Maintenance calories and macro nutrient ratio

Body composition has the biggest impact on BMR, NEAT and TEA. Macros have minimial impact on TEF. Protein > carbs > fat


I have a desk job and only exercise 5-6 hours week. I maintain at 3000 calories.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 tried to address this. "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance".

They claimed an effect of composition " During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity. "

yarwell wrote: »

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154 tried to address this. "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance".

They claimed an effect of composition " During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity. "

Don't Hall's papers basically refute the metabolic advantage argument?
Personally, after much reading there might or mightn't be a difference - it seems to be confounded by Atwater factors and actual diet compositions so that these differences are induced by lab diet.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

This is something to look at if people do Evgeni's experiment.

I'm afraid not. My little experiment won't have any control on CICO except for my self reported logging (mediocre at best) vs someone else. Our diet variance is high enough that we won't be able to really look at energy balance comparisons. In short - this isn't a metabolic ward study.

I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel

Which Hall study are you referring to then ?

If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.

Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel

Which Hall study are you referring to then ?

If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.

Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.

I'll have to look in my files - I may be confusing it with a Eugene Fine study.

I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692

By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.

I would argue that Hall's work is objective and transparent. What happens in public and the whole response to Taubes is reasonable. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to remain ensconced in lab while others make what you believe to be unreasonable claims.

@EvgeniZyntx This is the study I suspect everyone is referring to. I don't believe it's been published though.

psulemon wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel

Which Hall study are you referring to then ?

If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.

Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.

I'll have to look in my files - I may be confusing it with a Eugene Fine study.

I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692

By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.

I would argue that Hall's work is objective and transparent. What happens in public and the whole response to Taubes is reasonable. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to remain ensconced in lab while others make what you believe to be unreasonable claims.

@EvgeniZyntx This is the study I suspect everyone is referring to. I don't believe it's been published though.

Didn't we already go through the whole discussion of this one?

cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(15)00350-2

psulemon wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

I would expect metabolic differences to get lost in the accuracy of measurement, the design of the experiment and the huge variability inherent in most studies. If they published full individual datasets we might see something. I don't imagine for a minute that a human uses exactly the same energy when presented with a different fuel

Which Hall study are you referring to then ?

If I wanted to know the effect of a diet on metabolic rate I would have the subjects go away for 2 weeks to eat said diet, with the aim of maintaining weight, then bring them in to a ward for a week to titrate to weight maintenance and then stick them in the metabolic chamber at the end. If comparing diets rinse and repeat.

Scientists should not be fighting agendas and putting spin on results, they should be objective and transparent.

I'll have to look in my files - I may be confusing it with a Eugene Fine study.

I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692

By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.

I would argue that Hall's work is objective and transparent. What happens in public and the whole response to Taubes is reasonable. Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to remain ensconced in lab while others make what you believe to be unreasonable claims.

@EvgeniZyntx This is the study I suspect everyone is referring to. I don't believe it's been published though.

Didn't we already go through the whole discussion of this one?

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2

Kind of. KH did an 8 week metabolic ward study comparing Keto against a LF baseline. It looks at adaption period and fat loss.

I suspect he did this to address the haters. And further disapprove insulin theory.

I suspect he did that to address the reasonable issues found in the first study. It takes a while to set up a proper ward study (from funding to approval). Still, I'd hope he would do more crossover work.

"EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

I'd expect that a proper study would be something as a crossover study, isocalorie - one diet for 4 weeks, the other for 4 weeks, all 8 weeks in a ward. Similar to one of the studies reported here:

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2007-0692

By the way, no metabolic advantage was seen there. n is 16.

With no adaptation period between diets that would just repeat the problems with Hall's 6 day wonder where the second diet is a period of change not at a consistent state.

It should be eucaloric not isocaloric surely, ie both arms should maintain weight not be at the same calorie intake - that prejudges and may influence the outcome.

In the reference above "In the ad libitum study, energy intakes were 154 kcal/d lower on the HF-LC than the MF-MC diet (P < 0.05) (Table 1), and weight loss was correspondingly greater (6.3 ± 2.2 vs. 4.4 ± 2.6 kg in 4 wk, P < 0.01). In the isocaloric study, despite being served food of the same energy content, intake was slightly lower (66 kcal/d) and weight loss greater (7.2 ± 2.3 vs. 4.7 ± 1.0 kg in 4 wk, P < 0.05), on the HF-LC diet after correction for unconsumed food. - See more at: http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2007-0692#sthash.K3BBmc3E.dpuf " so it wasn't a weight maintenance protocol. "Subjects felt significantly (P 0.014) less hungry (4.6 on the VAS) while following the LC ketogenic diet than while following the MC nonketogenic diet".

By the way I couldn't see any measured metabolic rate data.

yarwell wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

I would question that Hall has an agenda. And considering you are the one who turned me onto his studies that he has done supporting low carb, I would question how you came to that conclusion.

He has allowed his results to be presented in ways which are not justified by the data. Perhaps someone else is responsible for this, but it has his name on it.

I dislike the notions you use of studies done to support something, or to disapprove (sic) something. By all means do an experiment to test a hypothesis but leave the bias at home.

His studied were done to test insulin theory. He allowed of an adaption period in his latest one, and he is presenting results based on his methods. It is not KH that is misrepresenting data, its people reporting on KH's results. It's no different than all other media when the same crap happens with low carb studies.

Perhaps the problem is you don't like the result. But at this time, his latest paper hasn't been published. The only thing that has, is a video discussing the results.