What will make you fatter...?
Replies
-
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance, which if there was a metabolic advantage would now be common knowledge based on those studies.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.0 -
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?0 -
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?0 -
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?0 -
Battle of the studies.0
-
What do you mean by increased energy expenditure?
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?0 -
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?
Did you look at figure 2 on the increases in EE between the 2 diets?0 -
Let's assume you are currently maintaining on 2,000 calories a day .......
already disqualified.0 -
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?
Did you look at figure 2 on the increases in EE between the 2 diets?
This whole study is nonsense to me simply because there is at least 250g of carbs. You using this as evidence of no metabolic advantage must be based on a false premise that fat storage/EE is somehow linear with the amount of carbs vs. fat. Hence I think having a high base amount of carbs is going to invalidate the results when it comes to the metabolic advantage between a high and low carb diet (or in this case overfeeding).
I'm not saying there is a metabolic advantage, but I'm not buying this study as prove against it either.0 -
What do you mean by increased energy expenditure?
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?
Basically that they may do more activity because the diet might motivate them in subtle ways because they feel more energized. In other words they aren't chronically hungry anymore because their body in one way or another thinks its starving. Instead of wanting to eat, they want to be active.0 -
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?
Did you look at figure 2 on the increases in EE between the 2 diets?
This whole study is nonsense to me simply because there is at least 250g of carbs. You using this as evidence of no metabolic advantage must be based on a false premise that fat storage/EE is somehow linear with the amount of carbs vs. fat. Hence I think having a high base amount of carbs is going to invalidate the results when it comes to the metabolic advantage between a high and low carb diet (or in this case overfeeding).
Woah slugger, where did you get the idea this was to debunk metabolic advantage? I've already done that with weight loss studies.
But did you not find it interesting that despite the greater CHO in the CHO overfeeding diet and therefore more insulin, there wasn't a significant amount more fat gained by the high CHO diet?0 -
if i eat more cals than what is good for my maintenance... and do not exercise more... i will gain...no matter what the food.... plain n simple.0
-
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?
Did you look at figure 2 on the increases in EE between the 2 diets?
This whole study is nonsense to me simply because there is at least 250g of carbs. You using this as evidence of no metabolic advantage must be based on a false premise that fat storage/EE is somehow linear with the amount of carbs vs. fat. Hence I think having a high base amount of carbs is going to invalidate the results when it comes to the metabolic advantage between a high and low carb diet (or in this case overfeeding).
Woah slugger, where did you get the idea this was to debunk metabolic advantage? I've already done that with weight loss studies.
But did you not find it interesting that despite the greater CHO in the CHO overfeeding diet and therefore more insulin, there wasn't a significant amount more fat gained by the high CHO diet?
I don't think weight loss and weight gain are necessarily equal as it pertains to fat storage and EE. I will agree its unlikely that there is a true metabolic advantage in weight loss, but I remain unconvinced that its not possible as it pertains to weight gain. That is why I want an overfeeding study on keto vs. non-keto.
I already know that the concept of DNL is misused by many low-carbers. I don't think there is a linear relationship between CHO, insulin, and subsequent fat storage and EE either. I think once CHO is high enough, then a disordered body becomes a fat storing machine and dietary fat pours right into the adipose tissue and EE doesn't compensate enough to overcome that.0 -
I would go with either because excess carbs convert to fat. I personally consume more carbs than fat so that's where I would get in trouble.0
-
I guess if you eat 1000 calories, you eat 1000 calories. I don't think it matters.
Changed my mind:
But, if you were eating less than 20g of carbs a day, you would lose weight if you ate the 1000 additional calories of just fat. Been there, done that. Dr Adkins
I'm not sure you understood the original question, you'd be eating in a surplus. So even if you were consuming 20g of carbs a day, do you still think you'd lose weight consuming 1,000 cals over your maintenance requirement
Yes, it's the premise of Dr Adkins' diet. As long as you keep your carbs to less than 20g, you can eat thousands and thousands of calories of meat and fat and you will still lose weight. I did it years ago and lost 30 pounds in about 6 weeks. Your body needs sugar (carbs) to metabolize protein and fat, so your body does not recognize the protein and fat as useable nutrition and ignores it. Now, if you eat more than 20 grams of carbs a day, you would be in big trouble. You would gain weight very rapidly. You must, diligently, account for every single carb that you consume.
First, it is DR ATKINS, not Adkins.
Secondly, who told you that your body ignores the protein and fat as usable nutrition? It gets digested the same as carbs when it hits the stomach.
Also, I have successfully lost weight on The Atkins nutritonal approach going through all 4 phases and add in the foods according to the carb ladder and I continued losing weight and then went on to maintenance.
The only people that gain weight back rapidly are those that do the induction (20 grams of carbs) for a time period and then REVERT back to their old eating habits. That holds to be true with any eating plan when you return to your old habits.0 -
Wishful low carb advatage thinking....who are these exercise subjects, which exercises, what duration, what intensity, which foods, what kinf od study controls......assumptions and advantages are abound in every single promoted diet out there....low carb is no different, a more popular one recently and mostly based on how it helps people from overeating and of course the theories are amuck on the why.......no secret there, it's the increased protein compared to the popular SAD diet. Once protein is increased there are no studies showing keto diet are superior and if there was, like I said, the studies would ave beared that out.
What do you mean by increased energy expenditure?
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?
Basically that they may do more activity because the diet might motivate them in subtle ways because they feel more energized. In other words they aren't chronically hungry anymore because their body in one way or another thinks its starving. Instead of wanting to eat, they want to be active.0 -
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?
Did you look at figure 2 on the increases in EE between the 2 diets?
This whole study is nonsense to me simply because there is at least 250g of carbs. You using this as evidence of no metabolic advantage must be based on a false premise that fat storage/EE is somehow linear with the amount of carbs vs. fat. Hence I think having a high base amount of carbs is going to invalidate the results when it comes to the metabolic advantage between a high and low carb diet (or in this case overfeeding).
Woah slugger, where did you get the idea this was to debunk metabolic advantage? I've already done that with weight loss studies.
But did you not find it interesting that despite the greater CHO in the CHO overfeeding diet and therefore more insulin, there wasn't a significant amount more fat gained by the high CHO diet?
I did. It confirms my belief and many others that the tracking of calories is more important than restricting yourself on carbs that you need for fuel.0 -
Wishful low carb advatage thinking....who are these exercise subjects, which exercises, what duration, what intensity, which foods, what kinf od study controls......assumptions and advantages are abound in every single promoted diet out there....low carb is no different, a more popular one recently and mostly based on how it helps people from overeating and of course the theories are amuck on the why.......no secret there, it's the increased protein compared to the popular SAD diet. Once protein is increased there are no studies showing keto diet are superior and if there was, like I said, the studies would ave beared that out.
What do you mean by increased energy expenditure?
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?
Basically that they may do more activity because the diet might motivate them in subtle ways because they feel more energized. In other words they aren't chronically hungry anymore because their body in one way or another thinks its starving. Instead of wanting to eat, they want to be active.
If body fat mass is regulated (which we know it is) and stays consistent over a long period of time, why does protein intake make a difference? Are you suggesting that dieters who have success doing low-carb only gain weight off the diet because they automatically reduce protein? If that is the case, what is special about protein? Why does this throw off the body's set point over the long term?0 -
But did you not find it interesting that despite the greater CHO in the CHO overfeeding diet and therefore more insulin, there wasn't a significant amount more fat gained by the high CHO diet?
What I found interesting is that CHO led to more increased EE, but the net result was equivalent fat gain. Does this mean the CHO eater expended more energy but also gained the same amount of weight as the fat eater?0 -
It's about calories, not protein as far as weight gain/loss is concerned and I don't believe in set points.
Wishful low carb advatage thinking....who are these exercise subjects, which exercises, what duration, what intensity, which foods, what kinf od study controls......assumptions and advantages are abound in every single promoted diet out there....low carb is no different, a more popular one recently and mostly based on how it helps people from overeating and of course the theories are amuck on the why.......no secret there, it's the increased protein compared to the popular SAD diet. Once protein is increased there are no studies showing keto diet are superior and if there was, like I said, the studies would ave beared that out.
What do you mean by increased energy expenditure?
That you appear to believe a low carb diet does have a metabolic advantage.
That's something you should have at the ready, considering your stance.Are there any studies comparing overfeeding between a high carb diet and ketogenic diet? I think this would be the nail in the coffin of the metabolic advantage.
And what stance is that?
Not really. I think in an ad lib environment, I think energy expenditure may increase naturally in some individuals when adopting a low-carb diet.
But I don't think this study demonstrates either way whether there is or isn't.
Anyways do you know of any studies comparing keto vs. non-keto? Do they exist?
Basically that they may do more activity because the diet might motivate them in subtle ways because they feel more energized. In other words they aren't chronically hungry anymore because their body in one way or another thinks its starving. Instead of wanting to eat, they want to be active.
If body fat mass is regulated (which we know it is) and stays consistent over a long period of time, why does protein intake make a difference? Are you suggesting that dieters who have success doing low-carb only gain weight off the diet because they automatically reduce protein? If that is the case, what is special about protein? Why does this throw off the body's set point over the long term?0 -
Somebody got butthurt: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/552262-this-guy-just-love-to-start-things0
-
It's about calories, not protein as far as weight gain/loss is concerned and I don't believe in set points.
If body fat mass is regulated (which we know it is) and stays consistent over a long period of time, why does protein intake make a difference? Are you suggesting that dieters who have success doing low-carb only gain weight off the diet because they automatically reduce protein? If that is the case, what is special about protein? Why does this throw off the body's set point over the long term?
If you don't believe in set points, then there is no reason for us to discuss this any further with you, however I'll further discuss with you the interpretation of the results of this study.0 -
I guess if you eat 1000 calories, you eat 1000 calories. I don't think it matters.
Changed my mind:
But, if you were eating less than 20g of carbs a day, you would lose weight if you ate the 1000 additional calories of just fat. Been there, done that. Dr Adkins
I'm not sure you understood the original question, you'd be eating in a surplus. So even if you were consuming 20g of carbs a day, do you still think you'd lose weight consuming 1,000 cals over your maintenance requirement
Yes, it's the premise of Dr Adkins' diet. As long as you keep your carbs to less than 20g, you can eat thousands and thousands of calories of meat and fat and you will still lose weight. I did it years ago and lost 30 pounds in about 6 weeks. Your body needs sugar (carbs) to metabolize protein and fat, so your body does not recognize the protein and fat as useable nutrition and ignores it. Now, if you eat more than 20 grams of carbs a day, you would be in big trouble. You would gain weight very rapidly. You must, diligently, account for every single carb that you consume.
First, it is DR ATKINS, not Adkins.
Secondly, who told you that your body ignores the protein and fat as usable nutrition? It gets digested the same as carbs when it hits the stomach.
Also, I have successfully lost weight on The Atkins nutritonal approach going through all 4 phases and add in the foods according to the carb ladder and I continued losing weight and then went on to maintenance.
The only people that gain weight back rapidly are those that do the induction (20 grams of carbs) for a time period and then REVERT back to their old eating habits. That holds to be true with any eating plan when you return to your old habits.
I agree with you on some points.. like I don't know why I would spell Adkins when I know it's Atkins (and I did it more than once), but other points, I totally disagree. Another I agree with is when people revert back to old eating habits they gain weight back. That's not news to most people here, because most people here, trying to lose weight, are not on their "first" (or even second) weight loss attempt. Why people gain back the weight they lost varies, some grossly overeat and some don't get exercise, and some it's a little of both. I detect a little "judgement poke" in your last sentence. For me; I would never have been in the up-down cycle if it weren't for a 5-foot fall off a ladder which all but broke my back and, at times, my emotional resolve to continue to eat healthy. I won't debate how Atkins works, but when your body is in ketosis, it uses its own fat for energy. Of course your body digests it, I didn't say othewise. I said the body doesn't use it like it would if you ate high carbs as well as high protein/fat. Your scientific quotes and "quizzes" are up for debate, no matter which side you are promoting.0 -
But did you not find it interesting that despite the greater CHO in the CHO overfeeding diet and therefore more insulin, there wasn't a significant amount more fat gained by the high CHO diet?
What I found interesting is that CHO led to more increased EE, but the net result was equivalent fat gain. Does this mean the CHO eater expended more energy but also gained the same amount of weight as the fat eater?
Here's another one that dealt with overfeeding
Lammert O, et al. Effects of isoenergetic overfeeding of either carbohydrate or fat in young men. British Journal of Nutrition, 2000; 84: 233-245.
http://cnr.berkeley.edu/hellerstein-lab/pdfs/grunnet.pdf0 -
The extra calories would make you fatter...no matter where they come from.0
-
But did you not find it interesting that despite the greater CHO in the CHO overfeeding diet and therefore more insulin, there wasn't a significant amount more fat gained by the high CHO diet?
What I found interesting is that CHO led to more increased EE, but the net result was equivalent fat gain. Does this mean the CHO eater expended more energy but also gained the same amount of weight as the fat eater?
Here's another one that dealt with overfeeding
Lammert O, et al. Effects of isoenergetic overfeeding of either carbohydrate or fat in young men. British Journal of Nutrition, 2000; 84: 233-245.
http://cnr.berkeley.edu/hellerstein-lab/pdfs/grunnet.pdf
But dude what am I missing on this? Why does it say there was more storage from overefeeding of fat, but at the same time they say the weight gain was the same among both?0 -
Somebody got butthurt: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/552262-this-guy-just-love-to-start-things
they should start a haters group0 -
I think the carbs will make you fatter. I think this because your body works harder to burn fat and not as hard to burn protein. Harder than both to burn protein...0
-
It depends on who you are; how active you are; how much metabolic damage is in your body; your genetics and your parents genetics; the quality of the food you eating.
the question cannot be answered because there really is no correct answer. It depends entirely on the individual.
It doesn't matter how active you are.
It doesn't matter how much "metabolic damage" is in your body.
And it CERTAINLY doesn't matter about the quality of food you are eating. (OMG)
Carbs RARELY get transformed into fat. (De Novo Lipogenesis)0 -
1000 calories is 1000 calories..eat 1000 caloies over what you should have (what you use) for 7 days 1000x7=7000/3500=2 you will gain 2 lbs of fat....period.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions