Can we please stop repeating the “You have to eat at a deficit to lose weight on KETO” lie?
I just had a chance to listen to this weeks keto dudes show. Had to kinda laugh when carl and the doc are talking about how your body has to burn what you eat before it can burn stored fat. Made me think of this thread.Granted the show is about fasting but still implies to normal diet.
Well that bit is really unconvincing and obviously false. Don’t really care if Carl and the doc said it, or are you possibly just relaying the information inaccurately?
Many keto people never fast and eat three meals a day, and certainly burn fat while eating everyday. Otherwise no one here would be loosing weight. Ridiculous non fact. I will attempt getting through the podcast (no promises), and post what I thought and took away here. 
obviously false? Not caring what Carl and that doc say doesnt mean its false. I dont necessarily agree with everything they say either but to say something is obviously false just cause you dont beleive it isnt right either. I could be convinced with long term studies that calories have nothing to do with weight loss but I think your mind wont change no matter what.
@barns First it wasn’t so much about fasting as it was autophagy. And the Dr. says “for some people autophagy during fasting may stop if they consume a little fat.” It was in relation to eating a little butter or HWC during a fast. His comment about burning all the energy you have consumed was about starting autophagy not weight loss. The doctor was Dr. Nadir Ali, a cardiologist.
But there is controversy about how autophagy works. Dr. Fung states that autophagy is driven by the absence of dietary protein and carbohydrates. And there are deeper levels of autophagy after three days of an EF.
With KETO breaking down body fat and using it as fuel is completely different than autophagy or the recycling of sick cells and unnecessary protein structures like a deflated fat cell protein matrix and extra skin.
So I think you got a little mixed up by the presentation and tried to use it to support an erroneous CICO model.
Um , no not mixed up. between 33:30 to around 38 minutes in they are very specific about people doing keto for weight loss. Its fine if you dont agree with them but not agreeing with them doesnt make them wrong. Im not willing to die on this hill but I also dont think people should say with certainty that calories dont matter. When you have a thread titled like this one is then that is exactly what you are trying to say so dont try and say that nobody is saying that calories dont matter.
@barns They’re talking about Chaffles all through the times you list. 
I do want to hear the part you’re referencing.
I think the big problem with the CICO model is that it assumes CO is constant no matter what CI is. We know that isn’t true, and if the hormones aren’t working properly, the body will just adjust CO to match CI. If you fix the hormones, the CICO stuff takes care of itself.
@FrankoBear Are you really Carrie Brown or do all you people in previous British colonies besides the US and Canada say woffles?
Just how does an A get pronounced as O? 
Now I get it, you just like to argue with the truth.
Wait…are you telling me you pronounce waffle with a ‘waff’ (like in caffeine), or is it more like wah-ffle.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/waffle
Like this exactly, on the 2KETO Dudes show Carrie was saying Chaffle with a short A and Carl would counter with Chaffle like Chah-fle. I’m confused now but Carrie was saying it wrong. Silliness.
Funny you should say that. I pronounce waffle as ‘wuffle’ (sort of inbetween the english and US pronunciation), but pronounce chaffle like ‘chaff’ (like in caffeine), so in a way you’re right. 
Historically the word ‘waffle’ has been used in the English culinary language since the 1730s, predating US use but the US pronunciation is closer to the Dutch word origin (pronounced ‘vah-fel’, where the word originated back in the 13th century), and the reason for that is because waffles were introduced to the US by the Belgians (who speak Dutch) back in the 1930s and not the English. So yes, the US way to say it is technically a more correct pronunciation.
I listened from the website too. I’ll try again but I don’t think it’s an app issue. I want to get to the bottom of your claim. I’ll just skip the obnoxious beginning and end of the podcast rather than suffer through the drivel.
Firstly, what I notice about that time period is that Dr. Ali tells Carl “I think you are right” (emphasis added); he doesn’t state it as a known fact.
Secondly, I beg to differ about your interpretation: the main context was primarily the effect on autophagy of eating during a fast, and only secondarily about the differing effects on our fat-burning processes of (a) caloric restriction and (b) fasting.
Moreover, I was surprised that there was no mention whatsoever of glucagon and its effects when carbohydrate intake is restricted. The research on the effects of dietary protein that I’ve read was all done in the context of a high-carbohydrate diet; whereas Prof. Bikman suggests that the mechanisms behave quite differently in a low-carb context. For example, in a high-carb context, additional protein spikes insulin quite strongly, with a minimal effect on glucagon, thus driving up the insulin/glucagon ratio. MTOR is of course activated by the additional protein and autophagy is inhibited, because a high insulin/glucagon ratio makes the environment strongly anabolic, and mTOR is an anabolic process.
In a low-carb situation, however, the additional intake of protein stimulates glucagon along with insulin, leaving the insulin/glucagon ratio low and unchanged and keeping the environment catabolic. This preserves the operation of ketogenesis and other catabolic processes, such as autophagy, and limits the activity of mTOR. Apparently mTOR never completely shuts off in a catabolic environment, just as autophagy never completely shuts off in an anabolic environment, since both are essential.
Just as Dr. Ali says in the podcast that he believes the body may need to deal with food intake before burning stored energy, I believe the opposite; i.e., that in a catabolic environment it is possible for the body to simultaneously deal with both store and eaten fat. But I am no more sure of this than Dr. Ali appears to be of his view, and I don’t believe anyone actually knows for sure.
What we do know, however, is that in a low-carbohydrate situation, the body can easily regulate ghrelin and leptin to control appetite to a level that permits both the utilization of stored and dietary fat (as nearly 100% of the members of these forums can testify); whereas in a high-carb situation, insulin overwhelms the leptin receptors and keeps us in a state of constant hunger.
It sounds to me as though Dr. Ali’s understanding of these matters is evolving (he gives Dave Feldman credit for teaching him about cholesterol, for example), so I would not take anything he says in this podcast as being necessarily his final thoughts on every point. I have heard past lectures of his, in which he has stated many things that seemed to jibe better with the standard hypotheses than with what we actually do know about keto, and I am highly gratified that in this podcast his views are much more congruent with what I understand from other lecturers whom I trust.
For most morbidly obese people Keto works because it heavily restricts the choice of food they get. Cutting down sugars and overall carbs is never a bad idea, too.
I believe in most of these cases, those people will have a significant calorie deficit, regardless of CO being high or low.
I don’t think counting calories is a lie. I think our bodies have a distinct energy requirement. I just think that calories are not the right way to measure that energy in a real life scenario.
Essentially a calorie is the temperature difference that food produces when burned in a controlled environment, if I’m not mistaken.
Now, yesterday I ate chicken wings. That stuff has bones and other stuff I wouldn’t eat. But all of this gets burnt in the calorie research. So, how does this relate to the amount of energy I really put into my body.
Honestly, I’d be perfectly happy to choose my food according to glycemic Index or some other measurement that gives me an indication of how good this food is in relation to keeping insulin levels down.
@PaulL - Dude, excellent post there, a lot to think about. 
I assume that calorie figures for chicken wings reflect the fact that the bones are usually not consumed. I agree that counting calories “is not a lie.” Well of course it’s not - there is a real world reality to the physics involved, whether we say calories or grams or ounces, right down to the actual molecules and atoms involved.
With the body’s energy requirements, if we want to lose weight by burning our stored fat, then the stimulus for the body to do that needs to come from somewhere. ‘CICO’ works just fine, per se - the problem for people is that in practice they often cannot keep the “In” less than the “Out.”
Very good point about the glycemic index and keeping insulin levels low. This is the crux of the matter for most of us here. If one is insulin resistant and has high insulin levels, then the body’s fat stores are locked off to an extent, and due to that simple calorie restriction will often not work for weight loss, since the body will lower the metabolism to compensate, with us not being able to stay ahead of it due to hunger and/or not realizing we’re actually no longer in a caloric deficit.