Yet another study shows no weight loss benefit for low-carb
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
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.
There is a good chance I believe that a lot of fat people could be IR.3 -
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*
If he erred by posting too few calories, his results are even more impressive. I believe he was honest in his reporting.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*
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
-
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*
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 -
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*
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).
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions