re: Low-fat v. Low-carb diets - new study

Can you show me a study that proves the 3500 calories = 1 lb formula to be true?

If it doesn't burn body fat faster than isocaloric when calories are the same how the hell is it relevant for fat loss?

Your statement makes no sense.

Look I love keto diets and it's my preferred method of dieting, but so far no study has been able to prove a keto diet burns body fat faster than a low fat high carb diet. In fact pretty much every study has found that calories are what matter and over the course of 10-12 weeks fat loss is consistent when calories are equalized no matter the carb content.

There are plenty of reasons to do a keto style diet, time of health reasons but faster loss of body fat is not one of those.

Like hulk said calories are king, protein is the queen. Everything else is lagniappe.

quote:

---

I haven't seen the full version of the study linked in OP yet, but...

---

The study had nothing to do with ketosis. I put the macros it used. It is just normal diets.

And you will probably never see a study on ketosis for the purpose of a normal diet. It is considered abnormal so they won't do a study on humans for it. The only studies you will see are related to illnesses like seizures.

quote:

---

The study had nothing to do with ketosis. 

---

Right. That was one of my points.

What's a "normal diet"? That's circular. One of the main purposes of nutritional research is to improve/change our failing "normal diets," and keto can certainly become "normal."

I'm in nutritional ketosis right now (after a "normal" low carb stint where my ketones were barely existent--in the 0.2 range), and all I changed was dropping beer and maybe a slight protein reduction. Maybe.

And I think people really have to keep up with pioneers like Dr. Phinney--who's The Godfather of modern keto--and co, to see where the research is headed. Of course there will be studies (and have been some), as people become educated on the fact that it isn't the bacon and cheese diet.

ETA: i alluded to this in an earlier post, but a big challenge of constructing and conducting meaningful dietary/nutrition studies is controlling the environment. On one hand, as others have noted, the more the subjects are monitored/controlled re: what they eat, the better chance they have of losing weight just due to removing need for self control and choices (assuming calories are controlled). On the other hand, when you reduce the level of monitoring and control (basically anything less than metabolic chambers), you open the whole thing up to "cheating." But the high-restriction and control environments simply aren't real life, which is where we eat.

It is indeed difficult to wade through the bullshite of blogs, podcasts, nonsense websites, uneducated (in nutrition) medical professionals, Reddit, shitty gov and NGO advice, bad journalism (e.g., Good Housekeeping hack), etc., to get to the science and practicality of any way of eating, and it seems keto is particularly susceptible to myths, both pro and con.

But keto isn't really anything crazy or "abnormal" (from a scientific and historical standpoint anyway). And what the general public considers a "normal diet" is a pretty good contraindicator re: the healthfulness of same.

Yea like I said earlier, dozens of other reasons to do keto. It's a great way to diet, it just doesn't burn body fat faster than isocaloric. Still a great way to live

quote:

---

He was talking intermittent fasting. Jesus you are ate the frick up with it.

---

I made a comment and then he rebutted it by making up an argument against an argument I never made. I said nothing about IF. If he can't read what I wrote I can't help that.

quote:

---

You have zero and I mean zero proof a keto diet burns body fat faster than isocaloric when calories are the same.

---

I literally said there are no studies for ketosis. And there likely won't be because you can't do those kinds of studies on humans. I would figure you knew that but you seem to not. Ketosis and fasting are far better for keeping muscle than any other diet while in negative calories. You can't convert muscle into ketones, you can convert muscle into glucose.

Do you have an email address you use for this conversation? I've tried to give you respect even though you are a dick to nearly everyone about things you don't agree with.

I get upset that you are the biggest proponent of a high protein diet when they are known to lower testosterone while you are taking testosterone. You can reveal why you are doing that or maybe it is personal, but I'm always going to have a problem with your advice when you are outside the norms of health. I don't want to make something that could be personal to you public and I won't, but I do take affront to your proposals because I'm lacking info. I do wish you the best with your new plan though.

A lot of people in this thread have been lied to by Marc Taub.

Lsu777 is 100% correct.

quote:

---

I made a comment and then he rebutted it by making up an argument against an argument I never made. I said nothing about IF. If he can't read what I wrote I can't help that.

---

He was speaking strictly about IF is all I was saying.

quote:

---

I literally said there are no studies for ketosis. And there likely won't be because you can't do those kinds of studies on humans. I would figure you knew that but you seem to not.

---

There are studies on Ketosis and differing carb intake leves. And why can you not do ketosis studies on humans? you check for it in the blood and check the rate of fat loss comparable to isocalroic at same calorie level.

quote:

---

Ketosis and fasting are far better for keeping muscle than any other diet while in negative calories. You can't convert muscle into ketones, you can convert muscle into glucose.

---

I also understand this. But has been shown in real life and also studies that high protein when dieting is muscle sparing. Look up studies on PSMF. and fasting is only muscle sparing for around 36 hours, 72 max. After that is catabolic.

quote:

---

Do you have an email address you use for this conversation? I've tried to give you respect even though you are a dick to nearly everyone about things you don't agree with.

---

No need to take it to email. I never and have never meant to come off as a dick on this board at least. I try and go out of my way to make that clear. If you took it that away I sincerely apologize as I want this board to be nothing but inclusive.

quote:

---

I get upset that you are the biggest proponent of a high protein diet when they are known to lower testosterone while you are taking testosterone. You can reveal why you are doing that or maybe it is personal, but I'm always going to have a problem with your advice when you are outside the norms of health. I don't want to make something that could be personal to you public and I won't, but I do take affront to your proposals because I'm lacking info. I do wish you the best with your new plan though.

---

High protein does not lower testosterone, extremely low fat does. There are no studies showing high protein lowers test. As far as me taking test, has nothing to do with the advice I give or does the diet have any bearing on why i am on test in the first place. Hell for the 2 years before I got on I was predominantly on a keto diet. I have to take test because of doing a fertility treatment for over a year killed my LH sensitivity and I already had problems with lower test due to my hypothalamus not sending the signal to my pituitary gland.

and most of the time when you see me giving advice its to those that lift or are looking to look like they lift. To do this it requires protein and lots of it. If you see me giving high protein(for the record I consider anything more than 1g/per pound of body weight hgih protein) is hardly ever for the normal person looking to lose a few pounds or for somebody looking to be healthier.

For health I almost always recommend the whole 30 diet at is the best diet in the world for health imo.

For weight loss I almost always recommend 16:8 intermittent fasting combined with an if it fits your macros approach unless there is a health condition they have. The reason I do this is because despite the frustration it might cause somebody like me and you, most people will not stick to a keto diet. the flexible dieting approach allows them to worry about calories first, protein second and forget the rest. It works, sorry but it does and it teaches good habits as it forces people to track their food and read labels.

as far as being outside the norms of health with my protein recommendations, how? multiple studies have shown that you need a minimum of .8g of protein per lbs of lean muscle to maintain muscle mass when in a caloric deficit. its pretty well understood, also multiple studies have shown people under report what they are eating 20% or of the time. To account for this 20% difference its a pretty well known rule of thumb in the lifting world to get 1g per lbs of bw to ensure you are getting enough.

as far as advice i might give every once in a while that includes protein levels up to 2g per lbs, that a specific case recommendation based on experience and having an understanding of what others are doing that works.

And it was never personal. It just seems like you and big scrub can not accept the fact that keto isnt the only way to eat and be healthy and also that there is no proof of it burning bodyfat at a higher rate than isocaloric.

I have said i believe a keto style diet to be a great way to go, hell i use it myself annually to cut weight, but its not the only way. Ya'll seem to get offended when somebody disagrees with that notion. and I am not the only one that feels like this. Its why some people get so mad at yall and attack. I personally am extremely open minded, but i am also not going to let false info be thrown around either.

in the end as far as my recommendations go, many times I am speaking to somebody from a lifting and athletic background on how to accomplish certain goals and achieve certain body composition. You and scrub aren't, you are coming from it from a strictly health standpoint. Also not everyone wants or is willing to give up carbs and you and scrub tend to not understand that and chastise those that recommend something more in line with what the person is asking for. Honestly I hate my low carb times now because it means no sushi, luckily i love sashimi so I can get by but it sucks with no sushi and I understand why others don't want to give that up.

Also when ya'll say fruit and berries and veggies are healthy or even something like oatmeal can't be healthy it annoys people because you aren't being open minded. All I am saying is understand your way has been proven time and time again to be just another tool in the tool box to get things done. Its not the only tool that works and its not always the right tool.

I want to be clear that I also mean no personal insults. I think open discourse is a great thing, even if I disagree.

I do think that fasting and keto have their place; "tools in the toolbelt" is a great way to sum it up into a simple phrase. I don't think either one is necessary or even desirable for the general public.. We're pretty much never going to convince the general population to fast and keto. We have to be realistic what your average person currently eats and what's probably the best way to get them to moderate their intake and lose weight. Beyond anything else, eliminating obesity is going to generate the highest improvement of health markers, whether someone lost their weight by fasting+keto or IIFYM or anything else.