The New Low Carb Trend

[Al Doggity]

This vid is from a channel called What I've Learned. The guy does some interesting, well-researched videos on food and physiology.

I knew that fat got villified in the late 70s, but video has an interesting segment on how low carb, high protein/ fat diets are reliable fat loss programs is an idea that goes all the way back to the 1800s.

[Al Doggity]

Since it's not worth a new thread, just thought I'd post that I agree with his videos that say a calorie is not a calorie.  One of the most non-debatable examples being alcohol.

Weight loss/ muscle gain is based more on hormone balance than calories.

[wes]

I been telling people for well over 10 years now....................C YCLE YOUR FUCKING CARBS................... .IT WORKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111

[friedchickendinner]

Just run for 10 hours a day and you can eat anything

[joswift]

i only eat meat and dairy, I am in shape at around 10% BF and I haven't even counted a calorie or gone hungry.

All I need to do now now to prep for a show is cut out my 500 cals of yoghurt I eat every day.

[wes]

i only eat meat and dairy, I am in shape at around 10% BF and I haven't even counted a calorie or gone hungry.

All I need to do now now to prep for a show is cut out my 500 cals of yoghurt I eat every day.

Most basic format............caloie s invs. caloies out

Some guys act like it`s fucking rocket cience.

[JuicedKangaroo]

Since it's not worth a new thread, just thought I'd post that I agree with his videos that say a calorie is not a calorie.  One of the most non-debatable examples being alcohol.

Weight loss/ muscle gain is based more on hormone balance than calories.

 

[Al Doggity]

Most basic format............caloie s invs. caloies out

Some guys act like it`s fucking rocket cience.

There's a lot of compelling arguments against this. The idea of monitoring calories - specifically calories- is pretty recent. Even within your own eating/dieting/training, you probably have observed plenty of examples of that not really holding up, even if it wasn't immediately obvious to you.

[JuicedKangaroo]

There's a lot of compelling arguments against this. The idea of monitoring calories - specifically calories- is pretty recent. Even within your own eating/dieting/training, you probably have observed plenty of examples of that not really holding up, even if it wasn't immediately obvious to you.

What does this even mean - can you elaborate?

[Al Doggity]

What does this even mean - can you elaborate?

Sure- first I'll post these videos. This one is from the guy in my opening post.  It goes into some theories how calories are burned and studies that document how the body adjusts for calories burned when the amount of food we consume changes.

&t=30s
[/quote][/youtube]


This is a long one and I doubt anyone will watch the whole thing, but this doctor is the guy who kicked off the whole intermittent fasting trend. A lot of the original science behind intermittent fasting was that it manipulates your hormone balance. It's long, but if you're the type of person who will ask "Well, what about this?"  a million times, it's worth watching through.

If you search "hormones vs calories" on youtube, there's a  lot of videos that lay out the basic premise.


Mind you, I'm completely aware that just because something is considered "science" doesn't make it valid, but a lot of the arguments surrounding hormone balance vs calorie intake do make logical sense to  me.

[loco]

Al Doggity and the videos he posted here ain't lying.

[Al Doggity]

A few thing I've read over the years have tipped me in the direction of hormones playing a bigger part than activity or calorie consumption. (Or, more accurately, a bigger part than we commonly attribute to them.)

One of the biggest things is this study:
https://magazine.scienceconnected.org/2016/03/more-exercise-doesnt-always-burn-more-calories/

A team conducted an international study and found that people who are moderately active burn about the same amount of calories in a day as people who are extremely active. The study concludes that it might be because the body subconsciously limits extraneous activity like fidgeting when you perform intensive activity, but to me it seems like clear support of hormone balance  affecting calorie burn.

Another one is this:
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/27593253/why-grandmasters-magnus-carlsen-fabiano-caruana-lose-weight-playing-chess

It's a story on how high level chess players can burn thousands of calories a day during competition. There was one big multi-day tournament that was cancelled midway through a few years ago because one of the competitors had lost so much weight. The calorie expenditure isn't due to activity but to stress responses. To me that's more proof that hormone changes are the main driving force in weight loss.

This isn't to say activity is completely unimportant, because our activities affect our  hormones.

Another thing not really backed by science, but I started a thread a little while ago questioning the idea that micro tears are the driving force in increasing muscle size.  I think that sounds like bullshit.  I haven't been able to find any legitimate science-backed sources that claim this is how you build muscle. A few reasons this theory sounds like bullshit to me- young men in naturally gain muscle in our teen years without "breaking down" muscle. If you stop training for a little bit and your muscles atrophy, when you start training again, you can get back to where you were in a matter of weeks. Steroid users have been documented to gain muscle without even training. There were more reasons in the thread.  Point being, it sounds like gaining muscle is more about hormone changes than tearing anything down.

[Al Doggity]

Al Doggity and the videos he posted here ain't lying.

I gotta say, your posts have made me re-think  some of what I thought I knew about diet. I've never been in bad shape, but as I've gotten older I've been more concerned about following a "healthy diet".  The things you've posted about veg-based diets have been eye-opening.

[nzgs]

Low carb isn't a "trend" it's how humans evolved and how people with food choices chose to eat until the last century. The idea of carbs being a significant part of the diet is a very modern trend originating partly from religious ideology (7th day adventists) and corporate lobbying of government to promote highly profitable plant foods like vegetable oils and grains.

[JuicedKangaroo]

I had a feeling you would post Jason Fung on this thread eventually. I'm familiar with him, some would say a former fan of his back when I too would strawman against the reality of calories in versus calories out. I wouldn't go as far as to call him a charlatan, but he does have an incentive for people to gobble up this insulin model of obesity (books to sell)!

There are numerous studies comparing keto and non-keto diets, under tightly controlled settings that show no difference in actual fat loss. Remember, higher fat oxidation rates are expected when your diet is largely comprised of fats.

Low carbohydrate versus isoenergetic balanced diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25007189

Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.

KLC (ketogenic, low-carbohydrate) and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046

Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men.

The isocaloric KD was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE that were near the limits of detection with the use of state-of-the-art technology. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01967563.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385608

However, the best study would be the below:

No Significant Effect of Dietary Carbohydrate versus Fat on the Reduction in Total Energy Expenditure During Maintenance of Lost Weight: A Secondary Analysis

In other words, when conducting the analysis originally planned by the authors we found that the significant increases in TEE with the low carbohydrate diet that were reported by Ebbeling et al. disappeared. Furthermore, the TEE effect modification by baseline insulin secretion also disappeared.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/476655v1

This was a follow-up study to the Effects of a low carbohydrate diet on energy expenditure during weight loss maintenance: randomized trial which you can read here: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583

Scientific literature aside, I would urge you to experiment yourself with both carb and no/low-carb diets and see how you fare. But remember, for your conclusion to have any meaning; net caloric intake must be controlled!

You will never find a study showing a preference for ketosis from a metabolic perspective, as long as the caloric deficit is equated. The thing is people (self included) will cut carbs and suddenly be consuming far less food, creating an even greater deficit. The foolish among us conclude "ha, I cut carbs and didn't worry about calories, therefore it's all a matter of insulin and calories don't matter!"

I even took this a step further, doing keto but with caloric intake above my maintenance. Despite being keto, I still gained weight - insulin secretion is not reliant on only carbs!

[loco]

I gotta say, your posts have made me re-think  some of what I thought I knew about diet. I've never been in bad shape, but as I've gotten older I've been more concerned about following a "healthy diet".  The things you've posted about veg-based diets have been eye-opening.

Same thing happened to me.  For many years I was a low fat, high carb, high fiber, moderate protein, calorie counting, food weighing evangelist.  I've always been in good shape, and in good health.

But then I saw the light, about a year ago.   To convince me, it took watching videos and reading articles about low carb, keto, and carnivore diets from real medical doctors and scientists who have successfully treated thousands of patients using these diets, with little to no exercise, and without calorie counting or weighing food.

Now that I've seen the results myself, there's no going back for me.

[JuicedKangaroo]

Another thing not really backed by science, but I started a thread a little while ago questioning the idea that micro tears are the driving force in increasing muscle size.  I think that sounds like bullshit.  I haven't been able to find any legitimate science-backed sources that claim this is how you build muscle. A few reasons this theory sounds like bullshit to me- young men in naturally gain muscle in our teen years without "breaking down" muscle. If you stop training for a little bit and your muscles atrophy, when you start training again, you can get back to where you were in a matter of weeks. Steroid users have been documented to gain muscle without even training. There were more reasons in the thread.  Point being, it sounds like gaining muscle is more about hormone changes than tearing anything down.

Yeah, sounds like bullshit to me too. There is no evidence, published or anecdotal that supports muscle damage as being a driving force of hypertrophy. I'm more inclined to think the opposite, that muscle damage is detrimental for growth.

We have known about the science of hypertrophy since the 70s, thanks to Russian researchers. Some level of volume at high-tension contractions! Volume plays a role, but only when mechanical tension is present. Then you get the biomechanical PI3K/AKT/mTOR chain of reactions that follow!

[loco]

Scientific literature aside, I would urge you to experiment yourself with both carb and no/low-carb diets and see how you fare. But remember, for your conclusion to have any meaning; net caloric intake must be controlled!

You will never find a study showing a preference for ketosis from a metabolic perspective, as long as the caloric deficit is equated. The thing is people (self included) will cut carbs and suddenly be consuming far less food, creating an even greater deficit. The foolish among us conclude "ha, I cut carbs and didn't worry about calories, therefore it's all a matter of insulin and calories don't matter!"

I even took this a step further, doing keto but with caloric intake above my maintenance. Despite being keto, I still gained weight - insulin secretion is not reliant on only carbs!

I don't believe anyone is arguing the need for a calorie deficit in order to lose body fat.  But there's the fact that on a low carb diet, people just stop being hungry.  Most end up eating only 1 or 2 meals a day.  Some can even go 24 hours or longer without eating, without hunger.

This makes achieving that calorie deficit a lot easier, and more fun.

[JuicedKangaroo]

I don't believe anyone is arguing the need for a calorie deficit in order to lose body fat.  But there's the fact that on a low carb diet, people just stop being hungry.  Most end up eating only 1 or 2 meals a day.  Some can even go 24 hours or longer without eating, without hunger.

This makes achieving that calorie deficit a lot easier, and more fun.

That's good, but you'd be shocked how many people conclude that a caloric deficit somehow doesn't exist simply because carbs were removed.

I enjoyed keto-style eating, wasn't very hungry and when eating intuitively, calories were sub 2,000 I was that full! But, my digestion is terrible with high fats - I end up using more toilet paper than Nasser.

[Thin Lizzy]

Is there any sport in which the athletes want to be carb depleted on the day of the performance? I can’t think of any.

[Al Doggity]

I had a feeling you would post Jason Fung on this thread eventually. I'm familiar with him, some would say a former fan of his back when I too would strawman against the reality of calories in versus calories out. I wouldn't go as far as to call him a charlatan, but he does have an incentive for people to gobble up this insulin model of obesity (books to sell)!

There are numerous studies comparing keto and non-keto diets, under tightly controlled settings that show no difference in actual fat loss. Remember, higher fat oxidation rates are expected when your diet is largely comprised of fats.

LOL I hesitated to post Fung, but I risked it becoming a wankfest because I couldn't tell from your post if you were familiar with any of these concepts.

Obviously that wasn't the case haha. So, firstly, I'm not a Fung disciple , but I do think some of the  principles he espouses explains phenomena others have observed that I discuss in my latter post.  When I said there was compelling evidence against this, I wasn't talking so much about eating less to lose weight and being a proponent of keto. Sometimes when you have these discussions, you start off at a point where you have preconceived notions about what people on the other side may be thinking, and I was thinking more of the timeless calorie is a calorie debate (which I don't agree with. I don't think calories are completely fungible.) and the idea that some people have that you can outwork a bad diet. That wasn't necessarily what others were thinking.



I don't know if you're familiar with my posts, but I actually am the type of guy who will read studies someone else posts (if only to dispute them), but in this case I opted not to. Not because  they're not worth reading, but because nutrition studies are all over the place. Here's a list of studies that favor  low carb diets over low fat diets.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section1


As loco said, higher fat diets tend to be more enjoyable. Both of the videos discuss satiety and how your body responds to calorie restriction, so I was coming from a position more of how your body maintains the diet. 



I feel like this could be a long and meandering post, so I will cut do something rare and cut myself short unless there's a point anyone would like me to defend, but there was something in your post that struck me:

Remember, higher fat oxidation rates are expected when your diet is largely comprised of fats.

I've never heard this before, but this is something that is interesting info.

[Thin Lizzy]

The most enjoyable foods are both high carb and high fat. Didn’t you start a thread once about lasagna being the best food?

I don’t deny going low carb is an excellent way to lose body fat but for most it’s just not sustainable long-term.

[a_pupil]

i only eat meat and dairy, I am in shape at around 10% BF and I haven't even counted a calorie or gone hungry.

All I need to do now now to prep for a show is cut out my 500 cals of yoghurt I eat every day.

what's a normal day's diet?

been thinking of trying out carnivore for a few months. It makes it more palatable if you can have dairy like milk and cheese.

another thing that put me off was the people saying it had to be raw milk etc. It's too much of an inconvenience sourcing that kind of stuff.

[Al Doggity]

The most enjoyable foods are both high carb and high fat. Didn’t you start a thread once about lasagna being the best food?

I don’t deny going low carb is an excellent way to lose body fat but for most it’s just not sustainable long-term.

I love lasagna. Most people who are familiar with my posts on this board probably first think of my award winning junk foodity reviews and a lot of those things are carb based.

But, as I near 40,  I'm looking for optimal, sustainable diet with occasional indulgences.  My thing is not just losing body fat, but maintaining health sustainably.  I'm only human, so of course moderation is going to factor into it.  And maybe there's not a perfect diet, but there's no harm in exchanging info and experimenting.

[Mr Anabolic]

Most basic format............caloie s invs. caloies out

Some guys act like it`s fucking rocket cience.

In a nutshell, this is basically it.  Fat people simply eat too much.