Keto--what are your thoughts?
Options
Replies
-
Are we talking about two different short term studies here? I meant this one, where we had a few threads about.
https://thehubedu-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/3/0673a275-dd30-4582-8c59-51e1c84a5216/PIIS1550413115003502.pdf
In the tables, I of the first set and C of the second set. Increased Protein oxydation and negative protein balance in the low carb one. More protein went out than went in, that's LBM loss if I'm not mistaken. Not much but still a visible difference.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Are we talking about two different short term studies here? I meant this one, where we had a few threads about.
https://thehubedu-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/3/0673a275-dd30-4582-8c59-51e1c84a5216/PIIS1550413115003502.pdf
In the tables, I of the first set and C of the second set. Increased Protein oxydation and negative protein balance in the low carb one. More protein went out than went in, that's LBM loss if I'm not mistaken. Not much but still a visible difference.
Same study - ah you mean in the graphs. Not statistically significant (no * symbols). The lines are model predictions, the blobs the data points :-
0 -
The bolded is the significant part. The diet, IMO is over-emphasized...stevencloser wrote: »
It depends on how the people involved in the study were training. You cannot have the same amount of energy for sport ... So, if you are in a non ketogenic hypocalric diet and your energy expense is greater than your daily food intake, you will get energy from protein catabolism. If you are in ketosis, you will get energy from fat catabolism.0 -
Good post on the Kevin Hall study from Kevin Hall: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2015/08/guest-post-dr-kevin-hall-asks-is.html
A bit from it:The diet changes resulted in an average ~800 Calorie reduction from baseline and the composition of the RC diet was 21% protein, 50% fat, and 29% carbohydrate with ~8% sugar. The RF diet had the same calories and was 21% protein, 8% fat, and 71% carbohydrate with ~35% sugar. According to the carbohydrate-insulin theory, the RF diet should not lead to body fat loss because insulin secretion won’t decrease since total carbohydrates, sugar, and protein were unchanged from baseline. According to Mr. Taubes, if insulin doesn’t decrease, then fat is effectively trapped in fat cells. In contrast, because the RC diet decreased total carbohydrates and sugars, insulin secretion should decrease thereby mobilizing fat from fat tissue and increasing net fat oxidation resulting in body fat loss.
All but one of these predictions of Mr. Taubes’ version of the carbohydrate-insulin theory held true in our study. Unfortunately, a theory is disproven when any of its major predictions fail, and in this case the failure was a doozy!
Despite no significant change in insulin secretion, the RF diet resulted in body fat loss by all measures. This finding alone was enough to disprove the claim that body fat loss requires decreased carbohydrates and insulin secretion. Furthermore, the RF diet led to a significantly greater rate of fat loss than the RC diet using the most sensitive method for measuring body fat loss: metabolic balance. The other measurement of fat mass change (DXA) showed no statistically significant difference between the RF and RC diets, but this method is known to lack the precision required to detect such a small difference in body fat.
As you may have guessed, low-carb advocates have complained vehemently about many aspects of the study. One criticism is that the diets don’t emulate “real” low-carb or low-fat diets. However, we wanted to isolate the metabolic effects of restricting dietary carbohydrates versus fat. This made it arithmetically impossible to investigate a very low carbohydrate diet since dietary fat would have to be added to control for calories. This would commit the sin of not controlling as many diet variables as possible, and might lead to wearing the dunce cap in Mr. Taubes’ classroom. Nevertheless, the metabolic response to very low carbohydrate diets is an interesting question and one that we have invested some effort in studying, so stay tuned! [Whoa! Yoni here - you should click that link - describes the details concerning the now completed (but not yet published or discussed) 8 week! metabolic ward study done by Kevin.]0 -
Mr Hall telling us how wonderful Mr Hall's study is. No conflict there then. LOL.
There were some interesting bits in the study, but it isn't a sustainable diet (wasn't intended to be) due to inadequate level of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Its biggest problem is not reaching steady state glycogen reserves, if he had started measurements about the time he quit (or probably 2 days later) we would have learned a lot more.
My only real problem with the study is that the title and the PR misrepresents the actual findings.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Are we talking about two different short term studies here? I meant this one, where we had a few threads about.
https://thehubedu-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/3/0673a275-dd30-4582-8c59-51e1c84a5216/PIIS1550413115003502.pdf
In the tables, I of the first set and C of the second set. Increased Protein oxydation and negative protein balance in the low carb one. More protein went out than went in, that's LBM loss if I'm not mistaken. Not much but still a visible difference.
Same study - ah you mean in the graphs. Not statistically significant (no * symbols). The lines are model predictions, the blobs the data points :-
If we mean the same one, where in the study does it say the women didn't lose any fat?0 -
I can't eat wheat so it wasn't a big loss. To be honest, the idea of going low carb was much more daunting than actually doing it. I had a week or so where I felt a bit tired, and had a headache for a few days, but now I don't miss carbs at all so no willpower is really needed. It was much harder when I was still eating more carbs (starches and sugars).
Hey thanks again. I am now trying low carb and quite surprised at how energetic and lighter I feel and how full I can be on chicken salad for lunch, protein and fats (avocado) really does satisfy the hunger and before, when I ate too many carbs, mainly in the form of white bread and cakes, my appetite was insatiable. Couldnt stop eating and hence put on the weight. Ya never know, one day I might feel brave enough to try keto for a while
Just do what works for you. If LC is working, and making you feel better, you might as well go with that.
Check out the Low Carber Daily group for more people doing low carb. It's quite a supportive forum. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group0 -
The bolded is the significant part. The diet, IMO is over-emphasized...stevencloser wrote: »
It depends on how the people involved in the study were training. You cannot have the same amount of energy for sport ... So, if you are in a non ketogenic hypocalric diet and your energy expense is greater than your daily food intake, you will get energy from protein catabolism. If you are in ketosis, you will get energy from fat catabolism.
The diet is a tool, off course.
I choose keto for a simple reason: I had a lot of energy stored as fat and I was looking for a way to use it as the main source of energy.
Converting fat in ketones is the only way to do that, AFAIK.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Good post on the Kevin Hall study from Kevin Hall: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2015/08/guest-post-dr-kevin-hall-asks-is.html
A bit from it:The diet changes resulted in an average ~800 Calorie reduction from baseline and the composition of the RC diet was 21% protein, 50% fat, and 29% carbohydrate with ~8% sugar. The RF diet had the same calories and was 21% protein, 8% fat, and 71% carbohydrate with ~35% sugar. According to the carbohydrate-insulin theory, the RF diet should not lead to body fat loss because insulin secretion won’t decrease since total carbohydrates, sugar, and protein were unchanged from baseline. According to Mr. Taubes, if insulin doesn’t decrease, then fat is effectively trapped in fat cells. In contrast, because the RC diet decreased total carbohydrates and sugars, insulin secretion should decrease thereby mobilizing fat from fat tissue and increasing net fat oxidation resulting in body fat loss.
All but one of these predictions of Mr. Taubes’ version of the carbohydrate-insulin theory held true in our study. Unfortunately, a theory is disproven when any of its major predictions fail, and in this case the failure was a doozy!
Despite no significant change in insulin secretion, the RF diet resulted in body fat loss by all measures. This finding alone was enough to disprove the claim that body fat loss requires decreased carbohydrates and insulin secretion. Furthermore, the RF diet led to a significantly greater rate of fat loss than the RC diet using the most sensitive method for measuring body fat loss: metabolic balance. The other measurement of fat mass change (DXA) showed no statistically significant difference between the RF and RC diets, but this method is known to lack the precision required to detect such a small difference in body fat.
As you may have guessed, low-carb advocates have complained vehemently about many aspects of the study. One criticism is that the diets don’t emulate “real” low-carb or low-fat diets. However, we wanted to isolate the metabolic effects of restricting dietary carbohydrates versus fat. This made it arithmetically impossible to investigate a very low carbohydrate diet since dietary fat would have to be added to control for calories. This would commit the sin of not controlling as many diet variables as possible, and might lead to wearing the dunce cap in Mr. Taubes’ classroom. Nevertheless, the metabolic response to very low carbohydrate diets is an interesting question and one that we have invested some effort in studying, so stay tuned! [Whoa! Yoni here - you should click that link - describes the details concerning the now completed (but not yet published or discussed) 8 week! metabolic ward study done by Kevin.]
It's interesting how he specifies to have tested just "Mr. Taubes’ version of the carbohydrate-insulin theory" (he uses this expression 3 times).
0 -
The bolded is the significant part. The diet, IMO is over-emphasized...stevencloser wrote: »
It depends on how the people involved in the study were training. You cannot have the same amount of energy for sport ... So, if you are in a non ketogenic hypocalric diet and your energy expense is greater than your daily food intake, you will get energy from protein catabolism. If you are in ketosis, you will get energy from fat catabolism.
The diet is a tool, off course.
I choose keto for a simple reason: I had a lot of energy stored as fat and I was looking for a way to use it as the main source of energy.
Converting fat in ketones is the only way to do that, AFAIK.
It doesn't make a lick of difference though because while your body is burning more fat, you're also eating more fat. If you make your body burn 500 Calories more in fat instead of carbs but eat 500 calories of fat more, you're exactly where you started in terms of burning bodyfat.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »It doesn't make a lick of difference though because while your body is burning more fat, you're also eating more fat. If you make your body burn 500 Calories more in fat instead of carbs but eat 500 calories of fat more, you're exactly where you started in terms of burning bodyfat.
No, because you can burn fat from your fat stores without reintroducing it.
You just need to eat the fat that is essential for a good body functioning - but all the fat you can burn throught training (expecially anaerobic) can be taken from your fat stores.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »It doesn't make a lick of difference though because while your body is burning more fat, you're also eating more fat. If you make your body burn 500 Calories more in fat instead of carbs but eat 500 calories of fat more, you're exactly where you started in terms of burning bodyfat.
No, because you can burn fat from your fat stores without reintroducing it.
You just need to eat the fat that is essential for a good body functioning - but all the fat you can burn throught training (expecially anaerobic) can be taken from your fat stores.
If you're in a 500 deficit, you're in a 500 deficit, you lose 500 Calories worth of your body stores. You don't lose more of the fat on keto. Because you're eating more fat in place of carbs.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »If you're in a 500 deficit, you're in a 500 deficit, you lose 500 Calories worth of your body stores. You don't lose more of the fat on keto. Because you're eating more fat in place of carbs.
If you are doing any kind of anaerobic training, you simply need carbs to refill your glycogenic stores (and use them as energy source for your muscles). This way you are burning not much fat.
Under keto, you can do the same anaerobic training without assuming anything (ok, there is a small part of proteins needed, but cannot be considered in the equation). You simply burn your stored fats.
You cannot eat (in a high carb diet) the same amount of your BMR in calories and train (unless you want to protect your proteins, avoiding muscolar catabolism). In a keto diet, you can eat the same amount of your BMR in calories and train. The deficit in the second case is simply IMPOSSIBLE if you rely on glucose.0 -
Let's say you're in a pretty standard deficit of 500 Calories at 2000. and that's split up at
1000 Cals carbs, 500 cals protein, 500 cals fat.
Your body uses all that and then still needs 500 more that it takes out of your fat (some glycogen got used and replaced by some of the carbs you've eaten). You lost 500 Calories of fat and your body burned a total of 1000 fat calories 500 from your food and 500 from your stores.
Now a keto diet
100 Cals carbs, 500 Cals protein, 1400 Cals fat.
Let's assume you're already adapted and your glycogen is pretty much empty.
Your body usees all that and then still needs 500 Calories more that it takes out of your fat.
You still lost 500 Cals worth of fat stores, but burned 1900 Calories worth of fat total. The outcome is the same, your body just uses a different source for the energy it needs.
0 -
Ok, now imagine that you want to run 15 miles / day with the same daily calories intake.
What will happen in the first case, what in the second case?0 -
You're losing fat.
Both cases.0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »If you're in a 500 deficit, you're in a 500 deficit, you lose 500 Calories worth of your body stores. You don't lose more of the fat on keto. Because you're eating more fat in place of carbs.
If you are doing any kind of anaerobic training, you simply need carbs to refill your glycogenic stores (and use them as energy source for your muscles). This way you are burning not much fat.
Under keto, you can do the same anaerobic training without assuming anything (ok, there is a small part of proteins needed, but cannot be considered in the equation). You simply burn your stored fats.
You cannot eat (in a high carb diet) the same amount of your BMR in calories and train (unless you want to protect your proteins, avoiding muscolar catabolism). In a keto diet, you can eat the same amount of your BMR in calories and train. The deficit in the second case is simply IMPOSSIBLE if you rely on glucose.
Um... what? So if you eat a high carb diet or moderate carb diet, you can't eat as many calories as your BMR?
And you do realize all bodies run on glucose right... even ones on keto..
0 -
Another thing. It's pretty easy to see people not doing keto are losing mostly fat, because glycogen is much les energy dense and comes off together with water weight. If you were losing just glycogen you'd lose almost a pound a day on a 500 deficit. Which is partially what happens when you start doing keto.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote:Again I tried this for pain management and in the first 30 days it worked very well and continues to do so. Of course getting instant gratification I would have kept doing if it had been hard, not quick or convenient.
May I ask is that arthritic pain you speak of? and you are not getting that pain anymore since starting keto? That is amazing.
@coco_bee 30 days after I cut out foods with sugars/grains my arthritis joint/muscle pain dropped from a subjective 7-8 to 2-3 on a 1-10 scale. My doctor's appoint was 7 Nov 2014 to start Enbrel injections and I was able to say thanks but no thanks to Enbrel because I when <50 grams of carbs daily cold turkey the month before.
@Asher_Ethan thanks for sharing the awesome story about your mom's 10 year keto success story.
@psulemon apparently lean body mass loss (protein sparing) is a feature of keto eating and does not require an increase in protein from one's diet. The four methods of protein sparing proposed are at the end of the study below. It sounds like magic to some but the article deals with the science to some degree. It is a complex subject but seems to spare protein to some extent unlike other types of diet.
nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/9
Since I have found no way to subscribe or get email notices when someone posts to a thread where I posted like the mainstream forums please just use the @GaleHawkins so I can get back to read your post thoughts.
Thanks @galehawkins but you just proved my point.
"Although more long-term studies are needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn, it appears, from most literature studied, that a VLCARB is, if anything, protective against muscle protein catabolism during energy restriction, provided that it contains adequate amounts of protein. "
Keto diets or low carb diets are ONLY protein sparing if, and only if, protein levels are adequate.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions