We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Yet another study shows no weight loss benefit for low-carb
Replies
-
My experience...losing 75 pounds
Atkins - weight fell off...35 pounds in 3 months
got bored with low carb - wanted spaghetti bad - switched to:
Weight Watchers - weight still came off (about 15-20 pounds) albeit at a slower rate because the easy Fatty McFaty weight was already gone with Atkins
got bored with low fat diet and still didn't want to go back to low carb so I did something that WILL NEVER CATCH ON :-)
Diet and Exercise - I lost the remaining weight for a total of 75 pounds lost and kept off. It took 18 months total to lose all 75 pounds.
Bottom line - both Atkins and WW worked - but they were not sustainable for a lifetime. Diet and exercise is sustainable for a lifetime.
17 -
Tweaking_Time wrote: »My experience...losing 75 pounds
Atkins - weight fell off...35 pounds in 3 months
got bored with low carb - wanted spaghetti bad - switched to:
Weight Watchers - weight still came off (about 15-20 pounds) albeit at a slower rate because the easy Fatty McFaty weight was already gone with Atkins
got bored with low fat diet and still didn't want to go back to low carb so I did something that WILL NEVER CATCH ON :-)
Diet and Exercise - I lost the remaining weight for a total of 75 pounds lost and kept off. It took 18 months total to lose all 75 pounds.
Bottom line - both Atkins and WW worked - but they were not sustainable for a lifetime. Diet and exercise is sustainable for a lifetime.
Nor would those two diets be sustainable for me. They are however sustainable for some people.
It is why IMO it is important to look at different methods of weight loss...try some different approaches...pick and choose the parts that may work and leave the rest behind. Put together an eating plan that is right for you.
I have picked up some good tips from several different eating plans. Not all of those tips ended up being workable for me but there are some that have.7 -
It is why IMO it is important to look at different methods of weight loss...try some different approaches...pick and choose the parts that may work and leave the rest behind. Put together an eating plan that is right for you.
This is wonderful advice. I wish someone would have told me that when I first started losing weight. The idea that we have to "diet" is so hard for people to understand. They hear that word, so they start searching for diets. They get bombarded with "this amazing diet" and "that amazing diet" and it's all just calorie restriction with a different coat of paint. I tried so many different diets throughout my life, and I could never stick to one. Finding a path where I can follow it and actually make it through the day without headaches, stomach pain, and insatiable hunger is why I was finally able to start getting healthier.2 -
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.
There is a good chance I believe that a lot of fat people could be IR.3 -
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*
If he erred by posting too few calories, his results are even more impressive. I believe he was honest in his reporting.1 -
If he erred by posting too few calories, his results are even more impressive. I believe he was honest in his reporting.
As the saying goes, "you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts". The facts, which have been scientifically proven in peer-reviewed studies, is that there is no metabolic advantage to a ketogenic diet. What one chooses to believe in spite of science is entirely up to them.
[ETA:] IMO, there's nothing wrong with a ketogenic diet, per se - if it suits one's preferences and helps with satiety and adherence, great. I've tried it myself in the past and got on okay with it at least for a while. Where I personally have issues is when people ascribe mysterious magical powers to the keto diet and preach it as the One True Way. Especially when they do it by cherry-picking facts/studies and/or outright ignoring the science behind it. Taubes has outright said that even if NuSI (his own non-profit organization) dicovered research which contradicted his claims, he still wouldn't change his mind. That's not science, that's ignorance.
Here's a good article from last year about Taubes, Attia and NuSI (NSFW language).16 -
I will try to find it, but there was a study years ago in which they proved that weight loss is achieved by simply eating less calories than you burn. The nutrients and what the calories came from had no bearing on the parcipitants weight loss. The difference in your nutrients come in to play for other factors.5
-
If he erred by posting too few calories, his results are even more impressive. I believe he was honest in his reporting.
In reading the comment section (link below) Attia says the "First Law never lies", he also address that if you consume too many calories even on a Keto diet you WILL gain weight. (I did all caps because Attia did).
So it appears conflicting.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
At any rate, he did his experiment when he was at President & co-founder at NuSI and they where the ones that funded or partially funded the study that proved there is no metabolic advantage to the Keto diet this past year.
At any rate I personally will not try the experiment:) and it seems it can't be replicated in studies.
2 -
As the saying goes, "you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts". The facts, which have been scientifically proven in peer-reviewed studies, is that there is no metabolic advantage to a ketogenic diet. What one chooses to believe in spite of science is entirely up to them.
[ETA:] IMO, there's nothing wrong with a ketogenic diet, per se - if it suits one's preferences and helps with satiety and adherence, great. I've tried it myself in the past and got on okay with it at least for a while. Where I personally have issues is when people ascribe mysterious magical powers to the keto diet and preach it as the One True Way. Especially when they do it by cherry-picking facts/studies and/or outright ignoring the science behind it. Taubes has outright said that even if NuSI (his own non-profit organization) dicovered research which contradicted his claims, he still wouldn't change his mind. That's not science, that's ignorance.
Here's a good article from last year about Taubes, Attia and NuSI (NSFW language).
And you have proof or facts he lied? I provided you with reference that showed it helps. Please don't just choose to ignore that either!1 -
diviningrod1 wrote: »I will try to find it, but there was a study years ago in which they proved that weight loss is achieved by simply eating less calories than you burn. The nutrients and what the calories came from had no bearing on the parcipitants weight loss. The difference in your nutrients come in to play for other factors.
Of course you will lose in a deficit at least the amount the deficit demands. The question is can you lose more than that or not.0 -
Of course you will lose in a deficit at least the amount the deficit demands. The question is can you lose more than that or not.
And the answer is no, as several peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown. There is no metabolic advantage to a ketogenic diet.10 -
As the saying goes, "you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts". The facts, which have been scientifically proven in peer-reviewed studies, is that there is no metabolic advantage to a ketogenic diet. What one chooses to believe in spite of science is entirely up to them.
[ETA:] IMO, there's nothing wrong with a ketogenic diet, per se - if it suits one's preferences and helps with satiety and adherence, great. I've tried it myself in the past and got on okay with it at least for a while. Where I personally have issues is when people ascribe mysterious magical powers to the keto diet and preach it as the One True Way. Especially when they do it by cherry-picking facts/studies and/or outright ignoring the science behind it. Taubes has outright said that even if NuSI (his own non-profit organization) dicovered research which contradicted his claims, he still wouldn't change his mind. That's not science, that's ignorance.
Here's a good article from last year about Taubes, Attia and NuSI (NSFW language).
Keto, LC, IF are not magical. I've never claimed they were. I believe they can help. I have issues with people that keep saying that it is magical to lose more than a calorie deficit demands when it is not. I does not violate any physical laws as I discussed earlier. You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility. A cal deficit is sufficient to lose fat but there could be other things that can contribute to it also, so no, LC or Keto isnt' the One True Way but could augment a calorie deficit in losing weight. Taubes must have some strong beliefs due to personal experience. Science is fallible (how many studies have been refuted with more work? How long has it been debated if coffee is good for you or not?) so I can see if he has some strong feeling due to experience that he might feel that way (he should be careful with that attitude though).2 -
...You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility...
Anybody who knows anything about physiology would not discount the fact that exhalation is a mode of fat loss. That's commonly known. If anything, people may be disputing your belief that IF/Keto is somehow unique or magical in that regard. You lose fat through exhalation regardless of the macro composition of your diet or when you eat your food.
Taubes has very strong opinions indeed, and they're not backed by science. He's not a scientist and has no training in nutrition or physiology. He studied applied physics and aerospace engineering, and has a Master's degree in journalism. In short, he's a tinfoil hat crackpot with some crazy ideas and just enough intelligence to know how to cherry pick scientific studies and twist the logic enough to sound convincing so he can sell books and get paid for speaking engagements. He's been solidly discredited by numerous scientific researchers, yet he refuses to relent on his dogma because it would just make him look like an even bigger fool at this point.10 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »
In reading the comment section (link below) Attia says the "First Law never lies", he also address that if you consume too many calories even on a Keto diet you WILL gain weight. (I did all caps because Attia did).
So it appears conflicting.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
At any rate, he did his experiment when he was at President & co-founder at NuSI and they where the ones that funded or partially funded the study that proved there is no metabolic advantage to the Keto diet this past year.
At any rate I personally will not try the experiment:) and it seems it can't be replicated in studies.
If his diet did increase his CO, perhaps due to IR or other reasons, then the 1st law was not violated. The numbers just shifted. You can still eat too many calories while eating keto, but for some that "too much" number is higher.3 -
@blambo61 Have you seen these studies yet? https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/ Most of them support the idea that keto reduces the amount of food we eat so we lose, but there are a couple in there that tried for an isocaloric comparison between macros. For those with IR, like Attia, like me, LCHF is the winner by a few pounds and improved health markers.0
-
If his diet did increase his CO, perhaps due to IR or other reasons, then the 1st law was not violated. The numbers just shifted. You can still eat too many calories while eating keto, but for some that "too much" number is higher.
Understood. His comment on the first law was to someone asking if they could eat a lot of calories of fat and zero carbs and not gain weight.0 -
@blambo61 Have you seen these studies yet? https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/ Most of them support the idea that keto reduces the amount of food we eat so we lose, but there are a couple in there that tried for an isocaloric comparison between macros. For those with IR, like Attia, like me, LCHF is the winner by a few pounds and improved health markers.
The issue with pretty much every single of those low carb studies, is they don't hold protein constant. And often, the low carb group is 2-3x the amount of the low fat group and the RDA. And in some of them, the LF group is even lower than the RDA. Protein is a thermogenic. No one will dispute that. But people will set up studies wrongly to exploit that. Also, many of those studies are based on recall and other factors. What it may suggest, is along with increase protein (which largely drives satiety), that low carb might help compliance by driving protein up.4 -
Keto, LC, IF are not magical. I've never claimed they were. I believe they can help. I have issues with people that keep saying that it is magical to lose more than a calorie deficit demands when it is not. I does not violate any physical laws as I discussed earlier. You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility. A cal deficit is sufficient to lose fat but there could be other things that can contribute to it also, so no, LC or Keto isnt' the One True Way but could augment a calorie deficit in losing weight. Taubes must have some strong beliefs due to personal experience. Science is fallible (how many studies have been refuted with more work? How long has it been debated if coffee is good for you or not?) so I can see if he has some strong feeling due to experience that he might feel that way (he should be careful with that attitude though).
You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.10 -
There is a good chance I believe that a lot of fat people could be IR.
You can believe it, but doesn't mean it's true. And honestly, I do not understand why you are trying to justify a response or have an argument based off an N=1. At best, in the first study, there was a short term increase in EE while transition to ketosis, but there also wasn't fat loss and by the end, total fat loss was equivalent. I haven't found it, but there was a discussion between KH and I believe Attia or Volek, where KH suggested that the reason for the increase in EE was the initial metabolic cost of producing additional Ketones.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.full
Now, if you wanted to argue compliance or other factors, I could many understand that. Personally, if a person is obese and non active, there probably would be a benefit from reducing carbs. But I would also recommend reducing carbs to increase protein and fiber, and then modifying fat and carbs based on satiety and energy requirements. I personally cycle carbs/calories. My low carb days are a bit rough, but this technique has allowed me to have greater compliance. My high carb days (320g+), I struggle often to get enough carbs, as they tend to fill me up.4 -
I do prefer to et a low fat high carb vegan diet. When I eat carbs I feel more energetic.
2 -
You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility.You do not understand how excretion works. You don't breathe out fat, you breathe out the byproducts of lipolysis. Water and Carbon Dioxide. By that point, the energy has already been extracted.
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?6 -
If he erred by posting too few calories, his results are even more impressive. I believe he was honest in his reporting.
If he can't do basic math why would I trust the number of calories he said he consumed? If 3.4 is 4 is his mind then maybe when he ate 600g of carbs he screwed that up too and only ate 400g resulting in a calorie difference of 800. I didn't read his entire blog, but what I'm gathering is he's saying he increased his calories, kept exercise the same, and yet somehow lost weight which seems to violate thermodynamics. His inaccuracy discredits him.7 -
rainbowbow wrote: »
This. ^ You also generate carbon dioxide as a result of energy metabolism (turning substrates into ATP or re-generating ATP from ADP) in general. Without getting into the details.
Essentially and without getting into the details for the sake of the forum, the heat of our bodies as well as CO2 are byproducts of breaking the bonds of ATP for use as energy by our cells. ATP -> ADP
I don't understand what you think happens that makes low carb special to cause "more" body fat to be lost based on your comment. Can you explain further?
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exdothermic.1 -
Bond breaking is endothermic. You must put energy into a system to break a bond. Bond making is exdothermic.
i could be wrong, but, I am fairly certain that bond breaking in the case of ATP ->ADP is exothermic, is it not? And attaching a phosphate back to ADP is endothermic.2 -
Keto, LC, IF are not magical. I've never claimed they were. I believe they can help. I have issues with people that keep saying that it is magical to lose more than a calorie deficit demands when it is not. I does not violate any physical laws as I discussed earlier. You have to lose as much as a deficit demands due to conservation of energy (the energy has to be come from somewhere) but that does not mean you can't lose more than that (due to excreting with exhalation being a mode of loss of fat mass). I have issues that people will not even consider this possibility. A cal deficit is sufficient to lose fat but there could be other things that can contribute to it also, so no, LC or Keto isnt' the One True Way but could augment a calorie deficit in losing weight. Taubes must have some strong beliefs due to personal experience. Science is fallible (how many studies have been refuted with more work? How long has it been debated if coffee is good for you or not?) so I can see if he has some strong feeling due to experience that he might feel that way (he should be careful with that attitude though).
So explain why this (the bolded) would happen and the mechanism that leads to it? Hardly seems advantageous or something your body would do -- give it signals of food scarcity (which is how it perceives keto) and it just drops fat stores without actually using it for energy?
This is not what Attia claims happens, btw.
As for Taubes, his personal experience is that he does better on low carb high fat (I've posted a piece discussing this and a link to a discussion with him in the past), but that's not about weight loss with controlled deficits.0 -
Anybody who knows anything about physiology would not discount the fact that exhalation is a mode of fat loss. That's commonly known. If anything, people may be disputing your belief that IF/Keto is somehow unique or magical in that regard. You lose fat through exhalation regardless of the macro composition of your diet or when you eat your food.
Taubes has very strong opinions indeed, and they're not backed by science. He's not a scientist and has no training in nutrition or physiology. He studied applied physics and aerospace engineering, and has a Master's degree in journalism. In short, he's a tinfoil hat crackpot with some crazy ideas and just enough intelligence to know how to cherry pick scientific studies and twist the logic enough to sound convincing so he can sell books and get paid for speaking engagements. He's been solidly discredited by numerous scientific researchers, yet he refuses to relent on his dogma because it would just make him look like an even bigger fool at this point.
I don't know how many times I need to explain it isn't magical. Your belief that loss without a deficit would be "magical" shows me you are not considering excretion as a mode of energy loss. I don't know what else to say.
Applied physics and aerospace engineering isn't science? Those people (I'm one of them) have more math, stats, and physical system dynamics training than a nutritionist or physiologist every thought of having. It allows them to thing of things in terms of energy a lot better than the nutritionist or physiologist. You have your opinions about Taubes and his ideas but I KNOW your idea that a loss without a deficit does not break any themo, energy laws which I've studied quite a bit. Both camps need to learn from each other (the life sciences need more math and the math guys need more life sciences). Together much more can be learned. My background is in engineering with a BS in mechanical engineering (lots of thermo) and a MS in electrical engineering (lots of physical systems dynamics modeling). I think you are cherry picking because I've provided references that back up that lc/if/keto helps.1 -
The issue with pretty much every single of those low carb studies, is they don't hold protein constant. And often, the low carb group is 2-3x the amount of the low fat group and the RDA. And in some of them, the LF group is even lower than the RDA. Protein is a thermogenic. No one will dispute that. But people will set up studies wrongly to exploit that. Also, many of those studies are based on recall and other factors. What it may suggest, is along with increase protein (which largely drives satiety), that low carb might help compliance by driving protein up.
True. But a LCHF diet may not hold protein constant either. It isn't just one aspect, food or macro that makes a LCHF diet. It is the entire diet.
If a low carb diet has 28% protein and the higher carb diet had 20% protein, that is still a comparison of diet. If the LC group lost more weight with identical calories, it is is still the LCHF diet that was slightly more successful. Not just one part of it. No magical foods, right?
Sure it makes it harder to pin point what one thing, exactly it was, that made the diet more successful, but it may not be one thing.
It isn't a huge difference. 10lbs per year at the most, it seems. Pretty modest. I think that it seems like so much more because of the ease of weight loss experienced by those for whom the diet really works. Losing weight is no longer torturous for them. My guess is that would count for a lot for those people.
1 -
True. But a LCHF diet may not hold protein constant either. It isn't just one aspect, food or macro that makes a LCHF diet. It is the entire diet.
If a low carb diet has 28% protein and the higher carb diet had 20% protein, that is still the diet. If the LC group lost more weight with identical calories, it is is still the LCHF dietvthat was slightly more successful. Not just one part of it. No magical foods, right?
Sure it makes it harder to pin point what one thing, exactly it was, that made the diet more successful, but it may not be one thing.
If you designed a diet, where it was isocaloric, but the keto group was below the RDA for protein, but the low fat group was 3x the amount, the low fat would show favorable results. It's the protein that makes a difference, not the fat/carb distribution.
The same argument can be had about keto/LCHF diets being muscle sparring. While that can be true, it's not if protein levels are not high enough. Again, it's not the diet, is protein. But if you are looking to gain muscle while in a deficit, you have a greater ability to achieve that with moderate to high carb.
What both are these are demonstrating, is protein is what matters when you lose weight. The rest is personal preference. And lets face it, the latter is the largest driver for success.5 -
I don't know how many times I need to explain it isn't magical. Your belief that loss without a deficit would be "magical" shows me you are not considering excretion as a mode of energy loss. I don't know what else to say.
Applied physics and aerospace engineering isn't science? Those people (I'm one of them) have more math, stats, and physical system dynamics training than a nutritionist or physiologist every thought of having. It allows them to thing of things in terms of energy a lot better than the nutritionist or physiologist. You have your opinions about Taubes and his ideas but I KNOW your idea that a loss without a deficit does not break any themo, energy laws which I've studied quite a bit. Both camps need to learn from each other (the life sciences need more math and the math guys need more life sciences). Together much more can be learned. My background is in engineering with a BS in mechanical engineering (lots of thermo) and a MS in electrical engineering (lots of physical systems dynamics modeling). I think you are cherry picking because I've provided references that back up that lc/if/keto helps.
No one is denying that low carb helps. It just doesn't help more than low or moderate fat outside of dietary compliance. And I have provided studies, not anecdotes, to suggest that. In terms of diet, EE is increase by protein and fiber. Larger contributors of increase to EE are, more daily movement/walking, exercise and more muscle (which is small).3 -
If he can't do basic math why would I trust the number of calories he said he consumed? If 3.4 is 4 is his mind then maybe when he ate 600g of carbs he screwed that up too and only ate 400g resulting in a calorie difference of 800. I didn't read his entire blog, but what I'm gathering is he's saying he increased his calories, kept exercise the same, and yet somehow lost weight which seems to violate thermodynamics. His inaccuracy discredits him.
Maybe he's just using alternative facts...
10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 927 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions