re: PuttaDaForkDown v2.0

Damn it just lost my whole reply

They don't gain weight because there metabolism increased through extra protein intake, and the increased metabolism effect of no carbs. Bottom line is that they weren't eating over maintenance on a weekly/ bi weekly basis. Maintenance is different for every person and might be 7000 cals for some. Same reason some guys can eat 5 Big Macs and not gain weight, they have increased metabolisms due to higher than average t4 output or t3 conversion or a combo of both.

And 3500 cals is how much it takes to burn a pound of fat and it's prolly closer to 4500 some newer studies show. It's about 750 for a lbs of muscle according to some, not positive on that one though.

I'm on my phone and can't link the study but it was posted on the leangains Reddit sub in the 31min AMA thread.

I always understood Keto to mean a diet to get into nutritional ketosis which for most requires less than 20g carbs daily which is vlcd essentially no carbs.

I understand in the study he lost 3cm but he still gained weight that's my point.

As far as the 90% diet, studies are shown in the original dr Atkins and in the fat fast handbook. I am referring strictly to a fat fast though of 800 cals and 90%+ fat. On that low of cals you can only go so long without losing muscle, say as a psmf.

Most people weight trained individuals lose strength no matter the diet in a caloric deficit. Examples are everywhere on the bodybuilding boards.

And you are claiming it's magic. You are saying you can eat as much as you want as long as it's no carbs and you will not gain weight and that I simply untrue. The thing is it's hard to eat that much due to the appetite suppressant effects of Keto and because fat and protein are very very filing. But it is simply false, it is possible to gain weight be it muscle or fat and your earlier linked study proves that.

Get your links as I eagerly await. Nothing thrills me more than geeking out.

quote:

---

I understand in the study he lost 3cm but he still gained weight that's my point.

---

So he lost some fat? There was a change...he didn't gain fat, and if he gained muscle...well that is a good thing.

quote:

---

As far as the 90% diet, studies are shown in the original dr Atkins and in the fat fast handbook. I am referring strictly to a fat fast though of 800 cals and 90%+ fat. On that low of cals you can only go so long without losing muscle, say as a psmf.

---

Well you didn't mention it was that low on calories. Your mention of 90% was assumed to be a "maintenance" level of energy. But please explain the bolded

quote:

---

One other thing, realize most in this thread are looking for body transformations not just losing weight. You can only do short burst of 90%+ fat before eventually losing muscle(around 12 days max). Studies done from the late 50s until now verify this.

---

No mention of caloric intake.

quote:

---

The thing is it's hard to eat that much due to the appetite suppressant effects of Keto and because fat and protein are very very filing.

---

Wasn't that my point? You cannot out eat that.

quote:

---

They don't gain weight because there metabolism increased through extra protein intake, and the increased metabolism effect of no carbs.

---

So wouldn't it be easier to lose the fat based on the increased metabolism effect of no carbs? I think we are circling each other around a common point.

Haha I knew we were kind of circling the same point. I get that it's crazy hard to gain weight on zero carbs due to the thermal effect of protein being close to 40% and protein and fat are filling as shite, all I'm saying is it is possible and your study proved that. I get that it was muscle but it was still eight and if he was a slob and did nothing all day it more than likely wouldn't have been muscle.

As far as fat fast, google it. They have some really interesting studies. Essentially the studies show that you can go down to crazy low levels of cals 600-800 and if you keep fat at 90% plus of total cals then the amount of lean tissue loss is shown to be very minimal, at least for the first 12 or so days. Look on my google drive for the fat fast cookbook, has the studies named in there.

Psmf stands for protein sparing modified fast. Essentially the same thing as a fat fast, but you eat nothing but protein with the least amount of carbs and fat as possible(around 20g of each a day). Eat around 1g protein per pound of body weight but honestly this depends on the body fat %. On my drive under Lyle McDonald they have the rapid fatloss handbook in there, will pretty much tell you everything about it in all the geeky terms you like.

And I agree that no carbs is one of the easiest ways to lose weight. I believe the carb cycling and caloric cycling of lean gains style IF is best but takes a lot longer. I prefer the rapid fatloss handbook style cut cause I am impatient, fat fast works well too. Honestly it's really above 14-15% bf, the extreme ways work better imo and lean gains works better at or below that.

Rapid fatloss handbook also tends to make you crave foods that are very good for you and less carbs especially if done with no carb refeeds. To me it seems to almost reset the pallet.


Don't let me forget about the studies on Thursday when I am back at work.

Basis is there are plenty of studies that show without some kind of muscle stimulus then the body will not build muscle as it has no reason to do so.

And I was referring where you told me to stop saying maintenance calories and inferred that it was impossible to gain weight using no carbs. It very possible and the study you linked proves that, it's just really hard because it's tough to eat that much.

And I agree to a certain extent a calorie is not a calorie. But if I eat 1200 calories and burn 3000, I will lose weight no matter what. Same goes for the opposite, if I eat 5000 but only burn 4000 I will gain some type of weight. The macro content and stimulus from lifting etc will determine the makeup of that weight gain or weight loss.

In the fat fast studies it showed that on 1000 cals or less fat and protein were way way more effective at burning fat instead of lean mass. We 100% agree here. I usually recommend iifym because most people can stick to it and it helps them learn basic dieting principles, but it's not the most efficient at maintaining lean mass while dropping fat.

Also people seem to not understand that close to 40% of calories in protein are burned just digesting the food. It's one of the reasons rapid fatloss diet works so well.

quote:

---

Trying to catch up.

---

hard to keep up with science talk without Net breaking down the Cliff Notes

Good reading the last couple pages of posts. I used to read /keto/ketogains/ketoscience all the time but got away from it. Been lazy keto/ cheat keto for too long. I'll be buckling down to start the new year.

I've never tried to do zero-carb. Not sure I could. But I will still do IF more often to help maintain the calorie deficit. It's a mental thing. If I'm working to keep the IF going, then obviously I'm not snacking just I'm thinking about being 0 calorie. If not IF and I have one snack, then I;ll have another, and before you know it I tacked on 500 cals of nuts/jerky/seeds, etc.

I read Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes a few years ago, and it was very eye opening. It explained some of the science, and was key in helping me get out of the "fat is bad" mindset.

I'm not sure I have a desire to do zero carbs. I do plan to focus more on IF & committed keto/low carb. I feel a lot better and less hungry when I fast til early afternoon. It's been the biggest factor in my weight loss this fall.

Finally, frick anyone who contributed to Net getting banned this time around.

quote:

---

Stop drinking all the time then. It's the same as food, a clutch

---

Much easier said than done buy I know. I have no excuse, I just haven't done it. I'm planning to be stay dry through kanjuary until my wedding. When we come back we have no major events planned for 2 months then 3 weddings to go to in 2 months, so I want to buckle down for those first two months and hit it hard. If I'm not going to skip being social at events then I need to be disciplined when I am not doing those things.

IWEI

The rapid fatloss diet is not sustainable. It's meant to be done in short bouts. At your bf% I would suggest one 2 week round or one round of the 7 day extreme version. Either should get you close to 15%bf and you can take a one or two week break then hit it again.

But I get it if you don't want to do it, outside a fat fast it's the hardest diet I know of.

So you're the guy who coined American hungry in this thread a while back. Helped me go from 227 to low 200s when I first lost weight.