Calorie For Calorie, Fat Restriction Is Better For Weight Loss

#4

140g Carbs! Lol

(Hyperbole- best thing in the universe!) #5

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.

(Terence Dean) #6

They probably ran out of food! :rofl: 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!! :rofl: Ah stop it!!

#7

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.

#8

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.

(Ron) #9

Previous discussions.



#10

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!

(Nathan Toben) #11

Agreed

(Doug) #12

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?

#13

Agree! I had a hard time making sense of what they were saying. Pseudo science, IMO.

(Alec) #14

I read the first words and they were enough for me… “Kevin Hall”.

#15

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?”.

(Ron) #16

Many times said by individuals coming from years of eating calorie restricted diets and have ruined their metabolism in the process.

(KCKO, KCFO 🥥) #17

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.

#18

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?

(Ron) #19

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.

#20

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”.

(Nathan Toben) #21

I could be wrong but metabolism, whether fast or slow, has it’s advantages. Slowing one’s metabolic rate through diet can impede future efforts towards weight loss, and body recomposition is healthyof course.

but also a slow metabolism and less need for calories is linked to longevity.

Kind of depends on what your goals are and what your starting point is, health-wise.

While an endomorph with metabolic syndrome and a history of under-eating would stand to gain from dramatically increasing their daily caloric intake following a low-glycemic plan, an underweight ectomorph who eats everything in sight might stand to gain from reducing their intake, increasing the quality of foods, and emphasizing complete proteins.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #22

So here we have a study purporting to tell us something important, but it involves no more than 19 participants, and the experimental period is so short that the diets barely had time to have an effect? Excuse me, but am I missing something? How do you even randomize only 19 people to the two different arms of the study? :roll_eyes:

Ever since his big fight with Gary Taubes, Hall’s had a bug up is ass about LCHF/keto. I wish he’d fucking get over it and go back to doing real research for a change. Then we might learn something. I was also amused that the Web site shows recent articles referring to that study, and the first one listed is by Hall himself.

(Doug) #23

On the good side, I think it’s because of lowering insulin resistance and the “gate” then being open to feed the cells, rather than to storing fat. This results in less hunger, less “eat (carbs) and end up feeling even hungrier” or getting hungry so soon again.

Rather a neutral thing - seems to me that people most often have problems with getting enough fat, rather than protein. I don’t see this as a huge deal, in that without too much more butter, olive oil, etc., the ratio can be swing a fair bit. And even if not, within the context of a very low-carb diet, a ratio of protein that’s relatively high by keto standards has nothing like the effect on the insulin/glucagon deal like it does within a carb-eater.

On the bad side, calorie reduction, per se, does not work in the long term for many people. Dr. Fung had an article - I think it was about Jenny Craig - and the long term success rate of their clients at keeping weight off was exceedingly low, below 1%. For keto people, this may improve to a higher percentage, and if so, good, if that is where one ends up. All other things being equal, calorie reduction, by itself, does usually extend life.