If its really about calories then explain to me why.....

Donna_Olsen

Well, I'm loosing! Eating, never hungrig and the food is sooo good! Just read the link why below. I'm never eating junk again (don't feel the urge to anymore either )

http://www.dietdoctor.com/

myofibril

http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf

If you like a low carb diet, it suits your preferences and are successful then that is a great thing.

The metabolic advantage argument though does not stand up to scrutiny as the above link discusses in thorough detail.

Spartan_Maker

http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf

If you like a low carb diet, it suits your preferences and are successful then that is a great thing.

The metabolic advantage argument though does not stand up to scrutiny as the above link discusses in thorough detail.

Given the author's limited definition of "metabolic advantage," it's not surprising he wasted 82-pages stuck in some immaterial rabbit hole.

myofibril

http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf

If you like a low carb diet, it suits your preferences and are successful then that is a great thing.

The metabolic advantage argument though does not stand up to scrutiny as the above link discusses in thorough detail.

Given the author's limited definition of "metabolic advantage," it's not surprising he wasted 82-pages stuck in some immaterial rabbit hole.

How do you scientifically define it?

Spartan_Maker

@mfern123

I define it the way any person with a single functioning brain synapse should: "Any advantage related to the chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life."

ETA: Parenthetically, I read the introduction of that 82-pages of immateriality, and it could've been written in crayon.

myofibril

@mfern123

I define it the way any person with a single functioning brain synapse should: "Any advantage related to the chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life."

And in properly controlled metabolic ward study of isocaloric diets with different macronutrient contents has this "advantage" been shown to provide any statistically significant difference in rates of fat loss?

So, it's advantageous but just not in terms of fat loss - 300 calories worth or not as the case may be.

I can live with that.

Spartan_Maker

@mfern123

I define it the way any person with a single functioning brain synapse should: "Any advantage related to the chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life."

And in properly controlled metabolic ward study of isocaloric diets with different macronutrient contents has this "advantage" been shown to provide any statistically significant difference in rates of fat loss?

So, it's advantageous but just not in terms of fat loss - 300 calories worth or not as the case may be.

I can live with that.

I'm not sure which part of my previous posts don't address all of those issues, but I'll do it again:

1. To my knowledge, there has never been a metabolic ward study comparing fat loss on isocaloric diets between people with serum beta-hydroxybutyrate levels consistently above 1.0 mg/dl and other dieters; and

2. Yes: an 8,400 monthly calorie advantage is far more important than negligible differences in resting energy expenditure on isocaloric diets. That's a huge "metabolic advantage."

myofibril

I'm not sure which part of my previous posts don't address all of those issues, but I'll do it again:

1. To my knowledge, there has never been a metabolic ward study comparing fat loss on isocaloric diets between people with serum beta-hydroxybutyrate levels consistently above 1.0 mg/dl and other dieters; and

So in essence there are none to show the existence of any statistically significant difference in fat loss and it is currently unsupported speculation to assert otherwise

2. Yes: an 8,400 monthly calorie advantage is far more important than negligible differences in resting energy expenditure on isocaloric diets. That's a huge "metabolic advantage."

Given the above, this "metabolic advantage" even if it does exist would not translate into any statistical difference in terms of fat loss if calories and protein are held constant.

Which takes me back full circle to: if you like it and it suits your preferences then do it. if not, you could always try something else...

Spartan_Maker

I'm not sure which part of my previous posts don't address all of those issues, but I'll do it again:

1. To my knowledge, there has never been a metabolic ward study comparing fat loss on isocaloric diets between people with serum beta-hydroxybutyrate levels consistently above 1.0 mg/dl and other dieters; and

So in essence there are none to show the existence of any statistically significant difference in fat loss and it is currently unsupported speculation to assert otherwise

2. Yes: an 8,400 monthly calorie advantage is far more important than negligible differences in resting energy expenditure on isocaloric diets. That's a huge "metabolic advantage."

Given the above, this "metabolic advantage" even if it does exist would not translate into any statistical difference in terms of fat loss if calories and protein are held constant.

Which takes me back full circle to: if you like it and it suits your preferences then do it. if not, you could always try something else...

1. "In essence"? No, by definition: it's called a hypothesis. More to the point, as I've written repeatedly, it's likely to be negligible anyway, so it's not even worth discussing. It's certainly not going to be 300 calories a day, like what I'm discussing.

2. The "metabolic advantage" that I've explained ad nauseum now, is that people on ketogenic diets need to eat 8,400 fewer calories a month. By any measure, that's going to result in a statistically significant difference in fat loss -- approximately 12 lbs. in six months -- assuming both diets were otherwise properly constructed.

I trust we can dispense with the straw men.

neandermagnon

But im asking WHY do low carvers lose so much faster than calorie counters if its the calories that matter so much!

because they lose more water and glycogen, it's not all fat. Low carbers lose the same amount of fat as anyone else who has the same size calorie deficit. Low carb diets result in fat loss because they create a deficit. The amount of fat you lose depends on the deficit. However, if you cut out all carbs, your body's glycogen stores will become depleted, that accounts for a lot of water weight.

so, low carb = fat loss + large water weight losses

counting calories + balanced diet = fat loss + minor waterweight losses

scale weight losses may be more for low carbers, but it's fat loss that counts in terms of both health and what you actually look like. Plus a balanced diet is easier to maintain in the long term.

TeresaAlice1968

There trying to tell you low carb diets cut out sugar that why weight loss is so fast! It's not healthly to eat that way every person i know who has went on low carb diet had extreme weight loss followed by extreme weight gain after going back to normal eating.Most food low in carbs have a very high fat content.SO the reason why their losing so fast is because they are cutting out sugar.

myofibril

1. "In essence"? No, by definition: it's called a hypothesis. More to the point, as I've written repeatedly, it's likely to be negligible anyway, so it's not even worth discussing. It's certainly not going to be 300 calories a day, like what I'm discussing.

2. The "metabolic advantage" that I've explained ad nauseum now, is that people on ketogenic diets need to eat 8,400 fewer calories a month. By any measure, that's going to result in a statistically significant difference in fat loss -- approximately 12 lbs. in six months -- assuming both diets were otherwise properly constructed.

I trust we can dispense with the straw men.

I owe you an apology. It is a straw man but it wasn't deliberate.

Having read the above post I also looked at your first post on this thread (which I hadn't seen when I posted my first one.) I agree with you that ketogenic diets do have certain "metabolic advantages" - not the ability to somehow eat more calories but the ability to spontaneously eat less particularly due to blunting hunger and controlling blood sugar.

Obviously, whether it suitable for the individual will come down to their preferences and their training schedule but yes, it will give an advantage to a number of people.

Spartan_Maker

1. "In essence"? No, by definition: it's called a hypothesis. More to the point, as I've written repeatedly, it's likely to be negligible anyway, so it's not even worth discussing. It's certainly not going to be 300 calories a day, like what I'm discussing.

2. The "metabolic advantage" that I've explained ad nauseum now, is that people on ketogenic diets need to eat 8,400 fewer calories a month. By any measure, that's going to result in a statistically significant difference in fat loss -- approximately 12 lbs. in six months -- assuming both diets were otherwise properly constructed.

I trust we can dispense with the straw men.

I owe you an apology. It is a straw man but it wasn't deliberate.

Having read the above post I also looked at your first post on this thread (which I hadn't seen when I posted my first one.) I agree with you that ketogenic diets do have certain "metabolic advantages" - not the ability to somehow eat more calories but the ability to spontaneously eat less particularly due to blunting hunger and controlling blood sugar.

Obviously, whether it suitable for the individual will come down to their preferences and their training schedule but yes, it will give an advantage to a number of people.

In that case, the apology is mine -- for obvious reasons.

WendyTerry420

People who simply cut calories never produce enough beta-hydroxybutyrate to sufficiently fuel their brains. As a result, they are invariably subject to hypoglycemia and have to eat carbohydrates every time their glycogen runs low.

This makes no sense. "Have to eat carbs" has no business being interpreted as a bad thing. If you want to change your brain chemistry, that's fine, but don't pretend that's what everyone *ought* to be doing. Some of us enjoy getting our energy from carbs.

Spartan_Maker

People who simply cut calories never produce enough beta-hydroxybutyrate to sufficiently fuel their brains. As a result, they are invariably subject to hypoglycemia and have to eat carbohydrates every time their glycogen runs low.

This makes no sense. "Have to eat carbs" has no business being interpreted as a bad thing. If you want to change your brain chemistry, that's fine, but don't pretend that's what everyone *ought* to be doing. Some of us enjoy getting our energy from carbs.

You shouldn't imply things that aren't there. I'm talking about biochemistry.

If your feelings are hurt by basic science, it's not my fault.

tigersword

Spartan_Maker, you keep saying the metabolic advantage is that people on ketogenic diets can eat 300 less calories. How exactly is that a metabolic advantage? That's energy conservation. If I need 2000 calories to maintain weight on a non ketogenic diet, then based on your claim, I'd need 1700 calories to maintain weight on a ketogenic diet. So, holding protein constant, I would eat either 1500 calories on a non ketogenic diet, or 1200 calories on a ketogenic diet, and I'd lose the exact same amount of fat.

A metabolic advantage would mean I could eat the same number of calories on both diets, and lose more fat on the ketogenic diet. Looks like what you are stating is the exact opposite of that.

Also, another part you are leaving out, ketogenic diets are high fat. Gluconeogenesis doesn't burn stored body fat, it just uses the dietary fat you are eating to create ketones instead of carbs to create glucose. You are just substituting one energy source for another. Cut 300 calories from carbs, and add those 300 calories in protein and fat (to hold calories constant) and it doesn't change anything. This is what is meant by "no metabolic advantage."

