Just restricting calories Vs. Keto

[Deodand]

I'm trying to get some info for a research paper, and since so many of you are so knowledgeable, I thought I'd get some opinions.

Anyway, my question is: If say you were already in a keto diet and your body was currently in a state of ketosis, and your body was burning straight up fat, so if say you had a 500 calorie deficit on a keto diet, then you'd be losing 500 calories of fat per day, right? Ok, but say you were doing a diet that put you in a deficit of 500 calories, but this time your body wasn't in ketosis. How much of this 500 calorie deficit would be burned from fat, and how much would be used from glycogen and such? Hope I'm clear on the question.

Thanks for reading and any helpful insight you can give

[Deodand]

Anyone?

[ErickStevens]

A deficit is a deficit.

[ADB007]

A deficit is a deficit.

Not wanting to argue or anything. But I'm just interested on how you feel about the following:

Are you saying that the millions of people around the world following keto are wasting their time?

What would you say to someone who proposes that they are losing much more weight on a keto than in a general calorie deficit? Would you say they are lying?

[kusok]

Not wanting to argue or anything. But I'm just interested on how you feel about the following:

Are you saying that the millions of people around the world following keto are wasting their time?

What would you say to someone who proposes that they are losing much more weight on a keto than in a general calorie deficit? Would you say they are lying?

^^^ Individual preference/tolerance to carbs is what you should be looking at. Different people have different insulin sensitivity. Some can't function on low carbs, some get bloated and crash from them. Some are in the middle etc.

[ADB007]

^^^ Individual preference/tolerance to carbs is what you should be looking at. Different people have different insulin sensitivity. Some can't function on low carbs, some get bloated and crash from them. Some are in the middle etc.

This is what I definitely believe. I lose much more weight when I cut carbs in my deficit to when I am just in a general deficit. My Brother on the other hand loses weight easily eating plenty of carbs.

[MarkVI]

This is what I definitely believe. I lose much more weight when I cut carbs in my deficit to when I am just in a general deficit. My Brother on the other hand loses weight easily eating plenty of carbs.

The issue isn't the actual losing weight in equal deficits....it's issues with/without carbs that lead to the deficit, i.e. if you have more energy with carbs you're going to be move move --> more cals burned etc...

[zpm]

either on keto or other diets,you must keep a minimum of 50 carbs / day to avoid nitrogen loss.On keto,i go for 50-80g of carbs.

[WonderPug]

^^^ Individual preference/tolerance to carbs is what you should be looking at. Different people have different insulin sensitivity.

^ Agreed.

The issue isn't the actual losing weight in equal deficits....it's issues with/without carbs that lead to the deficit, i.e. if you have more energy with carbs you're going to be move move --> more cals burned etc...

^ Not exactly. Some individuals respond better (in terms of satiety, disease management and, in some studies, reduced adiposity) to VLCKDs at equal caloric intake than to more "balanced" diets.

It's actually a rather complex issue with conflicting findings from (often poorly) designed studies. But future study is warranted, in my opinion, and the potential efficacy of the VLCKD's should not be discounted off-hand, especially for a significant subgroup of the population that responds poorly to balanced and/or low-fat diets.

[Ubernit]

This is what I definitely believe. I lose much more weight when I cut carbs in my deficit to when I am just in a general deficit.

you lose more weight and look leaner? sure, you lose more water weight and have less bloat(= look leaner)
you lose more fat? no

[ErickStevens]

Not wanting to argue or anything. But I'm just interested on how you feel about the following:

Are you saying that the millions of people around the world following keto are wasting their time?

No, I think keto is a perfectly fine dieting approach. My point was that there's no diet that alters the laws of thermodynamics.

[WonderPug]

A deficit is a deficit.

My point was that there's no diet that alters the laws of thermodynamics.

I hear this a lot and I have to object to the phrasing on substantive grounds, as I believe it to be misleading when used to imply a calorie is a calorie.

The first law of thermodynamics never exists in the absence of the second law. Both laws are inviolate, and they must be applied correctly.

The second law says that there is a physical parameter called "entropy," which is disorder or inefficiency and, whereas energy is always conserved, entropy is not (1). In any real (irreversible) process, entropy increases and no process is perfectly efficient.

The consequence in a human model is that conservation of energy (ie, the first law) is maintained by exporting high-entropy compounds (principally carbon dioxide and water) into the environment. The extent to which energy and matter are distributed among heat, chemical bonds, work, and the excreted products is determined by the specific metabolic pathway used.

In other words, one cannot ignore the second law of thermodynamics when citing the first law of thermodynamics.

The fact that is that living organisms are open systems, far from equilibrium, and therefore subject to different efficiencies depending on metabolic path. And that's why a metabolic advantage can and does exit (2), at least to some measurable degree, the significance of which in practical applications is open to debate.


----
Source
1. Kondepudi D, Prigogine I. Modern thermodynamics. From heat engines to dissipative structures. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley & Sons, 1998.

2. Feinman RD, Fine EJ. Thermodynamics and metabolic advantage of weight loss diets. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2003;1:209-19.

[heytred]

^^^ Individual preference/tolerance to carbs is what you should be looking at. Different people have different insulin sensitivity. Some can't function on low carbs, some get bloated and crash from them. Some are in the middle etc.

This.

The reason I started and continue to follow Keto is because of my intolerance to carbs. The lifestyle fits me perfect and that's why it works, not because it's some magic diet.

[BadMonkeyFunker]

My goal is to "live" life and keep low body fat levels year around. I don't bulk, nor cut.
Slowly I add muscle and lose fat all while keeping my strength at its peak. I am not getting ready for a show, I don't have deadlines...

My diet has to be something I can live with for the rest of my life. Keto is not a "realistic" life style. But managing calories is.

Unless you're getting ready for a photo shoot, show.. have limited amount of time in your hands.. I don't really see the "benefit" of trying to function under low levels of carbs.

Many newbies like "low carb" diets because of the first week water loss effect. Some lose up to 10lbs. It's very encouraging to see scale drop like that for a newbie. Even though it's just water weight, they still feel like they're doing something right.

Now please excuse me, my fettucini alfredo is getting cold....

[MikeK46]

And that's why a metabolic advantage can and does exit (2), at least to some measurable degree, the significance of which in practical applications is open to debate.

For what it's worth, I used to think that there was a metabolic advantage to low-carbing as well, even got into some debates with Alan Aragon about it, cited some studies, etc. I claimed that on the low carb diet, circulating insulin is reduced and glucagon levels increase, both of these result in increased gluconeogenesis and more protein turnover (both of which result in increased energy expenditure). The body tries to adapt and compensates by limiting glucose utilization for energy in favor of ketones and free fatty acids, but is unable to completely negate the effects. Hence, increased caloric expenditure on the low-carb diet, and a potential caloric defecit, resulting in net loss of fat

He came back with indicating that the the low-carb, calorie-matched subjects lost more weight because they were consuming a little over double the protein of the control group.

"Plausible-sounding? Sure, except under tightly controlled conditions, this metabolic advantage magically disappears."

He asserted that it is not the metabolic advantage of fewer carbs, but rather the metabolic advantage of increased protein. So if you match calories and protein and only vary carbs & fat, there should be no significant difference in fat loss between the low-carb, high-fat group and the control group.

When it's an even closer comparison between low-carb & ketogenic, no advantage of being in ketosis has been found:

Johnston CS, et al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006
May;83(5):1055-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

[WonderPug]

^ VLCKD's are thought to have superior satiety for some and, for those with certain metabolic disorders, a metabolic advantage.

But that was not the point of my post at all.

My post was speaking to the existence of a metabolic advantage, and not to the makeup of macronutrients that induces such, in partial refutation of the first law of thermodynamics argument I hear so often.

[MikeK46]

Right, my whole point was that the metabolic advantage is not attributed to carbs, but rather protien. Simply quoting Alan b/c his language is clear and easy to understand. His commentary in "Low Carb Dogma" by Jamie Hale:

“A key point that must be made is that the research is not sufficient grounds to be dogmatic about low carbing in the first place. On the whole, studies do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (i.e. LBM support, satiety, thermic effect), and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it isn’t lower carb intake per se that imparts any advantage. It’s the higher protein intake. Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage.

Furthermore, the majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high carb/low fat/low protein versus low carb/high fat/moderate protein). The funny part is the majority of long-term trials (12 months or more) still fail to show a significant weight loss difference. Note that these trials use the sedentary obese, so in the fit population, any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Once again, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss is seen despite unequal protein intakes between treatments.

There’s a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the ‘metabolic advantage’ folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It’s always ‘either or’ for them when in fact individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low carb is warranted. For others, it isn’t. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low carb absolutists.

What I find to be a common thread among people who deny that individual carbohydrate requirements vary widely is a lack of client experience, particularly with different types of athletes. The minute someone says that everyone should severely restrict carbohydrate, it’s obvious that you’re dealing with a cherry-picking, low carb zealot who is unfamiliar with the totality of research evidence and has limited field experience.”

http://articles.elitefts.com/article...ow-carb-dogma/

[AustrianOakJr]

He asserted that it is not the metabolic advantage of fewer carbs, but rather the metabolic advantage of increased protein. So if you match calories and protein and only vary carbs & fat, there should be no significant difference in fat loss between the low-carb, high-fat group and the control group.

I agree with this. But i also agree with those that say keto provides advantages for some people. There are some who have issues processing carbohydrates......like diabetics. The problem is that everyone assumes they are carb intolerant and gets on a keto diet bandwagon. They begin to see the pounds fall off thinking its the magic solution they have been looking for. But most of this weight loss is glycogen/water. This is hardly beneficial for a performance athlete. The problem in depriving the body of glucose is that it puts such a damper on metabolism over the long haul. So, I think keto may have its place perhaps at the bare end of a long contest prep to get the remaining stubborn fat off the glutes/hams........but the vast majority of the recreational bodybuilding population will do much better keeping their carbohydrate intake as high as they can while still losing the desired amount of weight.

I hear this a lot and I have to object to the phrasing on substantive grounds, as I believe it to be misleading when used to imply a calorie is a calorie.

The first law of thermodynamics never exists in the absence of the second law. Both laws are inviolate, and they must be applied correctly.

The second law says that there is a physical parameter called "entropy," which is disorder or inefficiency and, whereas energy is always conserved, entropy is not (1). In any real (irreversible) process, entropy increases and no process is perfectly efficient.

The consequence in a human model is that conservation of energy (ie, the first law) is maintained by exporting high-entropy compounds (principally carbon dioxide and water) into the environment. The extent to which energy and matter are distributed among heat, chemical bonds, work, and the excreted products is determined by the specific metabolic pathway used.

In other words, one cannot ignore the second law of thermodynamics when citing the first law of thermodynamics.

The fact that is that living organisms are open systems, far from equilibrium, and therefore subject to different efficiencies depending on metabolic path. And that's why a metabolic advantage can and does exit (2), at least to some measurable degree, the significance of which in practical applications is open to debate.


----
Source
1. Kondepudi D, Prigogine I. Modern thermodynamics. From heat engines to dissipative structures. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley & Sons, 1998.

2. Feinman RD, Fine EJ. Thermodynamics and metabolic advantage of weight loss diets. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2003;1:209-19.

All this to say......different strokes for different folks.....

[MikeK46]

I agree with this. But i also agree with those that say keto provides advantages for some people.

Absolutely. People have varying degrees of individual carb requirements and tolerances. There are certainly people who would be better off on a LC or keto diet, while others should be eating a higher-carb diet. You have professional endurance athletes on one end, diabetic & obese couch potatoes on the other, and everything in between. It's definitely not a black-and-white recommendation as far as which one is "better."

[AustrianOakJr]

Absolutely. People have varying degrees of individual carb requirements and tolerances. There are certainly people who would be better off on a LC or keto diet, while others should be eating a higher-carb diet. You have professional endurance athletes on one end, diabetic & obese couch potatoes on the other, and everything in between. It's definitely not a black-and-white recommendation as far as which one is "better."

Word.

[Deodand]

So does a person burn say 500 calories of fat (1lb a week) of pure fat regardless if they are in ketosis or not during that time of deficit?

[WonderPug]

^ Depends on the person.

[MikeK46]

So does a person burn say 500 calories of fat (1lb a week) of pure fat regardless if they are in ketosis or not during that time of deficit?

A 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit, period.

But read the above conversation. If the low-carber is eating more protein, then he will be expending more energy, leading to a greater deficit.

[AustrianOakJr]

So does a person burn say 500 calories of fat (1lb a week) of pure fat regardless if they are in ketosis or not during that time of deficit?

There are lots of factors that determine the percentage of fat/lean tissue you burn in a deficit. Keto or not, there is potential to burn muscle. IMOP, (in most cases) the potential to burn muscle is greater with keto.

[Deodand]

A 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit, period.

But read the above conversation. If the low-carber is eating more protein, then he will be expending more energy, leading to a greater deficit.

Yes, puts a few things into perspective. Thank you. But please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a person in ketosis not have a lot of glycogen to burn for energy? and thus their body would oxidize more fat to burn in the place of it to fill the deficit? opposed to someone not in ketosis that would be utilizing more glycogen for energy and thus less fat being oxidized for energy because the body has more glycogen to use? or am I waaaay off?

[Razor Beast]

^^^ Individual preference/tolerance to carbs is what you should be looking at. Different people have different insulin sensitivity. Some can't function on low carbs, some get bloated and crash from them. Some are in the middle etc.

this

the choice should really be based on how your body responds to each type of diet

[MikeK46]

Yes, puts a few things into perspective. Thank you. But please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a person in ketosis not have a lot of glycogen to burn for energy? and thus their body would oxidize more fat to burn in the place of it to fill the deficit? opposed to someone not in ketosis that would be utilizing more glycogen for energy and thus less fat being oxidized for energy because the body has more glycogen to use? or am I waaaay off?

No, you're correct. Glycogen stores decrease when carbs are restricted. Fat is oxidized (to glycerol & free fatty acids) at a higher rate to provide energy. Free fatty acids can be used directly by many tissues for energy. Glycerol is converted to glucose in the liver. The byproduct of this conversion is ketones. Elevated levels of ketones = ketosis.

[Deodand]

No, you're correct. Fat is oxidized (to glycerol & free fatty acids) at a higher rate and the byproducts of glycerol to glucose conversion are ketones, leading to elevated levels of ketones, hence the term "ketosis."

So a person that wasn't in ketosis, but still in a 500 calorie deficit, would not in fact be losing a pound of fat a week. Correct? They'd lose a pound a week, but not all of it would be fat because they would have glycogen to burn for some of the deficit.. And how much of it is fat probably varies from person to person?

[MikeK46]

So a person that wasn't in ketosis, but still in a 500 calorie deficit, would not in fact be losing a pound of fat a week. Correct? They'd lose a pound a week, but not all of it would be fat because they would have glycogen to burn for some of the deficit.. And how much of it is fat probably varies from person to person?

Yes, they would. Don't confuse ketosis with the basic laws of thermodynamics. Everything is still governed by calories in vs. calories out. You can be in ketosis, eating above maintenance calories, and have a net gain in bodyfat at the end of the day. Remember, just because you're in ketosis and oxidizing fat at a higher rate doesn't mean you're not storing fat at a similar rate or higher.

On the flipside, you can be eating a high carb diet, eating below maintenance, with a much lower rate of bodyfat turnover but a net loss in bodyfat at the end of the day.

[Deodand]

Yes, they would. Don't confuse ketosis with the basic laws of thermodynamics. Everything is still governed by calories in vs. calories out. You can be in ketosis, eating above maintenance calories, and have a net gain in bodyfat at the end of the day. Remember, just because you're in ketosis and oxidizing fat at a higher rate doesn't mean you're not storing fat at a similar rate or higher.

On the flipside, you can be eating a high carb diet, eating below maintenance, with a much lower rate of bodyfat turnover but a net loss in bodyfat at the end of the day.

Ohhhh! Right! I get it now. We touched on this in one of my previous threads. I get it. So what exactly is the point in a keto diet then?

Repped