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

UsedToBeHusky

The more restrictive the diet, the worse the adherence

QFT!

tigersword

show previous quotes

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're right, I misspoke. I should have said lipolysis, not gluconeogenesis. I have to say, you're not making any sense. You're making some really weird assumptions that are completely illogical. Why would I need to eat an extra 300 calories? If we have the same BMR, we would have to eat the same number of calories to lose the same amount of weight. If I eat 300 calories less, but eat lower fat instead of lower carb, then my brain would be fueled by the glucose from the carbs, like your brain would be fueled by ketones.

Your entire argument is that if you eat less calories, you will lose more fat. Well no crap, if anyone eats less calories, they will lose more fat. As for hypoglycemia, only a diabetic person would have to worry about that. Otherwise, hypoglycemia generally doesn't happen, due to both lipolysis and gluconeogenesis (gluconeogenesis is specifically used to prevent hypoglycemia and maintain blood glucose stability.)

It really makes no difference if you eat carbs or not, unless you have a specific medical condition that requires it.

nellyett

Still wondering WHY if its calories in calories out that matter!! Why they are able to lose soo much faster??

I've done low carb, low cal, low whatever.....I actually found that after the first few days on low carb, I felt great and had lots of energy. I can't do that anymore because I find that I binge on carbs the second I go off it and gain everything I lost back.

To answer your question....I believe that when you are eating low carb, you ARE eating at a calorie deficit. Have you asked her what she is eating in a day and adding that calories up to see where she's at? Protein and Fat will satiate you much quicker than carbohydrates...especially if they are processed or sugary.

I found that after 2 weeks my weight loss would stall even though I was still in a 'fat burning' ketosis state. After that, I would be eating more to compensate for feeling deprived, therefore eliminating my calorie deficit. I felt good though. Not bloated and tired like I do when I eat a heavy carb meal. But, The only thing that has truly worked for me long term without feeling deprived has been a MODERATE calorie deficit with exercise.

I eat chocolate, I drink wine, and I'm not obsessed with weightloss anymore. I set my goals and trust the process.

Spartan_Maker

show previous quotes

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're right, I misspoke. I should have said lipolysis, not gluconeogenesis. I have to say, you're not making any sense. You're making some really weird assumptions that are completely illogical. Why would I need to eat an extra 300 calories? If we have the same BMR, we would have to eat the same number of calories to lose the same amount of weight. If I eat 300 calories less, but eat lower fat instead of lower carb, then my brain would be fueled by the glucose from the carbs, like your brain would be fueled by ketones.

Your entire argument is that if you eat less calories, you will lose more fat. Well no crap, if anyone eats less calories, they will lose more fat. As for hypoglycemia, only a diabetic person would have to worry about that. Otherwise, hypoglycemia generally doesn't happen, due to both lipolysis and gluconeogenesis (gluconeogenesis is specifically used to prevent hypoglycemia and maintain blood glucose stability.)

It really makes no difference if you eat carbs or not, unless you have a specific medical condition that requires it.

You wrote: "Your entire argument is that if you eat less calories, you will lose more fat. Well, no crap ...."

Yes, that is the entire point, particularly for someone, like you, who argues that calories are what matters, not macronutrient percentages; however, you still don't seem to get it. You can't endogenously come up with 400 calories of glucose each day through gluconeogenesis for the purpose of fueling your brain. You'd go into ketosis long before that would happen. People in ketosis, however, can endogenously come up with 300 calories of BHB. If you didn't eat, how long do you think those glycogen stores would last in your muscle and liver before you were passed out on the floor? Your BHB levels will never get high enough while eating 100 grams or more of carbs to be able to take care of your brain. You're going to have to eat some carbs. I don't need to eat any dietary fat. I can use the fat on my body.

Simply put, just because you're burning fatty acids doesn't mean that you're producing enough BHB to take care of your brain. Therefore, you're going to have to feed your brain with carbs. A person in ketosis doesn't need to eat anything to keep the lights on.

