A Call for a Low-Carb Diet That Embraces Fat

calbadger

This was from a well-balanced NIH study.

<Still preparing for incoming.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?ref=health&_r=0

RockstarWilson

Hahaha... that is a nice article. Not many truths come from the newspapers. However I would like to point out that there is a micro-debate (within the keto-world) about saturated fats.

I am choosing to go with more saturated fats. the source I left for you guys is a blog from a woman that has a startup company over in the UK called KetoDiet App. She has gone through some issues, and has found some good research to discern that maybe the saturated fats while on keto are actually good for you. About half my fat intake is saturated. Just browsing through the numbers, I am dancing over/under 50% of my total fat, +/- 10 grams. I eat my avocado a day (it supplies the monos and also give you a daily dose of fiber!).

Check this out:
http://ketodietapp.com/Blog/post/2014/01/29/Complete-Guide-to-Fats-Oils-on-Low-Carb-Ketogenic-Diet

also check out r/keto on reddit. They have some good information.

tennisdude2004

Interesting article, it mirrors the sentiments of certain LCHF diets such as the primal blueprint, which focus heavily on a diet of saturated fat and minimum carbs.

Showing results for people on the diet of better cholesterol markers and a much healthier HDL to triglyceride ratio!

aeb09

Awesome article that just reinforces my decision. Thank you for posting!!

_Zardoz_

There are so many problems with that study this is a great examination of some of them.


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

The moral don't trust a newspapers sum up of science you need to look at the study.

tennisdude2004

There are so many problems with that study this is a great examination of some of them.


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

The moral don't trust a newspapers sum up of science you need to look at the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

FunkyTobias

There are so many problems with that study this is a great examination of some of them.


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

The moral don't trust a newspapers sum up of science you need to look at the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Irrelevant links are irrelevant.


More critique of the study at hand:

http://examine.com/blog/is-low-carb-really-the-best-weight-loss-diet

tennisdude2004

There are so many problems with that study this is a great examination of some of them.


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

The moral don't trust a newspapers sum up of science you need to look at the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Irrelevant links are irrelevant.


More critique of the study at hand:

http://examine.com/blog/is-low-carb-really-the-best-weight-loss-diet

Thanks for your blog link - irrelevant links are irrelevant links.

It's fun picking studies apart - I love blog links I have some corkers!

tennisdude2004

There are so many problems with that study this is a great examination of some of them.


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

The moral don't trust a newspapers sum up of science you need to look at the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Irrelevant links are irrelevant.


More critique of the study at hand:

http://examine.com/blog/is-low-carb-really-the-best-weight-loss-diet

Burden of proof to one side (because I know you love that, like its your first born), but just out of interest do you have any studies showing a diet high in saturated fat and low in carbs does not positively affect cholesterol markers?

Wetcoaster

Don't Rush to Adopt the Low-Carb Diet That Encourages Fat

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yoni-freedhoff/low-carb-study_b_5761256.html



So the world is abuzz with the news that in a one-year randomized trial, a low-carb diet led to greater losses than a low-fat diet. Anahad O'Connor covered the story and some of its implications in Tuesday's New York Times and included some terrific quotes from Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, but as per my practice, I didn't want to share or tweet about it until I actually read the study itself.

Here's my take.


Firstly the low-carb diet recommended in the study was actually a low carb diet, where the recommendation was for subjects to maintain an intake of digestible carbohydrates of less than 40g daily. That's a rarity among low-carb studies, as to date many have instead focused on what might only be described as "lowish" or "lower" carb intakes -- but more on this in a bit. As far as the low-fat dieters, they were told to keep total daily energy intake to less than 30 per cent of total daily calories from fat, and to ensure that 55 per cent came from carbohydrates. Worth mentioning too is the fact that participants in both arms received 1 meal replacement a day for the study's duration, and also received 20 hours of registered dietician counselling and support over its course. Dietary recall was used quarterly to assess compliance and consumption.


Results-wise, after a year the low carb folks lost on average 11.7lbs while their low-fat counterparts only lost an average of 4lbs.


Before we go any further, just a quick reminder, it's been known for some time that low-carb diets lead those on them to automatically consume fewer total calories. Some folks, including me, think the reasoning therein lies more with protein than carbs whereby folks on low-carb diets are usually more regular with their inclusions of protein at all meals and snacks which in turn is more sating. Consequently the lower the carbs, the higher the protein and likely the lower the total calories consumed due to increased overall satiety.


Now back to this data. Looking at it a bit more closely it turns out that 88 per cent of the extra weight loss enjoyed by the low-carb folks was accumulated during their first three months on their diets -- their honeymoon period if you will, where participants would likely be paying more care and attention to their diets' details. The honeymoon concept is definitely borne out by the data as well, as looking at the initial daily dietary composition data reporting it would seem that during those first three months the low-carb folks were consuming 80g of digestible carbs daily representing 28.9 per cent of their calories but by the end of the study these numbers had increased to 112g and 34 per cent respectively.


And what of protein? The low-carb folks started at 25.6 per cent of total daily calories which fell to 23.6 per cent by study's end, while the low-fat folks stayed around 19 per cent throughout.


Looking at calories (because yes, they still count), calories were lowest during the first three months for both study arms, but especially so for the low-carb folks where during those first three months they reported consuming 190 fewer daily calories than the low fat folks. That difference decreased as the study went on. In fact, compared with their first three months' reporting, by year's end the low-carbers had upped their total daily calories by 15 per cent, while the low fat folks had only upped theirs by 7.5 per cent with the gap between them now being fewer than 100 calories. Consequently I'd also have loved to see longer-term outcomes as I don't think it's a given that there'd be any real difference two years out given the more rapidly rising calorie (and carb) counts of this study's so called low-carb arm.


But is this really a low-carb diet study?


Nope. This simply isn't a low-carb study. It's not a low-fat study either by the way.


It's plainly not a low-carb diet study as the low-carb folks, though they were certainly prescribed a low-carb diet, never adhered to one, where even during their diets' honeymoon phase they were consuming over 25 per cent of their total daily calories from carbs, a percentage that rose to 34 per cent by year's end -- both far higher than a true low-carb diet would require. Similarly for low-fat where participants weren't even prescribed a low-fat diet, as a diet with 30 per cent of calories coming from fat by definition isn't low-fat. All that said, I'd be willing to wager that the protein distribution among the low-carb diet folks was in fact markedly different from the low-fat folks, as during those 20 hours of registered dietician counselling I've little doubt that the utility of consuming a protein source with every meal and snack in helping to stick to a low-carb approach was emphasized.


It's also important when considering this study and participants' losses not to forget the meal replacement they were provided daily.


So for me this study's overarching take home messages are firstly that our overly saturated fat-phobic national dietary guidelines that still steer people to diets consisting of 55 per cent carbohydrates probably aren't necessary. Secondly, it would seem that for individuals, if you're not planning on tracking calories, having a daily meal replacement while reducing carbs somewhat may well be a viable way to go for a modest amount of weight loss, and perhaps more importantly, for improvements in many metabolic parameters. And thirdly, if the aforementioned approach only leads you to lose a little bit of weight (remember, in this study the average loss for the so-called low-carb dieters after a full year of dieting was only 11.7lbs) I'd encourage you to start keeping a food diary (with more on that from me here), to ensure you include protein with every meal and snack, to markedly reduce liquid calories, to make a concentrated effort to include more produce than products and to re-relegate restaurant meals to special occasions only.


Lastly, it's important to note that if the question is whether you personally should go low-carb, low-fat, or in-between this study certainly doesn't answer that. Ultimately the best diet for you is the one you actually enjoy enough to keep living with, as merely tolerable diets won't last, and any and all can work so long as you enjoy them enough to sustain them as seen in this meta-analysis published yesterday in JAMA.


Putting this all another way, it's important not to forget that one person's best diet is undoubtedly another person's worst, and that folks who are stuck dogmatically promoting only one "best" diet can be safely ignored.

tennisdude2004

Putting this all another way, it's important not to forget that one person's best diet is undoubtedly another person's worst, and that folks who are stuck dogmatically promoting only one "best" diet can be safely ignored.

That was a lengthy blog! they could have summed it up with just their last paragraph.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^ every day of the week!

FunkyTobias

There are so many problems with that study this is a great examination of some of them.


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

The moral don't trust a newspapers sum up of science you need to look at the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Irrelevant links are irrelevant.


More critique of the study at hand:

http://examine.com/blog/is-low-carb-really-the-best-weight-loss-diet

Burden of proof to one side (because I know you love that, like its your first born), but just out of interest do you have any studies showing a diet high in saturated fat and low in carbs does not positively affect cholesterol markers?

msf74

Lastly, it's important to note that if the question is whether you personally should go low-carb, low-fat, or in-between this study certainly doesn't answer that. Ultimately the best diet for you is the one you actually enjoy enough to keep living with, as merely tolerable diets won't last, and any and all can work so long as you enjoy them enough to sustain them as seen in this meta-analysis published yesterday in JAMA.


Putting this all another way, it's important not to forget that one person's best diet is undoubtedly another person's worst, and that folks who are stuck dogmatically promoting only one "best" diet can be safely ignored.

No, no, no.

That simply won't do.

How am I supposed to flog my new on size fits all super duper low high carb fat eat according to the lunar cycle and the dawn of the Age of Aquarius diet* with people speaking sense about adherence?

* results not guaranteed

tennisdude2004

There are so many problems with that study this is a great examination of some of them.


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

The moral don't trust a newspapers sum up of science you need to look at the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Irrelevant links are irrelevant.


More critique of the study at hand:

http://examine.com/blog/is-low-carb-really-the-best-weight-loss-diet

Burden of proof to one side (because I know you love that, like its your first born), but just out of interest do you have any studies showing a diet high in saturated fat and low in carbs does not positively affect cholesterol markers?

Yep that's pretty much the response I thought you would give! so I'll take that as a no then!

FunkyTobias

There are so many problems with that study this is a great examination of some of them.


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

The moral don't trust a newspapers sum up of science you need to look at the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Irrelevant links are irrelevant.


More critique of the study at hand:

http://examine.com/blog/is-low-carb-really-the-best-weight-loss-diet

Burden of proof to one side (because I know you love that, like its your first born), but just out of interest do you have any studies showing a diet high in saturated fat and low in carbs does not positively affect cholesterol markers?

Yep that's pretty much the response I thought you would give! so I'll take that as a no then!

Take a class in formal and predicate logic, acquire some critical thinking skills, and maybe then I'll get back to you. Until then, I won't be baited by your nonsense.

KTHXBYE.

yarwell

This was from a well-balanced NIH study.

Did you notice how both groups gained weight after 3 months, despite reporting at least 500 calories less intake than at baseline.

Or that the "low fat" group ended up with a higher % bodyfat than they started.

From the study I conclude that if you're going to give diet advice to a group of obese women then the low carb version of the advice had a better outcome than the reduce fat version.

The calorie accountants must be struggling to explain it, beyond saying they're all liars or something.

yarwell

Now back to this data. Looking at it a bit more closely it turns out that 88 per cent of the extra weight loss enjoyed by the low-carb folks was accumulated during their first three months on their diets -- their honeymoon period if you will, where participants would likely be paying more care and attention to their diets' details.

Interesting that you single out the low carb group, as this was the case for both groups.

Both groups put on weight after month 3 :

tennisdude2004

There are so many problems with that study this is a great examination of some of them.


http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

The moral don't trust a newspapers sum up of science you need to look at the study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Irrelevant links are irrelevant.


More critique of the study at hand:

http://examine.com/blog/is-low-carb-really-the-best-weight-loss-diet

Burden of proof to one side (because I know you love that, like its your first born), but just out of interest do you have any studies showing a diet high in saturated fat and low in carbs does not positively affect cholesterol markers?

Yep that's pretty much the response I thought you would give! so I'll take that as a no then!

Take a class in formal and predicate logic, acquire some critical thinking skills, and maybe then I'll get back to you. Until then, I won't be baited by your nonsense.

KTHXBYE.

No, you just can't produce studies that don't exist - wrap it up in whatever defensive terminology you want!

FEHNODBFC

FunkyTobias

This was from a well-balanced NIH study.

Did you notice how both groups gained weight after 3 months, despite reporting at least 500 calories less intake than at baseline.

Or that the "low fat" group ended up with a higher % bodyfat than they started.

