Ketogenic Diet

Options
1…457910…17

Replies

  • jukyu
    jukyu Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    Ketogenic diets are not necessary for weight loss. Caloric deficit is.
  • GlutesthatSalute
    GlutesthatSalute Posts: 460 Member
    Options
    This is kinda a cool take on a ketogenic cycling diet...

    http://www.cutandjacked.com/Guide-Carb-Back-Loading
  • RiesigJay
    RiesigJay Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    lol really? you said you believe the activity calculators over-estimate, however that has nothing to do with your base metabolic rate, and does not answer why you eat below your BMR, which is how much you would burn in a comatose state.

    *sigh*

    I'll walk you through the math.

    BMR=1800
    Activity factor=1800*1.1 (see above post about overestimated activity factors)

    Result: 1980. Let's round up to 2000, just to make it easier on you.

    OK, recommended calorie deficit: 500 calories.

    TDEE: 2000
    Calorie deficit: -500

    Total calories consumed to lose 1 pound of fat per week: 1500.

    Hooray!
  • larsensue
    larsensue Posts: 461 Member
    Options
    bump, something to look at....
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    lol really? you said you believe the activity calculators over-estimate, however that has nothing to do with your base metabolic rate, and does not answer why you eat below your BMR, which is how much you would burn in a comatose state.

    *sigh*

    I'll walk you through the math.

    BMR=1800
    Activity factor=1800*1.1 (see above post about overestimated activity factors)

    Result: 1980. Let's round up to 2000, just to make it easier on you.

    OK, recommended calorie deficit: 500 calories.

    TDEE: 2000
    Calorie deficit: -500

    Total calories consumed to lose 2 pounds of fat per week: 1500.

    Hooray!

    the deficit, however, should never take you below your BMR - ESPECIALLY if you're a man trying to shed body fat.

    sorry bro, but you'll never get to 6% body fat eating below your BMR. it's physiologically impossible.
  • RiesigJay
    RiesigJay Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    the deficit, however, should never take you below your BMR.

    sorry bro, but you'll never get to 6% body fat eating below your BMR. it's physiologically impossible.

    You willing to put your mouth where your money is?
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    the deficit, however, should never take you below your BMR.

    sorry bro, but you'll never get to 6% body fat eating below your BMR. it's physiologically impossible.

    You willing to put your mouth where your money is?

    i think you mean the reverse of that.

    but nah, i'm good.
  • RiesigJay
    RiesigJay Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    the deficit, however, should never take you below your BMR - ESPECIALLY if you're a man trying to shed body fat.

    sorry bro, but you'll never get to 6% body fat eating below your BMR. it's physiologically impossible.

    Wait, hold up. You do understand that if you're not consuming TDEE calories to sustain; the body breaks down fat (and to some degree, muscle) to meet the TDEE calories...

    Right?
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    the deficit, however, should never take you below your BMR - ESPECIALLY if you're a man trying to shed body fat.

    sorry bro, but you'll never get to 6% body fat eating below your BMR. it's physiologically impossible.

    Wait, hold up. You do understand that if you're not consuming TDEE calories to sustain; the body breaks down fat (and to some degree, muscle) to meet the TDEE calories...

    Right?

    i do.
  • RiesigJay
    RiesigJay Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    i think you mean the reverse of that.

    but nah, i'm good.

    Why not? You just said I could never get to 6% with that method. You were positive enough to say so, so make the bet. Unless you have that scratch in the back of your mind that says, "maybe this guy knows what's going on".

    How about a $1 bet, like the movie Trading Spaces?
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    i think you mean the reverse of that.

    but nah, i'm good.

    Why not? You just said I could never get to 6% with that method. You were positive enough to say so, so make the bet. Unless you have that scratch in the back of your mind that says, "maybe this guy knows what's going on".

    How about a $1 bet, like the movie Trading Spaces?

    nah i just think internet bets are a little silly.

    by eating below your BMR for an extended period of time, your body will actually first turn to burning muscle for fuel, rather than fat, because fat is the more essential nutrient for maintaining life-supporting functions

    thus... impossible to get to 6% bf in that state.
  • RiesigJay
    RiesigJay Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    Give me links that prove your theory.

    Until then, your statements have no validity.

    But for entertainment's sake,

    What's your "recommended" calorie consumption for a 168 pound (LBM) 27 year old male who stands 6"2" tall? 10 hour desk job, ~30 minutes of exercise 4 days a week (12 minutes cardio the rest being bodyweight calensetics).
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    Give me links that prove your theory.

    Until then, your statements have no validity.

    But for entertainment's sake,

    What's your "recommended" calorie consumption for a 168 pound (LBM) 27 year old male who stands 6"2" tall? 10 hour desk job, ~30 minutes of exercise 4 days a week (12 minutes cardio the rest being bodyweight calensetics).

    i'd suggest you start lifting heavy first off.

    secondly, what are your goals at this point? drop weight? fat? both? what's your current body fat? and what's your TOTAL weight? not just LBM.

    i'm a firm believer in the TDEE - 20% (or your BMR, whichever comes first) and that's what i'd recommend. for you that would mean 1800/day.

    personally I also don't dig the bulk/cut philosophy. I maintain that if you eat your TDEE, and up your fat intake, you can actually shed body fat without losing muscle mass. it's a slower process, but much more sustainable.

    check this out: http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode/page/1

    lots of citations and great info.
  • RiesigJay
    RiesigJay Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    Did you even read the article?
    ...the least amount of calories they were allowed was 50% of the "normal" maintenance calories. Notice, this was dubbed a "semi" starvation diet.

    Yes, their metabolic rates were significantly lowered -- to something like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study.
    no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit.
    ...Minnesota men still continuing to lose fat even thugh their metabolic rates had dropped to 40% below baseline.
    (misspelling not mine)
    Does Starvation mode cause our bodies to catabilize (devour our muscles and other lean mass)? Yes and No.

    Lean individuals lost great amounts of fat-free, lean tissue during starvation, but obese individuals lost much more fat tissue. Obese individuals have a mechanism that conserves lean mass and burns fat instead.
    FWIW I fit the "obese" category of the BMI scale.

    And as a bonus
    And the loss of lean mass is not as critical to the obese person as to the lean person simply because an obese person has more lean mass than a person of the same age and height but normal weight.

    *sigh*

    First off, I assume you posted this link because you think I am going into starvation mode and/or I will slow my metabolism greatly.

    As per your article, I am not even at "semi-starvation" levels. 50% of my current TDEE (the proclaimed semi-starvation level) is 1000 calories.

    Second: even with a semi-starvation diet "no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat" That's 1% below my goal at 25% below my current calorie intake. That alone makes any and all statements you made bull****.

    Third: You still haven't told me why going below BMR is "bad". In what way? Do I implode?

    Oh, what was that? The article? The article addresses the issue of being semi-starved at -50% of TDEE levels. I'm at -25% of my TDEE.

    So to conclude: there is no harm in going below BMR unless it's at extreme levels.
    Give me links that prove your theory.

    Until then, your statements have no validity.

    But for entertainment's sake,

    What's your "recommended" calorie consumption for a 168 pound (LBM) 27 year old male who stands 6"2" tall? 10 hour desk job, ~30 minutes of exercise 4 days a week (12 minutes cardio the rest being bodyweight calensetics).

    i'd suggest you start lifting heavy first off.

    secondly, what are your goals at this point? drop weight? fat? both? what's your current body fat? and what's your TOTAL weight? not just LBM.

    i'm a firm believer in the TDEE - 20% (or your BMR, whichever comes first) and that's what i'd recommend. for you that would mean 1800/day.

    personally I also don't dig the bulk/cut philosophy. I maintain that if you eat your TDEE, and up your fat intake, you can actually shed body fat without losing muscle mass. it's a slower process, but much more sustainable.

    check this out: http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode/page/1

    lots of citations and great info.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    1) please relax

    2) this is why i asked for more information about you. i did not know you were obese, seeing as how you were shooting for 6%, I assumed you were already relatively fit

    3) the reason the above is important is this section of the link I gave you:
    Lean individuals lost great amounts of fat-free, lean tissue during starvation, but obese individuals lost much more fat tissue. Obese individuals have a mechanism that conserves lean mass and burns fat instead. In the study, an example of a lean subject studied after death from starvation: it can be deduced that loss of body fat accounted for 28-36% of the weight loss and fat-free mass 64-72%. In obese individuals, the proportion of energy derived from protein (Pcal%) is only 6% compared to 21% in the lean individual. More than half the weight loss in the obese is fat, whereas most of the weight loss in the lean individual is fat-free mass.

    And the loss of lean mass is not as critical to the obese person as to the lean person simply because an obese person has more lean mass than a person of the same age and height but normal weight.

    thus, as you're obese, you're fine eating below your BMR for the short term until you get to a healthier weight.
  • RiesigJay
    RiesigJay Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    Even without the "obese" status, my calorie deficit is fine. The fit/obese thing is only about muscle loss at semi-starvation levels. Which I am nowhere near.

    And again your statement of "never going to reach 6% bodyfat eating below BMR" is wrong. Your own link proved it.

    Dude, seriously, I'm finished with this.

    Best of luck to you.

    EDIT: Oh and if your wife/girlfriend/whomever gets angry. DO NOT tell them to calm down/relax/whatever. They get livid. Learned that the hard way. :embarassed:
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    Even without the "obese" status, my calorie deficit is fine. The fit/obese thing is only about muscle loss at semi-starvation levels. Which I am nowhere near.

    And again your statement of "never going to reach 6% bodyfat eating below BMR" is wrong. Your own link proved it.

    Dude, seriously, I'm finished with this.

    Best of luck to you.

    EDIT: Oh and if your wife/girlfriend/whomever gets angry. DO NOT tell them to calm down/relax/whatever. They get livid. Learned that the hard way. :embarassed:

    so... you're... comparing yourself to my wife/girlfriend/whomever? and why are you angry? it's the internet.

    the men in the study reached 5% body fat eating about 800-1000 calories a day while under semi-starvation. I assume that's not your goal.
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    Even without the "obese" status, my calorie deficit is fine. The fit/obese thing is only about muscle loss at semi-starvation levels. Which I am nowhere near.

    And again your statement of "never going to reach 6% bodyfat eating below BMR" is wrong. Your own link proved it.

    Dude, seriously, I'm finished with this.

    Best of luck to you.

    EDIT: Oh and if your wife/girlfriend/whomever gets angry. DO NOT tell them to calm down/relax/whatever. They get livid. Learned that the hard way. :embarassed:

    so... you're... comparing yourself to my wife/girlfriend/whomever? and why are you angry? it's the internet.

    the men in the study reached 5% body fat eating about 800-1000 calories a day while under semi-starvation. I assume that's not your goal.

    i realize i argue with you often.... but in this instance this conversation with him is a waste of time... lol. Let him think he'll hit 6% at that many calories. Eventually it will stall out.
  • juleskitcat
    juleskitcat Posts: 35 Member
    Options
    bump. good info.
  • FrankieTrailBlazer
    FrankieTrailBlazer Posts: 124 Member
    Options
    Now I'm curious I do intermitnat fasting. " eating in a winodw of 8 hour or less then fasting for the rest of the day" does this or just fasting in general have the same science applied to the ketogenic Diet.

    Thank you everyone for your information you have shared as well as your resources..
    Intermittent Fasting LInk (Dr. john M Berardi) - http://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent-fasting
    BBC Horizon - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRJMxZgtlfE (Hopefully amusing for you :smile: :laugh: )

Categories