Spartan_Maker

show previous quotes

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

This is reductionist thinking at its worst. First, it assumes that compliance is dependent on eating a greater variety of food rather than whether it's physiologically/biochemically easier. Second, a person wouldn't reach his or her goal at the same rate if he or she was required to eat more calories each day as a result of BHB levels not being high enough to fuel the brain. The brain can't be fueled by fatty acids. It can only be fueled by glucose or BHB + glucose. The body can't and won't sit around deanimating protein all day long when glycogen stores are emply. As I wrote above, how long do you expect glycogen stores to last in the absence of food?

WendyTerry420

show previous quotes

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.

It's a matter of reason, not feelings. :flowerforyou:

Acg67

show previous quotes

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

This is reductionist thinking at its worst. First, it assumes that compliance is dependent on eating a greater variety of food rather than whether it's physiologically/biochemically easier. Second, a person wouldn't reach his or her goal at the same rate if he or she was required to eat more calories each day as a result of BHB levels not being high enough to fuel the brain. The brain can't be fueled by fatty acids. It can only be fueled by glucose or BHB + glucose. The body can't and won't sit around deanimating protein all day long when glycogen stores are emply. As I wrote above, how long do you expect glycogen stores to last in the absence of food?

First why would someone have to eat more cals each day, we aren't talking about starvation diets. A moderate deficit to your TDEE is all that is needed, in that case holding cals and protein constant it doesn't much matter if you go low or high carb. Is your avg person depleting glycogen stores? And once again who cares about how long they'd last in the absence of food, most people are eating everyday and not performing activities that would totally deplete their glycogen anyways

WendyTerry420

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

:drinker:

UsedToBeHusky

And once again who cares about how long they'd last in the absence of food, most people are eating everyday and not performing activities that would totally deplete their glycogen anyways

QFT again. Only professional athletes like marathon runners and cyclists have to concern themselves with the complete loss of glycogen.

jaygreen55

Still wondering WHY if its calories in calories out that matter!! Why they are able to lose soo much faster??

A lot of that weight is water weight. . Low carb diets, especially if ketosis is involved are very dehydrating

michelle_00

All I want to know is WHY they (low carbers) lose at such a faster rate than calorie counters? That's it! Not opinions (with all due respect)

Obviously you are going to get opinions when you ask a question on here ?

They are eating at a calorie deficit, a large one to lose weight fast. If they are losing 2 lbs per week, they are eating 1000 calories under their TDEE per day. If they are losing 3 lbs per week, 1500 calories under/day

Spartan_Maker

show previous quotes

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

This is reductionist thinking at its worst. First, it assumes that compliance is dependent on eating a greater variety of food rather than whether it's physiologically/biochemically easier. Second, a person wouldn't reach his or her goal at the same rate if he or she was required to eat more calories each day as a result of BHB levels not being high enough to fuel the brain. The brain can't be fueled by fatty acids. It can only be fueled by glucose or BHB + glucose. The body can't and won't sit around deanimating protein all day long when glycogen stores are emply. As I wrote above, how long do you expect glycogen stores to last in the absence of food?

First why would someone have to eat more cals each day, we aren't talking about starvation diets. A moderate deficit to your TDEE is all that is needed, in that case holding cals and protein constant it doesn't much matter if you go low or high carb. Is your avg person depleting glycogen stores? And once again who cares about how long they'd last in the absence of food, most people are eating everyday and not performing activities that would totally deplete their glycogen anyways

No one is talking about a "starvation diet." The point is that a person on a ketogenic diet can more easily maintain an aggressive calorie deficit with very little consequence.

WendyTerry420

show previous quotes

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

This is reductionist thinking at its worst. First, it assumes that compliance is dependent on eating a greater variety of food rather than whether it's physiologically/biochemically easier. Second, a person wouldn't reach his or her goal at the same rate if he or she was required to eat more calories each day as a result of BHB levels not being high enough to fuel the brain. The brain can't be fueled by fatty acids. It can only be fueled by glucose or BHB + glucose. The body can't and won't sit around deanimating protein all day long when glycogen stores are emply. As I wrote above, how long do you expect glycogen stores to last in the absence of food?

First why would someone have to eat more cals each day, we aren't talking about starvation diets. A moderate deficit to your TDEE is all that is needed, in that case holding cals and protein constant it doesn't much matter if you go low or high carb. Is your avg person depleting glycogen stores? And once again who cares about how long they'd last in the absence of food, most people are eating everyday and not performing activities that would totally deplete their glycogen anyways

No one is talking about a "starvation diet." The point is that a person on a ketogenic diet can more easily maintain an aggressive calorie deficit with very little consequence.

Again, you have lost sight of reason. Most people adhere better to a diet that includes their preferences than to a diet that restricts food that they find enjoyable.

Spartan_Maker

show previous quotes

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

This is reductionist thinking at its worst. First, it assumes that compliance is dependent on eating a greater variety of food rather than whether it's physiologically/biochemically easier. Second, a person wouldn't reach his or her goal at the same rate if he or she was required to eat more calories each day as a result of BHB levels not being high enough to fuel the brain. The brain can't be fueled by fatty acids. It can only be fueled by glucose or BHB + glucose. The body can't and won't sit around deanimating protein all day long when glycogen stores are emply. As I wrote above, how long do you expect glycogen stores to last in the absence of food?

First why would someone have to eat more cals each day, we aren't talking about starvation diets. A moderate deficit to your TDEE is all that is needed, in that case holding cals and protein constant it doesn't much matter if you go low or high carb. Is your avg person depleting glycogen stores? And once again who cares about how long they'd last in the absence of food, most people are eating everyday and not performing activities that would totally deplete their glycogen anyways

No one is talking about a "starvation diet." The point is that a person on a ketogenic diet can more easily maintain an aggressive calorie deficit with very little consequence.

Again, you have lost sight of reason. Most people adhere better to a diet that includes their preferences than to a diet that restricts food that they find enjoyable.

That's rich. Literally, every single one of your posts has been a non-sequitur.

joleenl

Now I know I'm openning a can of worms here.

Some people lose weight from a carb reduction because of disorder, disease, or hormone inbalance. An example is PCOS, on low carb diets, PCOS people have more success losing weight. This is because the PCOS people's bodies don't process carbs as engery very well. I suspect that there are many other diseases, disorders, and/or hormone inbalances that do the same. There are many people that are not diagnosed too. I recommend anyone who truly does everything they can right and doesn't lose wieght to see a doctor, to see if prehaps there is a medical reason why.

Spartan_Maker

Now I know I'm openning a can of worms here.

Some people lose weight from a carb reduction because of disorder, disease, or hormone inbalance. An example is PCOS, on low carb diets, PCOS people have more success losing weight. This is because the PCOS people's bodies don't process carbs as engery very well. I suspect that there are many other diseases, disorders, and/or hormone inbalances that do the same. There are many people that are not diagnosed too. I recommend anyone who truly does everything they can right and doesn't lose wieght to see a doctor, to see if prehaps there is a medical reason why.

Reactive hypoglycemia is another. Lots of people suffer from it and don't even know it.

BelenB123

l

lizziebeth1028

Still wondering WHY if its calories in calories out that matter!! Why they are able to lose soo much faster??

I think a lot of people on low carb diets or other diets where they are restrictive with certain food groups are eating in a calorie deficit....hence the weight loss. Maybe they are not counting calories...but at the end of the day they're probably netting a huge deficit.

lightdiva1

Low carb diets don't work for everyone. It is important to state that. What works for one, doesn't work another. I love carbs, and well going without them or really restricting them would make changing my life style to one that is healthy unreasonable and I would fail. My husband has no issues. He would rather eat chicken and fish than anything else. I would rather have pasta.

Also, I tried a high protein low carb diet once.... After 2 weeks yes I had lost about 7 pounds, but I also feinted while holding my little girl. Luckily I didn't hurt my baby, but I did break my ankle, and elbow. At the hospital I was I need to eat more carbs. So it is important before starting any restrictive diet to see a physician. I should have, but didn't and paid the price.

WendyTerry420

That's rich. Literally, every single one of your posts has been a non-sequitur.

Maybe it seems that way to you because of your aforementioned struggles. :laugh:

LiftAllThePizzas

No one is talking about a "starvation diet." The point is that a person on a ketogenic diet can more easily maintain an aggressive calorie deficit with very little consequence.

I consider losing half my intelligence and not enjoying the vast majority of my favorite foods ever again to be significant consequences.

Spartan_Maker

show previous quotes

That's rich. Literally, every single one of your posts has been a non-sequitur.

Maybe it seems that way to you because of your aforementioned struggles. :laugh:

I figure if I hang out here long enough, I too will become a wizard:

1. 50% of calories from carbs;
2. Calorie deficits and resulting lipolysis rivaling that of the ketogenics without much, if any, glycolytic activity; and
3. No de novo lipogenesis.

Spartan_Maker

show previous quotes

No one is talking about a "starvation diet." The point is that a person on a ketogenic diet can more easily maintain an aggressive calorie deficit with very little consequence.

I consider losing half my intelligence and not enjoying the vast majority of my favorite foods ever again to be significant consequences.

All of which has as much to do with the biochemical and evolutionary basis of ketogenic diets as knowing your favorite football team. I'm pretty sure principles of natural selection wouldn't have led to the ketogenic diet as our way to survive every famine in human history if it decreased your intelligence. On the contrary, the benefit of it is that it keeps the brain on all day long, thereby having allowed our ancestors to have a heightened level of consciousness during the most difficult of times.

What's hopelessly obnoxious, though, is how some people believe that people on ketogenic diets don't have any cultural attachment to carbohydrates and that their nutritional protocol couldn't possibly be part of a lifestyle change.

LiftAllThePizzas

show previous quotes

No one is talking about a "starvation diet." The point is that a person on a ketogenic diet can more easily maintain an aggressive calorie deficit with very little consequence.

I consider losing half my intelligence and not enjoying the vast majority of my favorite foods ever again to be significant consequences.

All of which has as much to do with the biochemical and evolutionary basis of ketogenic diets as knowing your favorite football team. I'm pretty sure principles of natural selection wouldn't have led to the ketogenic diet as our way to survive every famine in human history if it decreased your intelligence. On the contrary, the benefit of it is that it keeps the brain on all day long, thereby having allowed our ancestors to have a heightened level of consciousness during the most difficult of times.

Don't care. It's a fact. It makes me stupid. That's not a hypothesis it's observed reality. I'm certain my ancestors didn't live in the same environment I do.

What's hopelessly obnoxious, though, is how some people believe that people on ketogenic diets don't have any cultural attachment to carbohydrates and that their nutritional protocol couldn't possibly be part of a lifestyle change.

I don't really care whether it's cultural or not. What I care about is enjoying my life, part of which involves eating foods I like. What's hopelessly obnoxious is suggesting I should want to change my lifestyle to something I don't enjoy, not for my own benefit, but so that you can feel like you won an argument on the internet.

Spartan_Maker

show previous quotes

No one is talking about a "starvation diet." The point is that a person on a ketogenic diet can more easily maintain an aggressive calorie deficit with very little consequence.

I consider losing half my intelligence and not enjoying the vast majority of my favorite foods ever again to be significant consequences.

All of which has as much to do with the biochemical and evolutionary basis of ketogenic diets as knowing your favorite football team. I'm pretty sure principles of natural selection wouldn't have led to the ketogenic diet as our way to survive every famine in human history if it decreased your intelligence. On the contrary, the benefit of it is that it keeps the brain on all day long, thereby having allowed our ancestors to have a heightened level of consciousness during the most difficult of times.

