Ketogenic Diet

Ketogenic diets are not necessary for weight loss. Caloric deficit is.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

bump. good info.

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.

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.

I very disagree in burning fat because you are going below bmr. There is no evidence that going below bmr will increase muscle loss.

However that guy's post doesnt completely match his citations or even what lyle was saying.
Fuel that is used by the body is relative to the availability of it and need for the body to keep it.


If you are obese, you could have a much lower protein intake and still retain mass and strength vs a lean person.
a 250 lb man can eat 1500 calories a day and lose weight rapidly. still maintaining strength and muscle
a 200 lb person consuming 1500 calories a day can be experiencing slower weight loss and more muscle and strength loss.

Another thing in regards to the studies is that they are not interpreted properly and talking about a trained individual.

1. those arent people who lift
2. they did not talk about adequate protein intake
The starvation definition he got was from netwellness.org

the problem when people cite websites those arent studies.

making citations of a website is no better than citing something from a blog.
It needs to be a legit study.

Long Term Consequences for Ketogenic Diet considered by followers?

QUOTE
As a physician, a big fan of Jimmy’s and a fan of many aspects of paleo eating in general, I would say I am not a fan of a ketogenic diet and do not recommend it to anyone as a long term eating plan, except in certain neurological disorders, certain types of cancer and some other very specific disease states. The confusing thing about this diet is that it appears quite beneficial on the surface. Jimmy, for example, is losing weight. In all likelihood, his insulin levels are decreasing and I’m sure his cholesterol panel is looking better and better. That’s great right? Well, there’s no argument that these things commonly happen on a ketogenic diet. But does that mean there is nothing bad happening? Unfortunately, no. Here are some examples of studies and info that have looked “behind the curtain” of seemingly positive effects in the ketogenic diet, to reveal some negatives, some of which would outweigh the positives in my opinion:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21454445
http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/keto_news_november07
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20820038
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8589783
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17904939

Should a truly healthful diet that is truly biologically appropriate for humans have side effects? I don’t believe so.

I also become very, very concerned with people on long term ketogenic diets because of the lack of cancer protective nutrients that can only be found in plants and fruits. Jimmy’s breakfast and all of the menus listed in your article are perfect examples. Nearly zero phytonutrients.

Lastly, I also get very concerned especially with Jimmy’s version of the diet, when I consider the significant load of toxins that will inevitably be present in a menu plan like this. Animal fats bioaccumulate environmental toxins and become significant sources of these things for you if you eat this way. Combine with the severe lack of phytonutrients known to help stimulate detoxification and/or protect our DNA against damage from these toxins and you have a recipe for cancer.

I’m sorry to be such a downer as I know eating this way appears to be helpful to many, but it is NOT the only way to lose weight, and certainly not the safest.
UNQUOTE
( Dr. Daniel Chong on http://www.paleoplan.com/2012/09-24/what-does-a-ketogenic-paleo-diet-look-like/ )

Lastly, I also get very concerned especially with Jimmy’s version of the diet, when I consider the significant load of toxins that will inevitably be present in a menu plan like this. Animal fats bioaccumulate environmental toxins and become significant sources of these things for you if you eat this way. Combine with the severe lack of phytonutrients known to help stimulate detoxification and/or protect our DNA against damage from these toxins and you have a recipe for cancer.

Years ago I followed a very clean Zone type diet, which was loaded with low GI fruits and veggies, I was diagnosed with cancer. Go figure.

Another medical benefit is that it helps keep allergies under control- Perhaps it is the lack of grains in the diet such as wheat/gluten, but it has helped me not only drop some weight but makes me feel more energetic and breathe easier.

A "ketogenic diet" is simply one marked by the presence of ketones in the bloodstream, and usually urine.

It is characterized by low-carbohydrate, and from a medical/weight-loss standpoint is usually a ratio of UNDER 10% calories from carbohydrate, MORE THAN 65% calories from fat, and moderate protein.

To actually enter ketosis many experts recommend a ratio of 5% carbohydrate, 75% fat and 20% protein, and this works extremely well for most people. As a 'general guideline' that's typically around 20-30g of carbohydrate per day depending on the person.

The benefits of a ketogenic diet come for ANYONE with epilepsy (helps control seizures), diabetes (regardless of Type 1 or 2, it dramatically lowers and controls blood glucose) as well as for anyone with any insulin-resistance as a result of PCOS, metabolic-syndrome, pre-diabetes, Hashimoto's thyroiditis or being morbidly obese.

The benefits for fat-loss come once a person becomes keto-adapted. Being keto-adapted means you've undergone a metabolic 'shift' that changes you from primarily utilizing glucose (to fuel cellular respiration) to utilizing fatty-acids and ketones for cellular respiration. IE: the shift changes you from burning carbohydrates to burning body-fat/ketones.

To become fully keto-adaptated can take a little while... I won't go into the full details, you can read more here: http://www.ketotic.org/2012/05/keto-adaptation-what-it-is-and-how-to.html ... scroll down to the section heading "What exactly happens during keto-adaptation?" to read up on it more.

If you've got questions, feel free to message and/or friend me.

BTW many suggest it's "not sustainable", yet I've been ketogenic for about 2 1/2 years now myself, and I personally know people who've been ketogenic since 1999.

Because diet is the only contributing factor to such illnesses?

Of course not. What I quoted said the lack of phytonutrients was a recipe for cancer. I just take "medical studies" with a grain of salt nowadays because of the fact I thought I was doing everything "right" with my diet/health and still got cancer. I honestly chalk it up to **** happens. Or maybe I really didn't eat enough broccoli