From the examine.com analysis:
Unfortunately fat mass was measured by bioelectrical impedance, not DEXA or a comparably accurate method. If you own one of those bodyfat-measurement bathroom scales, you know that their large measurement variances makes it hard to draw conclusions. Bioelectrical impedance relies heavily on total body water to calculate fat mass, and low carb diets are known to reduce water weight fairly rapidly which could potentially explain some of the rapid weight loss observed.

From the study I conclude that if you're going to give diet advice to a group of obese women then the low carb version of the advice had a better outcome than the reduce fat version.

The calorie accountants must be struggling to explain it, beyond saying they're all liars or something.

Liars? No.

Inaccurate? Absolutely. Self-reported intake has repeatedly shown to be unreliable.

stevencloser

Can anybody please tell me why the only diets that are being compared in such things are low carb vs. low fat with no sign of a general "normal macronutrient distribution with just lowered calories" diet? Besides, too low dietary fat is said to not be good for your hormones and for micronutrient absorption if I remember correctly.

yarwell

Can anybody please tell me why the only diets that are being compared in such things are low carb vs. low fat with no sign of a general "normal macronutrient distribution with just lowered calories" diet? Besides, too low dietary fat is said to not be good for your hormones and for micronutrient absorption if I remember correctly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23588462 has one arm with a standard composition on a 1,000 cal restriction.

The "just eat less" plan was probably evaluated >50 years ago and merits no new investigation.

RockstarWilson

First, my current diet state: I have struggled for years with huskiness, and was a yoyo dieter after quitting smoking two years ago. I am in my second week of eating keto (although I don't measure my ketones yet). I do not exercise yet as I learn how my body will react to a diet of <10% carbs for the first time in its life.

Water weight is always a concern for losing weight fast. Is it solid weight, or is it release of the water that the body has held on to? I agree, it could be. I can't see it happen so I don't know for sure. I know that each gram of protein is 4 calories, each gram of carbohydrates is 4 calories, and each gram of fat is 9 calories. I know that my body will use the carbohydrates first, as soon as the stomach sends a signal to the brain that "hey, we have carbs here! He needs energy!" I know that my body will take whatever carbohydrates it does not use and converts it to fat (http://www.livestrong.com/article/374068-how-do-carbohydrates-convert-to-fat/), I know there is a law of conservation of energy to adhere to in this process, so the carbs that get stored will still get stored at 4 calories/gram. which will make each gram of carbohydrate get stored at 4/9 gram of fat. With that said...if you eat a bunch of carbs and don't do anything with it, the body will store a lot of it, because the glucose has nowhere to go. I think (this is speculation) that it is why we experience sugar rushes in the office, because we have all this physical energy but nowhere to exert it (such as, using the calories to help the heart, or the muscles operate faster), and when that happens, the glucose has to convert to fat, because the body does not store sugar.

The plateaus happen no matter what diet/weight program you do consistently. The body loses weight and needs less energy to operate. To counter this, you must account for it and increase your workout habits, because that mile you run each day has become an easy task. You need to make it two miles (http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/weight-loss/in-depth/weight-loss-plateau/art-20044615).

Each body is different, We all operate on a different metabolism. Women, when compared with men, typically (typically) need less calories in a day because (typically) they either weigh less or have different body chemistry. Don't ask me how I can eat and use up to 3000 calories in a day, and my girlfriend can only eat up to 2000. Here is a study I found on metabolism. It is quite on the scientific side, so read through it completely before you make opinions upon assumptions: http://www.precisionnutrition.com/muscular-efficiency. Then, take note of that last one, about high fat diets when compared with normal diets.

Even if your total intake is decreasing with your weight, it may not be enough. When you plateau, you may have to increase your workouts drastically! The body is trying to adapt constantly to the change that happens to it. If you get into a pattern with diet and with exercise, it will use the calories more efficiently each and every time

And my last point is (pay attention: this explains ketogenic diets): if the body uses carbohydrates first, and fat second, how do you burn fat on a higher (or normal) carb diet? The science of the ketogenic diet is in its name: keto, short for ketones. these little guys are used for energy too, as they are converted FROM the fat that your body has stored or metabolized. The keto diet stresses greatly that carbs have to be minimal to do this, because the body will not do this when carbs are readily available. And then, it goes back to my second paragraph about micronutrients.

So how do you burn fat when you just consumed carbs to use for that workout? I think the problems with diet comes when people consume fat WITH the carbohydrates, i.e. that burrito from taco bell with 27% ground beef (fat), rice (carbohydrates), and a tortilla (carbohydrates. Complex carbs work in the same way, but they are more efficient, so they are even worse to have before a workout if you want to burn fat, IMO. I could be wrong, of course, as I did not search for an article as a source, but I am just using logic.

Hope yall are having a wonderful day, and welcome to this conversation. I am learning a lot about our chemistry and anatomy!

yarwell

And my last point is (pay attention: this explains ketogenic diets): if the body uses carbohydrates first, and fat second, how do you burn fat on a higher (or normal) carb diet?

The body at rest is always using a mix of fats and carbs for energy, unless you're exercising at a high heart rate when it's only using carbs.

RockstarWilson

do you not exercise at a high heart rate? That is my point, when people exercise, they will ONLY use carbohydrates for energy (including the carbohydrates they ate a couple hours ago). How can you burn fat if you are ONLY using carbs for energy? What about if there are no carbohydrates in the body to use, as is the case for people on ketogenic diets?

yarwell

do you not exercise at a high heart rate? That is my point, when people exercise, they will ONLY use carbohydrates for energy (including the carbohydrates they ate a couple hours ago). How can you burn fat if you are ONLY using carbs for energy? What about if there are no carbohydrates in the body to use, as is the case for people on ketogenic diets?

Depends what you mean by "high". Personally I'm burning fat up to about 130 bpm. So walking I'm using plenty of fat.

Keto adapted people burn fat up to higher heart rates - see Peter Attia's blog for an example. But they still have some blood glucose level and their glycogen reserves are not zero so it's wrong to say there are "no carbohydrates".

parkscs

do you not exercise at a high heart rate? That is my point, when people exercise, they will ONLY use carbohydrates for energy (including the carbohydrates they ate a couple hours ago). How can you burn fat if you are ONLY using carbs for energy? What about if there are no carbohydrates in the body to use, as is the case for people on ketogenic diets?

Anaerobic activity like weight lifting typically needs to be fueled from carbohydrates, but less than a lot of people think. One weekly or biweekly refeed is typically more than enough to prevent you from depleting during a workout even when following a ketogenic diet. Alternatively, some people take in a targeted 30-50g of carbohydrates around their workouts even when following a ketogenic diet to keep their glycogen stores somewhat filled and that's sufficient. For aerobic activity like jogging or elliptical work, your body can primarily sustain the activity from your fat stores, and some people have suggested that your body gets more efficient at doing this and less reliant on carbohydrates once you've adapted to a very low carb diet for a period of time. In short, it depends on the type of activity you're doing. Usually when I do elliptical work (which is rare because I'm lazy and it's boring), I keep my heart rate in the range of 145-155bpm (depending on the song I'm listening to) and I do just fine, even when working out fasted.

RockstarWilson

do you not exercise at a high heart rate? That is my point, when people exercise, they will ONLY use carbohydrates for energy (including the carbohydrates they ate a couple hours ago). How can you burn fat if you are ONLY using carbs for energy? What about if there are no carbohydrates in the body to use, as is the case for people on ketogenic diets?

Depends what you mean by "high". Personally I'm burning fat up to about 130 bpm. So walking I'm using plenty of fat.

Keto adapted people burn fat up to higher heart rates - see Peter Attia's blog for an example. But they still have some blood glucose level and their glycogen reserves are not zero so it's wrong to say there are "no carbohydrates".

By that logic, it would be counterintuitive to eat carbs to go for a low-stress workouts, because you are right: at lower stresses, they body will use fat for energy. At higher stresses, the body will use carbs (http://healthyliving.azcentral.com/fat-burning-vs-carb-burning-during-exercise-over-time-4741.html). So if you are exercising at a low rate, the carbs will get stored, most getting converted to fat, and if you exercise at a higher rate, the body isnt burning fat.

There are no absolutes here. The body will use a certain percentage of fats and carbs, because there are carbs in the bloodstream to use, and little storage of glycogen. But if your body is in Ketogenisis, it has no choice but to use mostly fat cells, or ketones which have been converted to use for energy. Carbs are more efficient for speed, but fats are more consistent for endurance. If you exercise at a high rate, and you do not have a strong supply of glycogen, the body will be FORCED to use fat.

FunkyTobias

None of this is relevant, as it ignores what your body is doing the other 23 hours of the day.

RockstarWilson

Not even close, bro, because if the body uses fat in exercise more consistently at lower heart rates, the same has to be true for the other 23 hours, doesn't it? The body stores most the carbohydrates if you have a sedentary job, if it doesn't have high stress. Construction dudes will use that energy immediately, which is why it is okay for them to down 500 calories of Monster each morning. But that crash is your body switching from carbs to fat. Fat is not as efficent an energy source, so the body will operate slower. But back to carbs...If you don't burn fat at the same rate as you intake the carbohydrates, you gain weight. Keto trains the body to use fat at all times of the day, and there are barely any carbohydrates to use- maybe 2-300 calories per day on any given day, so there is no "storage" of fat from carbs. The only extra source of energy is the food you eat, and if 70% of that is fat, the body uses fat. The protein gets used for organ and muscle maintenance and growth. And people on Keto typically eat less frequently than people with normal carb intake. The fat does keep the body satiated longer. I have experienced the difference.

That is my understanding of it. I don't know it all, but that is how I perceive the information I obtained. If I am wrong, then explain how, but don't just say it is all irrelevant. You don't want to join the conversation, then dont. But if you do, have a take please.

I think where people go wrong, and why they get fat, is because they combine the fat and carbs together. That burger has ketchup, processed cheese (which isnt real cheese, it is just carbs), buns, and whatever else people put on their burger. That is where the problem lies in weight gain. It is the only logical explanation. So, the only proper solution is to go one way or the other. I can say that in the pre-agriculture days, people didn't rely on banana trees, and the fat races (besides the Samoans) often perished (pardon the pun).

FunkyTobias

Not even close, bro, because if the body uses fat in exercise more consistently at lower heart rates, the same has to be true for the other 23 hours, doesn't it? The body stores most the carbohydrates if you have a sedentary job, if it doesn't have high stress. Construction dudes will use that energy immediately, which is why it is okay for them to down 500 calories of Monster each morning. But that crash is your body switching from carbs to fat. Fat is not as efficent an energy source, so the body will operate slower. But back to carbs...If you don't burn fat at the same rate as you intake the carbohydrates, you gain weight. Keto trains the body to use fat at all times of the day, and there are barely any carbohydrates to use- maybe 2-300 calories per day on any given day, so there is no "storage" of fat from carbs. The only extra source of energy is the food you eat, and if 70% of that is fat, the body uses fat. The protein gets used for organ and muscle maintenance and growth.

That is my understanding of it. I don't know it all, but that is how I perceive the information I obtained. If I am wrong, then explain how, but don't just say it is all irrelevant. You don't want to join the conversation, then dont. But if you do, have a take please.

Stop getting your information from low-carb gurus that don't understand basic human physiology


1. Carbs are rarely converted to fat and stored as such
2. When you eat more carbs you burn more carbs and less fat; eat less carbs and you burn less carbs and more fat
3. Protein is basically never going to be converted to fat and stored as such
4. When you eat more protein, you burn more protein (and by extension, less carbs and less fat); eat less protein and you burn less protein (and by extension, more carbs and more fat)
5. Ingested dietary fat is primarily stored, eating more of it doesn’t impact on fat oxidation to a significant degree


http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html

parkscs

None of this is relevant, as it ignores what your body is doing the other 23 hours of the day.

It's relevant to the extent that someone earlier appeared to question how the body can exercise in the absence of carbohydrates. See:

do you not exercise at a high heart rate? That is my point, when people exercise, they will ONLY use carbohydrates for energy (including the carbohydrates they ate a couple hours ago). How can you burn fat if you are ONLY using carbs for energy? What about if there are no carbohydrates in the body to use, as is the case for people on ketogenic diets?

If the body were incapable of burning anything other than carbohydrates for energy, people would be incapable of doing LISS cardio on a low carb diet as they're not ingesting enough carbohydrates to account for the caloric expenditure during those other 23 hours of the day, but we know that's not the case and that many people can do LISS exercise very well on a low carb diet. It's anaerobic activity that becomes tricky, but even then requires fewer carbohydrates than many people think.