Show you someone who actually says that? Pretty much every expert spouting, “all you have to do is eat less and move more”, which is to say about 90% of the people out there giving weight loss advice.
Michael Eades' new weightloss paradigm
That shows that the in and out don’t have to be equal, i.e. if CI < CO, then weight loss will result, which is true (same on a keto diet as with anything else). Not saying that everybody can do that for long enough; obviously most cannot.
If you eat that maybe you should take a trip to the emergency room? What IS that?
Sawdust. Cellulose for the win! (?)
That statement is where I get lost. How much does a calorie weigh?
The Coca-Cola Company, for one. Robert Lustig quotes one of their Superbowl ads as saying that it is a “fundamental truth” that all calories are alike. So therefore, we can drink all of their product that we want, and so long as CI does not exceed CO, we’ll be fine.
You and I know that’s not true, but as Sinclair wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Nothing. It’s a unit of energy, not of mass.
“Equal,” Paul. While it’s true that CI not exceeding CO means no weight gain, that’s hardly a guarantee of being “fine,” overall, and I’d disagree with Big Coke as much as you. But my objection was to the notion that CI has to equal CO, and thus I think that CI = CO, as stated, has to be false.
Well now. Energy = mass * constant squared. The constant is the speed of light, so the mass of energy per unit is minute, and the energy of mass is enormous, but I think
energy can be expressed as a mass, and mass can be expressed as energy, it’s a matter of algebra and being bored. And I’m not quite that bored yet.
I am digging the extreme geekiness of this conversation!
I often get the argument from a loved one whose weight barely ever changes by more than a few pounds over the years, that it is silly to do low carb dieting when it is just about eating fewer calories. My answer to that is usually why wouldn’t I choose a way of eating that affects my hormones in a way that I will naturally eat fewer calories without hunger while more easily emptying what is in my fat stores. I don’t want to have to track calories and restrict them while being hungry. It is hard for people who don’t react to carbs that way to understand, so I try to explain it in a calorie-balance way.
In his case, he has some inflammation issues that keto might help improve, but it isn’t anything he is interested in trying. I think it was one of Kelly Hogan’s YouTube videos where she mentioned her mentor telling her “the lucky ones get fat” meaning we have an incentive to start looking for healthier ways of eating early. After gaining a lot of weight in my 20s, finding Atkins and Protein Power back in the 90s was helpful and even though I didn’t always stay consistently on a plan, getting back to some form of low carb on occasion has kept my weight from ever getting back up to my highest high.
If he won’t go keto, would he at least consider switching from seed oils to animal fats? The reason is that seed oils have a large percentage of polyunsaturated fats, and a high percentage of those are ω-6, which though essential, are inflammatory when overconsumed. Animal fats are mostly saturated and mono-unsaturated. If he’d be willing to switch, that would remove at least one source of systemic inflammation.
He doesn’t like to eat a lot of fat in general. (That does mean I get his extra ribeye fat that he trims off - yum!) He gets some seed oils from salad dressings and sesame oil, but not large amounts. And unlike me, does not have a sweets addiction issue except for a cola habit, and does not snack between meals. For him, perhaps dropping the colas and the more processed starches like bread and pizza might be the most beneficial upgrade, as keto would be difficult for someone who has trouble eating high fat. One can make suggestions, but people have to be ready to try things. I can just try to set a good example by successfully achieving my own goals.
That sounds like a good plan.
I just want to make a comment, though, if you’ll forgive me. Keto isn’t about all the fat we can eat; it’s about replacing the lost energy from carbohydrate with energy from fat instead. And fat is more energy-dense, so 1200 calories represents 300 g of carbohydrate, but only 133 g of fat. I don’t know how much fat he’s eating now, of course, but perhaps the goal might be easier to reach than we’ve been thinking. Or perhaps not; you know him best.
Thanks Paul! Yeah, I do understand keto is not about trying to eat a ton of fat. For him, even moderate amounts of fat don’t feel good. I assume that it is because he has eaten lower fat for so long that perhaps his body doesn’t have the amount of enzymes to process larger amounts efficiently, so he would probably need to ramp up slowly if he did want to start eating more fat. Since he isn’t going to be getting enough energy from fat, he will still have to get it from carbs, but at least he could choose the healthiest carbs. Also, he isn’t asking me for dietary advice so this is all theoretical and I gently suggest things, but I try not to nag, as it is counterproductive.
As before, there can be relatively shorter-term energy differentials, as with gaining/losing heat. But over the long term, steady weight has equal ins and outs for energy. If not, where would the discrepancy lie?
And if that’s Kevin Hall, he’s shown a severe bias against ketogenic eating, and poor research methods, such as studying ridiculously short periods of response to diet - putting people on keto for 6 days, for example, and then postuating that the observed effects will extend into weeks and months. The fact is that fat-adaptation, etc., can require much longer time.
Well of course.
“If” - but who says it’s really that way? It does sound like that would be a contradiction, but this is just a claim from the author, a hypothetical at best. This smacks of a strawman argument. In reality, we know that fat mass has a much lower energy and oxygen consumption than muscle, for example.
The premise is weight stability. (How can fat mass be “at the same time stable and decreasing”?)
What makes sense is that fat mass would be increasing. Again - the premise is mass and energy stability. If VO2 is decreasing (again, this is a premise here), and weight is stable with increasing fat mass, then fat gain and muscle loss is by far the most likely explanation.
And nothing here addresses the glaring neglect of insulin’s effects and the implications of the author ignoring the ‘out’ side while focusing on the mass differentials of fat and carbs on the ‘in’ side.
Indeed - the body needs to feel that it has to take fat out of storage. Low insulin (among other things) sets the stage for this. Then, it takes an energy deficit to make it happen.
Eat less move more works (as long as you do it), Michael. Most of the world isn’t obese, and does fine on that score. Granted that many people - especially on a high-carb diet - have troubles, even severe troubles with it. Storage, almost entirely usually fat storage, has always been part of this - and if somebody can’t figure that out, then good grief…
Now hang on here, Hoss. It’s certainly upstream of energy going out.
Energy in is a given. We eat what we eat. Fat loss on keto or anything else depends on the body needing more energy, being able to access the fat stores, and thus removing fat from storage. Keto itself is just something some people do.
He doesn’t refute it. We are in the time when anybody can write something, and pay money to get it on the internet. He did that, with an article that is not remotely even ready for peer review. He has outright falsehoods in there, and illogical, meaningless hypotheticals. He does do a lot of mathematics afterwards, but it’s like a long equation where early on you divide by zero - after that you can make all sorts of weird, normally impossible things happen.
He needs to get rid of the incorrect things, and do a massive clean-up of his logic. He words things so there is superficial plausibility, especially for people who haven’t really been paying attention, but closer examination negates his conclusions. Then, his article needs to get peer-reviewed. At that point, we should take a look at it.
He apparently comes up with “missing energy” when one’s weight is stable. So, where does he say that energy goes?
Over a long enough time, yes.
So here is one of those things that he says that is deceptive. “Does not require” - okay, but it also does not rule it out. Peer-review will flag silly stuff like that.
There is no need anyway - the First Law of Thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems. We know that human beings are open systems, and the First Law still applies. People often read a snippet that beings with “In a closed system…” Well, all fine and good, but that is not saying that the First Law does not apply to open systems. The most basic expression of the First Law is “The total energy in a system remains constant.” There isn’t energy magically appearing or disappearing. We’re part of a larger system than ourselves - the entire universe if you will - and energy isn’t just “lost” or “found” as the author pretends, i.e. the claim that with mass stability energy is in a persistent negative or positive state. If somebody isn’t measuring things correctly, then they might conclude such things, but physics says no.
Shame on the author for the stuff he does. And shame on Eades for not at least seeing the glaring contradiction to what he says about it. Eat fat instead of carbs - less mass for the energy, yes. And somehow Eades is entranced by this. The obvious point - one I made even before watching the video - is that that effect is reversed on the ‘out’ side. If you are burning fat instead of carbs, then you are getting rid of less than half the mass you would be with carbs.