PDA

View Full Version : Interesting - please read. Changed my mind



MarkVI
10-17-2008, 12:06 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I also read Alan's research review on this same study....


Needless to say, I don't think I will be coming back to a ketosis diet.

Ryanmcd
10-17-2008, 12:08 PM
**** starter, Don't make me get the big bad Canadian!

soundcheck129
10-17-2008, 12:11 PM
"...the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted."

That's disturbing. Nice link.

ChicagoChef
10-17-2008, 12:18 PM
I dunno. Everything has its pros and cons...

soundcheck129
10-17-2008, 12:20 PM
And, granted, whatever works for you personally is what you should stick with.

-Aaron-
10-17-2008, 12:20 PM
Mark FTW...

Nutir
10-17-2008, 12:25 PM
Mark FTW...

x2


Although I didn't do keto for the metabolic advantage.

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 12:28 PM
Mark FTW...

Alan Aragon FTMFW :D.

I've already wasted SO much time with his Reviews ahahaa....well, not wasted.

bambifox
10-17-2008, 01:01 PM
Hmmm...interesting article. I completely AGREE with its findings. However, IMHO, Keto is better for folk who still have yet to gain control over their eating addictions/cravings. By limiting your carbohydrates...thereby forcing your body into ketosis...you eliminate if not completely those cravings for foods like doughnuts, cakes, cookies and pies:) If for nothing else...THIS IMO, still makes KETO (KLC) the superior over regular low-carb diets. Don't believe me...try eating a "palmsize" full of the highest quality whole wheat PASTA...and tell me you didn't want more;) With the elimination of this little treat...you won't be pacing the frig/pantry in a panic to eat it.

Just my 2 cents though:) Great article though!:D

bogdog311
10-17-2008, 01:05 PM
So Mark I pretty much take everything you say and run with it, so what do you think about days where fats are high, for instance non-work out days, and days where they are lower around 30, keeping carbs higher around 40-50 for work out days. Making sure to eat the carbs around work out times? Assuming this is for cutting purposes I ask because surely you wouldnt be able to remain in ketosis long enough to undergo the adverse side affects correct? Well the ones that this study links Keto to anyways....

Man this changes my whole perspective... sorta...

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 01:09 PM
Hmmm...interesting article. I completely AGREE with its findings. However, IMHO, Keto is better for folk who still have yet to gain control over their eating addictions/cravings. By limiting your carbohydrates...thereby forcing your body into ketosis...you eliminate if not completely those cravings for foods like doughnuts, cakes, cookies and pies:) If for nothing else...THIS IMO, still makes KETO (KLC) the superior over regular low-carb diets. Don't believe me...try eating a "palmsize" full of the highest quality whole wheat PASTA...and tell me you didn't want more;) With the elimination of this little treat...you won't be pacing the frig/pantry in a panic to eat it.

Just my 2 cents though:) Great article though!:D

I agree with this 100% ^^^^ Something about Ketosis takes these cravings and thoughts about food. However if you have developed self control with food, I don't see a need. I really should have made that point in my first post....

mar999
10-17-2008, 01:11 PM
nice post man... kind of makes me feel better about the approach i have been taking... I consider my diet low carb rather than ketogenic. I try to keep carbs low but dont really care if i enter ketosis or not

Ryanmcd
10-17-2008, 01:30 PM
Same man, up the caffine eat good stuff. If you are into watching what you eat you will do a type of keto anyway. Look at food and think "How will this make me better" and you will stick with real foods not **** foods. I still love steak and chicken and dont care for sweets. But I do eat 60-80g carbs a day and don't know if I am keto or not, what I do know is I feel great, am losing fat as well as sleeping better.

pointz54
10-17-2008, 03:06 PM
Nice find, my diet was slowly evolving towards a TKD/carb cycling anyways since CKD I found was not really cutting it.

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 03:24 PM
So Mark I pretty much take everything you say and run with it, so what do you think about days where fats are high, for instance non-work out days, and days where they are lower around 30, keeping carbs higher around 40-50 for work out days.
Man this changes my whole perspective... sorta...

My #1 issue with Keto is the carbup - I think it's a horrible mental thing TBH. I think the carbup should be avoided at all costs....so a low carb diet, maybe 20% with a 40% carb day would be optimal for fat loss and performance.


nice post man... kind of makes me feel better about the approach i have been taking... I consider my diet low carb rather than ketogenic. I try to keep carbs low but dont really care if i enter ketosis or not

I am low carb, but I also carb cycle....No carbups, no refeeds, no crazy "bro-science tactics" that just promote and justify messed up thinking.


Same man, up the caffine eat good stuff. If you are into watching what you eat you will do a type of keto anyway. Look at food and think "How will this make me better" and you will stick with real foods not **** foods. I still love steak and chicken and dont care for sweets. But I do eat 60-80g carbs a day and don't know if I am keto or not, what I do know is I feel great, am losing fat as well as sleeping better.

Good for you bro!


Nice find, my diet was slowly evolving towards a TKD/carb cycling anyways since CKD I found was not really cutting it.

This is good, no need for a big dumb carbup.

jked4life
10-17-2008, 04:39 PM
Hmmm...interesting article. I completely AGREE with its findings. However, IMHO, Keto is better for folk who still have yet to gain control over their eating addictions/cravings. By limiting your carbohydrates...thereby forcing your body into ketosis...you eliminate if not completely those cravings for foods like doughnuts, cakes, cookies and pies:) If for nothing else...THIS IMO, still makes KETO (KLC) the superior over regular low-carb diets. Don't believe me...try eating a "palmsize" full of the highest quality whole wheat PASTA...and tell me you didn't want more;) With the elimination of this little treat...you won't be pacing the frig/pantry in a panic to eat it.

Just my 2 cents though:) Great article though!:D

I think you really hit the nail on the head here. It is great for people to help get cravings under control. Keto can help a lot of people out in this respect.

IMO, for athletes (those of us serious in the gym) it is not optimal. Exercise performance is simply better with some carbs in the diet.

I've found no adverse effects going back to a carb diet, only positive effects on performance in the gym/cardio.

I think the biggest problem with carb based diets is how easily one can overeat. I find I am satisfied with carbs if I stick to actual portion sizes. However, it would be very easy to overeat if I wasn't paying attention.



Mark is right, the carbup is the most ridiculous thing to me. It screws so many people up on many levels.


Overall- I think keto is great for the average person, if they are interested in this way of eating. For active people concerned about exercise performance, I'm not so keen on it.

tonymagnolia
10-17-2008, 04:49 PM
Man... being only 5 days into CKD, that article and proceeding comments have f**ked with my head already...

So confused! Need lose body fat! Must smash things!

mar999
10-17-2008, 05:42 PM
Yeah I liked ckd but the carbups were so hard for me to control. I would keep them to 12 hours tops usually

taf1968
10-17-2008, 06:05 PM
Mark, do you have a link to Alan's review? Would love to read up on it.

In my case, keto was going to be a no-go moving forward anyway because of the dietary restrictions I am working around from my kidney stone incident. I had moved on to try carb-cycling anyway, but thought if it didn't work out I may go back to TKD . . . which was great. But not really an option now.

I had really good luck with a slightly modified South Beach approach a couple years ago. That might be my other option if the carb cycling doesn't fit very well. Still too early to tell.

Anyway, thanks for posting that . . . gotta spread some reps around before I can hit you again!

bambifox
10-17-2008, 06:37 PM
I really don't do "carb up" weekends. I just do "carb up" meals...if you will. My body usually lets me know when it needs carbs...which is usually right before or after a workout.:p For example...yesterday evening..late...I just felt an intense desire for some fried chicken (yes, breaded), and some Fiber One Cereal (43%). I ate a bowl of cereal with whole milk and 3 fried chicken legs. I did my cardio (35 min) and today was back in Keto. *EDIT* Uhhhh...forgot to mention...I DID also have another "late night" cardio session for a couple of hours when bf came over...that might have helped a bit too;)

I also agree that it's probably best to "time" your higher carb meals/foods around your cardio routine. This way you'll burn it right off. Also...carbs (starchy) are just plain bad IMHO right before bed...even if you choose to take the carbup weekend....which I agree with Mark that's its' both mentally and physically ridiculous!

Have a great weekend all!:D

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 06:49 PM
Mark, do you have a link to Alan's review? Would love to read up on it.

In my case, keto was going to be a no-go moving forward anyway because of the dietary restrictions I am working around from my kidney stone incident. I had moved on to try carb-cycling anyway, but thought if it didn't work out I may go back to TKD . . . which was great. But not really an option now.

I had really good luck with a slightly modified South Beach approach a couple years ago. That might be my other option if the carb cycling doesn't fit very well. Still too early to tell.

Anyway, thanks for posting that . . . gotta spread some reps around before I can hit you again!



I do, but it's his hard work and he asks for a small tiny subscription fee....$10 a month! That's it! I say EVERYONE go to his website and sign up. There are 9 or 10 articles up that are 16 pages each on average....you will become smart :D.

So in other words, yes I do but I won't post it because it's not right.

lorinelise
10-17-2008, 07:08 PM
I do, but it's his hard work and he asks for a small tiny subscription fee....$10 a month! That's it! I say EVERYONE go to his website and sign up. There are 9 or 10 articles up that are 16 pages each on average....you will become smart :D.

So in other words, yes I do but I won't post it because it's not right.

Strong X 2!! Waxy maize 4 lyfe :cool: :p

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 07:11 PM
Strong X 2!! Waxy maize 4 lyfe :cool: :p

Waxy Maize + BCAAIZ to prevent teh catabolizm! Oh - nice rep count :cool:

lorinelise
10-17-2008, 07:12 PM
Waxy Maize + BCAAIZ to prevent teh catabolizm! Oh - nice rep count :cool:

BCAA's between meals...always...which, btw, MUST be 2-3 hours apart.

Oh and thanks :D Wonder how I got that?! :)

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 07:13 PM
BCAA's between meals...always...which, btw, MUST be 2-3 hours apart.

Oh and thanks :D Wonder how I got that?! :)

2-3?! I was doing a meal every 35.1022049484 minutes :confused: I'z losing gainz or gettin fatz!?



I think you got em the same way I did....good man...good man.

mar999
10-17-2008, 07:27 PM
Mark explain to me in laymans term what you perceive to be the negatives they are pointing out in regards to ketosis

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 07:41 PM
Mark explain to me in laymans term what you perceive to be the negatives they are pointing out in regards to ketosis

Not negatives -- but the fact that there is no POSITIVE in comparison and the fact that carbups are required on KETO for athletes.

pointz54
10-17-2008, 07:47 PM
After further review, the people that were tested in that study had an average BMI of 34.4 +/- 1.0

That is horrifically obese. Quite literally, that's like 60-80 pounds overweight. I think we can all agree that cutting calories, whether through ketosis or a low-carb diet will result in weight loss no matter what.

It doesn't change my decision to switch to a TKD however, but I think I'll keep aiming for ketosis when I'm not working out.

gbman13
10-17-2008, 07:57 PM
It says: participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.

So who here is sedentary, isn't the idea of keto a protein sparing cut?

Who really tried keto thinking we can eat all the steak, read these forums and drop tons of weight?

From my reading it seems some think there is an idea that since fat is the main energy source in keto that its burning all this fat from bodyfat. That's probably more wishful thinking and this study probably just backs that up. I think its just saying Keto isn't a magic pill.

Damn, guess I'll hit the gym in the morning.

lorinelise
10-17-2008, 08:08 PM
Actually when I read Alan's review on this article earlier today, I questioned the "sedentary" aspect of the study. You think the results may have been different with resistance training? I mean obviously they would be different, but maybe there would be more of a difference between the keto results and the non-keto?

I think Alan said he'd like to see a study including training. But based on this study, keto fails :(

taf1968
10-17-2008, 08:11 PM
I do, but it's his hard work and he asks for a small tiny subscription fee....$10 a month! That's it! I say EVERYONE go to his website and sign up. There are 9 or 10 articles up that are 16 pages each on average....you will become smart :D.

So in other words, yes I do but I won't post it because it's not right.

Gotcha . . . thought it might be posted for general consumption somewhere. I'll check out the site!

DecemberDays86
10-17-2008, 08:16 PM
The article posted looked at 10 people on keto and 10 people on low-carb nonketo. They weren't lifting weights.

Here's a much more recent study (2008) that reviews loads of previous studies. It says that the weight control part of keto is a benefit in addition to improved cardiovascular health.

PM me for the full article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18396172?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

mar999
10-17-2008, 08:25 PM
Actually when I read Alan's review on this article earlier today, I questioned the "sedentary" aspect of the study. You think the results may have been different with resistance training? I mean obviously they would be different, but maybe there would be more of a difference between the keto results and the non-keto?

I think Alan said he'd like to see a study including training. But based on this study, keto fails :(

I dont know if i agree with the last part of what you said. What is there for it to fail at? It is a way of eating... weight loss is determined by calories

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 08:33 PM
I dont know if i agree with the last part of what you said. What is there for it to fail at? It is a way of eating... weight loss is determined by calories

Read the results again -- in this study...keto failed.

Clamz
10-17-2008, 08:46 PM
"During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary"


On keto it takes a while to get fat adapted and once you are, you up your activity levels to tap into those fat stores. So I'd have to see a study involving exercising subjects before I come to any conclusions.

mar999
10-17-2008, 08:51 PM
Read the results again -- in this study...keto failed.

yeah but failed at what?

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 08:53 PM
yeah but failed at what?

Failed at doing what everyone says it does on the keto boards. Promote more fat loss with less LBM loss.

BTW - I think that last post made me sound like a dick - no hate bro. :D

mar999
10-17-2008, 08:57 PM
Failed at doing what everyone says it does on the keto boards. Promote more fat loss with less LBM loss.

BTW - I think that last post made me sound like a dick - no hate bro. :D

haha its cool i got thick skin...

I am just trying to prove a point...

it dont think it failed because imo there was nothing for it to fail... its a way to eat...

basically they are saying it failed at being being some sort of magic diet or living up to lofty standards... not really failing in my opinion

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 09:02 PM
haha its cool i got thick skin...

I am just trying to prove a point...

it dont think it failed because imo there was nothing for it to fail... its a way to eat...

basically they are saying it failed at being being some sort of magic diet or living up to lofty standards... not really failing in my opinion

true, I agree - but it did perform worse than a non ketogenic diet.

mar999
10-17-2008, 09:04 PM
true, I agree - but it did perform worse than a non ketogenic diet.

I think there are unrealistic expectations for keto diets anyway... since posting here how many threads have seen from people freaking out that they only lost 1 or pounds this week or some crap like that

thedestro
10-17-2008, 09:19 PM
Failed at doing what everyone says it does on the keto boards. Promote more fat loss with less LBM loss.

BTW - I think that last post made me sound like a dick - no hate bro. :D

The very vast majority of literature on the subject agrees that low-carbohydrate diets induce at least equivalent amounts of weight-loss as do low-fat, calorie restricted diets, and very often they are found to be far superior. You have taken a single study of only 20 people, which disagrees with the bulk of the literature, and attempted to use it as evidence against low-carb diets; this is obviously a ridiculous notion.

Furthermore, it's probably a safe bet that you have read only the abstract of this study, and if you think that's particularly prudent then you probably shouldn't be trying to draw relevent conclusions from these things in the first place. That said, it wasn't terribly conducted, save from not monitoring the participants over the weekends.

Furthermore, the study was conducted at ASU, which is heavily funded by the USDA, an organization that has been, bar none, the foremost advocate of high-carb, low-fat diets in America for 25 years. This raises the issue of whether the authors might be tempted to bias their review to support the USDA's long-standing public position on the health-benefits of fat-reduced diets. I don't suggest that it did, but it does beg the question that maybe, consciously or subconsciously, their goal was to get an article into print that appeared to support the agency's position.

thedestro
10-17-2008, 09:26 PM
But, since we like studies so much, here's one of the many in contradiction with yours:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/21/2074

Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost.

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 10:00 PM
The very vast majority of literature on the subject agrees that low-carbohydrate diets induce at least equivalent amounts of weight-loss as do low-fat, calorie restricted diets, and very often they are found to be far superior. You have taken a single study of only 20 people, which disagrees with the bulk of the literature, and attempted to use it as evidence against low-carb diets; this is obviously a ridiculous notion.

Furthermore, it's probably a safe bet that you have read only the abstract of this study, and if you think that's particularly prudent then you probably shouldn't be trying to draw relevent conclusions from these things in the first place. That said, it wasn't terribly conducted, save from not monitoring the participants over the weekends.

Furthermore, the study was conducted at ASU, which is heavily funded by the USDA, an organization that has been, bar none, the foremost advocate of high-carb, low-fat diets in America for 25 years. This raises the issue of whether the authors might be tempted to bias their review to support the USDA's long-standing public position on the health-benefits of fat-reduced diets. I don't suggest that it did, but it does beg the question that maybe, consciously or subconsciously, their goal was to get an article into print that appeared to support the agency's position.

Lol - - that was just the most recent one I read...if you reeaaalllyyy want to get into this, we can. I'm too tired tonight, but I have tomorrow off of work :D. And no, I read the study.



But, since we like studies so much, here's one of the many in contradiction with yours:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/21/2074

Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost.

Those were also for those who already adaptive metabolic deficiencies that DIRECTLY were affected by carbohydrate intake....these other people were obese but not broken.


I don't disagree that Low Carb for body composition can be more beneficial (I carb cycle, it works) but it's KETOSIS and the depletion/carbup that I am arguing against. Regardless of studies shown here thus far.

alan aragon
10-17-2008, 10:10 PM
But, since we like studies so much, here's one of the many in contradiction with yours:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/348/21/2074

Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost.You forgot to mention that the 6-month follow up to this study showed no significant differences in weight loss between the two diets. This is the typical outcome at the 1-year mark.

Korry1
10-17-2008, 10:12 PM
Ok... Wow...

Are there any other studies supporting this position?

(just want to know to for self knowledge)

thanks!

alan aragon
10-17-2008, 10:23 PM
I do, but it's his hard work and he asks for a small tiny subscription fee....$10 a month! That's it! I say EVERYONE go to his website and sign up. There are 9 or 10 articles up that are 16 pages each on average....you will become smart :D.

So in other words, yes I do but I won't post it because it's not right.Bless your heart!

(and your brain)

:)

Thanks man, I appreciate the acknowledgement.

MarkVI
10-17-2008, 10:34 PM
Bless your heart!

(and your brain)

:)

Thanks man, I appreciate the acknowledgement.


Same to you man - I'm having SO much fun reading all the studies, making a few notes and reading some good insights on this stuff on your reviews.

You're filling a nitche (sp?) in this field, and website that desperately needs filling. Not to sound cheesy or anything - but your resources are a huge blessing to us who are a bit confused and lost in this area.

-Aaron-
10-17-2008, 10:38 PM
Ok... Wow...

Are there any other studies supporting this position?

(just want to know to for self knowledge)

thanks!

I doubt it, but that is one reliable study...

Alan Aragon is a quality researcher, I'm sure he could dig up more.

alan aragon
10-17-2008, 11:10 PM
Same to you man - I'm having SO much fun reading all the studies, making a few notes and reading some good insights on this stuff on your reviews.

You're filling a nitche (sp?) in this field, and website that desperately needs filling. Not to sound cheesy or anything - but your resources are a huge blessing to us who are a bit confused and lost in this area.Yes, by definition it fulfills a niche because it's a service absent in the mainstream. My subscribership consists mainly of professional trainers, S&C coaches, and sports dietitians, so it amazes me to see that folks not directly involved in fitness as a profession can appreciate the content. I will NEVER reach a wide audience with AARR. And that's fine with me. To be perfectly candid, it's too hardcore; too technical. But in a few years when I take all the subscribers on a cruise (co-hosted with Richard Simmons), the word is liable to leak out to the masses.

Captobvious
10-17-2008, 11:36 PM
A cruise with Richard Simmons? Im in!

I just started really researching some of the information on these boards and other places incuding your site Alan. I haven't subscribed but the information I found there is very interesting even if I don't understand some of the terms.

On the Ketogenic diet, I just started Monday and decided to stick with it even though I read that it might not be as great as I thought. I figure I will give it 10-12 weeks to see how I feel on it. Not planning to do any carb-ups though. Even if it doesn't promote more fat loss, it gives me a goal for calorie intake, and that is what it's all about anyway.

gleko
10-17-2008, 11:40 PM
Yes, by definition it fulfills a niche because it's a service absent in the mainstream. My subscribership consists mainly of professional trainers, S&C coaches, and sports dietitians, so it amazes me to see that folks not directly involved in fitness as a profession can appreciate the content. I will NEVER reach a wide audience with AARR. And that's fine with me. To be perfectly candid, it's too hardcore; too technical. But in a few years when I take all the subscribers on a cruise (co-hosted with Richard Simmons), the word is liable to leak out to the masses.

Hey Alan,
thanks for the input, I have read much of your website, still got a few articles to go through, and honestly, if it behooved me financially (that is, if I made my living from this stuff) I would not hesitate in signing up, and may do so later anyway, especially after a couple of months in the nutrition ED section of BB.com.
There are a number of subjects i was hoping to discuss in the nutrition section but much of the talk is based on two ends of a spectrum, if you eat low carb (as I do) you hate carbs, if you eat high carb, then you think McDonald's is OK to eat everyday.
If you mention, that your understanding is different, then you are a broscientist, rather than discussion of what may improve understanding on both sides.
As an example, I believe high insulin levels "overtime" do make a difference health wise. But over the short term, it does not.
As far as low carb goes, I have improved my health in a lot of areas since eating low carb, but I don't eat to be in Ketosis, as I have never really seen anything that would convince me, that over time it is any better than low carb, or even necessary.
I don't count calories and neither do the people I have helped with low carb diets, and they have all lost weight easily over time, without becoming food or carbophobic.

Too much either/or on these threads.
Too bad though, as I am interested in increasing my knowledge rather than making sure my position is held against all who come against me.
I gather from your change in position on a few things that is also the case with you. Some of the questions I would really like to look into I don't ask, mainly because it turns to soup pretty quickly.
This section would do better I think to be called low carb rather than Keto.
Give people a little more scope.
Oh by the way, do you think if I eat eggs i will die? Just that I had one for breakfast :D

And just a PS, there are a number of studies I would like to discuss, however, it is difficult on a site such as this. For example the study out of Harvard that showed better long term weight loss, and easier adherence to low carb diets. It seems easier to lose weight when you don't have a calorie restricted regime and are using satiation to stop you eating rather than self will.

TheWaffleIron
10-17-2008, 11:49 PM
Bless your heart!

(and your brain)

:)

Thanks man, I appreciate the acknowledgement.

I'll take this opportunity to thank you. Your site is a great source of information. And, on this board, your help has been immense to the members (such as myself) who have an appetite for this field. Keep up the good work.

gleko
10-17-2008, 11:52 PM
The very vast majority of literature on the subject agrees that low-carbohydrate diets induce at least equivalent amounts of weight-loss as do low-fat, calorie restricted diets, and very often they are found to be far superior. You have taken a single study of only 20 people, which disagrees with the bulk of the literature, and attempted to use it as evidence against low-carb diets; this is obviously a ridiculous notion.

Furthermore, it's probably a safe bet that you have read only the abstract of this study, and if you think that's particularly prudent then you probably shouldn't be trying to draw relevent conclusions from these things in the first place. That said, it wasn't terribly conducted, save from not monitoring the participants over the weekends.

I think the difference here is low carb, rather than diets concentrating on ketosis. I have seen enough to convince me that low carb high fat is a decent easy way to lose weight, not only in studies but also in my own life.
One of the problems I have with diet advice on this site is the amount people deem healthy to be losing over time. I think slow weight loss is way easier to maintain than fast weight loss.

GregariousWolf
10-21-2008, 03:47 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I also read Alan's research review on this same study....


Needless to say, I don't think I will be coming back to a ketosis diet.

Interesting thread. This is the first time I've seen any studies directly comparing low-carbohydrate diets with ketogenic diets.

That prompted me to search on the topic, and I found a letter to the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which cites the above article by Johnson. Ironically, it touches on the topic of intermittent fasting and catabolis, which caused some lively threads recently. Also, there are some good references to follow up on.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/238

While experimenting with low-carb and ketogenic diets, I've found the formula that works for me doesn't really include the carb-ups. I question the need for a "binge" day for biological reasons. I figure (and I'm not a nutritionist) that if you're getting the right nutrition and proper amount of calories that you should not need a special day to eat a special meal. If there's value to the carb-up, in my opinion, it's a relaxation in your regime and schedule.

I really think the wisdom in low-carbohydrate diets is not the elimination of carbs, but in choosing carbs with lower glycemic values and the reduction of highly processed foods containing high fructose corn syrup and bleached white flours. Most people I talk to have the wrong impression of of atkins and think it's is a crash diet. I tell them it is more of a long-term change in eating habits, i.e. not eating crap.

I eat more carbohydrates than what is considered typical for CKD, though my choice in carbs are mostly low-glycemic index kinds. I'm probably close to TKD or atkins than CKD.

I've also found that I sometimes go long periods without meals. Because of that, I'm interested in the efficacy of short-term protein-sparing fasts.

DJohnson
10-21-2008, 11:34 PM
I agree with this 100% ^^^^ Something about Ketosis takes these cravings and thoughts about food. However if you have developed self control with food, I don't see a need. I really should have made that point in my first post....

Old news brah! I never payed attention to anyone who thought calories didn't matter with keto, "Promote more fat loss with less LBM loss" or whatever. :D
Just 'cause it doesn't have a metabolic advantage doesn't make it better though!

I do keto because it's satiating, tastes great and reduces my appetite while keeping my energy high. What more can you ask for from a diet? I still count calories of course. It's just way easier to cut into single digit bodyfat on keto than it is with a high carb diet due to easy diet adherence.

I also keep my carb ups at most 50% carbs.

Oh, and think of it as this way. The food I eat is delicious and very filling and satiating with keto. To eat equally delicious food on a high carb diet I'd pretty well have to be eating things like donuts and pizza, etc. which I would consider equally delicious. If I was eating 2000kcal/day of pizza/donuts/whatever I'd be dieing of hunger and never satiated. Checkmate!

startrek
10-22-2008, 06:26 AM
One of the problems I have with diet advice on this site is the amount people deem healthy to be losing over time. I think slow weight loss is way easier to maintain than fast weight loss.

Who here deems fast weight loss healthy? The number I see quoted most often is 2 lbs/week. I lose that much without even trying, and I don't think it qualifies as particularly fast.

The only super-fast weight loss occurs in the first week or so (water weight), and that happens on any diet, not just keto.

GTmauf
10-22-2008, 07:42 AM
so maybe a 50/20/30 a better idea, f/c/p? Thats enough to at least refill the liver everyday. Well for my calorie range anyway, haha.

lorinelise
10-22-2008, 07:49 AM
Yes, by definition it fulfills a niche because it's a service absent in the mainstream. My subscribership consists mainly of professional trainers, S&C coaches, and sports dietitians, so it amazes me to see that folks not directly involved in fitness as a profession can appreciate the content. I will NEVER reach a wide audience with AARR. And that's fine with me. To be perfectly candid, it's too hardcore; too technical. But in a few years when I take all the subscribers on a cruise (co-hosted with Richard Simmons), the word is liable to leak out to the masses.

I'm holding you to this! ;)

Ryanmcd
10-22-2008, 08:17 AM
I hate to say it but on Keto my allergies are 100% better, I sleep better, I wake up feeling better as well and do not have eye snot. If I eat carbs over 60-80g I feel bad and always had, I dont have asthma on keto either. These alone are worth not eating carbs for the rest of my life.

Also What about the better blood work on Keto? Or about the effort people like Atkins put into this? I just don't buy one person working with 20 people for a few weeks as cutting it. What about atkins working with over 20 thousand people? Let me know when we have a real study not some bull**** on a no-name site put up without doing any bloodwork or anything.

startrek
10-22-2008, 08:48 AM
Ah, yes, allergies! No one is allergic to meat or fat, as far as I know. People are allergic to tons of plant foods, though.

Thanks to keto I discovered that I'm allergic to corn. I used to literally bite my nails off, and I could never figure out what was triggering it; one day I would just suddenly bite my nails compulsively until my fingers bled. I couldn't stop, even though it hurt, and I knew I was harming myself.

That stopped on keto. By occasionally cheating with various foods, I discovered that the culprit was corn, which is next to impossible to avoid on the typical American diet of corn syrup, corn starch, corn flour, etc.

Now I don't have to worry about it. I just eat a straight keto diet, and I don't even have to think about it.

I spent my entire adult life up to age 35 or so being bloated, nervous, chronically tired, and irritated. The last three years on keto I've been lean, relaxed, satisfied when I eat, and tolerable to those around me. Keto dieting is a miracle, and I'm not giving it up.

alan aragon
10-22-2008, 08:55 AM
I'm holding you to this! ;)You're SO invited. I'll challenge you to an eating contest :)

MarkVI
10-22-2008, 09:02 AM
You're SO invited. I'll challenge you to an eating contest :)

I'm in on this for sure -- have you ever been on a cruise? I lived on them for over a year.....there's A LOT OF FOOD to be had....Eating contest at 3:30A.M.?

alan aragon
10-22-2008, 09:02 AM
I hate to say it but on Keto my allergies are 100% better, I sleep better, I wake up feeling better as well and do not have eye snot. If I eat carbs over 60-80g I feel bad and always had, I dont have asthma on keto either. These alone are worth not eating carbs for the rest of my life.

Also What about the better blood work on Keto? Or about the effort people like Atkins put into this? I just don't buy one person working with 20 people for a few weeks as cutting it. What about atkins working with over 20 thousand people? Let me know when we have a real study not some bull**** on a no-name site put up without doing any bloodwork or anything.


Ah, yes, allergies! No one is allergic to meat or fat, as far as I know. People are allergic to tons of plant foods, though.

Thanks to keto I discovered that I'm allergic to corn. I used to literally bite my nails off, and I could never figure out what was triggering it; one day I would just suddenly bite my nails compulsively until my fingers bled. I couldn't stop, even though it hurt, and I knew I was harming myself.

That stopped on keto. By occasionally cheating with various foods, I discovered that the culprit was corn, which is next to impossible to avoid on the typical American diet of corn syrup, corn starch, corn flour, etc.

Now I don't have to worry about it. I just eat a straight keto diet, and I don't even have to think about it.

I spent my entire adult life up to age 35 or so being bloated, nervous, chronically tired, and irritated. The last three years on keto I've been lean, relaxed, satisfied when I eat, and tolerable to those around me. Keto dieting is a miracle, and I'm not giving it up.

I went on keto, and all of a sudden, a pot of gold appeared in front of me. Out of nowhere, twin Playboy bunnies started giving me a massage. I then tossed the girls about for 3 hours. I then kissed them goodbye, put on my Nikes, and ran a marathon. It was a total miracle. A wonderful, magical miracle. Keto, I love you.

alan aragon
10-22-2008, 09:04 AM
I'm in on this for sure -- have you ever been on a cruise? I lived on them for over a year.....there's A LOT OF FOOD to be had....Eating contest at 3:30A.M.?Iz on, bro!

MarkVI
10-22-2008, 09:07 AM
I went on keto, and all of a sudden, a pot of gold appeared in front of me. Out of nowhere, twin Playboy bunnies started giving me a massage. I then tossed the girls about for 3 hours. I then kissed them goodbye, put on my Nikes, and ran a marathon. It was a total miracle. A wonderful, magical miracle. Keto, I love you.

Odd, this was my experience too....except instead my pot had golden egg yolks in them.


Iz on, bro!

Uz you goin' down.

Nutir
10-22-2008, 09:16 AM
wtf is paypal doing? still waiting for a confirmation to suscribe :eek:
Printed the january paper, not done yet but it's good stuff !

(you're going to get lots of new suscribers if this goes public :p)

lorinelise
10-22-2008, 10:09 AM
You're SO invited. I'll challenge you to an eating contest :)


I'm in on this for sure -- have you ever been on a cruise? I lived on them for over a year.....there's A LOT OF FOOD to be had....Eating contest at 3:30A.M.?

Let's go!! After the eating contest....pudding wrestling?! :eek:

MarkVI
10-22-2008, 10:19 AM
Let's go!! After the eating contest....pudding wrestling?! :eek:

Chyeah! Pudding in the Lido pool :D :D!

Ryanmcd
10-22-2008, 02:31 PM
I went on keto, and all of a sudden, a pot of gold appeared in front of me. Out of nowhere, twin Playboy bunnies started giving me a massage. I then tossed the girls about for 3 hours. I then kissed them goodbye, put on my Nikes, and ran a marathon. It was a total miracle. A wonderful, magical miracle. Keto, I love you.

Stuff like this makes me want to read more about some ass on the internet that wants my money. Seems these people come along every few months and post on here and get a few sheep to follow and say how good it is. Maybe your next study you can get 20 meth addicted strippers and see how they do with your 3 month test of weight loss vs Keto.


You seem like a smart guy and know what you are talking about, why not help us out tell us why it works and what would be better to do then be so cocky.

MarkVI
10-22-2008, 02:51 PM
Stuff like this makes me want to read more about some ass on the internet that wants my money. Seems these people come along every few months and post on here and get a few sheep to follow and say how good it is. Maybe your next study you can get 20 meth addicted strippers and see how they do with your 3 month test of weight loss vs Keto.


You seem like a smart guy and know what you are talking about, why not help us out tell us why it works and what would be better to do then be so cocky.

Negz for....well, no need to explain.

Ryanmcd
10-22-2008, 03:00 PM
Negz for....well, no need to explain.



LOL come on Mark I thought you where smart, you did keto lost weight now think it's ****?

MarkVI
10-22-2008, 03:58 PM
LOL come on Mark I thought you where smart, you did keto lost weight now think it's ****?

Lol, I lost SOME weight once with it....yeah.


"Interesting - please... 10-22-2008 03:01 PM Ryanmcd Negs for not sucking Alan's dick like you? "


And you're a douche who's negz don't do anything :D

lorinelise
10-22-2008, 04:16 PM
Negz for....well, no need to explain.

x2 on that one.

MarkVI
10-22-2008, 04:18 PM
x2 on that one.

Niiice, he went down to 9....and hopefully when Alan gets here he'll go to down - 700,000 :D

Ryanmcd
10-22-2008, 06:00 PM
On no my internets rep is bad!!!


So Mark you did Keto lost weight talked about how great keto works and pushed it for many months now you changed for some reason because of 1 report? Also what about this

1. Why is the bloodwork for 95% of people better on Keto?
2. What other diet can you eat less and feel more full?


You guys can keep talking **** all you want but you have 1 person backing this up on some **** website that the e-mail does not even work half the time lol ;)

alan aragon
10-22-2008, 06:06 PM
On no my internets rep is bad!!!


So Mark you did Keto lost weight talked about how great keto works and pushed it for many months now you changed for some reason because of 1 report? Also what about this

1. Why is the bloodwork for 95% of people better on Keto?
2. What other diet can you eat less and feel more full?


You guys can keep talking **** all you want but you have 1 person backing this up on some **** website that the e-mail does not even work half the time lol ;)My email is set to malfunction when idiots like you try to contact me. Oh, and you look great in red :)

Ryanmcd
10-22-2008, 06:12 PM
My email is set to malfunction when idiots like you try to contact me. Oh, and you look great in red :)

Still cant back up what my questions are, good luck running a business like this being a rude prick.

alan aragon
10-22-2008, 06:12 PM
Let's go!! After the eating contest....pudding wrestling?! :eek:You ain't ready... :p

Ryanmcd
10-22-2008, 06:16 PM
My email is set to malfunction when idiots like you try to contact me. Oh, and you look great in red :)

Still cant back up what my questions are, good luck running a business like this being a rude prick.

Also when is your book coming out? Oh wait hell has not frozen over, 15 years doing this no book I say you fail but you do have good e-bashing skills and can dance around direct questions, you should run for prez.

"Alan Aragon may be one of the least well known yet smartest guys in the industry, mainly because he sucks royally at marketing himself."

^^^ lol

alan aragon
10-22-2008, 06:26 PM
"Alan Aragon may be one of the least well known yet smartest guys in the industry, mainly because he sucks royally at marketing himself."
Lyle McDonald actually said that as a tongue-in-cheek way saying that I don't spend nearly enough time, energy, or resources on marketing myself. It's actually a compliment given that I can maintain my career in spite of that.

lorinelise
10-22-2008, 06:31 PM
"Alan Aragon may be one of the least well known yet smartest guys in the industry, mainly because he sucks royally at marketing himself."

^^^ lol

You are such a freakin' genius.

In what way is the above statement at all negative?? It's a compliment, which you might have realized if your IQ was higher than a 3-year-old's.

mar999
10-22-2008, 06:49 PM
hmmm this is all rather interesting...

soundcheck129
10-22-2008, 07:06 PM
Anyone ever notice that people who argue with AA end up looking like jackasses 100% of the time?

mar999
10-22-2008, 07:10 PM
Hey man I got the cinnamon bun... its pretty damn good!

lorinelise
10-22-2008, 07:13 PM
Hey man I got the cinnamon bun... its pretty damn good!

All The Whey?

mar999
10-22-2008, 07:18 PM
All The Whey?

Yup

you've had it?

lorinelise
10-22-2008, 07:19 PM
Yup

you've had it?

Been having it for a year :cool: Ordered more tonight!

I just mixed some with egg whites to make an omelette...and spread PB on top...yum :D

soundcheck129
10-22-2008, 07:21 PM
I can't decide whether I like Cinnamon Bun or CupCake Batter better...tis a tough choice.

mar999
10-22-2008, 07:28 PM
Been having it for a year :cool: Ordered more tonight!

I just mixed some with egg whites to make an omelette...and spread PB on top...yum :D

Nice! That sounds pretty good

Before my workout tonight i mixed some in a bowl with a little bit of water to make it real thick and then stirred in some golden grahams... it was awesome

mar999
10-22-2008, 07:30 PM
I can't decide whether I like Cinnamon Bun or CupCake Batter better...tis a tough choice.

What does cupcake batter taste like? Is it chocolate or vanilla

Ryanmcd
10-22-2008, 07:37 PM
1. Why is the bloodwork for 95% of people better on Keto?
2. What other diet can you eat less and feel more full?

soundcheck129
10-22-2008, 07:41 PM
What does cupcake batter taste like? Is it chocolate or vanilla

It's more vanilla, a bit hard to describe - have you ever had this:

http://www.pillsburybaking.com/assets/images/products/5150070300.jpg

That's what it's like.

mar999
10-22-2008, 07:42 PM
1. Why is the bloodwork for 95% of people better on Keto?
2. What other diet can you eat less and feel more full?

I think you got kind of a raw deal here man... but maybe you shouldnt take these debates so personally

lorinelise
10-22-2008, 07:42 PM
1. Why is the bloodwork for 95% of people better on Keto?
2. What other diet can you eat less and feel more full?

1. inner chest.
2. tuesday.

Ryanmcd
10-22-2008, 07:52 PM
I think you got kind of a raw deal here man... but maybe you shouldnt take these debates so personally

Not personal at all, I just wanted to know from a pro. And to think I did e-mail him and was going to waste money on his diet info and he cant answer 1 question on a forum but he acts like a child and bashes people. Not a smart way to run a business prob why he's still talking to kids at schools 15 years later for free.

MarkVI
10-22-2008, 07:55 PM
Yup

you've had it?

ZOMG I HAVE MAH TRACKING #####!!!!!!


Been having it for a year :cool: Ordered more tonight!

I just mixed some with egg whites to make an omelette...and spread PB on top...yum :D

I'll give my review in my log of this concoction :D ^^^^



Oh and for thread Drama - Ryan you lose. Keto is fine for some people, I used to think it was a lot greater than it was when I got good results off of it, but I also got good results off of other stuff....my understanding evolved.

mar999
10-22-2008, 08:03 PM
The thing is... Everything can work...

soundcheck129
10-22-2008, 08:06 PM
Ryan - chill out, I don't understand why you're taking this so personally. All Mark did was post a study and its conclusions - one person's vote of no confidence in Keto is not an attack on everyone who believes in it. Stop crying and have a f[i]u[/u]cking beer. Oh ****, you can't it has carbs.

And as for Alan "acting as a child" and "not answering one question" - if you ever ventured outside this section, you'd notice he has an entire thread dedicated to Q & A.

alan aragon
10-22-2008, 08:14 PM
Not personal at all, I just wanted to know from a pro. And to think I did e-mail him and was going to waste money on his diet info and he cant answer 1 question on a forum but he acts like a child and bashes people. Not a smart way to run a business prob why he's still talking to kids at schools 15 years later for free.I'm gonna lecture to students @ Cal State Northridge for free on Nov 12th, just as I lectured to students @ UC Irvine for free a few years back. Why free? Because I give back the honorarium to the colleges that invite me to speak. In contrast, I did a corporate wellness talk yesterday for 90 minutes and was paid $2000.00, plus a free lunch - I accepted both. The more you try to belittle me, the worse off you look. Go ahead & keep it up.

UAaffliction
10-22-2008, 08:35 PM
I'm gonna lecture to students @ Cal State Northridge for free on Nov 12th, just as I lectured to students @ UC Irvine for free a few years back. Why free? Because I give back the honorarium to the colleges that invite me to speak. In contrast, I did a corporate wellness talk yesterday for 90 minutes and was paid $2000.00, plus a free lunch - I accepted both. The more you try to belittle me, the worse off you look. Go ahead & keep it up.

Reps... this method is actually a great marketing method (maybe not an intentional one) but you talk to the college kids for free...they graduate into the work force and they come to you to give a wellness talk where they work bringing in yet more money so...sometime just getting your name out there pays off....ps thanks for the good info

Nutir
10-23-2008, 02:51 AM
1. Why is the bloodwork for 95% of people better on Keto?
2. What other diet can you eat less and feel more full?

"Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets."

Why the hell do you bring up bloodwork? There are other advantages to keto, but this one (metabolic increase) is one that some people look for when going into ketosis.
Mark said somewhere in this post that he agrees that keto has positive points (including craving control) that other diets don't have.
But, it's all about self-control in the end, you don't need keto not to cheat.

Also, you're not coherant (imo), on the first page you say you don't know you're in ketosis or not because you eat 60-80g carbs/day, and all of a sudden you become 100% pro-keto (which means, for most people, under 40g/day) and talk about bloodwork and craving control.



1. inner chest.
2. tuesday.

You forgot to speak about insulin and wms..

Jaws08
10-23-2008, 03:25 AM
Anyone who actually researched ketosis never thought that it would increase metabolic rate. Ketosis has and always will help weight loss by controlling appetite.

In fact ketosis will cuase a hormonal state that reduces metabolic rate.

startrek
10-23-2008, 04:26 AM
Anyone who actually researched ketosis never thought that it would increase metabolic rate. Ketosis has and always will help weight loss by controlling appetite.

In fact ketosis will cuase a hormonal state that reduces metabolic rate.

I believe this. Some days I eat an astonishingly small amount of food and still feel satisfied and remain fairly big. I never count calories except out of curiosity, and I always eat if I'm hungry, yet I eat only about 1600 calories on an average day, and some days only about 1200. At 6'2" and 228 lbs., I think that's weird but awesome.

UAaffliction
10-23-2008, 09:09 AM
I'm gonna lecture to students @ Cal State Northridge for free on Nov 12th, just as I lectured to students @ UC Irvine for free a few years back. Why free? Because I give back the honorarium to the colleges that invite me to speak. In contrast, I did a corporate wellness talk yesterday for 90 minutes and was paid $2000.00, plus a free lunch - I accepted both. The more you try to belittle me, the worse off you look. Go ahead & keep it up.

Reps... this method is actually a great marketing method (maybe not an intentional one) but you talk to the college kids for free...they graduate into the work force and they come to you to give a wellness talk where they work bringing in yet more money so...sometime just getting your name out there pays off....ps thanks for the good info

UAaffliction
10-23-2008, 09:11 AM
apologize for the double post...computer was acting up

xVERITAS
11-10-2008, 04:48 PM
agreed. im looking bigger and more cut by eating as many carbs as i want and running.

Korry1
11-10-2008, 09:26 PM
thanks for info and links in this thread... it certainly has forced to me to revisit my views on keto...

jked4life
11-11-2008, 05:57 AM
thanks for info and links in this thread... it certainly has forced to me to revisit my views on keto...

Korry, I think this thread makes some people take a hard look at what they do.

Does Keto work? Yes. Why? Because it blunts hunger and allows many people to eat in a caloric deficit, who might not have been able to otherwise.

Insulin control is also important when dieting. However, there are many non keto ways to diet, keep carbs and control insulin.

The only other "advantage" is the relatively high protein content. Protein is thermogenic and higher protein diets are beneficial for those who are active and looking to cut. In Layne's pre contest diet article, he recomments 1.5g/lb of protein for endo's. He does so because of the thermogenic nature of the extra protein, not because of muscle needs.

On my non Keto diet, I am actually getting a good bit more protein than I did on Keto. I'm also not having any problems keeping myself in a caloric deficit. At least no more than I did on Keto. The one advantage I've noticed is much better workouts, which have helped body composition. I've also been able to do HIT cardio, which I think is absolutely awesome.



This is just my $.02 though.

Korry1
11-11-2008, 04:06 PM
Korry, I think this thread makes some people take a hard look at what they do.

Does Keto work? Yes. Why? Because it blunts hunger and allows many people to eat in a caloric deficit, who might not have been able to otherwise.

Insulin control is also important when dieting. However, there are many non keto ways to diet, keep carbs and control insulin.

The only other "advantage" is the relatively high protein content. Protein is thermogenic and higher protein diets are beneficial for those who are active and looking to cut. In Layne's pre contest diet article, he recomments 1.5g/lb of protein for endo's. He does so because of the thermogenic nature of the extra protein, not because of muscle needs.

On my non Keto diet, I am actually getting a good bit more protein than I did on Keto. I'm also not having any problems keeping myself in a caloric deficit. At least no more than I did on Keto. The one advantage I've noticed is much better workouts, which have helped body composition. I've also been able to do HIT cardio, which I think is absolutely awesome.



This is just my $.02 though.

Yes, I agree with your comments...

Thanks for your info and advice, I appreciate it...

lol, yeah I know what you mean, I miss my HIT cardio...

and a funny things, just bought some $100+ running shoes... time to put those shoes to work...

Thanks!

Korry1
11-12-2008, 05:42 PM
1. inner chest.
2. tuesday.


oh btw,

great progress pic...

keep up the great work...

The_Taubes
11-13-2008, 05:03 PM
I was wondering if anybody could explain the following evidence that keto diets might in fact have a metabolic advantage.

I think this article actually discusses the mechanisms in the body and clearly explains how there is a metabolic advantage.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2129158

Article showing weight loss and fat loss

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=538279&rendertype=abstract


"This study shows a clear benefit of a VLCK over LF diet for short-term body weight and fat loss, especially in men. A preferential loss of fat in the trunk region with a VLCK diet is novel and potentially clinically significant but requires further validation. These data provide additional support for the concept of metabolic advantage with diets representing extremes in macronutrient distribution."

These studies all showed a significant improvement in blood lipid profile with one showing a significant decrease in weight loss
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/2/384

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/132/7/1879

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/4/880

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/272

Diabetes improves on keto diet
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1325029&rendertype=abstract

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1526736&rendertype=abstract


Brain cancer in rats slowed when on high fat diet
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1819381&rendertype=abstract

Ketogenic - cancer in rats improved
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2408928


Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start

Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage.

Veeno
11-13-2008, 07:38 PM
Let me start off by saying that I follow a low carb diet. I stay away from carb ups, however, I allow myself sushi or something every couple of weeks. So i guess you could say that I have a carb up meal.

However, like bambi said and a few others, do what works for YOU. Keto works great for me. I am overweight, so anything would work actually, however, I find keto to just be easier because it does eliminate those cravings. Not too mention, buying chicken, beef, tilapia, etc, in bulk, is a hell of a lot easier on my bank account then running out and buying all the foods required for typical diets like 40/40/20...This is all my opinion though. I don't know about food prices for you guys.

I choose keto because I do have bad self control when it comes too food (if I didn't, I wouldn't be fat), and because I think that keto is far more "user friendly" than most other diets. I just don't do the carb up every weekend...I don't think they are necessary, and I don't think that they are completely necessary for great performance in the gym. Like I said, allow yourself a carb meal every couple of weeks and you'll be fine...

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. Do what works for you. Who knows, in a few years when I have a little bit of cash (college is expensive ****), I'll find something else that works.

Btw, good article MarkVI

alan aragon
11-13-2008, 10:08 PM
I was wondering if anybody could explain the following evidence that keto diets might in fact have a metabolic advantage.

I think this article actually discusses the mechanisms in the body and clearly explains how there is a metabolic advantage.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2129158

Article showing weight loss and fat loss

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=538279&rendertype=abstract


"This study shows a clear benefit of a VLCK over LF diet for short-term body weight and fat loss, especially in men. A preferential loss of fat in the trunk region with a VLCK diet is novel and potentially clinically significant but requires further validation. These data provide additional support for the concept of metabolic advantage with diets representing extremes in macronutrient distribution."

These studies all showed a significant improvement in blood lipid profile with one showing a significant decrease in weight loss
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/136/2/384

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/132/7/1879

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/4/880

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/272

Diabetes improves on keto diet
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1325029&rendertype=abstract

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1526736&rendertype=abstract


Brain cancer in rats slowed when on high fat diet
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1819381&rendertype=abstract

Ketogenic - cancer in rats improved
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2408928


Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start

Here, we propose that a misunderstanding of the second law accounts for the controversy about the role of macronutrient effect on weight loss and we review some aspects of elementary thermodynamics. We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage.1) Rodent studies can be tossed out, thank you.
2) As is typical with the research you cited, the treatments compare differing carbohydrate amounts, but the vast majority don't compare equal protein amounts. Those that do barely scrape the threshold of adequate.
3) Most of it is based on self-reported dietary intake, which is subject to a wide margin of error, especially in obese subjects.
4) Rarely do the protocols involve a structured, balanced exercise program. Rather, they are done on the sedentary obese, who for obvious reasons would fare better on adequate protein versus insufficient protein. Adding a training program to the mix creates an entirely different set of substrate demands, favoring more carbohydrate than typically prescribed by the Atkins Foundation - sponsor of the majority of the "keto rulez!!1" trials.
5) Ultimately, the trials you cited compare two extremes: a) sub-optimal carbohydrate + barely adequate protein, versus b) inadequate protein + an overabundance of carbs. The lesser of the two evils is the protocol involving adequate protein.
6) What people fail to recognize is that the above 2 scenarios are not the only choices available; it's entirely possible to meet protein needs as well as carbohydrate needs optimally within the context of a structured, progressive training program. No one here is arguing in favor of a low-protein, low-fat, high-carb, Food Guide Pyramid-type diet. This is what you need to let penetrate your thick skull.

For further reading on the triviality of the so-called metabolic advantage, dig into the attached manuscript by Anthony Colpo, which happens to touch upon a lot of the sentiments in this thread.

lth
11-13-2008, 10:15 PM
1) Rodent studies can be tossed out, thank you.
2) As is typical with the research you cited, the treatments compare differing carbohydrate amounts, but the vast majority don't compare equal protein amounts. Those that do barely scrape the threshold of adequate.
3) Most of it is based on self-reported dietary intake, which is subject to a wide margin of error, especially in obese subjects.
4) Rarely do the protocols involve a structured, balanced exercise program. Rather, the are done on the sedentary obese, who for obvious reasons would fare better on adequate protein versus insufficient protein. Adding a training program to the mix creates an entirely different set of substrate demands, favoring more carbohydrate than typically prescribed by the Atkins Foundation - sponsor of the majority of the "keto rulez!!1" trials.
5) Ultimately, the trials you cited compare two extremes: sub-optimal carbohydrate + barely adequate protein, versus inadequate protein + an overabundance of carbs. What people fail to recognize is that these two scenarios are not the only choices available; it's entirely possible to meet protein needs as well as carbohydrate needs optimally within the context of a structured, progressive training program. The lesser of the two evils is the protocol involving adequate protein. No one here is arguing in favor of a low-protein, low-fat, high-carb diet. This is what you need to let penetrate your thick skull.

For further reading on the triviality of the so-called metabolic advantage, dig into the atached manuscript by Anthony Colpo, which happens to touch upon a lot of the sentiments in this thread.

Yo alan, how many servings of carbless nipples would you recommend daily?

MarkVI
11-13-2008, 10:22 PM
1) Rodent studies can be tossed out, thank you.
2) As is typical with the research you cited, the treatments compare differing carbohydrate amounts, but the vast majority don't compare equal protein amounts. Those that do barely scrape the threshold of adequate.
3) Most of it is based on self-reported dietary intake, which is subject to a wide margin of error, especially in obese subjects.
4) Rarely do the protocols involve a structured, balanced exercise program. Rather, the are done on the sedentary obese, who for obvious reasons would fare better on adequate protein versus insufficient protein. Adding a training program to the mix creates an entirely different set of substrate demands, favoring more carbohydrate than typically prescribed by the Atkins Foundation - sponsor of the majority of the "keto rulez!!1" trials.
5) Ultimately, the trials you cited compare two extremes: a) sub-optimal carbohydrate + barely adequate protein, versus b) inadequate protein + an overabundance of carbs. The lesser of the two evils is the protocol involving adequate protein.
6) What people fail to recognize is that the above 2 scenarios are not the only choices available; it's entirely possible to meet protein needs as well as carbohydrate needs optimally within the context of a structured, progressive training program. No one here is arguing in favor of a low-protein, low-fat, high-carb, Food Guide Pyramid-type diet. This is what you need to let penetrate your thick skull.

For further reading on the triviality of the so-called metabolic advantage, dig into the atached manuscript by Anthony Colpo, which happens to touch upon a lot of the sentiments in this thread.

This is why we enthusiastically give you money.

alan aragon
11-13-2008, 10:45 PM
Yo alan, how many servings of carbless nipples would you recommend daily?Man I was just thinking of that today. Things can change carb-wise if she's nursing though... Old school thread on the subject:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=274375

alan aragon
11-13-2008, 10:46 PM
This is why we enthusiastically give you money.
Thanks for that, I'd probably be homeless otherwise!

MarkVI
11-13-2008, 10:50 PM
Man I was just thinking of that today. Things can change carb-wise if she's nursing though... Old school thread on the subject:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=274375

that is the funniest thread I've seen in a while that didn't involve canucktank and bambifox digging themselves into huge holes of absurdity.


Thanks for that, I'd probably be homeless otherwise!

You could always crash at my place.

The_Taubes
11-13-2008, 11:27 PM
1) Rodent studies can be tossed out, thank you.


This is a very inadequate response. You certainly cannot throw them out at all. The rodent studies had to deal with cancer anyways, which the mechanisms are in place that show that cancer's main growth source comes from glucose.



2) As is typical with the research you cited, the treatments compare differing carbohydrate amounts, but the vast majority don't compare equal protein amounts. Those that do barely scrape the threshold of adequate.

3) Most of it is based on self-reported dietary intake, which is subject to a wide margin of error, especially in obese subjects.


Young et al. compared 3 isoenergetic (1,800 kcal/day) and isoprotein (115 g/day) diets differing in carbohydrate content (30, 60, and 104 g/day) [22]. After 9 weeks on the 30-g, 60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8, and 11.9 kilograms and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively. More recently, Volek et al. examined the effects of 6-week very-low-carbohydrate diet on total and regional body composition [23]. Interestingly, their results indicated that fat mass was significantly decreased (-3.4 kg) and lean body mass significantly increased (+1.1 kg) at week 6. As expected, a very-low-carbohydrate diet led to significant decrease in serum insulin concentrations and there was a significant correlation between the decrease in insulin and the decrease in body fat, indicating that adipose tissue mobilization was up-regulated, which was also supported by the elevated beta-hydroxybutyrate concentrations. Finally, Willy et al. examined the efficacy and metabolic impact of a ketogenic diet in the treatment of morbidly obese adolescents [24]. The authors concluded that ketogenic diet is "a safe and effective weight loss regimen... The weight loss with this approach is rapid, consistent, and almost exclusively from body fat stores.



4) Rarely do the protocols involve a structured, balanced exercise program. Rather, they are done on the sedentary obese, who for obvious reasons would fare better on adequate protein versus insufficient protein. Adding a training program to the mix creates an entirely different set of substrate demands, favoring more carbohydrate than typically prescribed by the Atkins Foundation - sponsor of the majority of the "keto rulez!!1" trials.


I provided the isoprotein diets above that were conclusive and showed a metabolic advantage. The only way I really see carbs as necessary in a training program is if the individual cannot for whatever reason stick to a strictly ketogenic diet.



5) Ultimately, the trials you cited compare two extremes: a) sub-optimal carbohydrate + barely adequate protein, versus b) inadequate protein + an overabundance of carbs. The lesser of the two evils is the protocol involving adequate protein.


So you just admitted there was a metabolic advantage.



6) What people fail to recognize is that the above 2 scenarios are not the only choices available; it's entirely possible to meet protein needs as well as carbohydrate needs optimally within the context of a structured, progressive training program. No one here is arguing in favor of a low-protein, low-fat, high-carb, Food Guide Pyramid-type diet. This is what you need to let penetrate your thick skull.

For further reading on the triviality of the so-called metabolic advantage, dig into the attached manuscript by Anthony Colpo, which happens to touch upon a lot of the sentiments in this thread.

The_Taubes
11-13-2008, 11:31 PM
Also, you did not escape the quotes at the end

Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start

It is well established in the literature- meaning multiple papers have been produced saying it exists by people who spend their entire lives researching this stuff.

I would highly suggest you read this article

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...&artid=2129158

It clearly goes through the mechanisms involved in a diet that produce a metabolic advantage. It could be that nearly all of the literature is wrong, Im just not buying it yet.

The_Taubes
11-13-2008, 11:34 PM
This is why we enthusiastically give you money.

I don't know why you are jumping at the chance to disagree without even reading those articles yourself. You suddenly had a change in heart from one study but will not even read the results from the entire batch of other studies that said the exact opposite.

alan aragon
11-13-2008, 11:39 PM
This is a very inadequate response. You certainly cannot throw them out at all. The rodent studies had to deal with cancer anyways, which the mechanisms are in place that show that cancer's main growth source comes from glucose.lmfao. Do you have a tail & whiskers? Hopefully that answer was more adequate.
Young et al. compared 3 isoenergetic (1,800 kcal/day) and isoprotein (115 g/day) diets differing in carbohydrate content (30, 60, and 104 g/day) [22]. After 9 weeks on the 30-g, 60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8, and 11.9 kilograms and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively. More recently, Volek et al. examined the effects of 6-week very-low-carbohydrate diet on total and regional body composition [23]. Interestingly, their results indicated that fat mass was significantly decreased (-3.4 kg) and lean body mass significantly increased (+1.1 kg) at week 6. As expected, a very-low-carbohydrate diet led to significant decrease in serum insulin concentrations and there was a significant correlation between the decrease in insulin and the decrease in body fat, indicating that adipose tissue mobilization was up-regulated, which was also supported by the elevated beta-hydroxybutyrate concentrations. Finally, Willy et al. examined the efficacy and metabolic impact of a ketogenic diet in the treatment of morbidly obese adolescents [24]. The authors concluded that ketogenic diet is "a safe and effective weight loss regimen... The weight loss with this approach is rapid, consistent, and almost exclusively from body fat stores.



I provided the isoprotein diets above that were conclusive and showed a metabolic advantage. The only way I really see carbs as necessary in a training program is if the individual cannot for whatever reason stick to a strictly ketogenic diet. You lack reading comprehension. Re-read what I wrote. Every word counts.
So you just admitted there was a metabolic advantage.An advantage of sufficient protein over insufficient protein? Of course. And also, an advantage in the absence of an exercise program? Of course.

Seriously, you need to read each point more carefully. It seems you're reading with the typical ketarded zeal that blinds folks from objectivity.

alan aragon
11-13-2008, 11:42 PM
Also, you did not escape the quotes at the end

Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start

It is well established in the literature- meaning multiple papers have been produced saying it exists by people who spend their entire lives researching this stuff.

I would highly suggest you read this article

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...&artid=2129158

It clearly goes through the mechanisms involved in a diet that produce a metabolic advantage. It could be that nearly all of the literature is wrong, Im just not buying it yet.
Once again, you read what you want to read, and ignore the facts you want to ignore. Read the Colpo writeup. Oh nevermind, stay locked in your black-or-white mentality, it's easier. Also, fail on the dead link kiddo. Go edit it.

alan aragon
11-14-2008, 12:02 AM
I don't know why you are jumping at the chance to disagree without even reading those articles yourself. You suddenly had a change in heart from one study but will not even read the results from the entire batch of other studies that said the exact opposite.Could it be that the study MarkVI cited was more tightly controlled (no self-reporting; all food & drink was provided by the lab) than ALL of the research you cited? Could it be that this is one of the very rare studies comparing a moderate macro profie with a keto profile, as opposed to a lame-ass low-protein low-fat protocol vs keto as is done in exhausting redundancy in the literature? Could it be that you need to re-read this post more carefully?

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=245315561&postcount=113

lukewbrubaker
11-14-2008, 07:43 AM
I dont understand why Alan and Mark post in this forum...unless its to get a rouse out of some of us on this diet. Am I supossed to ignore the fact that I lost about 70 lbs on this diet and improved my bloodwork? Why cant I try different diets and decide which one works the best for me? What if I like eating this way? Whats the big deal if science says there is no metabolic advantage...doesnt that put it on an even playing fields with other diets? Is it really that hard to believe there is no cookie cutter diet, one may work well for one person while not work at all for another person? With the results I achieved you will not change my way of thinking...sure I may have gotten to the same place sooner but I also may have gotten there later. All I care about is I got to where I want to be and now I want to stay here.

Nutir
11-14-2008, 08:07 AM
I dont understand why Alan and Mark post in this forum...unless its to get a rouse out of some of us on this diet. Am I supossed to ignore the fact that I lost about 70 lbs on this diet and improved my bloodwork? Why cant I try different diets and decide which one works the best for me? What if I like eating this way? Whats the big deal if science says there is no metabolic advantage...doesnt that put it on an even playing fields with other diets? Is it really that hard to believe there is no cookie cutter diet, one may work well for one person while not work at all for another person? With the results I achieved you will not change my way of thinking...sure I may have gotten to the same place sooner but I also may have gotten there later. All I care about is I got to where I want to be and now I want to stay here.


They never actually said keto was crap, or even tried to take away some of its advantages (hunger blunting, ...).
They just pointed out that one of the advantages people saw in keto (metabolic increase) wasn't true.
If you enjoy this diet and it works for you to eat that way, stay on it. No one will tell you to quit keto..

IMO, it's a great diet for anyone having troubles controlling their portions and/or what they eat. It helped me a lot when I first got into dieting.
Now, at the end of the day, what matters are calories IME. So, if you're able to control your portions without cutting out carbs, why not go for it? I love pasta and know for sure that my next cut will be more enjoyable being able to eat them.. (yes, I admit I used to think carbs were the devil)

I enjoy Alans' posts, it's a big change from all the "rate my diet", "is pizza bad if I cut out the crust?" and "could I possibly maybe eat 1/8th of a tsp of icecream every 3rd day without gaining too much fat?" threads.


I bolded the important part, and congrats on your progress!


Hope this makes sence, and oh, in before some canadian guy makes comments about nuts.

ItalWHOP
11-14-2008, 08:22 AM
=I love pasta and know for sure that my next cut will be more enjoyable being able to eat them.. (yes, I admit I used to think carbs were the devil)


Refined carbs are still teh devil. :D

However, I will be having a small smoothie with some frozen yogurt in it soon.....pick and choose your battles...everything in moderation

bambifox
11-14-2008, 08:32 AM
I just like Alan's usage of the word "Ketard"!:p Bwahahahahahahahhaaa!:D

So....I'm just learning that our dear A. Alagon has some published "writings" available. Where can I find it? And since your a PT...do you have a program that you suggest Alan? (serious)

Nutir
11-14-2008, 08:45 AM
Refined carbs are still teh devil. :D

However, I will be having a small smoothie with some frozen yogurt in it soon.....pick and choose your battles...everything in moderation

Meh, I use WW pasta, does that make it any better? or do I still need to run 10 extra miles to burn it off?


I just like Alan's usage of the word "Ketard"!:p Bwahahahahahahahhaaa!:D

So....I'm just learning that our dear A. Alagon has some published "writings" available. Where can I find it? And since your a PT...do you have a program that you suggest Alan? (serious)

alanaragon.com , some free articles, the AARR you have to pay for. Read january (his sig) and see if you want to suscribe, I did, it's really interesting stuff. (although some of it I don't understand :D)

ItalWHOP
11-14-2008, 08:58 AM
Meh, I use WW pasta, does that make it any better? or do I still need to run 10 extra miles to burn it off?


My regard was more in terms of chronic illness not fat gain. ;)

bambifox
11-14-2008, 09:06 AM
alanaragon.com , some free articles, the AARR you have to pay for. Read january (his sig) and see if you want to suscribe, I did, it's really interesting stuff. (although some of it I don't understand :D)

Thanks a bunch:) I'll check it out!:D Anyone with a sense of humor such as Alan...can't be all that bad!:p Will read it with an open mind...hmmm...can't wait to see wut's up with this dude???

bambifox
11-14-2008, 09:09 AM
Hmmmm...interesting...seems he's not just another "Joe Neckbone"...will read the rest of the site when back from vacation. Thanks again:D

alan aragon
11-14-2008, 09:19 AM
I dont understand why Alan and Mark post in this forum...unless its to get a rouse out of some of us on this diet. Am I supossed to ignore the fact that I lost about 70 lbs on this diet and improved my bloodwork? Why cant I try different diets and decide which one works the best for me? What if I like eating this way? Whats the big deal if science says there is no metabolic advantage...doesnt that put it on an even playing fields with other diets? Is it really that hard to believe there is no cookie cutter diet, one may work well for one person while not work at all for another person? With the results I achieved you will not change my way of thinking...sure I may have gotten to the same place sooner but I also may have gotten there later. All I care about is I got to where I want to be and now I want to stay here.First off, I think that you're just assuming that everyone reading this thread doesn't care about learning how the body works from a scientific standpoint - you're wrong, many actually do want to learn. Also, I don't think you're understanding the crux of the debate. I'm not saying keto dieting doesn't work, it has its benefits for specific populations. And if I were to choose between the two extremes of a low-protein/low-fat versus low-carb/high-fat diet, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat - especially for the sedentary population. But to reiterate, people tend to see these two extremes as the only option to achieving their ultimate physique. There are many possibilities in between that can be more optimally tailored toward individual goals & training protocols. The fact that you think I'm promoting a singular approach tells me that you need to take your blinders off & read my posts more carefully. Finally, an ongoing state of ketosis is not necessary for achieving fat/weight loss. This is something a great many people in here are not aware of.

MarkVI
11-14-2008, 09:29 AM
I dont understand why Alan and Mark post in this forum...unless its to get a rouse out of some of us on this diet. Am I supossed to ignore the fact that I lost about 70 lbs on this diet and improved my bloodwork? Why cant I try different diets and decide which one works the best for me? What if I like eating this way? Whats the big deal if science says there is no metabolic advantage...doesnt that put it on an even playing fields with other diets? Is it really that hard to believe there is no cookie cutter diet, one may work well for one person while not work at all for another person? With the results I achieved you will not change my way of thinking...sure I may have gotten to the same place sooner but I also may have gotten there later. All I care about is I got to where I want to be and now I want to stay here.



KETO does not = magic. Too many people on this subforum have an arrogant and skewed view of dieting/eating because they found a diet that made it easier for them to lose weight...for them to lose weight.

There is nothing wrong with a ketosis diet or a low carb diet, but it is not the end all to dieting.

I can't quote all of Alan's responses, but I agree with em :D.

lth
11-14-2008, 09:31 AM
Thanks for that, I'd probably be homeless otherwise!

lmfao!

The_Taubes
11-14-2008, 09:45 AM
Once again, you read what you want to read, and ignore the facts you want to ignore. Read the Colpo writeup. Oh nevermind, stay locked in your black-or-white mentality, it's easier. Also, fail on the dead link kiddo. Go edit it.

Im sorry that it appears you seem to be the one with a reading comp problem.

Did you read this?

This completely annihilates your argument. Please read the article.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...&artid=2129158



Colpo's response is not very thorough at all and it has huge leaks.

This is the bottom line in why insulin drives fat accumulation and why metabolic ward studies have been insufficient thus far in showing a difference between isoprotein/isocaloric diets. This will be as simple as it gets.

If two groups of people are consuming roughly the same low-calorie (1500-2000) diet that is roughly equivalent or below to their basal metabolic rates nearly every calorie you ingest will be burned to keep you alive and so weight loss should be insignificant between to the two groups, at least in the short-run. In 2+ years the difference might show up and in 15+ it could be substantial.

Now for instance, you have another 2 groups consuming 50% of their BMR one low-carb, one high carb. I don't know if a study like this has been done, but there has been lots of science done to show that the high-carb group will end up storing more of the carbs as fat due to insulin, while the LC group will end up having many more free fatty acids floating around not locked up in the adipose tissue. The body adjusts on the LC diet and thus over time more body fat will be used instead of glucose for its energy. Meanwhile the HC group will never adjust properly to being underfed and breakdown of muscle occurs through glyconeogenesis for energy.

It is a fact that you feel much more satiated on LC diet. Your body is just being fed properly. On a HC diet, tissues will not function as well, hunger sets in, and a whole host of other problems will ensue.

I would like to see a very low calorie(25-50% of BMR) isocaloric study done or an extremely high calorie (200%+) done to get a definitive answer in a relatively short amount of time.


Also, you have admitted that their is certainly a metabolic advantage if say for instance you would compare a 2k cal diet of pure glucose solution to a normal keto-diet. This advantage miraculously disappears when you add in a small amount of protein?

BlueFenix13S
11-14-2008, 09:45 AM
The fact that you think I'm promoting a singular approach tells me that you need to take your blinders off & read my posts more carefully. Finally, an ongoing state of ketosis is not necessary for achieving fat/weight loss. This is something a great many people in here are not aware of.

I have done both low fat and low carb, and oddly enough I lost the most weight on the low fat diet. I have to be careful with my carbs, both amount and type, but my diet is by no means ketogenic.


KETO does not = magic. Too many people on this subforum have an arrogant and skewed view of dieting/eating because they found a diet that made it easier for them to lose weight...for them to lose weight.

There is nothing wrong with a ketosis diet or a low carb diet, but it is not the end all to dieting.

I can't quote all of Alan's responses, but I agree with em :D.

Goddammit I still can't rep you again :mad:

I too must agree with everything Alan has written, and with pretty much everything you've written.

I am not knocking keto, but I am agreeing with the fact that it is not THE weight loss diet.

lukewbrubaker
11-14-2008, 09:48 AM
KETO does not = magic. Too many people on this subforum have an arrogant and skewed view of dieting/eating because they found a diet that made it easier for them to lose weight...for them to lose weight.

There is nothing wrong with a ketosis diet or a low carb diet, but it is not the end all to dieting.

I can't quote all of Alan's responses, but I agree with em :D.

We agree on this point, I believe what works well for one may not work well for another. I try to tell them to experiment and find out for themselves. I just get sick of people (not only online but in real life as well), telling me my way of eating is wrong. If its so wrong then why did I get results.

alan aragon
11-14-2008, 10:03 AM
Im sorry that it appears you seem to be the one with a reading comp problem.

Did you read this?

This completely annihilates your argument. Please read the article.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...&artid=2129158I would read it if you got some tech support and properly pasted a readable link, broski.
Colpo's response is not very thorough at all and it has huge leaks.

This is the bottom line in why insulin drives fat accumulation and why metabolic ward studies have been insufficient thus far in showing a difference between isoprotein/isocaloric diets. This will be as simple as it gets.

If two groups of people are consuming roughly the same low-calorie (1500-2000) diet that is roughly equivalent or below to their basal metabolic rates nearly every calorie you ingest will be burned to keep you alive and so weight loss should be insignificant between to the two groups, at least in the short-run. In 2+ years the difference might show up and in 15+ it could be substantial.Sorry bud, but if insulin were indeed such a factor of high-magnitude, the majority of longterm trials (a year or longer) that compare the extremes I've been talking about would show LC diets as the clear champs for weight loss. Guess what? They don't.
Now for instance, you have another 2 groups consuming 50% of their BMR one low-carb, one high carb. I don't know if a study like this has been done, but there has been lots of science done to show that the high-carb group will end up storing more of the carbs as fat due to insulin, while the LC group will end up having many more free fatty acids floating around not locked up in the adipose tissue. The body adjusts on the LC diet and thus over time more body fat will be used instead of glucose for its energy. Meanwhile the HC group will never adjust properly to being underfed and breakdown of muscle occurs through glyconeogenesis for energy.Not if both groups have adequate protein based on the training demand.
It is a fact that you feel much more satiated on LC diet. Your body is just being fed properly. On a HC diet, tissues will not function as well, hunger sets in, and a whole host of other problems will ensue.When comparing the 2 extremes I keep talking about, yes this is true. But the problem is, again, you can't seem to pry open your mind to see past these two scenarios.
I would like to see a very low calorie(25-50% of BMR) isocaloric study done or an extremely high calorie (200%+) done to get a definitive answer in a relatively short amount of time.Ponder extremes much?
Also, you have admitted that their is certainly a metabolic advantage if say for instance you would compare a 2k cal diet of pure glucose solution to a normal keto-diet. This advantage miraculously disappears when you add in a small amount of protein?I'm beginning to think you're purposely trolling based on the far-fetched analogies and complete misinterpretation of what I've been saying. Once again, in isocaloric diets matched for protein, there is no metabolic advantage to the lower-carb one. Research indicating the opposite has poor dietary control, and no formal exercise structured into the design. The fact that you're adamant about a single style of dieting shows me that you haven't worked with very many individuals on the basis of fat loss. People have vastly different tolerances for carbohydrate. I have some clients on 50g a day, while others thrive on 500g a day. Is there research evidence of this wide variation in carb tolerance, showing that some folks lose more weight on high carb, and some folks lose more weight on low carb? Yes there is.

lukewbrubaker
11-14-2008, 10:11 AM
First off, I think that you're just assuming that everyone reading this thread doesn't care about learning how the body works from a scientific standpoint - you're wrong, many actually do want to learn. Also, I don't think you're understanding the crux of the debate. I'm not saying keto dieting doesn't work, it has its benefits for specific populations. And if I were to choose between the two extremes of a low-protein/low-fat versus low-carb/high-fat diet, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat - especially for the sedentary population. But to reiterate, people tend to see these two extremes as the only option to achieving their ultimate physique. There are many possibilities in between that can be more optimally tailored toward individual goals & training protocols. The fact that you think I'm promoting a singular approach tells me that you need to take your blinders off & read my posts more carefully. Finally, an ongoing state of ketosis is not necessary for achieving fat/weight loss. This is something a great many people in here are not aware of.

I do think some people do care about the science of the body (including me). Which is why I asked you in another thread and over PM on what happens to broken down food with low levels of insulin in the body. With low levels of insulin how does the body store fat? I believe in an overall calorie balance I just want to know what happens to excess with no insulin.

Sorry I put you towards a advocate of a cookie cutter diet, but it didnt look like you would support this type of diet at all from any of your responses. So which diet do you endorse, or do you actually tailor each diet to an individual?

alan aragon
11-14-2008, 10:26 AM
I do think some people do care about the science of the body (including me). Which is why I asked you in another thread and over PM on what happens to broken down food with low levels of insulin in the body. With low levels of insulin how does the body store fat? I believe in an overall calorie balance I just want to know what happens to excess with no insulin.Caloric surpluses tend to raise insulin levels. Caloric deficits tend to lower insulin levels. However, it's entirely possible to lose an equal amount of fat given two diets that are calorically matched, regardless of the differing effects of each diet on insulin levels.

Sorry I put you towards a advocate of a cookie cutter diet, but it didnt look like you would support this type of diet at all from any of your responses. So which diet do you endorse, or do you actually tailor each diet to an individual?Please re-read my last 2 posts.

lukewbrubaker
11-14-2008, 10:43 AM
Caloric surpluses tend to raise insulin levels. Caloric deficits tend to lower insulin levels. However, it's entirely possible to lose an equal amount of fat given two diets that are calorically matched, regardless of the differing effects of each diet on insulin levels. Please re-read my last 2 posts.

Thank you for answering this...and I was typing a reponse before your last post which clears things up. I agree 100% that people have different tolerance levels and need different types of diets. By the way do your links in this thread go into any detail about the raised insulin levels or are there others I should persue

Im not to much of an ethug to admit when I am wrong, I have been on the defensive for the last couple of days with people critisizing the way I eat. I must of read what I wanted to and not what was actually there

The_Taubes
11-14-2008, 10:43 AM
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2129158

I think it's ironic that you are the one who cannot get your mind wrapped away from extremes. This is your only point, and it happens to be a point in my direction as I will explain in a bit. You definitively admit that there is a metabolic advantage between extreme diets. This certainly decreases when the amount of protein is upped. You must think there is an in-between. Think of the graph of the function y=1/x where x is equal to the amount of protein in the diet and y is the metabolic advantage. I am not going to look at the actual numerical values, just use it as an analogy. At point 0, with say a 100% glucose solution there appears to be a large disadvantage vs those who have a normal keto-diet. Now we add it in a little protein. The advantage drops. It drops significantly even after just a little protein is added. Now we add a little more protein where the advantage drops even more (though not as drastic as the initial addition). The advantage in this situation always approaches 0 and is very close to it but never in fact reaches 0 unless the diet has now completely overturned and has 0 carbs.

This is the gradual decrease you meant to talk about. It is very slight, especially in diets right around BMR. Again, you must look at multi-year studies at BMR caloric diets to get any indication of what is actually going on. There is much more evidence in favor of low-carb diets that make you feel more satiated, as well as many other benefits that I posted earlier. Even though the metabolic difference might be small (perhaps below 10 cal a day on BMR caloric diets), the total calorie consumption should be much easier to control.

Every single study I have looked at has shown a huge drastic change to the blood lipid profile for those on keto-diets. These better profile compositions (lower VLDL, higher HDL, lower blood pressure, lower triglycerides) will lead to longer healthier lives. There are several articles indicating keto can be used for cancer therapy. I then posted several articles that keto was great at controlling diabetes. There are just several benefits to this diet other than metabolic advantage that make it great.

Honestly what more do you want from a diet?

alan aragon
11-14-2008, 11:08 AM
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2129158

I think it's ironic that you are the one who cannot get your mind wrapped away from extremes. This is your only point, and it happens to be a point in my direction as I will explain in a bit. You definitively admit that there is a metabolic advantage between extreme diets. This certainly decreases when the amount of protein is upped. You must think there is an in-between. Think of the graph of the function y=1/x where x is equal to the amount of protein in the diet and y is the metabolic advantage. I am not going to look at the actual numerical values, just use it as an analogy. At point 0, with say a 100% glucose solution there appears to be a large disadvantage vs those who have a normal keto-diet. Now we add it in a little protein. The advantage drops. It drops significantly even after just a little protein is added. Now we add a little more protein where the advantage drops even more (though not as drastic as the initial addition). The advantage in this situation always approaches 0 and is very close to it but never in fact reaches 0 unless the diet has now completely overturned and has 0 carbs.

This is the gradual decrease you meant to talk about. It is very slight, especially in diets right around BMR. Again, you must look at multi-year studies at BMR caloric diets to get any indication of what is actually going on. There is much more evidence in favor of low-carb diets that make you feel more satiated, as well as many other benefits that I posted earlier. Even though the metabolic difference might be small (perhaps below 10 cal a day on BMR caloric diets), the total calorie consumption should be much easier to control.

Every single study I have looked at has shown a huge drastic change to the blood lipid profile for those on keto-diets. These better profile compositions (lower VLDL, higher HDL, lower blood pressure, lower triglycerides) will lead to longer healthier lives. There are several articles indicating keto can be used for cancer therapy. I then posted several articles that keto was great at controlling diabetes. There are just several benefits to this diet other than metabolic advantage that make it great.

Honestly what more do you want from a diet?
I seriously don't know how many more times I can post the same response over and over. Please re-read my posts, all the points are there, none of which you've refuted.

Veeno
11-14-2008, 11:11 AM
If any of you have been following the Taurine argument between Canucktank and markVI, alan, others etc...this thread really changed my mind about alan and Mark. Throughout the entire taureenz thread, all I could say was that you all were acting like a bunch of dicks (tank included). However, it's refreshing to see that you guys are actually capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation about the Keto diet without bashing people that are on it. Granted that's not why you were bashing canucktank.


Anyway, like luke and alan have both stated, dieting is more about what works for the individual. No, I don't think keto is the be all end all for dieting. However, like I stated before, I'm getting results, I'm not hungry, and for right now it is a very cost effective diet. No, I don't really care if there is a metabolic benefit to it. But, losing body fat is what I'm after, and keto is the only thing that I have been able to stick too. Yes, I have terrible self control when it comes to food. Mainly because I can't afford all the top notch foods and such on a college students bank account.

Kudos for a good argument, and you didn't sway me from keeping to the keto diet. Although the information is appreciated.

The_Taubes
11-14-2008, 11:29 AM
I seriously don't know how many more times I can post the same response over and over. Please re-read my posts, all the points are there, none of which you've refuted.

Ive read your posts. You have admitted that there is a metabolic advantage when you look at "extremes". I just made a perfect analogy and admitted this advantage would be small once the diets had similar necessary protein.

Did you get my y=1/x analogy? You are arguing the exact same point as me and we agree on how large this metabolic advantage is for the most part.

Do you not agree with the myriad of studies showing the potential other benefits of keto? The keto groups constantly show much better overall health in every single study posted.

Nutir
11-14-2008, 11:46 AM
If any of you have been following the Taurine argument between Canucktank and markVI, alan, others etc...this thread really changed my mind about alan and Mark. Throughout the entire taureenz thread, all I could say was that you all were acting like a bunch of dicks (tank included). However, it's refreshing to see that you guys are actually capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation about the Keto diet without bashing people that are on it. Granted that's not why you were bashing canucktank.



That thread deserved it, if you look at it, alan & his "nughugers" tried to explain that taurine could not be the reason for his fatloss.
Then, CT started insulting everyone and bang, debate over.

alan aragon
11-14-2008, 12:01 PM
Ive read your posts. You have admitted that there is a metabolic advantage when you look at "extremes". I just made a perfect analogy and admitted this advantage would be small once the diets had similar necessary protein.

Did you get my y=1/x analogy? You are arguing the exact same point as me and we agree on how large this metabolic advantage is for the most part.Except you're failing to see that I'm not in favor of the type of diets being compared to the keto diets in the literature. I find it interesting that you're selectively brushing off the results of the study the OP posted, which essentially was moderate macros yielding slightly better results than keto.
Do you not agree with the myriad of studies showing the potential other benefits of keto? The keto groups constantly show much better overall health in every single study posted.Your point is neither here nor there since I'm not in favor of the low-fat/low-protein treatments pitted against the keto treatments. Another concept you're choosing to ignore are the shortcomings of the research in terms of exercise. Will most sedentary folks do better on low-carb? Of course. When you throw in progressive training or other athletic pursuits, there's a wide range of variability in what's optimal across individuals. In addition, for you to be blanketly in favor of keto no matter what, this tells me that you have a lot to learn when it comes to individual differences in carb tolerance.

Veeno
11-14-2008, 12:01 PM
That thread deserved it, if you look at it, alan & his "nughugers" tried to explain that taurine could not be the reason for his fatloss.
Then, CT started insulting everyone and bang, debate over.

Completely agree with ya man.

The_Taubes
11-14-2008, 01:06 PM
Except you're failing to see that I'm not in favor of the type of diets being compared to the keto diets in the literature. I find it interesting that you're selectively brushing off the results of the study the OP posted, which essentially was moderate macros yielding slightly better results than keto.


I do accept that this 6 week study with its 19 participants yielded no statistically significant difference between the diets in terms of weight and fat loss. There are however, a significant amount of other studies that do show a greater weight loss. It is important to take note of these other studies. They obviously do not constitute proof but merely evidence that cannot be ignored.



Your point is neither here nor there since I'm not in favor of the low-fat/low-protein treatments pitted against the keto treatments. Another concept you're choosing to ignore are the shortcomings of the research in terms of exercise. Will most sedentary folks do better on low-carb? Of course. When you throw in progressive training or other athletic pursuits, there's a wide range of variability in what's optimal across individuals. In addition, for you to be blanketly in favor of keto no matter what, this tells me that you have a lot to learn when it comes to individual differences in carb tolerance.

You are right that metabolic properties within the body change with exercising individuals and this would be a harder proposition to determine based on most of the studies I have seen. You are also right that, everyone's optimal diet will be different and that most likely tweaking needs to be done. This is however extremely difficult because of how convoluted all the variables can make the analysis and thus it is good to look at the big picture.


Also how are the diminishing effects of heart disease, diabetes and cancer "neither here or there". How are you avoiding this research?

Regardless of whether metabolic advantage exists - keto diets will make you feel fuller which will lead to less calorie consumption for the vast majority of the population.

alan aragon
11-14-2008, 01:23 PM
I do accept that this 6 week study with its 19 participants yielded no statistically significant difference between the diets in terms of weight and fat loss. There are however, a significant amount of other studies that do show a greater weight loss. It is important to take note of these other studies. They obviously do not constitute proof but merely evidence that cannot be ignored.I'm not ignoring any evidence; you need to be aware that the data you're attached to has a lack of dietary control, and once again, compares one extreme vs another. The trial in the original post of this thread is quite different, and better controlled.
You are right that metabolic properties within the body change with exercising individuals and this would be a harder proposition to determine based on most of the studies I have seen. You are also right that, everyone's optimal diet will be different and that most likely tweaking needs to be done. This is however extremely difficult because of how convoluted all the variables can make the analysis and thus it is good to look at the big picture.Looking at the big picture, a more flexible approach that accounts for individual differences in carb tolerance is best. Not the keto-or-die approach you're emotionally attached to.
Also how are the diminishing effects of heart disease, diabetes and cancer "neither here or there". How are you avoiding this research?

Regardless of whether metabolic advantage exists - keto diets will make you feel fuller which will lead to less calorie consumption for the vast majority of the population.Keto is better for a number of clinical parameters than low-prot/low-fat, especially for the sedentary population. And indeed plenty of research shows this. But once again, you are stubborn in your ignorance of the fact that I'm not a proponent of the low-protein and low-fat diets that get compared w/keto in the literature. You're missing the point repeatedly, while regurgitating the same statements that don't apply to my stance.

Ryanmcd
11-14-2008, 09:17 PM
I think this sums it up.


#1 If you sit on your ass and move as little as you can then do Keto, it works and did work for me.

#2 After building up my fitness I can now workout 2-3 sometimes 4 hours a day, Keto did NOT work I was dead beat and felt sick all the time after this "Carb up" and overall. I do about 120g carbs a day lose weight and can workout longer and hard then I could on keto.

What I do now is if I know I am going to be sitting around I don't screw with carbs, if I know I am going to the gym I do some fruit and a shake and hit the gym hard, I have Alan to thank for this and to think of food a different way. More of a what food do I need for what I am going to be doing and it is working better then anything I have ever done.

vgbblife
11-17-2008, 07:00 PM
What about keto being best because of muscle preservation? Is this not true?

Mainframe
11-17-2008, 11:33 PM
I am not what you would call a handsome man. The good Lord chose not to bless me with with charm, athletic ability or a fully functional brain...

but I think all Mark VI is saying is the best diet is the one which works for you but keep calories in mind.

Korry1
11-18-2008, 05:31 AM
I think this sums it up.


#1 If you sit on your ass and move as little as you can then do Keto, it works and did work for me.

#2 After building up my fitness I can now workout 2-3 sometimes 4 hours a day, Keto did NOT work I was dead beat and felt sick all the time after this "Carb up" and overall. I do about 120g carbs a day lose weight and can workout longer and hard then I could on keto.

What I do now is if I know I am going to be sitting around I don't screw with carbs, if I know I am going to the gym I do some fruit and a shake and hit the gym hard, I have Alan to thank for this and to think of food a different way. More of a what food do I need for what I am going to be doing and it is working better then anything I have ever done.

My thoughts exactly... except instead of fruit PreWO, I would go with preblended oatmeal (personal preference)or just dextrose...

bambifox
11-18-2008, 07:38 AM
that is the funniest thread I've seen in a while that didn't involve canucktank and bambifox digging themselves into huge holes of absurdity.

You could always crash at my place.

Why the "hard on" for me??? Is it because I have my own mind and "chose" to use it...perhaps?

Science is wonderful...and I truly enjoy reading an articulate exchange of scientifc information. However, at the end of the day...do you really think that people (bb.com people) don't know that a balanced diet and regular exercise works to lose fat and maintain a healthy lifestyle? Do you really think this is a "newsflash" your dropping on people...hold the press...latest breaking news sh*t? People come here for "alternate" ways of losing fat and breaking plateaus...information is exchanged...and the end user makes their own decision based upon what they feel is the "winning" argument of a debate or "will work best for them". Did that "kill any brain cells" dear?:o


If any of you have been following the Taurine argument between Canucktank and markVI, alan, others etc...this thread really changed my mind about alan and Mark. Throughout the entire taureenz thread, all I could say was that you all were acting like a bunch of dicks (tank included). However, it's refreshing to see that you guys are actually capable of carrying on an intelligent conversation about the Keto diet without bashing people that are on it. Granted that's not why you were bashing canucktank.

Anyway, like luke and alan have both stated, dieting is more about what works for the individual. No, I don't think keto is the be all end all for dieting. However, like I stated before, I'm getting results, I'm not hungry, and for right now it is a very cost effective diet. No, I don't really care if there is a metabolic benefit to it. But, losing body fat is what I'm after, and keto is the only thing that I have been able to stick too. Yes, I have terrible self control when it comes to food. Mainly because I can't afford all the top notch foods and such on a college students bank account.

Kudos for a good argument, and you didn't sway me from keeping to the keto diet. Although the information is appreciated.

THIS^^:) I absolutely concur. Now that I'm back from vacation...I will read Alan's article on his website. I browsed it briefly and it seemed interesting. All for different points of view backed with scienzzzzz! However, at the end of the day...there will always be "scientific" evidence that will prove both sides....it's confusing...but you just gotta weigh the pros and cons...try it both ways...and figure out what works for you.

BTW, Scienzzzz shunned Dr. Atkins for many many years...and as it turns out...Dr. Atkins was right on the money and now all the diet/weight loss gurus are "riding his corpse's jock" all the way to the BANK!:D

krogtaar
11-18-2008, 08:04 AM
I am not what you would call a handsome man. The good Lord chose not to bless me with with charm, athletic ability or a fully functional brain...

but I think all Mark VI is saying is the best diet is the one which works for you but keep calories in mind.

lmao you could have just said the part about the diet and gotten your point across

ItalWHOP
11-18-2008, 08:49 AM
BTW, Scienzzzz shunned Dr. Atkins for many many years...and as it turns out...Dr. Atkins was right on the money and now all the diet/weight loss gurus are "riding his corpse's jock" all the way to the BANK!:D

I wouldn't really call that science. I would call that a crusade by a few men whom ignored evidence and inflated things to suit their agenda......

s.o.u.p
11-18-2008, 11:35 AM
I'm not sold.

Along with all that was mentioned, the idea of feeding someone fat as a primary source of energy, then measuring their blood fat levels and then pointing and claiming "UNHEALTHY!" seems a bit off.

Ofcourse they're going to have higher levels of fat in the blood than those taking less fat, that's just common sense.

Not enough info in that link tho, it seems deliberately vague, I'm assuming that the test was used solely to prove that keto is bad.

Veeno
11-18-2008, 12:01 PM
I am not what you would call a handsome man. The good Lord chose not to bless me with with charm, athletic ability or a fully functional brain...

but I think all Mark VI is saying is the best diet is the one which works for you but keep calories in mind.

Repped for the great use of the waterboy quote.

Mainframe
11-18-2008, 03:50 PM
Love the Waterboy!

Plus, I don't know what to believe on this darn forum anymore. I come back after working on an election and things have gone crazy and vicious! I figured we could use more humor.

We need less arguments and more people willing to put in some time and faith into a diet to see if it works for them or not:)