Yet another study shows no weight loss benefit for low-carb
Replies
-
You keep bringing up Attia. I see nowhere on his site other than him mentioning DEXA and VO2 max scans what kind of testing he did.
A point I tried to make somewhere else you brought up Attia that got ignored is that people increasing their calories increase their exercise intensity.
I saw how he measured things like his VO2 max and things like that, but absent putting himself in a metabolic ward, he didn't prove anything about a metabolic advantage to what he was doing.
There is a very simple explanation for what Attia did, and people here on these forums experience it all the time. I stated it above. You don't need to exercise more to burn more.
He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating, in spite of what he thinks.
Edit: I will also add that everyone here giving anecdotes (and this includes Attia) of this supposed advantage of quicker loss wasn't losing under controlled conditions like in this study. Study after study done under either controlled conditions or long term shows NO difference between higher or lower carb. Riddle me that one.8 -
I find it interesting in these types of threads about ways of eating that restrict/eliminate food groups (vegan and LCHF/keto especially) that people will often state that unless you are doing it for ethical/medical reasons it's not sustainable. Why not? If you find something that makes it easier for you to restrict calories, why wouldn't you be able to continue eating that way once you get to maintenance if that's your plan? Or when you get to maintenance implement a plan that reintroduces those foods in a controlled manner?
As for studies that show that *99% of people who lose weight by restricting [calories/food groups/eating windows/whatever] gain it back and then some, studies show that the same percentage of people who lose weight any old way gain it back.
*made up statistic
I think it is just human nature to do what is easy. Why do "hard" unless you have to.
I eat gluten free because I have too. Celiac disease. I can't even use the toaster when visiting relatives because it would contaminate my food. I can't use their butter because there are crumbs on it. I can't eat out without taking a substantial risk. It makes me feel better but I would NEVER eat so strictly GF unless I had to. Others without celiac disease may find they feel better mostly GF but can still eat out and consume small amounts of gluten - easier.
I think of LCHF and keto diets like that. LCHF is pretty easy to maintain for a lot of people. Eating under 150g of carbs per day leaves you with a LOT of options. It's more do-able. Ketosis (under 50g per day) removes a lot of food options. Its harder for most people. Unless there are some major (health) benefits, most people won't stick with it.
I'm celiac too, and I agree I would never do this if I didn't have to, because sourdough bread (and misunderstandings with kind-hearted friends/relatives who don't understand contamination).
And sadly, being compliant doesn't do a thing for weight loss for me since it doesn't make me eat less of the foods I can have.
I agree that LCHF is easier for most people than keto because of less restriction (and I do think in general the less restrictive the diet the easier it is to stick to it). But I also think that there are some people who do better with strict rules and limited food choices while losing weight. I guess what I'm getting at is that when someone posts that they're going to try a keto diet for reasons other than automatic weight loss or cures this disease or that, I think it's appropriate to wonder if the person has given enough consideration to how they would handle not being able to eat certain foods that they love, and how changing their diet might affect their appetite or social life. I think the "if you don't plan on eating this way forever it's not sustainable and you're not learning anything so don't do it" argument doesn't automatically apply, especially if this isn't the person's first try at losing weight and just restricting calories in general hasn't worked.
Sorry for the ramble, I'n not as coherent as I'd like to be this morning
eta: and really really slow at posting since the discussion has moved on2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You keep bringing up Attia. I see nowhere on his site other than him mentioning DEXA and VO2 max scans what kind of testing he did.
A point I tried to make somewhere else you brought up Attia that got ignored is that people increasing their calories increase their exercise intensity.
I saw how he measured things like his VO2 max and things like that, but absent putting himself in a metabolic ward, he didn't prove anything about a metabolic advantage to what he was doing.
There is a very simple explanation for what Attia did, and people here on these forums experience it all the time. I stated it above. You don't need to exercise more to burn more.
He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating, in spite of what he thinks.
Edit: I will also add that everyone here giving anecdotes (and this includes Attia) of this supposed advantage of quicker loss wasn't losing under controlled conditions like in this study. Study after study done under either controlled conditions or long term shows NO difference between higher or lower carb. Riddle me that one.
Here's an excellent, well-reasoned response to Attia's nonsense: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/12/stossels-food-bunk-i-paging-dr-attia.html
I don't believe in the keto fairy anymore than I believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. Studies have already been cited which repeatedly show that there is no metabolic advantage to keto diets.3 -
The main issue is the isocaloric intake, that means that they were fed the same number of calories (cca 2100 cal) in both groups. Now, the most important thing about LCHF diet is the fact that it decreases one's appetite to the point where the calorie intake is hugely decreased. I'm sure that if the low carb high fat group individuals were to follow their body cues, the lack of appetite would reduce their caloric intake compared to the control group. And then I think we could see a real difference between the two groups.1
-
The main issue is the isocaloric intake, that means that they were fed the same number of calories (cca 2100 cal) in both groups. Now, the most important thing about LCHF diet is the fact that it decreases one's appetite to the point where the calorie intake is hugely decreased. I'm sure that if the low carb high fat group individuals were to follow their body cues, the lack of appetite would reduce their caloric intake compared to the control group. And then I think we could see a real difference between the two groups.
In some, but not all, cases. Satiety varies between individuals and there's nothing magical about low carb foods for many.
My n=1: I did keto (Atkins) about 20 years ago. I lost weight, but I also had to track calories because it was quite easy for me to pound down a 6-egg omelette with a quarter pound of cheese and lots of bacon for breakfast, snack on macadamia nuts and pork rinds, have roast beef/cream cheese rollups for lunch, then enjoy a 16 oz. ribeye for dinner.
"Instinctive eating" and "body cues" don't work for me regardless of macro composition because my instinct is to eat until I'm blissfully stuffed. I've always had a huge appetite, even as a kid, and can eat a lot of food if I allow myself to regardless of whether it's keto foods or not. Take me to a churrascaria (Brazilian steakhouse, where they serve unlimited quantities of meat) and it's on like Donkey Kong. I get my money's worth and then some, and just about need a wheelbarrow to roll me out of there afterward.19 -
The main issue is the isocaloric intake, that means that they were fed the same number of calories (cca 2100 cal) in both groups. Now, the most important thing about LCHF diet is the fact that it decreases one's appetite to the point where the calorie intake is hugely decreased. I'm sure that if the low carb high fat group individuals were to follow their body cues, the lack of appetite would reduce their caloric intake compared to the control group. And then I think we could see a real difference between the two groups.
In some, but not all, cases. Satiety varies between individuals and there's nothing magical about low carb foods for many.
My n=1: I did keto (Atkins) about 20 years ago. I lost weight, but I also had to track calories because it was quite easy for me to pound down a 6-egg omelette with a quarter pound of cheese and lots of bacon for breakfast, snack on macadamia nuts and pork rinds, have roast beef/cream cheese rollups for lunch, then enjoy a 16 oz. ribeye for dinner.
"Instinctive eating" and "body cues" don't work for me regardless of macro composition because my instinct is to eat until I'm blissfully stuffed. I've always had a huge appetite, even as a kid, and can eat a lot of food if I allow myself to regardless of whether it's keto foods or not. Take me to a churrascaria (Brazilian steakhouse, where they serve unlimited quantities of meat) and it's on like Donkey Kong. I get my money's worth and then some, and just about need a wheelbarrow to roll me out of there afterward.
This is me. Fat isn't a satiating macro for me, so LCHF doesn't work that way for me. This is why blanket statements like the post you're responding to won't fly. I know we're not alone.
Satiation is a very individual thing. I find a couple of different macro mixes to be satiating, and fat is in some of them, but as the main player? Nope.
The other issue is that like Anvilhead, I'm a volume eater. I did note that in the study, the low fat group had a higher volume of food. Since volume (fiber) plays into satiety for me, that's another deal breaker when it comes to low carb.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Just a nitpicky thing because I think it is important for discussion:As for the way of eating itself I am aware that cico is what it's all about to begin with, but I do find this way of eating easier to adhere to for cico for me.
You know that CICO merely refers to the fact that calories in vs. calories out determines whether you lose, gain, or maintain, and that you can achieve CI<CO through any diet and it is still CICO. People say you don't need to do anything but focus on CICO, but that doesn't mean there's a "CICO" way of eating that could be easier or harder to adhere to than keto -- keto, when it works, is also working because of CICO. Some people seem to have the idea that CICO = calorie counting or even that it is some particular macro mix or "not changing the diet at all but for portions," and it is none of these things (although they all could be examples of it, as keto also is). IMO, trying to cut calories by not changing the diet at all but for portions, especially if you know you eat a not very filling or nutrient dense diet would of course be hard and no one recommends it (except if people really want to do it they are told they can). Even "eat what you like/currently do in smaller portions" assumes common sense and that you will cut more on portions of high cal/low nutrient things and not, for example, meat and veg.I do plan on bringing myself back up to 100 - 150 carbs per day, but not until I have lost most of the weight I plan to lose and then I will reintroduce more carbs slowly, and yes I am aware of the weight I most likely will put back on at first (ie water/glycerol stores) or maybe that doesn't happen when you reintroduce slowly. For me this way of eating has also curbed my cravings for cake, ice cream, donuts, and potato chips, I am concerned about self control when I do eat these things again as I've been known to go a bit overboard with eating them.
I also think it's interesting that the "carbs" people tend to focus on as not filling or things they cut on low carb and notice most are things that get half their calories from carbs -- these are hardly "carbs" (although I am sure they are too high carb for keto diets) but simply "junk food" (meaning high cal, low nutrient), and like most "junk foods" they are high in fat as well as carbs. I wonder if you went to 100-150 carbs with whole food carbs like legumes, potatoes and sweet potatoes (not fried or with lots of added cream and butter), whole grains, and fruit if you would find the same cravings for more food. Maybe you would, maybe you won't, maybe that won't even happen with the junk food once you've taken a break from it and found you are more interested in maintaining than a second donut. But if it's simply carbs that cause the diet to be less sating/cravings to happen, that would happen more from foods that actually are mostly carbs than these fat/carb mixes, I think.
IMO, lots of people who go keto dumb high cal/low nutrient foods (fat and carbs) by necessity and have to fill their diet with other things which tends to include more meat or other sources of protein and (ironically, since they are mostly carbs and you should have been eating them already) vegetables, which makes a diet more filling, but not necessarily due to keto.
I do think a subset of these people really do find keto valuable in controlling appetite, though -- probably the ketones.
yes, I am aware of what CICO means and then it can be done on any way of eating
Cool. I thought maybe you didn't because you said keto was easier to adhere to than CICO, as if CICO was a way of eating and did not include keto. Plus, important to clarify as it's commonly misunderstood and people reading along could easily have understood the comment the way I did.and when I say reintroduce carbs per say I am speaking of more vegetables (which I love), a few more fruits, and some whole grains...think oatmeal, quinoa and such.
That's great! That I don't want to have to worry about eating too many vegetables (or avoiding higher sugar ones, like carrots or red peppers) and also don't want to have to avoid fruits other than berries or tubers and legumes, etc. is one reason why I can't see doing keto, personally, so I totally understand wanting to reintroduce them. Again, your post focused on the junk foods and too often people promoting a "carbs make you fat" POV (which I didn't think you were doing) seem to equate those foods with carbs, although they are as much fat, and ignore the many lower cal and nutrient dense carbs (which are actually more "carbs" by percentage).Most of my weight gain however came from over indulging in pasta, rice, oatmeal and such and not "junk" food as you may think, and I'm not focused on sweets and junk food, I just stated that I was concerned that I may still not have very good control over myself if I bring them back into my diet.
Okay -- again, just focusing on what you wrote, as well as past experience with people talking about the transition to keto, as well as those I know off line. I have always found starchy carbs (with no fat added) about the easiest food to limit if I tried (although they are easy to overeat if you just go with what many think is a correct serving size today), so for me those were foods that CICO was perfect for, but if they are triggers for you I get it. One reason lower/moderate carb works for me is the opposite of many people who like keto (that they find it hard to control those foods). I find those foods mostly "take it or leave it." (I like pasta, but more for the sauce than the pasta itself.)1 -
I find it interesting in these types of threads about ways of eating that restrict/eliminate food groups (vegan and LCHF/keto especially) that people will often state that unless you are doing it for ethical/medical reasons it's not sustainable. Why not? If you find something that makes it easier for you to restrict calories, why wouldn't you be able to continue eating that way once you get to maintenance if that's your plan? Or when you get to maintenance implement a plan that reintroduces those foods in a controlled manner?
I don't know if I notice people saying it's not sustainable, but that the loss won't be sustainable if you don't plan to keep up that way of eating (which I don't agree with either, for the record -- the key is that you need a plan).
One thing seems to be is that a lot of people who cut out foods do so because they really love those foods, so that seems like it might be an issue. If it's out of sight, out of mind, maybe not, but I know that I've done worse cutting out foods I love and making my diet of foods that bore me than the opposite.
This is actually why I like eating a bit low-ish carb, because I like cheese a lot and enjoy chicken with skin and using olive oil on my vegetables, and I couldn't care less if I skip the rice or bread. But for someone who just loves bread to give it up (without being celiac) that seems harder.
I think a strength of low carb is often because people are keeping in foods they really love (steak, bacon) that diets told them were bad in the past. If you really love the foods you are eating it's less of a sacrifice to skip something else. It's all individual.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Just a nitpicky thing because I think it is important for discussion:As for the way of eating itself I am aware that cico is what it's all about to begin with, but I do find this way of eating easier to adhere to for cico for me.
You know that CICO merely refers to the fact that calories in vs. calories out determines whether you lose, gain, or maintain, and that you can achieve CI<CO through any diet and it is still CICO. People say you don't need to do anything but focus on CICO, but that doesn't mean there's a "CICO" way of eating that could be easier or harder to adhere to than keto -- keto, when it works, is also working because of CICO. Some people seem to have the idea that CICO = calorie counting or even that it is some particular macro mix or "not changing the diet at all but for portions," and it is none of these things (although they all could be examples of it, as keto also is). IMO, trying to cut calories by not changing the diet at all but for portions, especially if you know you eat a not very filling or nutrient dense diet would of course be hard and no one recommends it (except if people really want to do it they are told they can). Even "eat what you like/currently do in smaller portions" assumes common sense and that you will cut more on portions of high cal/low nutrient things and not, for example, meat and veg.I do plan on bringing myself back up to 100 - 150 carbs per day, but not until I have lost most of the weight I plan to lose and then I will reintroduce more carbs slowly, and yes I am aware of the weight I most likely will put back on at first (ie water/glycerol stores) or maybe that doesn't happen when you reintroduce slowly. For me this way of eating has also curbed my cravings for cake, ice cream, donuts, and potato chips, I am concerned about self control when I do eat these things again as I've been known to go a bit overboard with eating them.
I also think it's interesting that the "carbs" people tend to focus on as not filling or things they cut on low carb and notice most are things that get half their calories from carbs -- these are hardly "carbs" (although I am sure they are too high carb for keto diets) but simply "junk food" (meaning high cal, low nutrient), and like most "junk foods" they are high in fat as well as carbs. I wonder if you went to 100-150 carbs with whole food carbs like legumes, potatoes and sweet potatoes (not fried or with lots of added cream and butter), whole grains, and fruit if you would find the same cravings for more food. Maybe you would, maybe you won't, maybe that won't even happen with the junk food once you've taken a break from it and found you are more interested in maintaining than a second donut. But if it's simply carbs that cause the diet to be less sating/cravings to happen, that would happen more from foods that actually are mostly carbs than these fat/carb mixes, I think.
IMO, lots of people who go keto dumb high cal/low nutrient foods (fat and carbs) by necessity and have to fill their diet with other things which tends to include more meat or other sources of protein and (ironically, since they are mostly carbs and you should have been eating them already) vegetables, which makes a diet more filling, but not necessarily due to keto.
I do think a subset of these people really do find keto valuable in controlling appetite, though -- probably the ketones.
Well, during the three years I lived in vegetarian communities where I ate tons of legumes, whole grains, potatoes, and fruit what I wanted was not more of the same but meat.
It is indeed junk food/ultra processed food that can make me crave more of same.2 -
if you look long enough you will find a study that proves what ever you want to prove .
good luck5 -
I find it interesting in these types of threads about ways of eating that restrict/eliminate food groups (vegan and LCHF/keto especially) that people will often state that unless you are doing it for ethical/medical reasons it's not sustainable. Why not? If you find something that makes it easier for you to restrict calories, why wouldn't you be able to continue eating that way once you get to maintenance if that's your plan? Or when you get to maintenance implement a plan that reintroduces those foods in a controlled manner?
As for studies that show that *99% of people who lose weight by restricting [calories/food groups/eating windows/whatever] gain it back and then some, studies show that the same percentage of people who lose weight any old way gain it back.
*made up statistic
I think it is just human nature to do what is easy. Why do "hard" unless you have to.
I eat gluten free because I have too. Celiac disease. I can't even use the toaster when visiting relatives because it would contaminate my food. I can't use their butter because there are crumbs on it. I can't eat out without taking a substantial risk. It makes me feel better but I would NEVER eat so strictly GF unless I had to. Others without celiac disease may find they feel better mostly GF but can still eat out and consume small amounts of gluten - easier.
I think of LCHF and keto diets like that. LCHF is pretty easy to maintain for a lot of people. Eating under 150g of carbs per day leaves you with a LOT of options. It's more do-able. Ketosis (under 50g per day) removes a lot of food options. Its harder for most people. Unless there are some major (health) benefits, most people won't stick with it.
I'm celiac too, and I agree I would never do this if I didn't have to, because sourdough bread (and misunderstandings with kind-hearted friends/relatives who don't understand contamination). And sadly, being compliant doesn't do a thing for weight loss for me since it doesn't make me eat less of the foods I can have.
I agree that LCHF is easier for most people than keto because of less restriction (and I do think in general the less restrictive the diet the easier it is to stick to it). But I also think that there are some people who do better with strict rules and limited food choices while losing weight. I guess what I'm getting at is that when someone posts that they're going to try a keto diet for reasons other than automatic weight loss or cures this disease or that, I think it's appropriate to wonder if the person has given enough consideration to how they would handle not being able to eat certain foods that they love, and how changing their diet might affect their appetite or social life. I think the "if you don't plan on eating this way forever it's not sustainable and you're not learning anything so don't do it" argument doesn't automatically apply, especially if this isn't the person's first try at losing weight and just restricting calories in general hasn't worked.
Sorry for the ramble, I'n not as coherent as I'd like to be this morning
eta: and really really slow at posting since the discussion has moved on
That's true. Some people really like a diet plan. That's why I think books like Atkins work well for some because it does include steps and an exit plan.
That being said, changing how you eat at the end of weight loss can be a slippery slope.... I wonder what the stats are on long term diet success and maintenance for people who ate differently while losing compared to those who ate the same while losing and in maintenance?1 -
I find it interesting in these types of threads about ways of eating that restrict/eliminate food groups (vegan and LCHF/keto especially) that people will often state that unless you are doing it for ethical/medical reasons it's not sustainable. Why not? If you find something that makes it easier for you to restrict calories, why wouldn't you be able to continue eating that way once you get to maintenance if that's your plan? Or when you get to maintenance implement a plan that reintroduces those foods in a controlled manner?
As for studies that show that *99% of people who lose weight by restricting [calories/food groups/eating windows/whatever] gain it back and then some, studies show that the same percentage of people who lose weight any old way gain it back.
*made up statistic
I think it is just human nature to do what is easy. Why do "hard" unless you have to.
I eat gluten free because I have too. Celiac disease. I can't even use the toaster when visiting relatives because it would contaminate my food. I can't use their butter because there are crumbs on it. I can't eat out without taking a substantial risk. It makes me feel better but I would NEVER eat so strictly GF unless I had to. Others without celiac disease may find they feel better mostly GF but can still eat out and consume small amounts of gluten - easier.
I think of LCHF and keto diets like that. LCHF is pretty easy to maintain for a lot of people. Eating under 150g of carbs per day leaves you with a LOT of options. It's more do-able. Ketosis (under 50g per day) removes a lot of food options. Its harder for most people. Unless there are some major (health) benefits, most people won't stick with it.
I'm celiac too, and I agree I would never do this if I didn't have to, because sourdough bread (and misunderstandings with kind-hearted friends/relatives who don't understand contamination). And sadly, being compliant doesn't do a thing for weight loss for me since it doesn't make me eat less of the foods I can have.
I agree that LCHF is easier for most people than keto because of less restriction (and I do think in general the less restrictive the diet the easier it is to stick to it). But I also think that there are some people who do better with strict rules and limited food choices while losing weight. I guess what I'm getting at is that when someone posts that they're going to try a keto diet for reasons other than automatic weight loss or cures this disease or that, I think it's appropriate to wonder if the person has given enough consideration to how they would handle not being able to eat certain foods that they love, and how changing their diet might affect their appetite or social life. I think the "if you don't plan on eating this way forever it's not sustainable and you're not learning anything so don't do it" argument doesn't automatically apply, especially if this isn't the person's first try at losing weight and just restricting calories in general hasn't worked.
Sorry for the ramble, I'n not as coherent as I'd like to be this morning
eta: and really really slow at posting since the discussion has moved on
That's true. Some people really like a diet plan. That's why I think books like Atkins work well for some because it does include steps and an exit plan.
That being said, changing how you eat at the end of weight loss can be a slippery slope.... I wonder what the stats are on long term diet success and maintenance for people who ate differently while losing compared to those who ate the same while losing and in maintenance?
That would be an interesting study for sure. For me personally I switched plans, but under the same 'umbrella' (I did alternate day IF for weight loss and now in maintenance I practice 16:8IF). Throughout all of it though I've tracked my calorie intake so that's stayed the same/has been the base for everything I've done.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Just a nitpicky thing because I think it is important for discussion:As for the way of eating itself I am aware that cico is what it's all about to begin with, but I do find this way of eating easier to adhere to for cico for me.
You know that CICO merely refers to the fact that calories in vs. calories out determines whether you lose, gain, or maintain, and that you can achieve CI<CO through any diet and it is still CICO. People say you don't need to do anything but focus on CICO, but that doesn't mean there's a "CICO" way of eating that could be easier or harder to adhere to than keto -- keto, when it works, is also working because of CICO. Some people seem to have the idea that CICO = calorie counting or even that it is some particular macro mix or "not changing the diet at all but for portions," and it is none of these things (although they all could be examples of it, as keto also is). IMO, trying to cut calories by not changing the diet at all but for portions, especially if you know you eat a not very filling or nutrient dense diet would of course be hard and no one recommends it (except if people really want to do it they are told they can). Even "eat what you like/currently do in smaller portions" assumes common sense and that you will cut more on portions of high cal/low nutrient things and not, for example, meat and veg.I do plan on bringing myself back up to 100 - 150 carbs per day, but not until I have lost most of the weight I plan to lose and then I will reintroduce more carbs slowly, and yes I am aware of the weight I most likely will put back on at first (ie water/glycerol stores) or maybe that doesn't happen when you reintroduce slowly. For me this way of eating has also curbed my cravings for cake, ice cream, donuts, and potato chips, I am concerned about self control when I do eat these things again as I've been known to go a bit overboard with eating them.
I also think it's interesting that the "carbs" people tend to focus on as not filling or things they cut on low carb and notice most are things that get half their calories from carbs -- these are hardly "carbs" (although I am sure they are too high carb for keto diets) but simply "junk food" (meaning high cal, low nutrient), and like most "junk foods" they are high in fat as well as carbs. I wonder if you went to 100-150 carbs with whole food carbs like legumes, potatoes and sweet potatoes (not fried or with lots of added cream and butter), whole grains, and fruit if you would find the same cravings for more food. Maybe you would, maybe you won't, maybe that won't even happen with the junk food once you've taken a break from it and found you are more interested in maintaining than a second donut. But if it's simply carbs that cause the diet to be less sating/cravings to happen, that would happen more from foods that actually are mostly carbs than these fat/carb mixes, I think.
IMO, lots of people who go keto dumb high cal/low nutrient foods (fat and carbs) by necessity and have to fill their diet with other things which tends to include more meat or other sources of protein and (ironically, since they are mostly carbs and you should have been eating them already) vegetables, which makes a diet more filling, but not necessarily due to keto.
I do think a subset of these people really do find keto valuable in controlling appetite, though -- probably the ketones.
yes, I am aware of what CICO means and then it can be done on any way of eating
Cool. I thought maybe you didn't because you said keto was easier to adhere to than CICO, as if CICO was a way of eating and did not include keto. Plus, important to clarify as it's commonly misunderstood and people reading along could easily have understood the comment the way I did.and when I say reintroduce carbs per say I am speaking of more vegetables (which I love), a few more fruits, and some whole grains...think oatmeal, quinoa and such.
That's great! That I don't want to have to worry about eating too many vegetables (or avoiding higher sugar ones, like carrots or red peppers) and also don't want to have to avoid fruits other than berries or tubers and legumes, etc. is one reason why I can't see doing keto, personally, so I totally understand wanting to reintroduce them. Again, your post focused on the junk foods and too often people promoting a "carbs make you fat" POV (which I didn't think you were doing) seem to equate those foods with carbs, although they are as much fat, and ignore the many lower cal and nutrient dense carbs (which are actually more "carbs" by percentage).Most of my weight gain however came from over indulging in pasta, rice, oatmeal and such and not "junk" food as you may think, and I'm not focused on sweets and junk food, I just stated that I was concerned that I may still not have very good control over myself if I bring them back into my diet.
Okay -- again, just focusing on what you wrote, as well as past experience with people talking about the transition to keto, as well as those I know off line. I have always found starchy carbs (with no fat added) about the easiest food to limit if I tried (although they are easy to overeat if you just go with what many think is a correct serving size today), so for me those were foods that CICO was perfect for, but if they are triggers for you I get it. One reason lower/moderate carb works for me is the opposite of many people who like keto (that they find it hard to control those foods). I find those foods mostly "take it or leave it." (I like pasta, but more for the sauce than the pasta itself.)
1) my apologies for the misunderstanding, I meant that it was easier for me to control my CICO eating this way
2) No, I know it's not the carbs that make me fat, it's over eating the carbs and the stuff that goes on them...lol that I had had problems with, that and the medical condition that made it extremely hard for me to lose weight even with diet and exercise.
I've tried calorie restriction on the main stream diet, it just doesn't cut it for me and I get that keto isn't for everyone.
I am seriously considering eating the Mediterranean way for the future (in about a year)...suppose to be really heart healthy, but I will do my research and see if that's how I want the rest of my life to go.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.
There is a lot of Ifs but there is evidence LC helps people lose faster than simple CICO model. Peter Attia being a data point. I lost a lot faster than predicted by logging also when I did IF. There are studies with mice/rats that show that IF causes them to lose more weight when they are fed the same weekly calories as a control group but do fast for a couple of days during the week (they are given more on the other days to make up for the cals not consumed the other days). Please explain how that could happen with a simple CICO model. Their fast days are low carb of course and they are consuming stored fat to fuel themselves.
I had a period where I was losing faster eating high carbs too. Single data points mean nothing.
There might be people here who remember me under my old user name during the one summer where weight was pouring off me and I was wondering if something was wrong with my thyroid because I was losing so fast. It was crazy.
Ifs mean nothing.
Totally dismissing ifs ins't very scientific either, especially when the reason for being dismissive has no basis (the falsity of anything violating simple CICO is violating laws of thermo/conservation of energy). There are a lot of data points not just a few.
Your ifs are scientific? CICO isn't an exact science no matter how precise you think you're being and no one pretends it is, so your whole proposition of "well, if it's all CICO..." is flawed from the outset.
Again, I'm trying to figure out why you're trying to major in the minors here. Why can't you just enjoy the way you eat because it suits your preferences/lifestyle? Why does there have to be a winner? An edge to the way of eating? Can't you just like the food you eat and how it enhances your goals?
I don't think you understand my position. I KNOW you will lose at least the amount the simple CICO model predicts due to conservation of energy principles (fat cant be stored faster than CI because the energy has to come from somewhere, also fat has to be burned at least as much as a deficit demands also because the energy has to come from somewhere). What I'm saying is that all CI ins't used which causes a bigger deficit, also other things may liberate stored fat beyond the bodies energy demands thereby increasing CO and also increasing deficits.
It is not majoring in the minors, some people have had significant success on the LC/IF type of diets. Is it all due to calorie deficit? I don't think so, Peter Attia's experience sure points otherwise.
It is a principle of being "scientific" to question things and understand them more, especially if there is a lot of anecdotal evidence around (also some hard studies that back up my points also).
I think you can win totally with the simple CICO model. I also think you may lose even more with LC/IF which is also a win. I have done LC intentionally maybe two days in my life so far (the last two) due to working on blood glucose levels. I don't plan on making that a way of life if I don't have to cause I love carbs. I do think IF and LC can help people lose weight extra fast, but ins't necessary to lose weight.
As discussed in other threads, Dr. Attia has IR, which is a huge variable when it comes to losing weight. IR + carbs would decrease CO.
In those with IR, insulin doesnt mean anything. Both diets can store and burn body fat based on energy balance. And in multiple studies there is no difference between the two diets.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.
There is a lot of Ifs but there is evidence LC helps people lose faster than simple CICO model. Peter Attia being a data point. I lost a lot faster than predicted by logging also when I did IF. There are studies with mice/rats that show that IF causes them to lose more weight when they are fed the same weekly calories as a control group but do fast for a couple of days during the week (they are given more on the other days to make up for the cals not consumed the other days). Please explain how that could happen with a simple CICO model. Their fast days are low carb of course and they are consuming stored fat to fuel themselves.
I had a period where I was losing faster eating high carbs too. Single data points mean nothing.
There might be people here who remember me under my old user name during the one summer where weight was pouring off me and I was wondering if something was wrong with my thyroid because I was losing so fast. It was crazy.
Ifs mean nothing.
Totally dismissing ifs ins't very scientific either, especially when the reason for being dismissive has no basis (the falsity of anything violating simple CICO is violating laws of thermo/conservation of energy). There are a lot of data points not just a few.
Your ifs are scientific? CICO isn't an exact science no matter how precise you think you're being and no one pretends it is, so your whole proposition of "well, if it's all CICO..." is flawed from the outset.
Again, I'm trying to figure out why you're trying to major in the minors here. Why can't you just enjoy the way you eat because it suits your preferences/lifestyle? Why does there have to be a winner? An edge to the way of eating? Can't you just like the food you eat and how it enhances your goals?
I don't think you understand my position. I KNOW you will lose at least the amount the simple CICO model predicts due to conservation of energy principles (fat cant be stored faster than CI because the energy has to come from somewhere, also fat has to be burned at least as much as a deficit demands also because the energy has to come from somewhere). What I'm saying is that all CI ins't used which causes a bigger deficit, also other things may liberate stored fat beyond the bodies energy demands thereby increasing CO and also increasing deficits.
It is not majoring in the minors, some people have had significant success on the LC/IF type of diets. Is it all due to calorie deficit? I don't think so, Peter Attia's experience sure points otherwise.
It is a principle of being "scientific" to question things and understand them more, especially if there is a lot of anecdotal evidence around (also some hard studies that back up my points also).
I think you can win totally with the simple CICO model. I also think you may lose even more with LC/IF which is also a win. I have done LC intentionally maybe two days in my life so far (the last two) due to working on blood glucose levels. I don't plan on making that a way of life if I don't have to cause I love carbs. I do think IF and LC can help people lose weight extra fast, but ins't necessary to lose weight.
CICO is an underlying principle for all diets. Certain things can influence CO and metabolism, but varying carbs and fats are not one of them (in metabolically healthy people). Protein is the only thing that matters. It's a thermogenic, which as been proven so many times it's not funny. It's also the exact reason, they all those lchf studies show to be more beneficial than low fat. It's because the people designing the studies do it in the fashion that will produce the results. But when calories and protein are accounted for, there is 0 difference in weight, and there are a handful of studies to demonstrate that.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
Um, I am very confused.
This is nothing new. This is how everyone loses weight. I'll amend that. This is how everyone loses stored fat.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8ialLlcdcw
A point I was trying to make was that there is the possibility that the macros would cause the stored fat to be burned not just the effect of digesting the micros raising the temp.
How do the macros cause the stored fat to be burned independent of a calorie balance? I don't see how that article you posted supports that. In fact, the point of the study Azdak posted refutes your assertion.
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
That's a whole lot of IF.
I'll go by what my actual numbers on moderate protein moderate carbs tell me.
I lose weight exactly as predicted.
More to the point, why are people seeing a study that basically said either way is great, eat which way suits you as a slam against low carbing?
WHY does there have to be an advantage? Why does there have to be a winner? Why can't it simply be the best choice on an individual level? I will never get this need you people have to do this.
There is a lot of Ifs but there is evidence LC helps people lose faster than simple CICO model. Peter Attia being a data point. I lost a lot faster than predicted by logging also when I did IF. There are studies with mice/rats that show that IF causes them to lose more weight when they are fed the same weekly calories as a control group but do fast for a couple of days during the week (they are given more on the other days to make up for the cals not consumed the other days). Please explain how that could happen with a simple CICO model. Their fast days are low carb of course and they are consuming stored fat to fuel themselves.
So did I. It means either the variables you use to calculate calorie needs was not accurate (i.e., your activity level is higher than what you think) or it doesn't equate for your actual metabolic rate (since there is variation for that). Most websites have me maintain around 2700 calories. I actually maintain at 3000 calories. Is it my metabolic rate due to higher mass or is it the formulas don't account for my variables. Who knows. But it's not an basis of argument.4 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
As already explained, anytime you eat, your body goes into storage mode. You don't need high levels of insulin to store food. High levels of dietary fat increase the enzyme Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP) which inhibits Hormone Sensitive Lipase (HSL). Added in the fat, that people generally eat protein with each meal, which drives increase in insulin.
And if you really want to be pedantic, fats are more likely to be stored as body fat since they need very little to not processing to do so. Overfeed studies on de novo lipogensis have already proven that only about 25-30% of carbs will be stored. Why? It's just more of a metabolically taxing process. So what occurs is fat oxidation is suppressed when you eat a large amount of carbs which enables fats to be stored quicker.
And you talk like insulin is always a bad thing. Carbs and insulin have their benefits. Carbs are anticatabolic, so when combined with adequate training and protein consumption, you have an ability to gain muscle, even while in a deficit (albeit, it's not as effective). Carbs support muscle recovery, at higher rates than lchf diets.6 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Just to clarify, are you saying that high fat low carb diets cause you to poop out some of the calories rather than absorbing them?
I suppose that's possible, but if it's more than a small proportion I'd expect unpleasant, Alli-like side effects.
Since macro composition determines insulin levels and insulin allows storage, I would say yes there is some effect as you described but not to the level that it would be unpleasant as you mentioned.
As far as getting rid of fat already stored, maybe macro composition can help release the fat without the body needing extra energy due to activity (you just burn hotter). High insulin inhibits fat loss so maybe low insulin allows stored fat to be metabolized or even promotes it.
An article below states that when fat is metabolized, you get energy out (burn hotter) and you exhale carbon dioxide and you excrete water. I don't think you poop out much.
None of these ideas contradict CICO. They just say we are not 100% efficient at using the CI and also that you can possibly burn more than the CO that is required do to activity thereby creating more of a deficit than the simple CICO model predicts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009
As already explained, anytime you eat, your body goes into storage mode. You don't need high levels of insulin to store food. High levels of dietary fat increase the enzyme Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP) which inhibits Hormone Sensitive Lipase (HSL). Added in the fat, that people generally eat protein with each meal, which drives increase in insulin.
And if you really want to be pedantic, fats are more likely to be stored as body fat since they need very little to not processing to do so. Overfeed studies on de novo lipogensis have already proven that only about 25-30% of carbs will be stored. Why? It's just more of a metabolically taxing process. So what occurs is fat oxidation is suppressed when you eat a large amount of carbs which enables fats to be stored quicker.
And you talk like insulin is always a bad thing. Carbs and insulin have their benefits. Carbs are anticatabolic, so when combined with adequate training and protein consumption, you have an ability to gain muscle, even while in a deficit (albeit, it's not as effective). Carbs support muscle recovery, at higher rates than lchf diets.
I have yet to grasp this misunderstanding about insulin in general. As I keep pointing out to people, insulin is absurdly anabolic. We need no further proof than comparing modern Mr. Olympias to the guys from the 80s and 90s. It's not even a contest. As soon as the top of the chain started shooting insulin along with their AAS regimens, things got off the charts stupid with the LBM being carried around.
Dorian Yates was a genetic anomaly, and barely rivaled in his time. These days? Even the guys who don't come close to winning make him look like a guy who might have done some pushups once.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You keep bringing up Attia. I see nowhere on his site other than him mentioning DEXA and VO2 max scans what kind of testing he did.
A point I tried to make somewhere else you brought up Attia that got ignored is that people increasing their calories increase their exercise intensity.
I saw how he measured things like his VO2 max and things like that, but absent putting himself in a metabolic ward, he didn't prove anything about a metabolic advantage to what he was doing.
There is a very simple explanation for what Attia did, and people here on these forums experience it all the time. I stated it above. You don't need to exercise more to burn more.
He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating, in spite of what he thinks.
Edit: I will also add that everyone here giving anecdotes (and this includes Attia) of this supposed advantage of quicker loss wasn't losing under controlled conditions like in this study. Study after study done under either controlled conditions or long term shows NO difference between higher or lower carb. Riddle me that one.
Attia doesn't think he defied the laws of physics. What is the simple explanation you mention. The DEXA showed accurately what him BF% was. He said he didn't increase his exercise intensity and was a little less when he lost the weight. He proved something because he lost weight, improved %BF while increasing calorie intake and not doing more exercise.
Your statement, "He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating,.." makes me believe you didn't read what I wrote. Him losing weight, improving %bf, with no more exercise, and while increasing calories isn't defying the laws of physics if you include excretion into the model. I'm not talking about poop either. The majority of fat metabolism by-products are exhaled which is a form of excretion (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009). If the macro-content causes this fat to be liberated, then it can be excreted (through breathing).
Read down in the article (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.html) a little about benefits of ketosis and weight loss (not due to calorie restrictions). Also studies where mice (or rats I forget) lost more fat through IF dieting although that group and a control group ate the same amount of cals for the whole week. Riddle me that!
0 -
mjames1319 wrote: »Didn't read the study .....but my theory on Keto is that maybe you don't lose more on the scale but I feel like those on the diet lose more inches. I realize there's the loss of water/bloat weight, but even longer term keto dieters always look like they have lost a ton of inches compared to when I look at cico dieters' before and afters.
If you are losing weight it is cico...2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You keep bringing up Attia. I see nowhere on his site other than him mentioning DEXA and VO2 max scans what kind of testing he did.
A point I tried to make somewhere else you brought up Attia that got ignored is that people increasing their calories increase their exercise intensity.
I saw how he measured things like his VO2 max and things like that, but absent putting himself in a metabolic ward, he didn't prove anything about a metabolic advantage to what he was doing.
There is a very simple explanation for what Attia did, and people here on these forums experience it all the time. I stated it above. You don't need to exercise more to burn more.
He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating, in spite of what he thinks.
Edit: I will also add that everyone here giving anecdotes (and this includes Attia) of this supposed advantage of quicker loss wasn't losing under controlled conditions like in this study. Study after study done under either controlled conditions or long term shows NO difference between higher or lower carb. Riddle me that one.
Here's an excellent, well-reasoned response to Attia's nonsense: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/12/stossels-food-bunk-i-paging-dr-attia.html
I don't believe in the keto fairy anymore than I believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. Studies have already been cited which repeatedly show that there is no metabolic advantage to keto diets.
I don't call that well reasoned. Stossel comes across as a jealous and uses a lot of personal attacks. Very un-professional in my opinion. They say Attia doens't practice medicine and never has when Attia's website states he does have a practice (on both coasts). It says Attia learned biochemistry and physiology from a science journalist. What a joke! Attia describes in his website studying with some world renound medical/physiology people. The whole article is condescending and dismissive without scientific arguments to back up claims. That is a piss-poor article! See previous post about studies showing keto helps.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You keep bringing up Attia. I see nowhere on his site other than him mentioning DEXA and VO2 max scans what kind of testing he did.
A point I tried to make somewhere else you brought up Attia that got ignored is that people increasing their calories increase their exercise intensity.
I saw how he measured things like his VO2 max and things like that, but absent putting himself in a metabolic ward, he didn't prove anything about a metabolic advantage to what he was doing.
There is a very simple explanation for what Attia did, and people here on these forums experience it all the time. I stated it above. You don't need to exercise more to burn more.
He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating, in spite of what he thinks.
Edit: I will also add that everyone here giving anecdotes (and this includes Attia) of this supposed advantage of quicker loss wasn't losing under controlled conditions like in this study. Study after study done under either controlled conditions or long term shows NO difference between higher or lower carb. Riddle me that one.
Here's an excellent, well-reasoned response to Attia's nonsense: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/12/stossels-food-bunk-i-paging-dr-attia.html
I don't believe in the keto fairy anymore than I believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. Studies have already been cited which repeatedly show that there is no metabolic advantage to keto diets.
I don't call that well reasoned. Stossel comes across as a jealous and uses a lot of personal attacks. Very un-professional in my opinion. They say Attia doens't practice medicine and never has when Attia's website states he does have a practice (on both coasts). It says Attia learned biochemistry and physiology from a science journalist. What a joke! Attia describes in his website studying with some world renound medical/physiology people. The whole article is condescending and dismissive without scientific arguments to back up claims. That is a piss-poor article! See previous post about studies showing keto helps.
Yeah... It wasn't an excellent, well-reasoned response. Well maybe as well reasoned as that site ("for those seeking refuge from the low carb dogma") can get.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You keep bringing up Attia. I see nowhere on his site other than him mentioning DEXA and VO2 max scans what kind of testing he did.
A point I tried to make somewhere else you brought up Attia that got ignored is that people increasing their calories increase their exercise intensity.
I saw how he measured things like his VO2 max and things like that, but absent putting himself in a metabolic ward, he didn't prove anything about a metabolic advantage to what he was doing.
There is a very simple explanation for what Attia did, and people here on these forums experience it all the time. I stated it above. You don't need to exercise more to burn more.
He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating, in spite of what he thinks.
Edit: I will also add that everyone here giving anecdotes (and this includes Attia) of this supposed advantage of quicker loss wasn't losing under controlled conditions like in this study. Study after study done under either controlled conditions or long term shows NO difference between higher or lower carb. Riddle me that one.
Attia doesn't think he defied the laws of physics. What is the simple explanation you mention. The DEXA showed accurately what him BF% was. He said he didn't increase his exercise intensity and was a little less when he lost the weight. He proved something because he lost weight, improved %BF while increasing calorie intake and not doing more exercise.
Your statement, "He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating,.." makes me believe you didn't read what I wrote. Him losing weight, improving %bf, with no more exercise, and while increasing calories isn't defying the laws of physics if you include excretion into the model. I'm not talking about poop either. The majority of fat metabolism by-products are exhaled which is a form of excretion (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009). If the macro-content causes this fat to be liberated, then it can be excreted (through breathing).
Read down in the article (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.html) a little about benefits of ketosis and weight loss (not due to calorie restrictions). Also studies where mice (or rats I forget) lost more fat through IF dieting although that group and a control group ate the same amount of cals for the whole week. Riddle me that!
He demonstrated something we already know. IR + carbs is not a good mix. He is not an examplar for other people out there who don't have IR. IR and PCOS has already been demonstrated to have lower metabolic rates and the prolong periods of insulin would decrease CO. So when you tailor back the carbs, you have shorter periods of lipogensis which enables more energy to be burned which increases CO.
@nvmomketo and most PCOS people experience the same thing.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1307008/slow-metabolism-maybe-related-to-pcos-or-insulin-resistance/p1
Trying to apply science as it relates to a disease state, to non disease state is not beneficial.
ETA: Hell, I have a study or two that would compare those with IR vs IS (insulin sensitive) and varied carb rates. Those with IR responded better to low carb. Those who were IS, responded better to a moderate carb diet.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You keep bringing up Attia. I see nowhere on his site other than him mentioning DEXA and VO2 max scans what kind of testing he did.
A point I tried to make somewhere else you brought up Attia that got ignored is that people increasing their calories increase their exercise intensity.
I saw how he measured things like his VO2 max and things like that, but absent putting himself in a metabolic ward, he didn't prove anything about a metabolic advantage to what he was doing.
There is a very simple explanation for what Attia did, and people here on these forums experience it all the time. I stated it above. You don't need to exercise more to burn more.
He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating, in spite of what he thinks.
Edit: I will also add that everyone here giving anecdotes (and this includes Attia) of this supposed advantage of quicker loss wasn't losing under controlled conditions like in this study. Study after study done under either controlled conditions or long term shows NO difference between higher or lower carb. Riddle me that one.
Attia doesn't think he defied the laws of physics. What is the simple explanation you mention. The DEXA showed accurately what him BF% was. He said he didn't increase his exercise intensity and was a little less when he lost the weight. He proved something because he lost weight, improved %BF while increasing calorie intake and not doing more exercise.
Your statement, "He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating,.." makes me believe you didn't read what I wrote. Him losing weight, improving %bf, with no more exercise, and while increasing calories isn't defying the laws of physics if you include excretion into the model. I'm not talking about poop either. The majority of fat metabolism by-products are exhaled which is a form of excretion (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009). If the macro-content causes this fat to be liberated, then it can be excreted (through breathing).
Read down in the article (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.html) a little about benefits of ketosis and weight loss (not due to calorie restrictions). Also studies where mice (or rats I forget) lost more fat through IF dieting although that group and a control group ate the same amount of cals for the whole week. Riddle me that!
He demonstrated something we already know. IR + carbs is not a good mix. He is not an examplar for other people out there who don't have IR.
IR + carbs is fine (if the carbs are balanced), but is weight loss on low carb easier for IR people? Probably (and low carb is not no carb, of course). I think you and I agree, but the dogma on this site sometimes that carbs are always and everywhere bad needs to be combated.
That said, the numbers that Attia claims aren't supported, and don't make sense (as the carbsane blogger correctly points out).
What is supported is an advantage (on a sliding scale) for people who are IR, and a converse advantage for low fat for people who are insulin sensitive. This is a good discussion from a generally pro keto source: http://caloriesproper.com/insulin-resistance-is-a-spectrum/
I think the significance of this can be greatly overstated, though. I am insulin sensitive, I know from experience that I lose fine on low fat and am not hungry. Do I lose faster? Don't know, don't care, haven't done the experiment. Despite my IS status, I am currently more likely to eat lower fat, higher fat (moderate, though, can't see ever going to the super high fat levels people do as I feel like that wouldn't leave enough of my diet for nutrient dense foods, but I get that's a personal preference). Why do this if I might lose a little faster on low fat? Precisely because it is a LITTLE faster, one, even if true, and that what matters much more for weight loss is enjoying your diet and being consistent. I feel more satisfied (again, nothing to do with hunger) with a lower carb, higher fat diet. (I'm just not as in to carbs as some).
What bothers me are people who take the fact that they too are more satisfied on a lower carb diet or, in their cases feel less hungry (although I think there are tons of ways to address hunger and the SAD is not a good comparison) or feel better, and claim that their diet is healthier than others because low carb. That's not true.
From my perspective boiling down what diet to choose to suppositions about small differences in weight loss over time (which studies seem to show usually level out) instead of what you actually feel happy eating is a bad idea.
And again, I assume most who end up choosing keto/HFLC and sticking with it are in reality doing so because they are HAPPY with that diet, which is sensible. What I'm arguing against, mainly, is the idea that one should worry about supposedly being able to excrete more fat.
(Also, again, the huge differences claimed and the idea that you are "releasing" fat unrelated to any deficit is just bunk, IMO. Is there a slight effect on CO for some people such that there's a smaller difference? Maybe. Is low carb more hunger reducing and easier to stick to for IR people? Often, I think.)
Here's another good piece showing problems with the claim that IR causes obesity: http://caloriesproper.com/insulin-resistance-and-obesity/3 -
You guys are making my brain hurt.6
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You keep bringing up Attia. I see nowhere on his site other than him mentioning DEXA and VO2 max scans what kind of testing he did.
A point I tried to make somewhere else you brought up Attia that got ignored is that people increasing their calories increase their exercise intensity.
I saw how he measured things like his VO2 max and things like that, but absent putting himself in a metabolic ward, he didn't prove anything about a metabolic advantage to what he was doing.
There is a very simple explanation for what Attia did, and people here on these forums experience it all the time. I stated it above. You don't need to exercise more to burn more.
He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating, in spite of what he thinks.
Edit: I will also add that everyone here giving anecdotes (and this includes Attia) of this supposed advantage of quicker loss wasn't losing under controlled conditions like in this study. Study after study done under either controlled conditions or long term shows NO difference between higher or lower carb. Riddle me that one.
Attia doesn't think he defied the laws of physics. What is the simple explanation you mention. The DEXA showed accurately what him BF% was. He said he didn't increase his exercise intensity and was a little less when he lost the weight. He proved something because he lost weight, improved %BF while increasing calorie intake and not doing more exercise.
Your statement, "He didn't defy physics because of how he was eating,.." makes me believe you didn't read what I wrote. Him losing weight, improving %bf, with no more exercise, and while increasing calories isn't defying the laws of physics if you include excretion into the model. I'm not talking about poop either. The majority of fat metabolism by-products are exhaled which is a form of excretion (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30494009). If the macro-content causes this fat to be liberated, then it can be excreted (through breathing).
Read down in the article (http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v67/n8/full/ejcn2013116a.html) a little about benefits of ketosis and weight loss (not due to calorie restrictions). Also studies where mice (or rats I forget) lost more fat through IF dieting although that group and a control group ate the same amount of cals for the whole week. Riddle me that!
He demonstrated something we already know. IR + carbs is not a good mix. He is not an examplar for other people out there who don't have IR.
IR + carbs is fine (if the carbs are balanced), but is weight loss on low carb easier for IR people? Probably (and low carb is not no carb, of course). I think you and I agree, but the dogma on this site sometimes that carbs are always and everywhere bad needs to be combated.
That said, the numbers that Attia claims aren't supported, and don't make sense (as the carbsane blogger correctly points out).
What is supported is an advantage (on a sliding scale) for people who are IR, and a converse advantage for low fat for people who are insulin sensitive. This is a good discussion from a generally pro keto source: http://caloriesproper.com/insulin-resistance-is-a-spectrum/
I think the significance of this can be greatly overstated, though. I am insulin sensitive, I know from experience that I lose fine on low fat and am not hungry. Do I lose faster? Don't know, don't care, haven't done the experiment. Despite my IS status, I am currently more likely to eat lower fat, higher fat (moderate, though, can't see ever going to the super high fat levels people do as I feel like that wouldn't leave enough of my diet for nutrient dense foods, but I get that's a personal preference). Why do this if I might lose a little faster on low fat? Precisely because it is a LITTLE faster, one, even if true, and that what matters much more for weight loss is enjoying your diet and being consistent. I feel more satisfied (again, nothing to do with hunger) with a lower carb, higher fat diet. (I'm just not as in to carbs as some).
What bothers me are people who take the fact that they too are more satisfied on a lower carb diet or, in their cases feel less hungry (although I think there are tons of ways to address hunger and the SAD is not a good comparison) or feel better, and claim that their diet is healthier than others because low carb. That's not true.
From my perspective boiling down what diet to choose to suppositions about small differences in weight loss over time (which studies seem to show usually level out) instead of what you actually feel happy eating is a bad idea.
And again, I assume most who end up choosing keto/HFLC and sticking with it are in reality doing so because they are HAPPY with that diet, which is sensible. What I'm arguing against, mainly, is the idea that one should worry about supposedly being able to excrete more fat.
(Also, again, the huge differences claimed and the idea that you are "releasing" fat unrelated to any deficit is just bunk, IMO. Is there a slight effect on CO for some people such that there's a smaller difference? Maybe. Is low carb more hunger reducing and easier to stick to for IR people? Often, I think.)
Here's another good piece showing problems with the claim that IR causes obesity: http://caloriesproper.com/insulin-resistance-and-obesity/
We do agree. I do think the severity of the IR would greatly determine how well a person's body would tolerate carbs and the particular type of carbs can drive a specific reaction. It's no different than many other conditions (e.g., POTS, IBS, etc...). So there definitely needs to be some adjustments to a diet.
With all dietary preference, I do think some are overzealous and that is certainly is not particular to one diet. I do think using one person's anecdotal experience (e.g., Dr. Attia) to justify an argument is a poor choice. As pointed out in the article, it has some control issues. Because in controlled studies, there is no fat loss advantage as demonstrated by multiple studies when calories and protein is controlled.2 -
designerdiscounts wrote: »You guys are making my brain hurt.
They're good at that... but it's a learning experience
After a while, your brain starts hurting just a little bit less and you start nodding your way through the arguments (or shaking your head... depends which side of the argument you end up agreeing with).
I love discussions like this, even if I don't have the knowledge to actively participate. A year ago, my eyes glazed over. Now I wish I had time to read up on all the studies and articles and such quoted.5 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »designerdiscounts wrote: »You guys are making my brain hurt.
They're good at that... but it's a learning experience
After a while, your brain starts hurting just a little bit less and you start nodding your way through the arguments (or shaking your head... depends which side of the argument you end up agreeing with).
I love discussions like this, even if I don't have the knowledge to actively participate. A year ago, my eyes glazed over. Now I wish I had time to read up on all the studies and articles and such quoted.
As a matter of fact, most people that argue on here don't have adequate knowledge. They are just affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.
5 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »designerdiscounts wrote: »You guys are making my brain hurt.
They're good at that... but it's a learning experience
After a while, your brain starts hurting just a little bit less and you start nodding your way through the arguments (or shaking your head... depends which side of the argument you end up agreeing with).
I love discussions like this, even if I don't have the knowledge to actively participate. A year ago, my eyes glazed over. Now I wish I had time to read up on all the studies and articles and such quoted.
As a matter of fact, most people that argue on here don't have adequate knowledge. They are just affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Ouch.1 -
What do you all think of Dr. Peter Attia's experience? He claims to have gone from 195 to 170 while increasing his calories from about 3200 cals/day (carb heavy) to 4300 cals/day (keto) while keeping exercise constant or even decreasing exercise some (he worked out 3-4 hrs/day and is an endurance athlete)? I have no reason to doubt him.
See:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-i-lost-weight
Also see below on effects of his keto diet on his athletic performance:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
No one can say this man doesn't know his science on this subject (he doesn't know all obviously but is well educated on the topic).
I don't do keto but it does seem to me there is something to it.
Science does. Physics doesn't work that way.
Explain your comment, "physics doesn't work that way" please. The CICO model doesn't take into account excretion. If it did, then you can see that no conservation of energy principles are violated. Do you think he was lying or made gross errors in his logging?
Well he can't do math apparently. The calculations for the number of calories he got from each of the macros is consistently wrong. So he either lied intentionally an. Example: 600g carbs is 2400 calories (4 cals/g) , not 2040 (3.4 cals/g). The only one he is correct on is fat at 9cals/g.
To be honest, yeah maybe he lied. It's just a blog by a guy who has an agenda to push keto diets cause he wants to be the hero that finds that one solution to the obesity epidemic (ever heard of hero syndrome). Wouldn't be the first person to lie about how something can cause drastic changes in the body when it may in fact NOT *cough vaccines and autism cough*5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions