Can we please stop repeating the “You have to eat at a deficit to lose weight on KETO” lie?


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #367

Agreed that calories are not the precise measurement of energy input and/or output for numerous reasons. I don’t think they’re totally useless either, simply because they are internally consistent. We can use that consistency, even if it has limited usefulness to the reality of energy input/output and utilization.

If so-called ‘hunger and satiety’ signals of ghrelin and leptin are not reliable - and they are not for many people for multiple reasons - via trial and error one can determine a calorie number at which one maintains weight, below which one loses weight and above which one gains weight. It does not matter whether or not that specific calorie number represents the real value of energy. It matters only that the calorie numbers are consistent with themselves. They are.

Related:


(Polly) #368

That certainly is in accord with my understanding and experience. Well said MarkGossage!


(PJ) #369

Yes, I agree. As I noted, what we believe we are ingesting may not be literally the number we end up with for so many reasons, but it is directly related to it, and like you say, as long as the measure is generally internally consistent it doesn’t much matter to measure. Much like having a scale that is slightly off is not a big deal as long as you’re using the same scale all the time. The comparative value is more important than the quantitative value in that case. And that comes down to the “experiment and adjust.” If you’re gaining weight or not losing it, eating less is obviously one of the options for further experiment.


(Full Metal KETO AF) #370

I just watched this short presentation by Zoe Harcombe that covers three topics and ties them together at the end. The first part is her take on what’s wrong with CICO because of the very questionable calorie values that are assigned to foods.

It goes into the second and third parts discussing the nature of fats and what we perceive as foods high in saturated fat, and what actually is high in saturated fat.

The final bit is about how we should eat. I really enjoyed this talk and especially the first part which debunks the 3,500 calorie formula.

:cowboy_hat_face:


(mole person) #371

There might be an effect from insulin production resulting from consumed fats reducing autophagy. We don’t know yet what levels of insulin will reduce autophagy and to what degree. I think Dr. Ali is wise to be cautious on this point. If one wants to maximize autophagy one should probably not consume any calories from any source until we know more. Maybe there is some daily amount of fat that has nearly no effect but we simply don’t know what that is and whether it matters if you have it in one dose or split up into many. Fifty grams of consumed fat has a similar insulin response to 20 grams of carbohydrates or 40 grams of protein and that’s still under 500 calories. Someone who was fat fasting might easily consume that much. My guess is that it could very likely have some effect on autophagy.


(mole person) #372

Great post. You really knocked it out of the park.


(Doug) #373

Ilana, I’ve wondered about that too, but thought the insulin response was much less to fat. I was going by protein being about 55% the response that carbohydrates generate, and then fats being only about 1/10 that of protein and 1/20 that of carbs. You’ve got it 8 times greater than what I was going with.

Carbs and excess protein get burned for energy/processed by the liver and both require insulin signalling. Dietary fat is different - bile salts and enzymes from the pancreas handle this, breaking the fat down into fatty acids.


(mole person) #374

@OldDoug. The insulin response from fat is much less than the other two macros by calorie. So given the 20 g carbs = 40 g protein = 50 grams fat your looking at at a similar insulin response from 80 calories of carbs, 160 calories of protein and 450 calories of fat. So it’s easy to see how it’s amazingly powerful to eat fat to keep insulin low. However, for the purposes of autophagy it’s really an unknown how much insulin is ‘ok’.


(Full Metal KETO AF) #375

In the absence of food don’t we still produce insulin because of gluconeogenesis while fasting? We still produce glucose when we don’t eat it and that must require some insulin to utilize that glucose. :face_with_monocle:.


(Doug) #376

Ilana, any secretion of insulin is not going to be good for autophagy, so anything that increases it certainly bears examination if autophagy is the subject. Where did you get those figures? I’m with you on the relationship between carbs and protein, as far as insulin response. But I thought fat’s insulinogenic quality was vastly less, like it would take 400 grams of fat to be roughly the same as 20 grams of carbs…


(mole person) #377

It comes from the amount of insulin that type 1 diabetics have to take. I’m sorry, I really thought I’d taken note of that link but right now I can’t find it. I read it fairly recently though, I’m sure that I recalling the numbers correctly. I will keep looking for that reference.


(Doug) #378

I couldn’t find what I was going by, either… :smile: It may have been from Dr. Fung but not seeing it today… Oh well - we’re agreed that any meaningful increase in insulin secretion is suspect for autophagy.


(Full Metal KETO AF) #379

@OldDoug @Ilana_Rose A Dr. Fung video on autophagy inspired me to try Fat Fasting. I have found it to be very effective. Between that and IF I have definitely had some autophagy benefits. There are different levels of autophagy, the more extreme are effective in the brain and require 4-5 days to achieve. But with IF over 18/6 there is some autophagy happening daily. Especially if you’re eating ketogenic. I haven’t done any EF since starting KETO but I do notice my belly and neck skin tightening up none the less. This 4 minute video is an excerpt from a 90 minute or so interview and addresses Fat in particular and the mTOR driven protein reaction that shuts off or turns on autophagy.

:cowboy_hat_face:


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #380

I’m curious. When you overeat like that, are you enjoying the experience?


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #381

Because the body is well-known to adjust your metabolic rate to the amount of food you give it. This is explained over and over and over and over and over again on these forums. Drop your caloric intake intentionally, and you risk lowering your metabolic rate to match. So at that point, you are no longer eating at a caloric deficit, because your body has retrenched in order to get you safely through the famine. So you lower your caloric intake again, and your body again lowers your metabolism to match. And so on. At some point, you can’t take the hunger any longer and end up bingeing. At that point, you’ll be very lucky if you don’t end up fatter than you were at the beginning.

When you give your body a bit more food than it needs, it speeds up your metabolism and can actually waste energy, in order to compensate for the excess intake. This is why we strongly advocate eating to satiety, because that way you know you’ve given your body enough food to do the things it wants to do, without giving it too much. If you should happen to have some excess stored fat on hand, your body will feel safe letting it go and will adjust your appetite to make use of that stored fat, by causing you to eat a bit less. Your metabolic expenditure does not change, however, merely the source of the calories used to feed it.

So the distinction is whether our eating has put our body into famine-response mode, or into energy-use mode. Intentional caloric restriction puts the body in famine mode, in which it is reluctant to let go of any of its reserves (including excess stored fat). Caloric abundance, by contrast, allows the body to regulate metabolism and appetite to make efficient use of all resources, whether exogenous (i.e., food) or endogenous (i.e., excess stored fat).

I really don’t know how this can be explained any more clearly than this. The key lies in the body’s response to the food we eat. The standard advice to “eat less, move more” generally results in undesired consequences, whereas a well-formulated ketogenic diet usually results in desirable consequences, with the added advantage of not needing to count calories unless it gives you pleasure to do so.

Overeating to any degree is actually not a pleasant experience (certainly not for me), once satiety signaling has been restored. Once your hunger is satisfied, why would you want to eat more than that, in any case?


(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #382

I’d be interested in tracking down any references you might happen to have to support that assertion. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen such specific figures.

I’m not sure that’s anything more than a guess, actually. For instance, erythrocytes don’t need to be prompted to take in glucose, because that’s all they can metabolise. The brain does require insulin in order to metabolise glucose, if I understand correctly, but I don’t believe insulin is necessary for brain cells to metabolise ketones.

Insulin’s main role in gluconeogenesis is to keep it from getting out of control under the influence of glucagon (and the same with ketogenesis, as well, actually). Mice that lack the ability to produce either glucagon or insulin never develop diabetes or even hyperglycaemia, no matter how much glucose they are given. Some researchers, Dr. Kendrick among them, are no focusing more on the role of glucagon than insulin, for this reason.

Just to complicate the discussion further, we need to bear in mind that autophagy is a continuous process at a certain minimal level, because proteins are continuously wearing out and needing to be broken down (the lifespans of the various proteins produced by the human body range from seconds to years). One of the reasons that we need a certain minimal amount of protein to maintain health is that we are continuously losing a certain minimal amount of nitrogen, regardless of whether our diet is low or high in carbohydrate, and whatever our resulting insulin level. Naturally, this is a much lower level of autophagy than is stimulated by fasting, but we still need to bear in mind that insulin is only one of many factors regulating autophagy.


(Cancer Fighting Ketovore :)) #383

There is a whole lot that gowes into this. I have a 6-year-old who had her foot amputated. She currently rides a bike with training wheels. She has full range of motion in her knee, but lacks motion in her “ankle”. She has what I’ll call “active motion” in that her prosthetic lets her have the natural heel-to-toe motion when walking/running. However, riding a bike is a bit different, and her foot always slips off the pedal. That’s why we use velcro to keep it on, but that means she can’t catch herself when she falls. Its been a challenge.

Now, we have to re-think her prosthetic because the blade style isn’t working so well, she’s not gained much space under her stump AND her “heel” is growing, so there is less room for the socket and blade.

Having a prosthetic should not be limiting in any way. With the right prosthetic one can do anything that a person who does not have an amputation can! She even plays baseball! Her running isn’t great, but it will improve as she gets older and her prosthetics get better.

Sorry for the mini-rant. Just wanted to educate and share (and I’m a bit frustrated with her current prosthetic situation) :slight_smile:


(Full Metal KETO AF) #384

@KetoCancerMom I always had to use mountain bike shoes and pedals to keep my foot on the pedal. One option that might help and be a lot safer than lashing her foot to the pedal which is dangerous would be the old fashioned toe cages that attach to the pedal. Just put one on her prosthetic side. At least she can pull her foot out if she needs to. :cowboy_hat_face:


(Cancer Fighting Ketovore :)) #385

Thanks for the idea! I’ve thought about that, but I don’t think I found anything like that for child-size bikes. I think, though, that we are going to use a custom trike. She’s also got some moderate-severe scoliosis, and its too high for bracing. We are certain that surgery will be in her future, and it won’t be too long before that happens. The surgery will mean rods in her back, so turning and twisting will hard for her. I’m thinking a trike will be much safer!


(PJ) #386

I used to do a lot of biking when about 18. My sister loaned me her insanely overpriced racing bike and I discovered that I’d just touch the pedals and FLY so far… wow. I got really into it for quite some time.

I have been thinking about your dilemma. What about some custom DIY that used velcro to hold a foot-pedal-brace on the bike pedal, but if jerked hard upward or outward could pull off? It’s a matter of experimenting with how much velcro, how thick a strip or how long, equals a fair amount of required torque. It would hold it fairly lightly “on” but mostly the pressure of pedaling or resting would keep the foot on, that would just help keep it there… but in a sudden need to pull the foot away from the pedal, this could pull the foot and the ‘holder’ with the foot (like a clumsy shoe) away from the bike to help catch in falls.

In case this idea isn’t clear, I mean, one of those things you would normally attach to the pedal and put your foot in (in this case her prosthesis), in this case, instead of the normal attachment to the pedal, you’d use velcro. So there would be some hold, but not so much that a firm kick upward or sideways wouldn’t be able to pull it away from the pedal.