low calorie diets result in a severe calorie deficit and the need to oxidize protein. "

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10557024
as part of this study for how they got their measurements.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/431.full#ref-30

"Independent of sex, skeletal muscle mass was preserved within the exercise groups (P>0.05) but not diet alone (P<0.05)."

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6015252

"We observed that body weight and fat mass (FM) were significantly reduced (P < 0·05), while fat-free mass remained unchanged throughout the programme."

I can go on, because obviously there are studies that show no loss in muscle mass in a deficit, some tested resistance training, some tested more protein, some tested smaller deficit.

Now, one could claim that LBM or FFM remaining unchanged could still mean that in theory muscle mass was lost and replaced with ..... water?

... and not a single one of those was in a metabolic ward, so we don't know the exact deficit or precise makeup of the diet.

Also, the abstracts also do not show what they mean by "preservation" - It may mean minor loss, it depends on what the researchers would define as significant. I can assure you that all researchers know there is some expected catabolism of lean tissue.

They also speak of preserving lean mass / fat-free mass which isn't the same as preventing muscle catabolism. Lean/Fat-Free mass is comprised of not-just muscle, but also bones, skin, organs, and fluids.

We know increases in bone-density and hypervolemia (increased blood volume) come as a result of exercise. It's easy for a dieter who's exercising to catabolize lean tissue while increasing other components (of fat-free mass) and show no overall loss of fat-free mass.

No loss in FFM/LBM doesn't mean no loss/catabolism of muscle. It means no appreciable loss of mass.

As they weren't in a metabolic ward, and there was no indication of precision methodology being used to measure muscle-mass and/or loss, and as there's so many other confounders (bone density, hypervolemia, etc.) the studies you linked do not conclude that you can prevent catabolism.

As I've stated previously - exercise, resistance training, proper protein, etc. can help minimize catabolism - but there will be some catabolism when on a deficit. They cannot prevent it.

As your linked studies also show, many "diet-only" groups DO lose lean mass. If a person can't exercise (which is sometimes the case with morbidly obese) it makes sense for them to choose the diet which retains lean mass and provides better glycemic control.

The comment from you was every diet is catabolic which means it results in muscle mass loss.
Considering catabolic doesn't mean ONLY burning muscle mass or proteins, even burning fat in negative energy state is catabolic. Adding ONLY fat is even anabolic.
I'm not finding fault with the catabolic comment, but the absolute assurance that muscle mass will be lost no matter the diet.

Why the new rule that it must have been in a metabolic ward now for you to believe the results?

The fact they lost weight means it was a diet obviously.

The make-up of the diet for macros or amount of deficit wasn't a point you were making, you said any diet.

And you didn't read the links very well if you think they are all abstracts, because you missed the DEXA scan and the MRI methods for body composition and the full details. To the ONE study that only looked at LBM vs FM, I even commented on that prior to you doing so, so it sounds like you didn't even read what I wrote, I doubt you read what they wrote.
So you think they some how gained in other areas of LBM EXACTLY whatever you think they lost in muscle mass?

Every single time? because you can find those studies all over the place.

albertabeefy

Body keeps burning fat and carbs on calorie deficit.

Mainly fat when at rest, and increasing amount of carbs as exercise intensity goes up.

Usually about first 30 min of real exercise is slightly more carb ratio burn then what eventually it lowers to - but it is NOT total carb burn. It may be 50% fat / carbs, lowering to eventually 60% fat / 40% carbs doing the same effort.

Going in fasted or in ketosis usually means you start out at the 60/40 ratio - but you really aren't changing that ratio in any meaningful way by your diet. And you add up the difference is fat burned and it's ain't much.

What happens though is when you eat your next meal, the carbs are sent off to fill those stores in the muscle (after liver is topped off).
If you are in a deficit, there is less food to fill those stores with, so that process of elevated insulin to get those carbs to the muscles stops sooner than when not in a diet, because you are eating less.

Now you've gone back in to normal resting fat burning mode sooner than you would have eating at maintenance.

