Ketogenic diet
Options
Replies
-
hsmith0930 wrote: »Fiber is not used as energy IN THE BODY. However, it IS counted in the calorie counts.
Not entirely, only in part, because it is not digested/used by the body for energy in the same way. Check calorie counts and do the math and you will see this is so.Sugar, however, DOES make insulin spike. The insulin then has to figure out where the sugar should go. If the liver is full, and the body has no immediate need of energy, the sugar will be stored in fat cells.
Extremely rare if one is at a calorie deficit, so irrelevant. (If it is you still would use that fat later and the storage process takes some extra calories, unlike storing fat as fat, which is even easier for your body.)However, a lot of people can eat a lot more calories on a low carb diet and still lose weight than if they were eating a standard high carb diet.
The evidence does not appear to support this claim at all. See, e.g., Kevin Hall's work.3 -
KETO- YES!!!
I had knee surgery in May, followed by a slip down the stairs that caused me to break my kneecap (same knee). Being forced to sit around and not able to exercise at all is not fun. Add to that "convenient" eating (like anything in a wrapper) and increasing depression. I felt completely trapped. Someone suggested the keto diet as a solution to at least maintain weight if not lose it for the time being. Because the pain of gaining weight was greater than my love for sugars and carbs, I figured I'd give it a try. That was 3 months ago.
I am currently down about 15 lbs. so far. I noticed a difference almost immediately. My energy began to increase as I was losing weight. And my depression is decreasing with every pound I lose. I look forward to my 2-3 mile walks in the morning and am excited about riding my bike and getting back out into the world.
As far as missing carbs, sweets, ect... I really am not. With the exception of 3-5 days a month, there are no insane cravings. And when I find myself thinking about sugar & chocolate, I substitute just about every sin food I love with a keto-friendly doppelgänger. I did a little research and discovered sweet drops, swerve, splenda and a bunch of other sweetners that I actually like more than sugar. And I must admit- I am addicted to Torani sugar-free syrups now. Some may say I and replacing one addiction with another, but I am perfectly content with that!
The diet may not work for others, but I am happy with the results so far.
8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »hsmith0930 wrote: »Fiber is not used as energy IN THE BODY. However, it IS counted in the calorie counts.
Not entirely, only in part, because it is not digested/used by the body for energy in the same way. Check calorie counts and do the math and you will see this is so.Sugar, however, DOES make insulin spike. The insulin then has to figure out where the sugar should go. If the liver is full, and the body has no immediate need of energy, the sugar will be stored in fat cells.
Extremely rare if one is at a calorie deficit, so irrelevant. (If it is you still would use that fat later and the storage process takes some extra calories, unlike storing fat as fat, which is even easier for your body.)However, a lot of people can eat a lot more calories on a low carb diet and still lose weight than if they were eating a standard high carb diet.
The evidence does not appear to support this claim at all. See, e.g., Kevin Hall's work.
Technically, there is research that supports that low carb can increase EE, but there is a reason... because they increase protein. What you wont see are studies that demonstrate an increase in EE when protein is held constant. But those who follow LC love to show those 21 studies why low carb is better.4 -
The majority of people that see improvement on keto diets tend to cycle carbs, time carbs or are noobs. If you look at most body builders, they dont bulk with keto.1 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
since a calorie is a unit of energy its would be the same if you burned say 20,000 BTUs of propane vs natural gas. sure the heat may be a little different(one may feel warmer than the other to you) but its still burning at that amount of btus. you dont lose weight faster on keto either. its mostly water weight at first. how do you know you also maintained muscle? did you get a dexa scan or something similar before and during the weight loss phase?. you may feel better doing keto and thats fine, but saying CICO is bull is bull. if you lost energy lifting doing a certain diet it could be you werent getting enough calories or you werent eating enough of a certain macro. low carbs for a lot of people will make their lifting and other activities suffer,for some it may give them more energy but it still comes down to CICO .
This relects my belief on CICO:
"Newton’s first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of an isolated system is constant. In other words, in a laboratory, or “isolated system,” 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda are, in fact, the same. I’m not saying Newton was wrong about that. It’s true that when burned in a laboratory setting, 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda would indeed release the same amount of energy.
But sorry, Mr. Newton; your law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply in living, breathing, digesting systems. When you eat food, the “isolated system” part of the equation goes out the window. The food interacts with your biology, a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite.” -Dr. Mark Hyman
How does Hyman conclude that the "complex adaptive system" of my body will get a different amount of energy from 1,000 calories of soda and 1,000 calories of broccoli? What exact transformation is he saying will take place?
I will bet that you won't receive an adaquate response to this perfectly legitimate question. Experience (of threads like this one) has taught me that the Keto crowd when confronted with an obvious vague falsehood will simply create new vague falsehoods to blurs the lines or move the goal posts from the original. It's about like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a conspiracy theorist.
I don't deny the physics of CICO. Energy will not disappear.
But I have 2 main issues with how the term seems to be used pertaining to dieting.
1. CI is fairly easy to determine, CO is not. Our bodies are very complex and adapt energy output to many different factors: food(amount and type), exercise, air temperature, stress, sleep, illness, hormone changes, etc. We can't just figure our weight, BF% and activity level and look at a chart to determine our CO. And our bodies will fight against CO when CI is restricted too far.
2. Most dieters are not looking to simply increase their CO. They want to decrease their fat mass (calorie output from fat cells) and maintain or increase their muscle mass (calorie input to muscle cells). Again, our bodies are very complex and each is unique. The type of food we eat very much affects what our bodies do with the energy. For one person a high carb meal can increase their NEAT, TEA, BMR and cause them to burn fat. For another, the same meal can cause their body to release isuline, block CPT-1, decrease BMR, NEAT, etc. and cause them to store fat.
Bottom line: There is no "one size fits all" diet. And it's not as simple as "eat less, move more". It's not as simple as "you're not losing weight because you must be eating more than you think you are". I know how to count calories. I know how to track my exercise. I have seen the difference in fat loss from one diet to another. Each individual should find the diet that maximizes fat loss for them and adapt it as their body changes. For example at 40% BF your body may respond differently to keto than at 20% BF. I'm not opposed to following something as simple as CICO if that's what works best.9 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
since a calorie is a unit of energy its would be the same if you burned say 20,000 BTUs of propane vs natural gas. sure the heat may be a little different(one may feel warmer than the other to you) but its still burning at that amount of btus. you dont lose weight faster on keto either. its mostly water weight at first. how do you know you also maintained muscle? did you get a dexa scan or something similar before and during the weight loss phase?. you may feel better doing keto and thats fine, but saying CICO is bull is bull. if you lost energy lifting doing a certain diet it could be you werent getting enough calories or you werent eating enough of a certain macro. low carbs for a lot of people will make their lifting and other activities suffer,for some it may give them more energy but it still comes down to CICO .
This relects my belief on CICO:
"Newton’s first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of an isolated system is constant. In other words, in a laboratory, or “isolated system,” 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda are, in fact, the same. I’m not saying Newton was wrong about that. It’s true that when burned in a laboratory setting, 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda would indeed release the same amount of energy.
But sorry, Mr. Newton; your law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply in living, breathing, digesting systems. When you eat food, the “isolated system” part of the equation goes out the window. The food interacts with your biology, a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite.” -Dr. Mark Hyman
How does Hyman conclude that the "complex adaptive system" of my body will get a different amount of energy from 1,000 calories of soda and 1,000 calories of broccoli? What exact transformation is he saying will take place?
I will bet that you won't receive an adaquate response to this perfectly legitimate question. Experience (of threads like this one) has taught me that the Keto crowd when confronted with an obvious vague falsehood will simply create new vague falsehoods to blurs the lines or move the goal posts from the original. It's about like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a conspiracy theorist.
I don't deny the physics of CICO. Energy will not disappear.
But I have 2 main issues with how the term seems to be used pertaining to dieting.
1. CI is fairly easy to determine, CO is not. Our bodies are very complex and adapt energy output to many different factors: food(amount and type), exercise, air temperature, stress, sleep, illness, hormone changes, etc. We can't just figure our weight, BF% and activity level and look at a chart to determine our CO. And our bodies will fight against CO when CI is restricted too far.
2. Most dieters are not looking to simply increase their CO. They want to decrease their fat mass (calorie output from fat cells) and maintain or increase their muscle mass (calorie input to muscle cells). Again, our bodies are very complex and each is unique. The type of food we eat very much affects what our bodies do with the energy. For one person a high carb meal can increase their NEAT, TEA, BMR and cause them to burn fat. For another, the same meal can cause their body to release isuline, block CPT-1, decrease BMR, NEAT, etc. and cause them to store fat.
Bottom line: There is no "one size fits all" diet. And it's not as simple as "eat less, move more". It's not as simple as "you're not losing weight because you must be eating more than you think you are". I know how to count calories. I know how to track my exercise. I have seen the difference in fat loss from one diet to another. Each individual should find the diet that maximizes fat loss for them and adapt it as their body changes. For example at 40% BF your body may respond differently to keto than at 20% BF. I'm not opposed to following something as simple as CICO if that's what works best.
Foods do not cause decreases to metabolism. Long term calorie suppression, muscle loss and weight loss do.
Inadequate nutrients can cause deficiencies which can impact energy and person.
And no one is saying a one size fits all.. because all diets follow cico.. aka energy balance.2 -
I think what many keto people fail to see it that they COMMIT to that diet. If they COMMITTED to any form of other calorie restriction, then the results would likely be the same.
It's like committing to exercise. Lots of females don't like to lift, but will commit to going to Zumba daily. I see it everyday in the gym.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
I think what many keto people fail to see it that they COMMIT to that diet. If they COMMITTED to any form of other calorie restriction, then the results would likely be the same.
It's like committing to exercise. Lots of females don't like to lift, but will commit to going to Zumba daily. I see it everyday in the gym.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
To be fair, for the folks with IR for whom carbs seem to cause cravings, simple committing isn't often enough to get past the craving cycles, depending on what their food choices are because their hunger is just so out of control.
I do wonder often about the prior diets of a lot of keto people, but it's really just a passing thing. I do especially think about their protein consumption and wonder if a simple macro rebalancing and food choice re-jigging (mostly whole foods with very few treats at the outset) would make a difference for some of these people rather than having to go straight to something as drastic as keto.
It's a thought, but just a passing one.7 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
since a calorie is a unit of energy its would be the same if you burned say 20,000 BTUs of propane vs natural gas. sure the heat may be a little different(one may feel warmer than the other to you) but its still burning at that amount of btus. you dont lose weight faster on keto either. its mostly water weight at first. how do you know you also maintained muscle? did you get a dexa scan or something similar before and during the weight loss phase?. you may feel better doing keto and thats fine, but saying CICO is bull is bull. if you lost energy lifting doing a certain diet it could be you werent getting enough calories or you werent eating enough of a certain macro. low carbs for a lot of people will make their lifting and other activities suffer,for some it may give them more energy but it still comes down to CICO .
This relects my belief on CICO:
"Newton’s first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of an isolated system is constant. In other words, in a laboratory, or “isolated system,” 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda are, in fact, the same. I’m not saying Newton was wrong about that. It’s true that when burned in a laboratory setting, 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda would indeed release the same amount of energy.
But sorry, Mr. Newton; your law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply in living, breathing, digesting systems. When you eat food, the “isolated system” part of the equation goes out the window. The food interacts with your biology, a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite.” -Dr. Mark Hyman
How does Hyman conclude that the "complex adaptive system" of my body will get a different amount of energy from 1,000 calories of soda and 1,000 calories of broccoli? What exact transformation is he saying will take place?
I will bet that you won't receive an adaquate response to this perfectly legitimate question. Experience (of threads like this one) has taught me that the Keto crowd when confronted with an obvious vague falsehood will simply create new vague falsehoods to blurs the lines or move the goal posts from the original. It's about like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a conspiracy theorist.
I don't deny the physics of CICO. Energy will not disappear.
But I have 2 main issues with how the term seems to be used pertaining to dieting.
1. CI is fairly easy to determine, CO is not. Our bodies are very complex and adapt energy output to many different factors: food(amount and type), exercise, air temperature, stress, sleep, illness, hormone changes, etc. We can't just figure our weight, BF% and activity level and look at a chart to determine our CO. And our bodies will fight against CO when CI is restricted too far.
2. Most dieters are not looking to simply increase their CO. They want to decrease their fat mass (calorie output from fat cells) and maintain or increase their muscle mass (calorie input to muscle cells). Again, our bodies are very complex and each is unique. The type of food we eat very much affects what our bodies do with the energy. For one person a high carb meal can increase their NEAT, TEA, BMR and cause them to burn fat. For another, the same meal can cause their body to release isuline, block CPT-1, decrease BMR, NEAT, etc. and cause them to store fat.
Bottom line: There is no "one size fits all" diet. And it's not as simple as "eat less, move more". It's not as simple as "you're not losing weight because you must be eating more than you think you are". I know how to count calories. I know how to track my exercise. I have seen the difference in fat loss from one diet to another. Each individual should find the diet that maximizes fat loss for them and adapt it as their body changes. For example at 40% BF your body may respond differently to keto than at 20% BF. I'm not opposed to following something as simple as CICO if that's what works best.
Foods do not cause decreases to metabolism. Long term calorie suppression, muscle loss and weight loss do.
Everything we do has an effect on our metabolism. It increases and decreases all the time depending on what we are doing at any given moment. It is not a constant. Eating, sleeping, exercising, stress - our metabolic rate is conatantly adapting to the body's needs. But if you mean BMR, that is just an average of our body"s energy expendature while at rest. And the type of food we eat can change that significantly. This study concluded that over 10 weeks, a group consuming fructose had a significant drop in their REE. No change was found in those consuming glucose.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21952692
Inadequate nutrients can cause deficiencies which can impact energy and person. [/quote]
What do you mean by energy if you aren't refering to metabolism?
And no one is saying a one size fits all.. because all diets follow cico.. aka energy balance. [/quote]
Not all CO is equal. Most dieters are wanting CO in the form of fat burning. Some diets will cause catabolism. The same CI on 2 different diets can result in a much different fat loss.
8 -
My personal opinion on it is that because carbs usually taste much better than just eating foods with no "sweetness" to it, they flat out just don't overeat. It IS harder to try to stop eating foods that do taste better than others, but again if someone is really committed to something, they can learn behavior to get past it.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I think what many keto people fail to see it that they COMMIT to that diet. If they COMMITTED to any form of other calorie restriction, then the results would likely be the same.
It's like committing to exercise. Lots of females don't like to lift, but will commit to going to Zumba daily. I see it everyday in the gym.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
To be fair, for the folks with IR for whom carbs seem to cause cravings, simple committing isn't often enough to get past the craving cycles, depending on what their food choices are because their hunger is just so out of control.
I do wonder often about the prior diets of a lot of keto people, but it's really just a passing thing. I do especially think about their protein consumption and wonder if a simple macro rebalancing and food choice re-jigging (mostly whole foods with very few treats at the outset) would make a difference for some of these people rather than having to go straight to something as drastic as keto.
It's a thought, but just a passing one.
Level of commitment matters. People who aren't committed to keto, won't succeed at it any different than someone who doesn't commit to any other type of diet (vegan, LCHF, paleo, etc.)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
since a calorie is a unit of energy its would be the same if you burned say 20,000 BTUs of propane vs natural gas. sure the heat may be a little different(one may feel warmer than the other to you) but its still burning at that amount of btus. you dont lose weight faster on keto either. its mostly water weight at first. how do you know you also maintained muscle? did you get a dexa scan or something similar before and during the weight loss phase?. you may feel better doing keto and thats fine, but saying CICO is bull is bull. if you lost energy lifting doing a certain diet it could be you werent getting enough calories or you werent eating enough of a certain macro. low carbs for a lot of people will make their lifting and other activities suffer,for some it may give them more energy but it still comes down to CICO .
This relects my belief on CICO:
"Newton’s first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of an isolated system is constant. In other words, in a laboratory, or “isolated system,” 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda are, in fact, the same. I’m not saying Newton was wrong about that. It’s true that when burned in a laboratory setting, 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda would indeed release the same amount of energy.
But sorry, Mr. Newton; your law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply in living, breathing, digesting systems. When you eat food, the “isolated system” part of the equation goes out the window. The food interacts with your biology, a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite.” -Dr. Mark Hyman
How does Hyman conclude that the "complex adaptive system" of my body will get a different amount of energy from 1,000 calories of soda and 1,000 calories of broccoli? What exact transformation is he saying will take place?
I will bet that you won't receive an adaquate response to this perfectly legitimate question. Experience (of threads like this one) has taught me that the Keto crowd when confronted with an obvious vague falsehood will simply create new vague falsehoods to blurs the lines or move the goal posts from the original. It's about like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a conspiracy theorist.
I don't deny the physics of CICO. Energy will not disappear.
But I have 2 main issues with how the term seems to be used pertaining to dieting.
1. CI is fairly easy to determine, CO is not. Our bodies are very complex and adapt energy output to many different factors: food(amount and type), exercise, air temperature, stress, sleep, illness, hormone changes, etc. We can't just figure our weight, BF% and activity level and look at a chart to determine our CO. And our bodies will fight against CO when CI is restricted too far.
2. Most dieters are not looking to simply increase their CO. They want to decrease their fat mass (calorie output from fat cells) and maintain or increase their muscle mass (calorie input to muscle cells). Again, our bodies are very complex and each is unique. The type of food we eat very much affects what our bodies do with the energy. For one person a high carb meal can increase their NEAT, TEA, BMR and cause them to burn fat. For another, the same meal can cause their body to release isuline, block CPT-1, decrease BMR, NEAT, etc. and cause them to store fat.
Bottom line: There is no "one size fits all" diet. And it's not as simple as "eat less, move more". It's not as simple as "you're not losing weight because you must be eating more than you think you are". I know how to count calories. I know how to track my exercise. I have seen the difference in fat loss from one diet to another. Each individual should find the diet that maximizes fat loss for them and adapt it as their body changes. For example at 40% BF your body may respond differently to keto than at 20% BF. I'm not opposed to following something as simple as CICO if that's what works best.
Foods do not cause decreases to metabolism. Long term calorie suppression, muscle loss and weight loss do.
Everything we do has an effect on our metabolism. It increases and decreases all the time depending on what we are doing at any given moment. It is not a constant. Eating, sleeping, exercising, stress - our metabolic rate is conatantly adapting to the body's needs. But if you mean BMR, that is just an average of our body"s energy expendature while at rest. And the type of food we eat can change that significantly. This study concluded that over 10 weeks, a group consuming fructose had a significant drop in their REE. No change was found in those consuming glucose.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21952692
Inadequate nutrients can cause deficiencies which can impact energy and person.
What do you mean by energy if you aren't refering to metabolism?
And no one is saying a one size fits all.. because all diets follow cico.. aka energy balance.
Not all CO is equal. Most dieters are wanting CO in the form of fat burning. Some diets will cause catabolism. The same CI on 2 different diets can result in a much different fat loss.
You seem to be severely overestimating how fast and how much your body can change energy requirements.
Also your body will not just go and burn muscle for no reason just because you didn't eat in a particular way.3 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
since a calorie is a unit of energy its would be the same if you burned say 20,000 BTUs of propane vs natural gas. sure the heat may be a little different(one may feel warmer than the other to you) but its still burning at that amount of btus. you dont lose weight faster on keto either. its mostly water weight at first. how do you know you also maintained muscle? did you get a dexa scan or something similar before and during the weight loss phase?. you may feel better doing keto and thats fine, but saying CICO is bull is bull. if you lost energy lifting doing a certain diet it could be you werent getting enough calories or you werent eating enough of a certain macro. low carbs for a lot of people will make their lifting and other activities suffer,for some it may give them more energy but it still comes down to CICO .
This relects my belief on CICO:
"Newton’s first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of an isolated system is constant. In other words, in a laboratory, or “isolated system,” 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda are, in fact, the same. I’m not saying Newton was wrong about that. It’s true that when burned in a laboratory setting, 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda would indeed release the same amount of energy.
But sorry, Mr. Newton; your law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply in living, breathing, digesting systems. When you eat food, the “isolated system” part of the equation goes out the window. The food interacts with your biology, a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite.” -Dr. Mark Hyman
How does Hyman conclude that the "complex adaptive system" of my body will get a different amount of energy from 1,000 calories of soda and 1,000 calories of broccoli? What exact transformation is he saying will take place?
I will bet that you won't receive an adaquate response to this perfectly legitimate question. Experience (of threads like this one) has taught me that the Keto crowd when confronted with an obvious vague falsehood will simply create new vague falsehoods to blurs the lines or move the goal posts from the original. It's about like trying to have an intelligent conversation with a conspiracy theorist.
I don't deny the physics of CICO. Energy will not disappear.
But I have 2 main issues with how the term seems to be used pertaining to dieting.
1. CI is fairly easy to determine, CO is not. Our bodies are very complex and adapt energy output to many different factors: food(amount and type), exercise, air temperature, stress, sleep, illness, hormone changes, etc. We can't just figure our weight, BF% and activity level and look at a chart to determine our CO. And our bodies will fight against CO when CI is restricted too far.
2. Most dieters are not looking to simply increase their CO. They want to decrease their fat mass (calorie output from fat cells) and maintain or increase their muscle mass (calorie input to muscle cells). Again, our bodies are very complex and each is unique. The type of food we eat very much affects what our bodies do with the energy. For one person a high carb meal can increase their NEAT, TEA, BMR and cause them to burn fat. For another, the same meal can cause their body to release isuline, block CPT-1, decrease BMR, NEAT, etc. and cause them to store fat.
Bottom line: There is no "one size fits all" diet. And it's not as simple as "eat less, move more". It's not as simple as "you're not losing weight because you must be eating more than you think you are". I know how to count calories. I know how to track my exercise. I have seen the difference in fat loss from one diet to another. Each individual should find the diet that maximizes fat loss for them and adapt it as their body changes. For example at 40% BF your body may respond differently to keto than at 20% BF. I'm not opposed to following something as simple as CICO if that's what works best.
Foods do not cause decreases to metabolism. Long term calorie suppression, muscle loss and weight loss do.
Everything we do has an effect on our metabolism. It increases and decreases all the time depending on what we are doing at any given moment. It is not a constant. Eating, sleeping, exercising, stress - our metabolic rate is conatantly adapting to the body's needs. But if you mean BMR, that is just an average of our body"s energy expendature while at rest. And the type of food we eat can change that significantly. This study concluded that over 10 weeks, a group consuming fructose had a significant drop in their REE. No change was found in those consuming glucose.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21952692
Inadequate nutrients can cause deficiencies which can impact energy and person.
What do you mean by energy if you aren't refering to metabolism?
And no one is saying a one size fits all.. because all diets follow cico.. aka energy balance. [/quote]
Not all CO is equal. Most dieters are wanting CO in the form of fat burning. Some diets will cause catabolism. The same CI on 2 different diets can result in a much different fat loss.
[/quote]
I am referring to basal metabolic functions. And yes, i recogize that its always changing but it burns roughly an average amount of calories over a given period. Its why i can track calories over a given period of time and know my average burn rate or tdee. Its why metabolic ward studies can be done. Worrying about the 25% while you sleep and transient difference throughout the day is dumb. And the foods you eat dont effect it.3 -
What do you mean by energy if you aren't refering to metabolism?...
Not all CO is equal. Most dieters are wanting CO in the form of fat burning. Some diets will cause catabolism. The same CI on 2 different diets can result in a much different fat loss.
Often I find that when people go on about metabolism they mean not TDEE (which we have a decent amount of control over, and energy can affect) but BMR or otherwise factors they cannot control, really (or think they can control by magical thinking, like "if I consume coconut oil or ACV my metabolism will increase"). I'm not saying you are doing that, but very often it's a sign that they see the biggest factors in weight loss out of their control or requiring lots of "tricks," and that's really why I think it's SO helpful to simplify it, to say no, it's CICO. You can increase CO by exercising or otherwise moving, do what works for you, and you can control CI (various things might make that easier or harder, like food choice). For most, don't worry about anything else, there's no need and usually it distracts from the big ticket things for tiny differences.
For example, I'm really skeptical of the fructose thing, but will read the study. For me, the vast majority of the fructose I get is from fruit. I certainly have not noticed fruit making my TDEE lower (if anything I find it makes me feel good and thus translates into more energy, but then I eat it in the summer, mostly, and summer usually is a more energetic time for me, depending on many other things naturally (that have nothing to do with food). The idea that whatever minor effect that study may say fructose has over glucose strikes me as a really unnecessary thing for me (or most) to worry about, especially as with such studies you often see different results for the same kind of question, so taking one study as gospel and deciding you must change your diet to (say) eliminate fructose as much as possible, because your metabolism will kick up, seems to be a really harmful way to approach fitness.
It also makes me think of the people chugging down a TBSP of coconut oil on the idea that it will kick up metabolism when any tiny increase (if that were really a thing) would be blown away by the extra 120 calories.
I do not believe that the same calories on two different diets -- absent extremes in protein intake that are irrelevant to a discussion of the real world -- will cause meaningful differences in CI. What causes differences in CI is that on one you might find it easier or harder to control calories or eat more things where you mis-estimate calories. They would cause a difference in CO only if you feel better on one and thus are more active.
The studies show that on ad libitum diet experiments people often eat less on low carb AT FIRST, and this is where the majority of the differences observed (and in these studies all participants on average don't lose that much compared to what I and many others did just following MFP). They also show that definitely on diets where calories aren't completely controlled (unlike the Kevin Hall experiments) people vary as to what they do best on and often do well (again, at least at first) on diets that generally focus on "eating healthy," probably because they way reduce or eliminate foods they overeat. (What I think ninerbuff is saying.) Stephan Guyenet and the caloriesproper guy both argue that: see http://caloriesproper.com/the-hunger-free-diets/.
Related: http://caloriesproper.com/the-dietfits-study/3 -
The majority of people that see improvement on keto diets tend to cycle carbs, time carbs or are noobs. If you look at most body builders, they dont bulk with keto.
I'm not arguing that, just the use of the word "terrible".1 -
My personal opinion on it is that because carbs usually taste much better than just eating foods with no "sweetness" to it, they flat out just don't overeat. It IS harder to try to stop eating foods that do taste better than others, but again if someone is really committed to something, they can learn behavior to get past it.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I think what many keto people fail to see it that they COMMIT to that diet. If they COMMITTED to any form of other calorie restriction, then the results would likely be the same.
It's like committing to exercise. Lots of females don't like to lift, but will commit to going to Zumba daily. I see it everyday in the gym.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
To be fair, for the folks with IR for whom carbs seem to cause cravings, simple committing isn't often enough to get past the craving cycles, depending on what their food choices are because their hunger is just so out of control.
I do wonder often about the prior diets of a lot of keto people, but it's really just a passing thing. I do especially think about their protein consumption and wonder if a simple macro rebalancing and food choice re-jigging (mostly whole foods with very few treats at the outset) would make a difference for some of these people rather than having to go straight to something as drastic as keto.
It's a thought, but just a passing one.
Level of commitment matters. People who aren't committed to keto, won't succeed at it any different than someone who doesn't commit to any other type of diet (vegan, LCHF, paleo, etc.)
I think commitment is a small portion of sticking to a dietary choice. I believe (also my personal opinion) that people stick to a specifuc diet because it makes it easier to commit to. There is less effort, perceived or actual) required to be sucessful eating that way.
Keto is easy for me to stick to, at least most of the time, because it reduces my appetite, improves my health, and makes it so I can eat more (raises CO). Because of that, losing or maintaining a weight requires less effort so the commitment required is much less.
Sort of like a happy marriage. Maintaining your commitment to your spouse in a happy marriage is quite easy. Effortless. Whereas maintaing a commitment to someone who does not make you happy, or feels (physically or emotionally) unhealthy, is a lot of work and may well end in divorce, or an unhappy home life.8 -
Two things, though today is not my best day since I'm flaring the brain fog is strong:
Didn't Hall show that raised EE for keto diets lasted only 3 weeks while the body switched over to producing ketones?
Didn't Hall also show that when controlling for calories and protein, CO would be the same or better for higher carb diets?
I'm not following how a keto diet "raises" CO?
Protein is thermogenic, fat is the least thermogenic macro, and most here on MFP do have similar if not higher protein intakes to those following keto.
4 -
@psuLemon Agreed. I can be quite nit picky. Outside of very extreme dietary conditions (starvation, very low protein, etc.) BMR will stay pretty consistant based on LBM. And as far as that study goes, I don't know anyone who is trying to lose weigt and consumes 25% of their calories from HFCS, so it's irrelevant.
@stevencloser Yes, outside of extreme conditions your body will not eat muscle. However I have watched people go on very low protein diets(because it was promoted as healthy) ans lose the majority of their muscle).
The effect of diet on CO and fat loss I was refering to is mainly due to how different macro ratios can affect the energy level that you feel. 2000 cals of high carb makes me feel like watching Netflix. 2000 cals on keto makes me feel like cage fighting, and makes me fidgetty.
@lemurcat12 I appreciate such a thorough response. Totally agree. For most dieters it's better to simplify. The tricks tend not to work. Even if the cinnamon, cayenne pepper, and green tea do increase metabolism, it will be a slight change and you will probably subconsciously eat a little more to compensate. Very well put about CICO. Different diets can make the CI easier to adhere to for each individual. And different diets will increase or decrease the CO for each individual because of how it makes them feel, subconscious movement, etc. And I agree that the study is irrelevant, because no dieter would ever drink that much Coke. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Two things, though today is not my best day since I'm flaring the brain fog is strong:
Didn't Hall show that raised EE for keto diets lasted only 3 weeks while the body switched over to producing ketones?
Didn't Hall also show that when controlling for calories and protein, CO would be the same or better for higher carb diets?
I'm not following how a keto diet "raises" CO?
Protein is thermogenic, fat is the least thermogenic macro, and most here on MFP do have similar if not higher protein intakes to those following keto.
You are correct. Fat loss was the same and there was a short term increase in EE due to the increased oxygen requirement to initially produce ketones.
There was debate if some of that was also due to transient increase in neat. But you cant control everything.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Two things, though today is not my best day since I'm flaring the brain fog is strong:
Didn't Hall show that raised EE for keto diets lasted only 3 weeks while the body switched over to producing ketones?
Didn't Hall also show that when controlling for calories and protein, CO would be the same or better for higher carb diets?
I'm not following how a keto diet "raises" CO?
Protein is thermogenic, fat is the least thermogenic macro, and most here on MFP do have similar if not higher protein intakes to those following keto.
You are correct. Fat loss was the same and there was a short term increase in EE due to the increased oxygen requirement to initially produce ketones.
There was debate if some of that was also due to transient increase in neat. But you cant control everything.
Aren't transient increases with NEAT likely individual rather than diet-specific, though?
I think that was brought out in over-feeding studies, IIRC, or is true with the case of hard gainers.
Help me out here, something I read is niggling at the back of my brain, there's just a subset of people who move more under certain stimulus.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Two things, though today is not my best day since I'm flaring the brain fog is strong:
Didn't Hall show that raised EE for keto diets lasted only 3 weeks while the body switched over to producing ketones?
Didn't Hall also show that when controlling for calories and protein, CO would be the same or better for higher carb diets?
I'm not following how a keto diet "raises" CO?
Protein is thermogenic, fat is the least thermogenic macro, and most here on MFP do have similar if not higher protein intakes to those following keto.
You are correct. Fat loss was the same and there was a short trrm increase in EE due to the increased oxygen requirement to initially produce ketos.
There was debate if some of that was also due to transient increase in neat. But you cant control everything.
Aren't transient increases with NEAT likely individual rather than diet-specific, though?
I think that was brought out in over-feeding studies, IIRC, or is true with the case of hard gainers.
Help me out here, something I read is niggling at the back of my brain, there's just a subset of people who move more under certain stimulus.
Semi-related: this just came up in my news feed not long ago and it's a great read on everything you ever wanted to know about NEAT: http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/286/5/E6754
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions