- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: [Update on page 2]: Started my weight loss journey yesterday
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:51 am to lsu777
Posted on 12/11/18 at 8:51 am to lsu777
quote:
BTW there was a new meta-analysis that did come out last week that did show that in individuals that were not on a medically induced diet that there was an inadverant reduction of energy consumption. Essentially when on an unsupervised keto diet, dieters that stick to the keto diet inadvertenly over time reduce calorie consumption over time.
This is a concept that I've always wondered about in the keto concept. I've heard from people doing keto or a similar diet that they hit a point where it's difficult to keep consuming that much meat, so they draw back.
I've always wondered if a significant mechanism in keto isn't that it inadvertently drives calorie restriction and other things that drive results on their own.
2
Posted on 12/11/18 at 9:12 am to Rep520
quote:
I've always wondered if a significant mechanism in keto isn't that it inadvertently drives calorie restriction
This has always been known. Your satiety levels are through the roof. You eat a 1000 calorie meal that’s high fat and you won’t feel hungry the rest of the day. You have to force feed yourself it feels like at times. I’m trying not to lose weight at this point and I’m eating a strict Keto diet intaking 3500 calories a day. That’s why when 777 tells me there’s no known metabolic advantage for Keto I know it’s bullshite. I am currently off the diet in Mexico and still logging. I’ve averaged right around 3000 calories a day which is less than on Keto and I’m gaining weight already (ack majority water).
Posted on 12/11/18 at 9:13 am to Rep520
quote:
I've always wondered if a significant mechanism in keto isn't that it inadvertently drives calorie restriction and other things that drive results on their own
it does, but despite claims of it being easier to stick to, it shows the same % of people stick to it as a iso caloric when not in clinical settings.
Also there are a lot of claims that people have better satiety, but studies don't bear that out. I know I personally expierence better satiety especially over long periods, but satiety studies differ. Could be a individual thing. But the aforementions meta analysis to me indicates it is better satiety.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 11:53 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
That’s why when 777 tells me there’s no known metabolic advantage for Keto I know it’s bullshite
Drinking piss must increase your metabolic rate
Posted on 12/11/18 at 12:15 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
That’s why when 777 tells me there’s no known metabolic advantage for Keto I know it’s bullshite.
Thats funny because i have provided studies that back up exactly what i am saying, yet you provide nothing.
Posted on 12/11/18 at 1:54 pm to lsufanintexas
Keep it up!
Posted on 12/13/18 at 10:13 pm to lsu777
quote:
actually a new huge meta analysis that came out last week says that the compliance rate between an iso-caloric diet versus keto is statistically insignfacant. Both are in the 23% range.
....
BTW there was a new meta-analysis that did come out last week that did show that in individuals that were not on a medically induced diet that there was an inadverant reduction of energy consumption. Essentially when on an unsupervised keto diet, dieters that stick to the keto diet inadvertenly over time reduce calorie consumption over time.
Do you mind sharing with the kids that are interested?
Posted on 12/13/18 at 11:11 pm to Junky
quote:
Do you mind sharing with the kids that are interested?
He won’t. He’ll just act like it is fact because he knows he has nothing to back it up.
Posted on 12/14/18 at 5:40 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
He won’t.
He usually does. Probably heard it on a podcast, which he can post and I'll listen to and try digging again. I did a quick google search the other day and didn't find anything, so I was curious of the title to read up.
This post was edited on 12/14/18 at 7:19 am
Posted on 12/14/18 at 7:38 am to lsufanintexas
Guess I'll chime in here. I had really let myself go, and was a complete fat arse. Too many reasons to mention as to why I let myself go and stopped caring. In July, due to a short hospital stay for extreme high blood pressure, I came to the realization that it was now or never to get in gear and start losing weight.
On July 24th, I weighed 340 lbs. Today I weight 281. Yes, I am proud of myself for the weight loss, but I know I've got a long way to go. For the most part, I've done this the old fashioned way, just exercising more (walking) and eating less, with more vegetables and fruits. Also, I have severely cut my intake of processed carbs, but nothing too crazy. Whole wheat pasta instead of regular, sweet potatoes instead of russets, Quinoa instead of rice, Whole wheat tortillas instead of bread, etc.
One thing that has helped me tremendously is an App called "Lose It". I really think this is the one thing that has helped me more than anything. It has helped me to be more aware of the foods that I am putting in my body and just how many worthless calories I used to consume. It also does a pretty decent job of tracking exercise and the correlation between input of calories vs. output.
On July 24th, I weighed 340 lbs. Today I weight 281. Yes, I am proud of myself for the weight loss, but I know I've got a long way to go. For the most part, I've done this the old fashioned way, just exercising more (walking) and eating less, with more vegetables and fruits. Also, I have severely cut my intake of processed carbs, but nothing too crazy. Whole wheat pasta instead of regular, sweet potatoes instead of russets, Quinoa instead of rice, Whole wheat tortillas instead of bread, etc.
One thing that has helped me tremendously is an App called "Lose It". I really think this is the one thing that has helped me more than anything. It has helped me to be more aware of the foods that I am putting in my body and just how many worthless calories I used to consume. It also does a pretty decent job of tracking exercise and the correlation between input of calories vs. output.
Posted on 12/14/18 at 9:58 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
He won’t. He’ll just act like it is fact because he knows he has nothing to back it up
I always post studies arse.
Posted on 12/14/18 at 10:00 am to Junky
Post them up in a lil while
Posted on 12/14/18 at 10:07 am to Junky
Posted on 12/14/18 at 12:10 pm to lsu777
Junky, having a hard time finding the other. It was linked on Instagram. I'll keep trying. It was by one of the science/evidenced based guys I follow.
The meta-analysis deduced that in a clinical setting a ketogenic diet is best for weight loss due to not having to deal with adherence. The analysis was to see what happens in non clinical patients.
The conclusions backed up this MA. The new MA set out to see why in a non clinical setting if this held true. It concluded that it was true that when adhered too, the keto diet was better for long term weight loss. Once they found that out they set out to tone out why as there is no known metabolic advantage of the ketogenic diet.
The MA found that in non clinical settings those that adhered to the keto diet inadvertently reduced calorie consumption over time and in most cases energy expenditure did not decrease.
The meta-analysis deduced that in a clinical setting a ketogenic diet is best for weight loss due to not having to deal with adherence. The analysis was to see what happens in non clinical patients.
The conclusions backed up this MA. The new MA set out to see why in a non clinical setting if this held true. It concluded that it was true that when adhered too, the keto diet was better for long term weight loss. Once they found that out they set out to tone out why as there is no known metabolic advantage of the ketogenic diet.
The MA found that in non clinical settings those that adhered to the keto diet inadvertently reduced calorie consumption over time and in most cases energy expenditure did not decrease.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 12:12 pm to lsu777
Thanks, I'll look at them soon
Update: Pretty sound in its setup. No carb increase included, no ward studies....I like the exclusions.
My quick takeaway is that even though keto can be restrictive in what someone can eat, people tend to stick with it no more or less than any other diet.
Probably relevant to any diet. Being, the percentage of these dropouts could be the same across the board.
Second META pretty much sums up other data out there. I didn't see anything about them looking into metabolic advantage, but I was skimming and went down a rabbit hole.
Update: Pretty sound in its setup. No carb increase included, no ward studies....I like the exclusions.
My quick takeaway is that even though keto can be restrictive in what someone can eat, people tend to stick with it no more or less than any other diet.
quote:
These data suggest that people, primarily diabetics and the obese, struggle to adhere to the ketogenic diet.
Probably relevant to any diet. Being, the percentage of these dropouts could be the same across the board.
Second META pretty much sums up other data out there. I didn't see anything about them looking into metabolic advantage, but I was skimming and went down a rabbit hole.
This post was edited on 12/15/18 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 12/15/18 at 12:56 pm to Junky
It's nothing ground breaking but it answered some questions. I already knew adherence rates were pretty close in all diets. Actually I saw a study once that showed adherence rates were better when working out was included, conclusion was it tended to raise awareness about what we eat.
The other explained alot of the reasons why some studies where showing better weight loss after 6 months on keto.
When looking for the MA you asked for, I did read another MA that showed the first 6 months is the most important time in dieting and that the weight lost in that time frame was an indication of success long term and had a correlation rate to total amount loss.
The other explained alot of the reasons why some studies where showing better weight loss after 6 months on keto.
When looking for the MA you asked for, I did read another MA that showed the first 6 months is the most important time in dieting and that the weight lost in that time frame was an indication of success long term and had a correlation rate to total amount loss.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 2:44 pm to lsu777
Since metabolic advantage is tossed around...What would you say, if it existed, would be a minimum accepted number of calories per day, EE or intake, to say, "yes - there is an advantage"? Would it be 20, 50, 100 calories a day? I ask because EE changes in other studies but is casually written off.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 5:28 pm to Junky
I think 10% would be significant but it would have to be across the board in a large study or at least seen in 80%+ of the participants.
I think there are some advantages but they are only seen at extreme low calories i.e. fat fast or when keto is combined with long fast.
We know protein has advantages with diet induced thermogensis, fat doesn't show this. No diet or combination of macros has ever shown the ability to have uncoupling type properties and none have shown the ability to force the thyroid to produce enough to cause uncoupling so not sure how it could really produce any metabolic advantage except for some unknown diet induced thermogensis that has never been seen or discovered.
Like I have said before, it's still what I use, combined with IF to cut. But to me it's just a tool.
I think there are some advantages but they are only seen at extreme low calories i.e. fat fast or when keto is combined with long fast.
We know protein has advantages with diet induced thermogensis, fat doesn't show this. No diet or combination of macros has ever shown the ability to have uncoupling type properties and none have shown the ability to force the thyroid to produce enough to cause uncoupling so not sure how it could really produce any metabolic advantage except for some unknown diet induced thermogensis that has never been seen or discovered.
Like I have said before, it's still what I use, combined with IF to cut. But to me it's just a tool.
Posted on 12/15/18 at 11:35 pm to lsu777
quote:
No diet or combination of macros has ever shown the ability to have uncoupling type properties and none have shown the ability to force the thyroid to produce enough to cause uncoupling so not sure how it could really produce any metabolic advantage except for some unknown diet induced thermogensis that has never been seen or discovered.
I wonder about ATP production and how it is derived from varies means. There are studies out there, specifically Hall 2016, that show a small gain ~300 calories. EE increases by 150, and caloric intake accounted for the other 150....I think. Though Hall and the other authors didn't acknowledge this and stated otherwise, there numbers say a bit differently. Lustig and company had a study, and I need to read it completely, that REE decreased the most with low fat diets (–205 [–265 to –144]), and the least with low carbs (-138 [–198 to –77]. Not the standout you would want, but it is out there if we dig.
This post was edited on 12/15/18 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 12/20/18 at 2:05 am to lsufanintexas
Down to 184. My clothes already feel better
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News