In ketosis though, there isn't much of any carbs to send off to muscles, so you are back quicker. Slowly but surely though the excess unused protein is converted to glycogen and then stored off in the muscles.
Eat too much in ketosis though and top those off, and that excess would be stored as fat too.

This isn't entirely true - the physiology/biochemsitry changes IF the person is keto-adapted vs. just being in ketosis.

When keto-adapted the body utilizes primarily ketolysis/lipolysis for cellular respiration, NOT glycolysis.

However the problem comes if you try a low-carb diet for weight loss, enter ketosis, but do NOT become keto-adapted. Which happens when people carb-up, cheat, etc.

Myself - I lost 70lbs of FAT in the first three months of a ketogenic diet without being able to exercise much at all. The first two weeks was NO exercise. Then 2 minutes a day, then 2 minutes twice a day, then after 3 months I was up to 10 minutes, twice a day. And at 2,800 calories daily I lost 70lbs in three months. Why? Because I was keto-adapted and the diet itself gave me a big metabolic advantage compared to what I'd been eating.

Research shows that ketogenic diets provide just as much or more weight-loss as low-fat or low-calorie diets, but also improve triglycerides more than low-fat diets, are protein/muscle-sparing and in many cases result in greater weight-loss and better overall body composition. The research shows the diet is more successful for those who are insulin-resistant as well.

Your telling me that you lose ~ 6 lbs of fat a week? That would mean your weekly deficit would 21,000 over your TDEE. That equates you burning around 5800 calories a day. Can I ask if you have dexa, hydro static or another various of proof to back that claim? I am intrigued.

Just going to bump my question in case it was missed. I am still intrigued how someone can lose ~ 6lbs of fat a week without excising.

Yes, I did miss the question - I'm sorry.

And to be more accurate - I lost approximately 5lbs per week. (70 / 13). And you're correct - I shouldn't have said 70lbs of FAT - I should have said 70lbs in total... though the vast-majority was fat, I'd suspect that (based on my physiology at the time I started the diet) about 10 lbs was water. As such the overall loss would've been ~ 60lbs of fat in 13 weeks, about 4.5 lbs per week.

As for the calories burned to do that - there's a conundrum there - although it's "conventional wisdom" that it takes a deficit of 3500 calories to = a pound of fat, there's no history of where that figure came from, and no documentation to support it. Read more on this here: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/you-will-not-lose-1lb-every-time/

For me, with a severely impaired glucose-metabolism, the shift to a ketogenic diet made serious changes to my overall RMR. As a 355lb 6'3" man I should have a very active metabolism, but it just wasn't. The changes in the diet itself gave me more energy, a more restful sleep, better focus, etc.

It should also be noted at the time I started the diet I was seriously atrophied from 5 years of mostly bed-rest. In fact, I couldn't do standing arm-curls (two-arms) of 25lbs for reps. It was virtually impossible to lose any more muscle than I already had. In fact, I may have been one of those extremely rare individuals that gained muscle during a caloric deficit. (Not unheard of, it's documented as happening in very-rare cases).

And, as mentioned, that three months wasn't without exercise, it was limited. I incorporated HIIT daily two weeks after I started the diet. At first it was a whopping 2 repeats once per day (total of 2 minutes), but eventually I gradually and eventually extended it to 5 HIIT repeats twice per day - which including long cycling warmup (typically 10 minutes), HIIT (10 minutes) and long cycling cooldown (5 to 10 minutes) that was roughly 25-30 minutes total of exercise, twice-daily at the 15 week mark. And yes, it was as dramatic a change as it's sounds.

No, I did not think to have a DEXA scan or other testing prior to starting the diet - I adopted it for health reasons, not clinical research. I can attest that during the first three months strength improved tremendously - although I didn't get full medical clearance to lift heavy for about a year after I started requesting it.

I will be the first to admit I'm an extreme example of success on the ketogenic diet. I think when you couple all my medical factors together (morbid obesity, muscle-atrophy, hyperglycaemia, etc., etc.,) it created a perfect environment for success using the diet and exercise regime I adopted.