Don't care. It's a fact. It makes me stupid. That's not a hypothesis it's observed reality. I'm certain my ancestors didn't live in the same environment I do.

show previous quotes

What's hopelessly obnoxious, though, is how some people believe that people on ketogenic diets don't have any cultural attachment to carbohydrates and that their nutritional protocol couldn't possibly be part of a lifestyle change.

I don't really care whether it's cultural or not. What I care about is enjoying my life, part of which involves eating foods I like. What's hopelessly obnoxious is suggesting I should want to change my lifestyle to something I don't enjoy, not for my own benefit, but so that you can feel like you won an argument on the internet.

Nobody is suggesting that you should do anything. What's obnoxious is thinking this is about you. It's a thread discussing basic science and you, and a few others, have interjected your anecdotes and food preferences, for whatever reason.

Even those in this thread who don't believe there is any particular advantage to a ketogenic diet haven't been evangelical regarding what other people should do. I certainly couldn't care less what you do.

What I can say is that most people who fail at a ketogenic diet have no idea how to properly set it up.

LiftAllThePizzas

show previous quotes

No one is talking about a "starvation diet." The point is that a person on a ketogenic diet can more easily maintain an aggressive calorie deficit with very little consequence.

I consider losing half my intelligence and not enjoying the vast majority of my favorite foods ever again to be significant consequences.

All of which has as much to do with the biochemical and evolutionary basis of ketogenic diets as knowing your favorite football team. I'm pretty sure principles of natural selection wouldn't have led to the ketogenic diet as our way to survive every famine in human history if it decreased your intelligence. On the contrary, the benefit of it is that it keeps the brain on all day long, thereby having allowed our ancestors to have a heightened level of consciousness during the most difficult of times.

Don't care. It's a fact. It makes me stupid. That's not a hypothesis it's observed reality. I'm certain my ancestors didn't live in the same environment I do.

What's hopelessly obnoxious, though, is how some people believe that people on ketogenic diets don't have any cultural attachment to carbohydrates and that their nutritional protocol couldn't possibly be part of a lifestyle change.

I don't really care whether it's cultural or not. What I care about is enjoying my life, part of which involves eating foods I like. What's hopelessly obnoxious is suggesting I should want to change my lifestyle to something I don't enjoy, not for my own benefit, but so that you can feel like you won an argument on the internet.

Nobody is suggesting that you should do anything. What's obnoxious is thinking this is about you. It's a thread discussing basic science and you, and a few others, have interjected your anecdotes and food preferences, for whatever reason.

Even those in this thread who don't believe there is any particular advantage to a ketogenic diet haven't been evangelical regarding what other people should do. I certainly couldn't care less what you do.

You're still missing the point. The purpose of a diet is what? Fat loss -> good health -> happiness. Ultimately it's about quality of life. If sticking to a diet makes people miserable, it is not fulfilling its purpose. In order for a diet to be 'good' it must make someone healthy AND happy. A ketogenic diet may do the former, but the latter is not universal.

Spartan_Maker

show previous quotes

No one is talking about a "starvation diet." The point is that a person on a ketogenic diet can more easily maintain an aggressive calorie deficit with very little consequence.

I consider losing half my intelligence and not enjoying the vast majority of my favorite foods ever again to be significant consequences.

All of which has as much to do with the biochemical and evolutionary basis of ketogenic diets as knowing your favorite football team. I'm pretty sure principles of natural selection wouldn't have led to the ketogenic diet as our way to survive every famine in human history if it decreased your intelligence. On the contrary, the benefit of it is that it keeps the brain on all day long, thereby having allowed our ancestors to have a heightened level of consciousness during the most difficult of times.

Don't care. It's a fact. It makes me stupid. That's not a hypothesis it's observed reality. I'm certain my ancestors didn't live in the same environment I do.

What's hopelessly obnoxious, though, is how some people believe that people on ketogenic diets don't have any cultural attachment to carbohydrates and that their nutritional protocol couldn't possibly be part of a lifestyle change.

I don't really care whether it's cultural or not. What I care about is enjoying my life, part of which involves eating foods I like. What's hopelessly obnoxious is suggesting I should want to change my lifestyle to something I don't enjoy, not for my own benefit, but so that you can feel like you won an argument on the internet.