Cinflo58

Low carbohydrate diets cause the body to go into different metabolic state called ketosis, whereby it burns its own fat for fuel. Normally the body burns carbohydrates for fuel -- this is the main source of fuel for your brain, heart ,and many other organs. A person in ketosis is getting energy from ketones, little carbon fragments that are the fuel created by the breakdown of fat stores. When the body is in ketosis, you tend to feel less hungry, and thus you're likely to eat less than you might otherwise. So these people may actually be eating fewer calories than before.

So it is calories in vs calories out!

mmapags

One of the best things about these kind of threads is they help to easily identify people to put on ignore. :drinker:

Spartan_Maker

Spartan_Maker, you keep saying the metabolic advantage is that people on ketogenic diets can eat 300 less calories. How exactly is that a metabolic advantage? That's energy conservation. If I need 2000 calories to maintain weight on a non ketogenic diet, then based on your claim, I'd need 1700 calories to maintain weight on a ketogenic diet. So, holding protein constant, I would eat either 1500 calories on a non ketogenic diet, or 1200 calories on a ketogenic diet, and I'd lose the exact same amount of fat.

A metabolic advantage would mean I could eat the same number of calories on both diets, and lose more fat on the ketogenic diet. Looks like what you are stating is the exact opposite of that.

Also, another part you are leaving out, ketogenic diets are high fat. Gluconeogenesis doesn't burn stored body fat, it just uses the dietary fat you are eating to create ketones instead of carbs to create glucose. You are just substituting one energy source for another. Cut 300 calories from carbs, and add those 300 calories in protein and fat (to hold calories constant) and it doesn't change anything. This is what is meant by "no metabolic advantage."

I gave my definition of "metabolic advantage" above. I know the conventional definition of it; strike that, I know the limited definition put on it by people who use it opportunistically. You otherwise misunderstood what I wrote.

As for the paragraph beginning with "Also," gluconeogenesis has nothing to do with ketones. It's the process whereby glucose is created from glycerol and sometimes from deanimated protein.

If we both had identical BMRs, but I'm in ketosis, I largely fuel my brain with ketones from body fat and you have to eat 300 calories worth of carbs to get the same energy because your glycogen stores are limited. In this example, I'm producing enough BHB to take care of my brain; you're not.

In other words, I can feed my brain endogenously and you can't because you want to eat your carbs. Consequently, I can eat less, effortlessly, with no hypoglycemia, and reach my goal faster at the same time. This is all most people care about: no one cares about whether there is some negligible increase in resting energy expenditure on competing isocaloric diets.

Acg67

Spartan_Maker, you keep saying the metabolic advantage is that people on ketogenic diets can eat 300 less calories. How exactly is that a metabolic advantage? That's energy conservation. If I need 2000 calories to maintain weight on a non ketogenic diet, then based on your claim, I'd need 1700 calories to maintain weight on a ketogenic diet. So, holding protein constant, I would eat either 1500 calories on a non ketogenic diet, or 1200 calories on a ketogenic diet, and I'd lose the exact same amount of fat.

A metabolic advantage would mean I could eat the same number of calories on both diets, and lose more fat on the ketogenic diet. Looks like what you are stating is the exact opposite of that.

Also, another part you are leaving out, ketogenic diets are high fat. Gluconeogenesis doesn't burn stored body fat, it just uses the dietary fat you are eating to create ketones instead of carbs to create glucose. You are just substituting one energy source for another. Cut 300 calories from carbs, and add those 300 calories in protein and fat (to hold calories constant) and it doesn't change anything. This is what is meant by "no metabolic advantage."

I gave my definition of "metabolic advantage" above. I know the conventional definition of it; strike that, I know the limited definition put on it by people who use it opportunistically. You otherwise misunderstood what I wrote.

As for the paragraph beginning with "Also," gluconeogenesis has nothing to do with ketones. It's the process whereby glucose is created from glycerol and sometimes from deanimated protein.

If we both had identical BMRs, but I'm in ketosis, I largely fuel my brain with ketones from body fat and you have to eat 300 calories worth of carbs to get the same energy because your glycogen stores are limited. In this example, I'm producing enough BHB to take care of my brain; you're not.

In other words, I can feed my brain endogenously and you can't because you want to eat your carbs. Consequently, I can eat less, effortlessly, with no hypoglycemia, and reach my goal faster at the same time. This is all most people care about: no one cares about whether there is some negligible increase in resting energy expenditure on competing isocaloric diets.

You could reach your lower bf goal at the same rate if you ate more carbs and held protein and cals constant with your low carb/keto diet. Thus more flexibility with your diet and better adherence which is what really counts. The more restrictive the diet, the worse the adherence