Too much food


(Old Baconian) #61

No, I’m saying we don’t need to count calories, because our appetite hormones will take care of setting our appetite at the proper level. Unless our hormonal system is completely broken, of course.

Before this whole argument gets rehashed yet again, let me stress that no one is denying the validity of the Second Law of Thermondynamics, we are simply saying that intentionally cutting calories is not a productive way to work with the human body. Of course if you lose fat it means you ate less energy than you expended, we’re simply saying that you ate less because your body was in weight loss mode, which is the opposite of saying that you forced your body into weight loss mode by cutting calories. The latter situation doesn’t usually work for very long, because the body reacts by cutting energy expenditure to match intake.

I don’t know all the mechanisms, but weight and body composition are pretty tightly regulated; ketosis and fatty acid metabolism are by no means the full story.

There are probably ways I could force my body to shed more fat, but why would I want to? I’ve reversed my metabolic dysfunction, my fatigue syndrome is in abeyance, I can wipe my butt, I can climb up and down stairs, I can get down on the floor and get back up without having to plan for half an hour how to achieve that. And in the process, my waistline shrank by over four inches and I reached my Phinney weight. Trying to go any further would involve a lot of hard work I’m not interested in doing.

Our body typically stops using our fat stores for fuel when the excess stored fat has all been shed.

Now, in the case of Phinney’s imaginary patient, that happened when her body fat reached around 22% (which is supposed to be average for women). Mine happened at a far greater fat percentage, but who am I to argue with my body?

It doesn’t seem to be, in my experience. I have more energy now, at four years into this way of eating, than I did before embarking on a ketogenic diet. Keto would probably have given me even more energy, but a flu-type virus I contracted in October 2006 left me with a type of chronic fatigue syndrome. So while I don’t experience the great energy levels people talk about on these forums, keto has brought me up to feeling like my pre-2006 normal. For me, no longer having to rest up for two or three days after exerting myself (say, to mow the lawn) is simply wonderful. So no complaints here.


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #62

Misunderstanding thermodynamic energy balance is not why CICO is bollocks. CICO is bollocks because it ignores the second law of thermodynamics which is what determines what happens and how between gross energy in and gross energy out. The gross in/out is just a subset of what’s happening overall.



38%20PM


21%20PM

@OldDoug has arguments against all this. But I’ll take Richard Feinman’s view:

A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general principle would be a violation of the second law. Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true “miraculous metabolic effect” – but it is subject to many exceptions. The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law. The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected . Thus, ironically the dictum that a “calorie is a calorie” violates the second law of thermodynamics , as a matter of principle.


(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #63

Dear Gail,

I skimmed the comments above and note that it’s become a discussion of the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis vs the so-called “calories in/calories out” hypothesis. Eric Westman and all the other godfathers of keto agree that calories count but we don’t need to count calories, but it’s not an important discussion for the purposes of this thread, imho.

I’d have thought the most important thing was to answer your question. I’m not sure if it’s been said, but the key rule is to eat when you’re hungry, and stop when you’re satiated. So if you’re not hungry, don’t worry about “lunch time.” In fact, if you’re not hungry at breakfast, don’t eat then either. Just wait till you get hungry. You will! And when you’re hungry, eat low carb foods. Don’t portion control, eat till you’re satiated. Then don’t eat till you get hungry again. Rinse and repeat.

That’s basically the crux of it. Again, I can’t emphasise this enough: if you’re not hungry at “lunchtime,” don’t force yourself to eat something.

Hope this helps.

Gabe


#64

If you’re looking for other people to take the view from/of, there’s the other Richard Feynman (the physicist; they’re two different people). Not sure if dieting was his field of expertise, though. People can make great contributions in one field and make mistakes in another.


#65

So, in a cutting calories diet one cuts calories, then the body loses fat. But eventually it stops working, the weightloss stops, because the body cuts the energy expenditure to match intake.

  1. cutting calories
  2. weight loss (but not “weight loss mode”), because of calorie deficit (CI < CO)
  3. body learns to expend less and weightloss stops. Blame the diet.

In a ketogenic diet, no counting calories (but counting carbs). Less insulin and the body will naturally enter weight loss mode, therefore the person will naturally eat less.

  1. cutting carbs
  2. “weight loss mode” => person cuts calories without having to count, as a natural thing that happens when in “weight loss mode”
  3. weight loss due to calorie deficit (CI < CO)
  4. body goes out of “weight loss mode” and it’s ok, because our bodies know better, I’m just silly if I ask why. Don’t blame the diet!

Isn’t it just a matter of admitting that all diets fail, including keto, because our bodies eventually find workarounds to keep the excess?

I personally think a keto WOE is good for me and for lots of people whose BG regulatory system doesn’t work properly anymore. It’s our tool for damage control. We may, or may not lose some weight in the process. And as long as we can keep it rigorously, it’ll help us delay high BG problems. And that’s fantastic. Not a cure, but a treatment we’ll follow for life. Much better than end up taking medicines!

If in addition to the very low carb treatment diet we do also abstain from eating bad fats and other bad stuff, we may get extra benefits, like less inflammation, perhaps.

Since with the change in diet those who had a lot of excess weight will lose some (like with all diets), anyway all pains will see some improvement, since one’s carrying less of a load around. Like a backpacker who puts the backpack down at night. It’s a relief for back, neck, knees, feet…

As for weightloss, unfortunately, it’ll just meet the same limitations of any other diet. It starts very promising, mainly for men who carry a lot of excess. Less so for people who already have less excess fat. Like all diets.


(Doug) #66

Indeed - we’re evolutionarily constructed to avoid starvation (to a fault, for many of us :smile:).

“Blaming” CICO usually involves denying the “calories out” part. I don’t think anybody has to count calories - but hey, if one is interested in it for its own sake, likes the data, etc., then cool.

Going out of weight loss mode - yeah, it happens for many people, regardless of diet. I think keto has a frequent advantage in that it brings more stable blood sugar, avoiding reactive hypoglycemia and the urge to snack, and greater overall satiety, on average.

I think that’s too much of a generalization. The degree to which a given person will struggle with desired weight loss will vary, keto or not. I do think keto gives a greater chance for success, and that on average it’s sustainable for a longer period of time than most diets (based on satiety alone).


(Doug) #67

Thank you, Paul. :slightly_smiling_face:

Michael, CICO is just fine with that law; in no way does that argue against it. CICO reflects the 2nd law.

CICO is not saying that all calories are the same, regardless of the mix of macronutrients.

The gross in and out is the whole deal. Intake, storage if any, metabolism and waste/excretion. That’s all there is, and that’s true regardless of what one eats.

If fat loss is desired, then we want to configure things so the ‘out’ is more than the ‘in.’ To that end, eating less carbohydrates may well be advantageous for some people, but that is not in defiance of CICO, but rather because of it.


(Old Baconian) #68

I don’t believe so, because the 80 lbs./36 kg I lost has stayed off for four years. This is the only way of eating for which that has been true for me. I don’t consider that a failure. You, on the other hand, might consider me a failure for not trying to shed a further 80 lbs./36 kg.

Yet I would disagree with that assessment, too, because my primary goal all along was not weight loss, but the restoration of metabolic health, and that goal I have achieved and maintained for four years. If I had not achieved this goal, I’d be looking for another way of eating, regardless of how much fat I’d shed.

It needs to be remembered that a ketogenic diet is primarily a metabolic-restoration diet, with fat loss as a highly pleasant side effect. The fact that many people turn to such a diet as a way of shedding excess fat doesn’t actually alter this fact. The weight normalisation is the result of the restoration of metabolic balance, not the reverse.


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #69

This topic is relevant and @richard has linked lots of study/analysis to chew on. Plenty of excellent comments and responses as well.

My comments may also be somewhat pertinent:
here
here
here


(Old Baconian) #70

Let’s not rehash the same old argument yet again in yet another thread, please.


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #71

PS: Redirect. Not Re Hash.


(Ivy) #72

Is strained greek yogurt okay in some specific amount? What amount? I have strained greek yogi which is why im asking

I tried to give it to a roommate, but Im guessing I can take it back. Plus i dont think they want it strained.

Its organic & 4g sugar per 2/3 cup. Lowest sugar i could find anywhere


(Ivy) #73

im not lucky to deal with the muscle loss, but im willing to go thru with it


(Laurie) #74

@IvyKCKO Sorry I can’t answer your question on Greek yogurt. I buy yogurt based on fat content – at least 9% fat. Most (not all) “Greek” yogurt is low fat. The carb count can be confusing, as the acidophilus and other bacteria in the yogurt eat some of the carbs.

I do strain my yogurt. To me, it is more useful and tastes better that way.


(Ivy) #75

So any greek yogurt is allowed on keto is what you mean kinda


(Laurie) #76

No, I mean I ignore the word “Greek.”

The fat content if yogurt is clearly marked. If it’s less than 9%, I don’t buy it. Also, if it has any added ingredients (sugar, flavorings, starch, gelatin, or gums), I don’t buy it.

I buy plain, high-fat yogurt. I turn it into “Greek” yogurt by straining it myself. I use a paper coffee filter; there are other methods.


(Old Baconian) #77

If you are actually losing muscle, then you are not eating enough protein. Be sure to eat at least as much as 1.0 g per kg of lean body mass per day, so as to retain your muscle mass. You might even need more protein than that.

And because a lot of newcomers get confused by this, forgive me for reminding you that to get 1.0 g of protein, you need at least 4.0 g of most meats. Or if you are dealing in traditional measures, a rough rule of thumb is that each ounce of meat contains about 7 g of protein.


(Ivy) #78

I eat at 1.5, so thats over that. I cant exactly be sure of loss 100% tho fat is definitely covering where it ‘was’

Would I push eating at bodyweight to make sure?


(Old Baconian) #79

Our standard advice is to eat low carbohydrate (under 20 g/day by preference), a reasonable amount of protein (1.0-1.5 g/kg LBM/day is our recommended range), and fat to satiety. I highly recommend trying that for at least eight weeks before drawing any conclusions.

I keep advising you to do this, and it doesn’t appear to be what you are doing, judging from all your posts with all the different questions, so I don’t know what else to advise you. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that your sole purpose for joining these forums is simply to yank our chains. Time will tell about that, I suppose.

What have you got to lose? If you take our advice and it doesn’t yield the results you want, you can always return to the standard Western diet of highly processed, high-carb, low-fat foods.


(Ivy) #80

For some reason I didnt read anywhere – the 8 weeks part
The other part I get