Nobody is suggesting that you should do anything. What's obnoxious is thinking this is about you. It's a thread discussing basic science and you, and a few others, have interjected your anecdotes and food preferences, for whatever reason.

Even those in this thread who don't believe there is any particular advantage to a ketogenic diet haven't been evangelical regarding what other people should do. I certainly couldn't care less what you do.

You're still missing the point. The purpose of a diet is what? Fat loss -> good health -> happiness. Ultimately it's about quality of life. If sticking to a diet makes people miserable, it is not fulfilling its purpose. In order for a diet to be 'good' it must make someone healthy AND happy. A ketogenic diet may do the former, but the latter is not universal.

I'm not missing any point. The purpose of a "diet" is whatever someone wants it to be. The discussion here was largely centered around "metabolic advantage," as variously defined. I'm happier giving up soft pretzels, pizza, and some other good stuff, but who cares about my autobiography. You shouldn't give up anything that you don't feel like giving up, to belabor the obvious.

tigersword

Spartan_Maker, you keep pushing the ketogenic diet as the way humans evolved. Do you have evidence of that? Because according to the studies I've read, from the archeological records, humans ate a very carb heavy diet. They actually worked out Paleolithic era humans as eating a 50%c/20%p30%f ratio, at about 3000 calories per day. That's about the exact opposite of a ketogenic diet. In fact, the only culture that really ate a ketogenic type diet was the Inuit culture, and they have long been known to have shorter lifespans and higher rates of disease.

Ketosis is an adaptation for short term survival. It's not the optimal way for the body to function. The advantage of human beings is that we are endlessly adaptable to our environments. That's what allows us to survive.

frankp

An excerpt from this article http://www.webmd.com/diet/high-protein-low-carbohydrate-diets

"How Do Low-Carb Diets Work?

By restricting carbohydrates drastically to a mere fraction of that found in the typical American diet, the body goes into a 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. However, ketosis can also cause health problems, such as kidney failure (see below).

As a result, your body changes from a carbohydrate-burning engine into a fat-burning engine. So instead of relying on the carbohydrate-rich items you might typically consume for energy, and leaving your fat stores just where they were before (alas, the hips, belly, and thighs), your fat stores become a primary energy source. The purported result is weight loss.

What Are the Risks Linked to High Protein, Low-Carb Diets?

High protein, low-carb diets can cause a number of health problems, including:

Kidney failure. Consuming too much protein puts a strain on the kidneys, which can make a person susceptible to kidney disease.
High cholesterol . It is well known that high-protein diets (consisting of red meat, whole dairy products, and other high fat foods) are linked to high cholesterol. Studies have linked high cholesterol levels to an increased risk of developing heart disease, stroke, and cancer.
Osteoporosis and kidney stones. High-protein diets have also been shown to cause people to excrete a large amount of calcium in their urine. Over a prolonged period of time, this can increase a person's risk of osteoporosis and kidney stones. A diet that increases protein at the expense of a very restrictive intake of plant carbohydrates may be bad for bones, but not necessarily a high-protein intake alone.
Cancer. One of the reasons high-protein diets increase the risks of certain health problems is because of the avoidance of carbohydrate-containing foods and the vitamins, minerals, fiber, and antioxidants they contain. It is therefore important to obtain your protein from a diet rich in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. Not only are your needs for protein being met, but you are also helping to reduce your risk of developing cancer.
Unhealthy metabolic state (ketosis). Low-carb diets can cause your body to go into a dangerous metabolic state called ketosis since your body burns fat instead of glucose for energy. During ketosis, the body forms substances known as ketones, which can cause organs to fail and result in gout, kidney stones, or kidney failure. Ketones can also dull a person's appetite, cause nausea and bad breath. Ketosis can be prevented by eating at least 100 grams of carbohydrates a day."

emmalousmom1

because they put their bodies in ketosis, google Ketosis.