Always useful to seek out contrary information. Wouldn’t want to promote Confirmation Bias by just seeking out info that agrees with me.
Have you guys read this? What are your thoughts?
Calorie for Calorie, Fat Restriction is Better for Weight Loss Than Carbohydrate Restriction
‘In contrast, carbohydrates were about 29% of the energy content of the RC diet with a mean absolute carbohydrate intake of about 140 g/day’
Hardly a low carbohydrate diet. Complete rubbish. 
About 140g/day?
Yeah near enough to 140g give or take a few grams. What’s one twinkie between mates right? Jee they weren’t exactly measuring carbs very accurately! They may need help using Chronometer!!!
We need @Alecmcq Alec to send another of his classic emails! These guys need help. 
We thought the mouse study was hilarious, this one is priceless.
That stuck out for me as well. I suppose if the study’s “average” “non-restrictive” diet is established as the prevailing American diet then this would be a low-carbohydrate diet in comparison. However the SAD is known to be an industry-driven nutritional plan and thus would make the study a moot point as a revealer of truths about weight loss.
It would perhaps be a better study if it were examining which diet supports emerging vs. pre-existing food industries. Weight loss is sort of an irrelevant correlation.
It seems like individuals in the low-carb party would perhaps never get to substantial rates of lypolisis, besides.
It was also 19 people for 6 days. 5 days baseline diet then 6 days restriction. I don’t know what you expect to learn from that.
They probably ran out of food! Cut those carbs back to 20g and they could have lasted another 42 days!!! The RC guys would have been keto adapted! Where do they get these scientists from?
There wouldn’t have been enough food there for @gabe Gabe, not when he gets going on one of his carb binges!! Ah stop it!!
All other issues aside, for me, in the real world, “calorie for calorie” isn’t an issue. When I eat keto, I’m not hungry all the time, so I eat far fewer calories.
It’s not just about losing weight. You are supposed to keep the weight after the weight loss too.
At that point, it’s about what you eat.
I can lose weight by counting calories, but then I have to eat less than 1500 calories to lose 1 kg per month, if I am lucky. And I also get so hungry that it’s like torture, I’m hungry every single moment.
Weight loss are quite more than just calories and weight lost.
So, let the calorie counters count calories, and the rest of us enjoy good food and all the good benefits of keto lifestyle.
I don’t get this study; two 2 week sessions?? For real?? That can’t tell you much of anything. Try a restricted carb diet (and 140g of carb is NOT restricted) for 6 months and then perhaps you can draw some valid conclusions. Fake science!
Keto is not really “calorie restriction” in the first place.
Restricting carbs and fats for 6 whole days - heh, what’s that going to show? Sheesh - this is clownishness, this is Kevin Hall having some silly, lame, half-considered thing against low-carb eating.
Get real and get people fat-adapted. Restrict carbs to 20 grams a day, or zero. Then let’s see what happens.
Unless I am really missing something, the summary is very poorly written. “Whereas carbohydrate restriction led to sustained increases in fat oxidation and loss of 53 ± 6 g/day of body fat, fat oxidation was unchanged by fat restriction, leading to 89 ± 6 g/day of fat loss, and was significantly greater than carbohydrate restriction”
“Sustained increases in fat oxidation” with carb restriction. Average of 53 grams fat lost per day.
“fat oxidation was unchanged” when it was fats that were cut. Avergage of 89 grams fat lost per day.
How can the increased rate of fat oxidation result in lesser fat lost per day? What sense does this make?
But it ends up being a calorie reduction for many, as hunger dials back. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen messages with a question like, “How can I possibly meet my fat/calorie/protein macro in a day?”.
Many times said by individuals coming from years of eating calorie restricted diets and have ruined their metabolism in the process.
T his like a 1000x this. If you have fat to lose, you don’t have to eat as much of it anyway. Amy Berger always like to point that out.
I eat animal fats, coconut fat, Avocado’s & oil because they are healthy, taste great, and I feel better eating this way.
How is it ruined? As I’ve asked on other such comments, why is lowering the BMR a bad thing? The only reason I can come up with is somebody wants to be able to eat more. Certainly a bad thing if someone goes back to bad eating habits.
Does a lower BMR mean the body is running more efficiently? Or does it mean the body is shutting down necessary processes? If the latter, wouldn’t that show up in some lab work someplace?
I know my BMR has reduced significantly since I lost 180 pounds. Isn’t the correct response just to reduce the amount of calories again? Almost all of my lab work has improved. I no longer need insulin or diabetes medications for my T2 diabetes. My kidney functions have improved (they failed in 2007). I no longer need oxygen therapy. I’m moving around better.
How efficiently can the body run? Can someone function just fine on 800, or 600, or 400 calories per day? Certainly, the TDEE would need to be higher if they were involved in a lot of activities, but how low can BMR go? And what metrics would tell us the body isn’t getting enough calories for it’s daily minimum needs?
You have asked before and have been answered many times, but it seems you cannot grasp starvation mode and sustainability, and I don’t feel the desire to try again. You argument has validity to someone with a healthy metabolism and eating enough fuel to meet the body’s energy requirements but that is not the issue of this topic, it is weight loss.
I keep asking because no one has answered what would indicate that “starvation mode” is causing damage to the body. Surely some standard blood test should indicate such damage is occurring?
Note that some claim ketosis itself is “starvation mode”.