Keto is not superior to non-keto: an excellent study

[Jay Rawd]

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

"Share and enjoy!"

<---Winnar

[determined4000]

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

"Share and enjoy!"

<---Winnar

Very interesting
I am not surprised and I suspect long term even more adverse affect would be observed
Reps owed once I spread some around

[Jay Rawd]

It's like my prayers were answered when I posted up that thread some weeks ago.

[Eyayo]

Was thinking of doin a keto, but now screw it. Repped!

[Jay Rawd]

Was thinking of doin a keto, but now screw it. Repped!
If you want to be my size, go ahead and do keto.

[signature166]

A few things:

1. If you read Lyle's research review he makes it clear that in this study (which has a very small sample size) the food intake of the dieters was strictly controlled. As Lyle notes in the review, one of the purported benefits of the ketogenic diet is blunted hunger and there was no difference in reported hunger between the ketogenic group and the "low-carb" group. Fair enough. However, note what Lyle says in the review:

"For many individuals, the biggest ?metabolic advantage? of very-low carbohdyrate diets may be one of food/calorie control. Many people seem to show what might be popularly called ?carbohydrate addiction? (a term that is massively debated among obesity researchers) where eating even small amounts of carbs makes them want to eat more. In that case, a full blown removal of carbohydrates from the diet may be the only realistic way to limit caloric intake.

Related to this, for many, spending time on a very-low carbohydrate diet seems to change taste preferences: carbohydrates can often be reintroduced after some period without the loss of food control that occurred prior to the diet.

I mentioned in the introduction that severely insulin resistant individual seem to get health benefits from extreme carbohydrate restriction."

And, later:

"As I?ve noted above, there may be other ?advantages? unrelated to fat loss that are still important. Basically, the choice of diet may come down to other issues than fat loss per se. A diet that makes someone feel terrible isn?t one that they are likely to stick to for very long; a diet that does is one that may be the ?superior? one for that person."

So, for you, JayRawd, the ketogenic diet was a terrible choice, BUT...

People who don't get their food pre-portioned from a lab, 99% of dieters, have to worry about whether or not the diet makes them feel good or feel bad, and whether or not they stick to it or cheat often.

The diet that is most effective for someone will be the one that promotes the best dietary adherence during the maintainence of a caloric deficit.

If someone who is obese and feels bloated after eating carbs comes to me looking for a diet, I will recommend to them a very-low carb diet. If someone who enjoys carbs--seems to handle them well and feels energized after eating carbs--comes to me looking to lose some weight I will not recommend a low-carb or ketogenic diet, but rather one with moderate-to-high carbs. In either case I would evaluate the person's progress and adjust as necessary. And, as a side note, if at some point in time I have the ability to give people blood tests for hormone levels and gene expression, and there is information that shows correlations between different hormone levels and gene expressions and success on different types of diets, I will use that information as a starting point.

Along those lines, there is a study from 2005 that Alan Aragon reviews in the March 2009 edition (which also has a similarly small sample) in which the dieters are divided into insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive groups. One diet is 20%fat and 60%CHO ("High-carb") and the other diet is 40%CHO and 40%Fat ("low-carb"). Half of each group was assigned to each diet. At the end of 16 weeks, the insulin-sensitive subjects on the high-carb diet lost almost twice as much weight as the insulin-sensitive subjects on the low-carb diet. The insulin-resistant subjects lost almost twice as much weight on the low-carb diet than the insulin-resistant subjects lost on the high-carb diet. According to the study "these differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity or intake." Looks like there is something going on here. BUT...A huge fail on the part of the researchers was that while they measured body composition using a DEXA scan for the subjects before beginning the diet, for some inexplicable reason, they did not measure body composition at the end of the study. So, we have no way of knowing whether or not the weight lost was fat or muscle or a combination of both. A further limitation of the study results is that the researchers failed to monitor activity level (it was self-reported) and, so, people may have felt more energized by one diet or the other and expended more calories via daily activity.

Now, the "low-carb" diet parameters in the above study are the same as the low-carb parameters in the study that you linked. The second study was not to refute Lyle's arguments above, but to highlight the possible effectiveness of dietary prescription based on hormone levels, metabolic typing, or gene expression, and, at the same time, illustrating how low-carb may be more effective for some people than high-carb for purposes of weight loss.

[determined4000]

If you want to be my size, go ahead and do keto.

so what exactly i your take on Keto

[TaoistWarrior]

This is an interesting study. Although for the life of me, I can't understand why they used electroimpedance testing for body composition, especially a Tanita scale. Facepalm, researchers, facepalm.

[such a loser yo]

This was not part of the actual abstract, but:

"I mentioned in the introduction that severely insulin resistant individual seem to get health benefits from extreme carbohydrate restriction. For leaner dieters, as I discuss in both The Ultimate Diet 2.0 and The Stubborn Fat Solution, extreme carbohydrate restriction tends to help with stubborn lower body fat mobilization."

I think that most of us spending significant time on the nutrition boards could fit that category of "leaner dieters". I would surely gravitate towards a diet that helps with lower body fat mobilization.

[Jay Rawd]

so what exactly i your take on Keto
There's no need to do keto unless you have already tried higher carb dieting without success. This means that you didn't go below 100 grams of carbs per day.

[Jay Rawd]

This was not part of the actual abstract, but:

"I mentioned in the introduction that severely insulin resistant individual seem to get health benefits from extreme carbohydrate restriction. For leaner dieters, as I discuss in both The Ultimate Diet 2.0 and The Stubborn Fat Solution, extreme carbohydrate restriction tends to help with stubborn lower body fat mobilization."

I think that most of us spending significant time on the nutrition boards could fit that category of "leaner dieters". I would surely gravitate towards a diet that helps with lower body fat mobilization.
Interestingly enough, my stubborn fat goes away without keto diets.

[determined4000]

There's no need to do keto unless you have already tried higher carb dieting without success.

agree

[such a loser yo]

Interestingly enough, my stubborn fat goes away without keto diets.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I've never done keto myself. But the article you cite doesn't completely shoot down keto, and seems to encourage it for certain leaner dieters
.

[beaucephus]

"During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary"

This study doesn't do much to help out the bodybuilding community. The science behind Keto is the the ADDITIONAL CALORIC DEFICIT is taken from fat stores.

The study actually seemed to exemplify the case for Keto being muscle-sparing as the KLC test group lost less lean body mass than the NLC group did.

When you're looking for the answer, it's easy to find it within the words, but you have to look at the entire article objectively. Objectively, this study did nothing to disprove a ketogenic diet's muscle-sparing effect.

[TaoistWarrior]

"During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary"

This study doesn't do much to help out the bodybuilding community. The science behind Keto is the the ADDITIONAL CALORIC DEFICIT is taken from fat stores.

The study actually seemed to exemplify the case for Keto being muscle-sparing as the KLC test group lost less lean body mass than the NLC group did.

When you're looking for the answer, it's easy to find it within the words, but you have to look at the entire article objectively. Objectively, this study did nothing to disprove a ketogenic diet's muscle-sparing effect.

Pwnd?

Good catch B. I didn't notice that about the subjects.

[signature166]

Pwnd?

Good catch B. I didn't notice that about the subjects.

He'll never surrender.

[alan aragon]

"During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary"

This study doesn't do much to help out the bodybuilding community. The science behind Keto is the the ADDITIONAL CALORIC DEFICIT is taken from fat stores.

The study actually seemed to exemplify the case for Keto being muscle-sparing as the KLC test group lost less lean body mass than the NLC group did.

When you're looking for the answer, it's easy to find it within the words, but you have to look at the entire article objectively. Objectively, this study did nothing to disprove a ketogenic diet's muscle-sparing effect.It also did nothing to show that keto had a significantly greater muscle-sparing effect either.

[jessedha]

to jay rawd: u seem to get to the approach that i want. im sick of all the bull**** i look at all because i seriously cant tell if it's bull**** or not. The only authority that dont waver, aint tryna be stupid, is God or Jesus himself. so how tf can we know what's true about bodybuilding or not? sorry lyle mcdonald, and any author i just cant trust. i dont know him personally and i really dont know how i can trust his success rate when i dont know anything about him. since u seem to like the approach, "absolutely no bull****," lemme know how can i tell what's right or wrong. dont tell what YOU think is right bodybuilding, that would make it infallible. just tell me how i can separate bull**** from truth. i cant trust articles or studies sometimes because i have not found someone who truly unbiased on this forum.

[beaucephus]

It also did nothing to show that keto had a significantly greater muscle-sparing effect either.


Agree 100%. Would have been nice to have it run on a subject group who was doing at least anaerobic exercises during the test phase.

[Jay Rawd]

"During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary"

This study doesn't do much to help out the bodybuilding community. The science behind Keto is the the ADDITIONAL CALORIC DEFICIT is taken from fat stores.

The study actually seemed to exemplify the case for Keto being muscle-sparing as the KLC test group lost less lean body mass than the NLC group did.

When you're looking for the answer, it's easy to find it within the words, but you have to look at the entire article objectively. Objectively, this study did nothing to disprove a ketogenic diet's muscle-sparing effect.
But would you chalk up the less LBM loss to low carbs or to more protein?

The non keto diet had less protein. Not much but still less. Not to mention that the LBM loss wasn't that significant.

[Jay Rawd]

He'll never surrender.
Surrender what? I'm not trying to prove anything. I'd rather like it if someone could show me any proof that keto>everything else.

[signature166]

Surrender what? I'm not trying to prove anything. I'd rather like it if someone could show me any proof that keto>everything else.

For hard-training carbophiles like yourself keto is a terrible choice. For some reason, yet unknown to me, keto>everything else for some other people. For whatever reason they have difficulty controlling their carb consumption under conditions in which they are free to eat as much as they please. In a controlled study, like the one you cited, people were given their pre-portioned food by the researchers. As I said before, this is not applicable to people in the real world who have issues with self-control and carbs. The best diet, in the short-term, for someone is the one that promotes the strictest dietary adherence. The near elimination of carbs helps them control their eating in such a way that enables them to eat at a caloric deficit and lose body fat. The people who have the most success on keto claim to have more energy, feel "better" in general, and experience diminished hunger pangs as contrasted with a carb-containing diet.

Do you take objection to the carb-ups as thinly-veiled binges that makes the diet, at least in your eyes, look more like an eating disorder?

Is it a moral thing? Do you think that these people are "weak" because they have difficulty controlling carb intake?

Do you take issue with what you perceive to be the cult of keto with its ketarded followers?

Are you trying to warn people to stay away from it lest they lose muscle mass and with it strength rather than body fat?

U mad?

[BecomeLegendary]

great read, completely confirms my suspicions, keto diets make me cringe.

[signature166]

great read, completely confirms my suspicions, keto diets make me cringe.

If you want to be educated on this subject you should really seek out evidence that does not support your previously-held beliefs.
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

[BecomeLegendary]

Don't take me as being ignorant, I have read several studies on keto diets, but most of them are not controlled well or only work with specific scenerios. I have tried them twice, not for me, makes me feel like ****, works for some people I'm sure.

[signature166]

Don't take me as being ignorant, I have read several studies on keto diets, but most of them are not controlled well or only work with specific scenerios. I have tried them twice, not for me, makes me feel like ****, works for some people I'm sure.

Saying something like "confirms my suspicions," which you said in your post, indicates confirmation bias, close-mindedness, and intellectual dishonesty.

[BecomeLegendary]

Jesus dude now your just assuming things and putting words in my mouth. This is the second post you have bashed me in for no apparent reason. What did I do? I said I have tried keto diets and they haven't worked for me, thats why I am biased. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Leave it at that.

[Minotaur]

It's like my prayers were answered when I posted up that thread some weeks ago.

You and I may have talked about this before, or I did with someone...

I had an exchange with Lyle McDonald a while back about my failure with keto. In a year of doing keto, I lost a grand total of 11 lbs. He said either I didn't do it right, or it's just not for me. I actually suspect it's the second option.

[signature166]

Jesus dude now your just assuming things and putting words in my mouth. This is the second post you have bashed me in for no apparent reason. What did I do? I said I have tried keto diets and they haven't worked for me, thats why I am biased. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Leave it at that.

Because I don't like your attitude.

[Jay Rawd]

You and I may have talked about this before, or I did with someone...

I had an exchange with Lyle McDonald a while back about my failure with keto. In a year of doing keto, I lost a grand total of 11 lbs. He said either I didn't do it right, or it's just not for me. I actually suspect it's the second option.
Didn't you say you have Syndrome X?

If you do, CKD is not a good option. TKD is better.

[Jay Rawd]

For hard-training carbophiles like yourself keto is a terrible choice. For some reason, yet unknown to me, keto>everything else for some other people. For whatever reason they have difficulty controlling their carb consumption under conditions in which they are free to eat as much as they please. In a controlled study, like the one you cited, people were given their pre-portioned food by the researchers. As I said before, this is not applicable to people in the real world who have issues with self-control and carbs. The best diet, in the short-term, for someone is the one that promotes the strictest dietary adherence. The near elimination of carbs helps them control their eating in such a way that enables them to eat at a caloric deficit and lose body fat. The people who have the most success on keto claim to have more energy, feel "better" in general, and experience diminished hunger pangs as contrasted with a carb-containing diet.

Do you take objection to the carb-ups as thinly-veiled binges that makes the diet, at least in your eyes, look more like an eating disorder?

Is it a moral thing? Do you think that these people are "weak" because they have difficulty controlling carb intake?

Do you take issue with what you perceive to be the cult of keto with its ketarded followers?

Are you trying to warn people to stay away from it lest they lose muscle mass and with it strength rather than body fat?

U mad?
Here's the problem: the ketards seem to think that keto is the only way and everything else sucks.

BTW, when you say people have a hard time controlling their carb intake, is this carb intake consisting of foods like potatoes, oatmeal, rice, and fruits? Or is it more like Cheetos, Pepsi, Hamburgers, and Snickers? My guess it's the second option.

[signature166]

Here's the problem: the ketards seem to think that keto is the only way and everything else sucks.

BTW, when you say people have a hard time controlling their carb intake, is this carb intake consisting of foods like potatoes, oatmeal, rice, and fruits? Or is it more like Cheetos, Pepsi, Hamburgers, and Snickers? My guess it's the second option.

Ok. Fair enough.

[Minotaur]

Didn't you say you have Syndrome X?

If you do, CKD is not a good option. TKD is better.

Yes, I most likely have Metabolic Syndrome, aka Syndrome X. My former endocrinologist dxed Metabolic Syndrome. I might give TKD a proper try. I've done it half-assed, mainly because I've done a small carb snack pre-wo, then never made it to the gym. :rolleyes:

[Minotaur]

BTW, when you say people have a hard time controlling their carb intake, is this carb intake consisting of foods like potatoes, oatmeal, rice, and fruits? Or is it more like Cheetos, Pepsi, Hamburgers, and Snickers? My guess it's the second option.

I can vouch that my carb addiction kicks in with simple carbs. Not to mention the bloating, gas and diarrhea. I know, tmi. So for the most part I avoid simple carbs.

[lukewbrubaker]

To me the whole pro/con keto arguement is like the chevy/ford arguement. People drive only fords cause they have always worked for them or have had a bad experience with chevy....and would only recommend a ford to friends/relatives. Is there anything wrong with this with doing this...probably but you cant really blame them. The same can be said for many diets. People are going to use/recommend what works for them.

Keto works very well for me...I have tried other diets in the past and had very little sucess. I am not going to preach to everybody that this is the one solution cure all diet...but when I have friends/family come up to me and wonder how I made such a nice improvement I am going to tell them the how I did it. Can someone convince me to switch diets...probably not seeing how I have great results on it. But the minute people start saying no one should try it I will defend it...its pretty hard to deny actual results.

[swimmer32]

I don't see how this article tells us much one way or another. Most people on this forum are not sedentary - so I place little value in this article. People do need to find out what works best for them though - instead of blindly following others. Some people make amazing progress on keto, and some people don't make any progress. It's the same thing with any kind of diet. When I diet with the typical 40/40/20 macros I lose both weight and strength. I'm currently doing a keto diet for the first time, and I've lost 10 pounds with no loss of strength. That never happened on previous diets. We'll see what the coming weeks brings, but at least for me, keto has worked better than other diets.

[johnnyironboard]

%%%%Researchers recruited 20 overweight subjects (which they admitted was a small sample size), %%%

this came from your study. With a small enough sample size you can come up with whatever you want.

[Jay Rawd]

I don't see how this article tells us much one way or another. Most people on this forum are not sedentary - so I place little value in this article. People do need to find out what works best for them though - instead of blindly following others. Some people make amazing progress on keto, and some people don't make any progress. It's the same thing with any kind of diet. When I diet with the typical 40/40/20 macros I lose both weight and strength. I'm currently doing a keto diet for the first time, and I've lost 10 pounds with no loss of strength. That never happened on previous diets. We'll see what the coming weeks brings, but at least for me, keto has worked better than other diets.
The question is, why would anyone who does anaerobic activity purposely cut off the main fuel source of said activity?

[Blitz n destroy]

To me the whole pro/con keto arguement is like the chevy/ford arguement. People drive only fords cause they have always worked for them or have had a bad experience with chevy....and would only recommend a ford to friends/relatives. Is there anything wrong with this with doing this...probably but you cant really blame them. The same can be said for many diets. People are going to use/recommend what works for them.

Keto works very well for me...I have tried other diets in the past and had very little sucess. I am not going to preach to everybody that this is the one solution cure all diet...but when I have friends/family come up to me and wonder how I made such a nice improvement I am going to tell them the how I did it. Can someone convince me to switch diets...probably not seeing how I have great results on it. But the minute people start saying no one should try it I will defend it...its pretty hard to deny actual results.



Excellent post..people seem to fail to realize that everyone is different. What works for one might not work for another. I think this debate is somewhat pointless, although I think what the OP is trying to do is open the minds of people who say keto is the ONLY way to diet..

[Jay Rawd]

Excellent post..people seem to fail to realize that everyone is different. What works for one might not work for another. I think this debate is somewhat pointless, although I think what the OP is trying to do is open the minds of people who say keto is the ONLY way to diet..
Precisely. I really don't care what people do. But both sides of the debate are unwilling to understand each other, so i figured the article and said study might clear things up.

As far as my personal beliefs, keto works for people who are metabolically set for insulin resistance. Anyone else would do well to stay away from it or risk looking like an emaciated swimmer. But I do believe that those people who think that low carb dieting/ketosis is dangerous are also idiots.

[mstockwe87]

Precisely. I really don't care what people do. But both sides of the debate are unwilling to understand each other, so i figured the article and said study might clear things up.

As far as my personal beliefs, keto works for people who are metabolically set for insulin resistance. Anyone else would do well to stay away from it or risk looking like an emaciated swimmer. But I do believe that those people who think that low carb dieting/ketosis is dangerous are also idiots.

I lost 137 lbs on keto, but that doesnt mean keto works for everyone. I think the article is valuable in the regard that it promotes open-minded thought on the issue but in no way does it "clear things up" as Jay Rawd said. I love keto bc it works FOR ME, but never recommend it based on that fact.

[Al Shades]

The question is, why would anyone who does anaerobic activity purposely cut off the main fuel source of said activity?

Because the body is perfectly capable of regulating its own glucose supply, as it is capable of obtaining energy from fats.

Insulin, adrenaline, and cortisol are disease-causing hormones which lead to diabetes, accelerated aging, adrenal fatigue and a catabolic hormonal environment.


Excellent post..people seem to fail to realize that everyone is different. What works for one might not work for another. I think this debate is somewhat pointless, although I think what the OP is trying to do is open the minds of people who say keto is the ONLY way to diet..

The whole point of evaluating diets is to find the SIMILARITIES, not the differences. How far do you want to ride that "everyone is different" red herring? Do you think there are people out there who can drink machine oil and eat nails? No? But I thought, "everyone was different". If everyone is necessarily different, then you can't justify telling EVERYONE not to drink machine oil, can you? There must be a person somewhere who can drink the oil with no ill effects.

Understand this: If you agree that there are no human beings who can use machine oil as a source of nutrition, then you have just stated, in effect, that "everybody ISN'T different, everybody is ALIKE" in at least one respect. Let's continue down this logical path.

Do all humans have eyes?
Do all humans have skin?
Do all humans have stomachs?

But I thought they were all "different"?

It would be more accurate thing to say, "all people are different in SOME respects, but alike in others".

When we discuss nutrition, we are trying to determine which type of diet works best for the most people. In other words, we aren't concerning ourselves with the aspects in which people differ from one another, but rather, those in which they are entirely or predominantly alike. Only through such an understanding can a generalization hold any validity. And every single known "fact" of medicine is a generalization, right down to the most basic assumptions made about the human body, such as those listed above.

Get it?

So, what do you think you've contributed to this discussion by pointing out that "everyone is different"?


I lost 137 lbs on keto, but that doesnt mean keto works for everyone. I think the article is valuable in the regard that it promotes open-minded thought on the issue but in no way does it "clear things up" as Jay Rawd said. I love keto bc it works FOR ME, but never recommend it based on that fact.

Lol, why on earth not?
The only recommendations you can possibly make are those which are based on what worked for YOU and what didn't. When someone asks you for a recommendation, they're naturally trying to obtain that very information. So, why wouldn't you answer from your own experience?

That would be like a person saying, "Potion A made me violently ill and gave me cancer when I took it. Potion B cured all my diseases, gave me perfect vision, and made me grow to 6'6 320 lbs at 5% BF when I took it. I would never recommend Potion B based on these facts."

Huh? Excuse me? You're NOT going to recommend things that YOU know to have worked for YOU? Then what, exactly, can you recommend? Are you even capable of giving a recommendation on anything?

Would you tell someone not to run into a moving vehicle simply because that strategy has "worked for you"?
But how could you do that and stay consistent with your earlier position? I don't think you could.
With the type of logic that you're employing, you couldn't make any statements about the external world at all.

Have you thought this through?
Houston, I think we have a problem.

[mstockwe87]

Because the body is perfectly capable of regulating its own glucose supply, as it is capable of obtaining energy from fats.

Insulin, adrenaline, and cortisol are disease-causing hormones which lead to diabetes, accelerated aging, adrenal fatigue and a catabolic hormonal environment.



The whole point of evaluating diets is to find the SIMILARITIES, not the differences. How far do you want to ride that "everyone is different" red herring? Do you think there are people out there who can drink machine oil and eat nails? No? But I thought, "everyone was different". If everyone is necessarily different, then you can't justify telling EVERYONE not to drink machine oil, can you? There must be a person somewhere who can drink the oil with no ill effects.

Understand this: If you agree that there are no human beings who can use machine oil as a source of nutrition, then you have just stated, in effect, that "everybody ISN'T different, everybody is ALIKE" in at least one respect. Let's continue down this logical path.

Do all humans have eyes?
Do all humans have skin?
Do all humans have stomachs?

But I thought they were all "different"?

It would be more accurate thing to say, "all people are different in SOME respects, but alike in others".

When we discuss nutrition, we are trying to determine which type of diet works best for the most people. In other words, we aren't concerning ourselves with the aspects in which people differ from one another, but rather, those in which they are entirely or predominantly alike. Only through such an understanding can a generalization hold any validity. And every single known "fact" of medicine is a generalization, right down to the most basic assumptions made about the human body, such as those listed above.

Get it?

So, what do you think you've contributed to this discussion by pointing out that "everyone is different"?



Lol, why on earth not?
The only recommendations you can possibly make are those which are based on what worked for YOU and what didn't. When someone asks you for a recommendation, they're naturally trying to obtain that very information. So, why wouldn't you answer from your own experience?

That would be like a person saying, "Potion A made me violently ill and gave me cancer when I took it. Potion B cured all my diseases, gave me perfect vision, and made me grow to 6'6 320 lbs at 5% BF when I took it. I would never recommend Potion B based on these facts."

Huh? Excuse me? You're NOT going to recommend things that YOU know to have worked for YOU? Then what, exactly, can you recommend? Are you even capable of giving a recommendation on anything?

Would you tell someone not to run into a moving vehicle simply because that strategy has "worked for you"?
But how could you do that and stay consistent with your earlier position? I don't think you could.
With the type of logic that you're employing, you couldn't make any statements about the external world at all.

Have you thought this through?
Houston, I think we have a problem.

wow obviously you read at a third grade level hot shot...the point of my post was to underscore the fact that recommending a diet or program based on the fact that it worked for you and your specific physiology and metabolism is retarded. Other things need to be taken into consideration. perhaps i should have inserted the word "solely" after "based" so as to not overwork your brain. you can make recommendations without making the assumption that strategies that worked for you will work for others. The way you do that is to take into consideration what has worked well for people with circumstances similar to theirs. now if i get a client that is similar to myself in terms of their circumstances then yes its logical to apply what worked for me seeing as the circumstances were similar.

btw i'm guessing theres a reason you're in the red you ****tard.

[Jay Rawd]

Because the body is perfectly capable of regulating its own glucose supply, as it is capable of obtaining energy from fats.

Irrelevant in ketosis. That glucose supply is coming from dietary protein, not fat.


Insulin, adrenaline, and cortisol are disease-causing hormones which lead to diabetes, accelerated aging, adrenal fatigue and a catabolic hormonal environment.

Insulin catabolic? Come again? Insulin is protein sparing, sir.

They lead to diabetes in people who are genetically programmed for the disease. My whole family has been eating carb-based diets for generations and NO ONE in my family has diabetes or even accelerated aging (actually, I'm 23 and look like I'm 17).

Not only that, but keto diets aren't a magic pill that eliminate cortisol. What on Earth are you talking about?

Lastly, since you're so up on time-tested gym anecdotes, I personally don't know one bodybuilder who recommends keto diets. All bbers I've met all went the low fat route, with high protein and carbs in moderation. No keto diets there. Actually there is one guy I know who does the keto thing. He looks like an emaciated swimmer while all the other guys who don't do low carb look like they lift. How's that for an anecdote?

[SophieM]

During very low carbohydrate intake, the regulated and controlled production of ketone bodies causes a harmless physiological state known as dietary ketosis. Ketone bodies flow from the liver to extra-hepatic tissues (e.g., brain) for use as a fuel; this spares glucose metabolism via a mechanism similar to the sparing of glucose by oxidation of fatty acids as an alternative fuel. In comparison with glucose, the ketone bodies are actually a very good respiratory fuel. Indeed, there is no clear requirement for dietary carbohydrates for human adults. Interestingly, the effects of ketone body metabolism suggest that mild ketosis may offer therapeutic potential in a variety of different common and rare disease states. Also, the recent landmark study showed that a very-low-carbohydrate diet resulted in a significant reduction in fat mass and a concomitant increase in lean body mass in normal-weight men. Contrary to popular belief, insulin is not needed for glucose uptake and utilization in man. Finally, both muscle fat and carbohydrate burn in an amino acid flame.

http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/7

Anything that can decrease BF while increasing lean mass is worth a try if you ask me. Personally, I feel better eating low carb but it's not for everyone.

If you look hard enough, okay, it's not that hard, you can find studies to back up anything. The REAL test is the mirror. Find what works for you and do it.

[KLMARB]

Irrelevant in ketosis. That glucose supply is coming from dietary protein, not fat.



Insulin catabolic? Come again? Insulin is protein sparing, sir.

They lead to diabetes in people who are genetically programmed for the disease. My whole family has been eating carb-based diets for generations and NO ONE in my family has diabetes or even accelerated aging (actually, I'm 23 and look like I'm 17).

Not only that, but keto diets aren't a magic pill that eliminate cortisol. What on Earth are you talking about?

Lastly, since you're so up on time-tested gym anecdotes, I personally don't know one bodybuilder who recommends keto diets. All bbers I've met all went the low fat route, with high protein and carbs in moderation. No keto diets there. Actually there is one guy I know who does the keto thing. He looks like an emaciated swimmer while all the other guys who don't do low carb look like they lift. How's that for an anecdote?

Er, hepatic gluconeogenesis uses the glycerol from fat metabolism as well as some amino acids for the production of glucose. Whats so tough about understanding you have to produce glucagon to burn fat? It happens both in a keto plan or if you carb-starve. Its basic biochemistry. Your emotional bias against keto is kind of tough to understand, unless you're simply applying subjective morality instead of science...

[Omn]

@Jay Rawd
Strangely enough, I really don't actually see any posters actually oppressively declaring the superiority of ketogenic diets.

I think someone is just trooollling~

(protip: trolls tend to have an overly aggressive signatures.)

[TaoistWarrior]

Lastly, since you're so up on time-tested gym anecdotes, I personally don't know one bodybuilder who recommends keto diets. All bbers I've met all went the low fat route, with high protein and carbs in moderation. No keto diets there. Actually there is one guy I know who does the keto thing. He looks like an emaciated swimmer while all the other guys who don't do low carb look like they lift. How's that for an anecdote?

Dave Palumbo:
http://pi.b5z.net/i/u/230085/i/Dave_Palumbo_Bodybuilder_8_ezr.jpg

Hugo Rivera:
http://z.about.com/d/bodybuilding/1/G/i/hugoripped.JPG

Mauro diPasquale:
http://www.ergogenics.org/2005/dipasq.jpg

bb.com member slippin hasnt posted in a while, and he used a 40/30/30 diet and then switched to the Anabolic Diet to cut. He looks pretty damn good IMO.

These guys all follow a ketogenic type diet, and none of them look like sticks or emaciated swimmers to me.

You must define terms precisely Jay. When you use the words "keto", "ketard", "low-carb", etc. are you talking about all keto type diets? Or just SKD a la atkins? If that's the case, my point is moot. But to make the statement that keto = emaciated swimmer is an overgeneralization, and paints an inaccurate/incomplete picture.

Not many bodybuilders follow a truly "low-carb" program, and not many advocate one. So you have to be more precise. CKD and TKD are not necessarily "low-carb"; on a weekend carb-up I can stuff up to 1200 grams of carbs down my gullet. That is not a low-carb diet. Nor is TKD.

I'm biased too, albeit not as aggressively as you are Jay. (I don't call you a carbtard.) I switched to the Anabolic Diet over a year ago and never felt, looked, or lifted better. No it doesn't work for everyone, but if done properly, it is superior for a lot of folks. That can't really be denied.

[alan aragon]

bb.com member slippin hasnt posted in a while, and he used a 40/30/30 diet and then switched to the Anabolic Diet to cut. He looks pretty damn good IMO.

These guys all follow a ketogenic type diet, and none of them look like sticks or emaciated swimmers to me.

You must define terms precisely Jay. When you use the words "keto", "ketard", "low-carb", etc. are you talking about all keto type diets? Or just SKD a la atkins? If that's the case, my point is moot. But to make the statement that keto = emaciated swimmer is an overgeneralization, and paints an inaccurate/incomplete picture.

Not many bodybuilders follow a truly "low-carb" program, and not many advocate one. So you have to be more precise. CKD and TKD are not necessarily "low-carb"; on a weekend carb-up I can stuff up to 1200 grams of carbs down my gullet. That is not a low-carb diet. Nor is TKD.

I'm biased too, albeit not as aggressively as you are Jay. (I don't call you a carbtard.) I switched to the Anabolic Diet over a year ago and never felt, looked, or lifted better. No it doesn't work for everyone, but if done properly, it is superior for a lot of folks. That can't really be denied.Using competitive BBers is a weak basis for argument. I can easily say that the majority of multi-time Mr Olympias didn't do Di Pasquale's diet (or any of the related keto-variants you speak of). For example, Ronnie never went below 250-300g carbs precontest.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w196/alanaragon/coleman.jpg

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w196/alanaragon/Ronnie_Coleman_63.jpg

[TaoistWarrior]

If you're gonna base your argument around case studies of competitive BBers, the majority of Mr Olympias didn't do CKD nor TKD in the sense you speak of. For example, Ronnie never went below 250-300g carbs precontest. So, your argument remains weak.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w196/alanaragon/coleman.jpg

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w196/alanaragon/Ronnie_Coleman_63.jpg

You are correct Alan, however I made no argument that competetive bodybuilders do CKD or TKD. I have made no argument. I am providing an opposing viewpoint to Jay's argument but have made none of my own other than pointing out that keto does not necessarily equate to bodybuilding failure by offering some success stories of well-known "ketards".

Competetive bodybuilders like Ronnie Coleman are another issue which I did not raise. Nor did Jay. I was simply providing a counterpoint to Jay's argument that the only keto-ers he knows are emaciated swimmers by providing contrary examples.

[Al Shades]

btw i'm guessing theres a reason you're in the red you ****tard.

You are correct. It is because I am a war hero.


Irrelevant in ketosis. That glucose supply is coming from dietary protein, not fat.

"Glucose supply coming from protein" is an example of the body regulating its own glucose supply, which is exactly what I wrote.



Insulin catabolic? Come again? Insulin is protein sparing, sir.

They lead to diabetes in people who are genetically programmed for the disease. My whole family has been eating carb-based diets for generations and NO ONE in my family has diabetes or even accelerated aging (actually, I'm 23 and look like I'm 17).

Not only that, but keto diets aren't a magic pill that eliminate cortisol. What on Earth are you talking about?

Lastly, since you're so up on time-tested gym anecdotes, I personally don't know one bodybuilder who recommends keto diets. All bbers I've met all went the low fat route, with high protein and carbs in moderation. No keto diets there. Actually there is one guy I know who does the keto thing. He looks like an emaciated swimmer while all the other guys who don't do low carb look like they lift. How's that for an anecdote?

It's complicated because it can either contribute to anabolism or catabolism depending on the circumstances. Generally, it causes the body to use up its reserves of hormones faster. That's what "catabolic" about it.

The concept of being "genetically programmed for disease" is highly dubious. As recently as 100 years ago, nobody had diabetes. It isn't genetics that's giving people the disease, it's modern eating habits. And by that I mean carb consumption.

I hope you realize that when doctors attribute a disease to "genetics", they are saying, in effect, "I have no idea what caused this".

To know "what on earth I'm talking about", you'll need to do a bunch of reading on alternative medicine topics.

http://www.amazon.com/Schwarzbein-Principle-Transition-Regeneration-Accelerated/dp/1558749640/ref=pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.com/Adrenal-Fatigue-Century-Stress-Syndrome/dp/1890572152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245030330&sr=1-1

http://www.biblelife.org/carbs.htm

http://proteins-carb-fats.suite101.com/article.cfm/dietary_fat_wont_make_you_fat

I'm trying to figure out whether you have something against low carb diets in general or just keto.

[Al Shades]

Using competitive BBers is a weak basis for argument. I can easily say that the majority of multi-time Mr Olympias didn't do Di Pasquale's diet (or any of the related keto-variants you speak of). For example, Ronnie never went below 250-300g carbs precontest.

It may not be keto but it's certainly low carb for him given his usual intake, which is probably well over 1,000 g/day.

The point is, low carb works. Whether it's keto this or keto that, low carb simply works.

Also, I have to wonder if his ketogenic threshold is much higher than a normal person's. He may go into ketosis by eating under 200 grams a day, you never know. He certainly has a much higher tolerance for carbs than a normal person. It's hard to believe that the same physiological parameters governing ketosis would apply to Ronnie Coleman, a 170 lb. guy, and a 12 year old girl.

[Jay Rawd]

I see post-modernism is taking over this thread. People assume that since I post an OPPOSING viewpoint, that I am attacking them.

I am not even attacking the keto diet, just questioning its supposed superiority for fat loss. As the study I posted shows, it has little to none. Do I have anything against people doing keto diets? No. Some do just fine. But when people go around declaring them as some magic pill that beats out everything else it gets irritating.

BTW, I have nothing against lowering carbs. Since I eat high protein and low fat, to cut I have no choice but to lower carbs. But I don't need to go into ketosis for that nor do I need to eat less than 30 grams. If I bulk on 600 grams of carbs, dropping them to 150 is definitely low-carbing it.

[Jay Rawd]

It's complicated because it can either contribute to anabolism or catabolism depending on the circumstances. Generally, it causes the body to use up its reserves of hormones faster. That's what "catabolic" about it.

The concept of being "genetically programmed for disease" is highly dubious. As recently as 100 years ago, nobody had diabetes. It isn't genetics that's giving people the disease, it's modern eating habits. And by that I mean carb consumption.

Interesting because I know too many people who eat carbs and have no history of the disease. Myself and everyone in my family are included.


I hope you realize that when doctors attribute a disease to "genetics", they are saying, in effect, "I have no idea what caused this".

Ok, so an expert like you has figured it all out and said that "carbz did it"


To know "what on earth I'm talking about", you'll need to do a bunch of reading on alternative medicine topics.

http://www.amazon.com/Schwarzbein-Principle-Transition-Regeneration-Accelerated/dp/1558749640/ref=pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.com/Adrenal-Fatigue-Century-Stress-Syndrome/dp/1890572152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245030330&sr=1-1

http://www.biblelife.org/carbs.htm

http://proteins-carb-fats.suite101.com/article.cfm/dietary_fat_wont_make_you_fat

I'm trying to figure out whether you have something against low carb diets in general or just keto.

A lot of your links are in reply to claims I never made.

As far as your last sentence, see my previous post before this one.

[Shylock]

Keto is the biggest waste of money, time and space! I fell for this crap years ago! a COMPLETE JOKE I SWEAR!!

[dimasso69]

Keto is the biggest waste of money, time and space! I fell for this crap years ago! a COMPLETE JOKE I SWEAR!!

Some people do keto as a lifestyle change, and it helps them live healthier and eat healthier and works for them. So no it's not a complete joke nor is it crap, just different, and not for everyone. There are benefits to it one being it's great for your joints and joint pain, or not being hungry as much but there are also downfalls like one being electrolyte balances may be off or reduction of your bodies calcium. So i would think people who do this diet must research it greatly, and find out what they would need to supplement with to keep the body properly healthy, and make sure it works for them..if they feel it's just not working after say a month..then stop doing that diet, it may not be for you. Now for people who use it as a temporary diet for a quick fat loss..that's dumb considering you lose weight from the glycogen not being stored in your muscles and liver..and carbs hold more water..keto isnt superior to all other diets in terms of weight loss or anything..but for some it helps them live a healthier life, so i wouldn't say it's "crap" in that sense. I mean that's just my thoughts..no I have never done keto, and probably won't ever, but that doesn't mean i think it's stupid for people to try it or follow this type of diet.

Also why refer to them as ketards..just curious?

[Jay Rawd]

I didn't invent the term ketard, I just love using it.

BTW, I just put a lady on a keto diet. She loves it.