PDA

View Full Version : And the debate rages on....



Fenbay
10-14-2003, 02:39 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/14/lowcarb.mystery.ap/index.html

I still think for an animal as complex as we are that it's quite possible calorie in/calorie out is not a viable argument.

I think macronutrients can be affected differently by the myriad hormones, etc in the human body such that some are excremented first rather than stored etc. Anyways, an interesting read imo.

WillKuenzel
10-14-2003, 02:44 PM
Pretty interesting. I'd like to see the whole study.

galileo
10-14-2003, 04:00 PM
When they say "weight" I say no ****. Put me on high-carb average american diet for 2 weeks, weigh me, then put me on ketogenic diet and I'll show you phenomenal weight loss in a few days time. I'll look into the study if I can find it.

There is no reason I can see that a ketogenic diet would yield better fatloss than other diet options. Unless one option is high-GI carbs and high-fat with low protein. Insulin stops lypolysis, so I guess at that point you're going to get subpar results.

bradley
10-14-2003, 04:31 PM
Sure the keto group lost more "weight" but did the study adjust for the initial water weight that was lost on the keto diet? The keto group lost 23lbs. where the balanced group lost 1lbs, which equals a difference of 6lbs. This sounds about right as far as the initial water weight that would be lost when starting a keto diet. I am aware this was a 12 week study, but if water weight was never accounted for then it would carry over for the duration of the study.

A calorie is a unit of heat, and according to the Law of Thermodynamics heat cannot be created or destroyed, so to say that a calorie is not a calorie is not a valid argument. Some calories are better than others, and can change the calories out part of the equation olive oil, fish oil, etc. Also the thermic effect of feeding could play a small role, but to say it would make a significant difference would be a subject of debate.

I agree with Galileo, in that I have not seen any solid proof that following a keto diet will yield better results than a balanced diet, assuming essential macros are accounted for. If anyone has a detailed study stating otherwise I would be very interested in reading it.

Holto
10-14-2003, 05:10 PM
I don't know how they can consider it a study on body composition if they don't even determine the subjects body composition

thats bogus

Holto
10-14-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Fenbay
[B
I still think for an animal as complex as we are that it's quite possible calorie in/calorie out is not a viable argument. [/B]

we may be complex but the laws of Thermodynamics are quite simple to understand and relate to nutrition

if a calorie is not burned it will be stored

it has no way to get out of the body

on the other side of thr coin your body can't burn a cal it dosen't have

galileo
10-14-2003, 05:39 PM
There are a few things wrong with applying basic laws of thermodynamics to fat loss.

* Your body has more functions than just using calories for energy or storing them as fat. The magic storage unit I refer to is glycogen.
* In times of extreme under or overfeeding, your body makes many significant changes which can allow for less/more energy expenditure. This means that although the laws still apply, they aren't as predictable as (maintenance - calories in) * 7 = calories burned.

In response to your "can't burn a cal it doesn't have" comment, you are correct. There is a state in which your body has no calories left to burn and it's called death. Otherwise, it'll find a way.

galileo
10-14-2003, 08:30 PM
With all that said, I was able to lose 2lbs of fat and maintian my body weight for 3 weeks straight with a total caloric deficit of 1600kcal per week. Yes, there is more to it that in vs out.

JuniorMint6669
10-15-2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by galileo
With all that said, I was able to lose 2lbs of fat and maintian my body weight for 3 weeks straight with a total caloric deficit of 1600kcal per week. Yes, there is more to it that in vs out.

Not to doubt you, because you are my hero, but your "maintainance" calories is constantly changing, based on your activity. And im guessing those depletion workouts are insanely demanding, calorically speaking. You may have been only 1600 calories under what your maintainance was before you started UD2.0, but you may have been 3500 calories under your UD2.0 maintainance.

bradley
10-15-2003, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by galileo
There are a few things wrong with applying basic laws of thermodynamics to fat loss.

* Your body has more functions than just using calories for energy or storing them as fat. The magic storage unit I refer to is glycogen.

This is still a function of calories in/calories out, in the long run anyway. Whether your body stores the cals as fat or glycogen, used as energy (heat production, etc.), it still comes down to calories in/calories out. Although I agree that it is not as simple as (calories consumed - calories burned = weight loss/weight gain) when referring to one day. Looking at the larger picture would give a more accurate understanding, i.e. over the course of a couple of days.



* In times of extreme under or overfeeding, your body makes many significant changes which can allow for less/more energy expenditure. This means that although the laws still apply, they aren't as predictable as (maintenance - calories in) * 7 = calories burned.

Agreed

bradley
10-15-2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by galileo
With all that said, I was able to lose 2lbs of fat and maintian my body weight for 3 weeks straight with a total caloric deficit of 1600kcal per week. Yes, there is more to it that in vs out.

How does prove there is more to it than cals in/cals out? It is still the same general idea, although it is presented in a more complex manner, in reference to the UD 2.0 diet. You are still eating under maintenance for X amount of days and at or above maintenance for X amount of day (without getting into the specifics of the Lyle's book). This still leaves you with a net calorie deficit at the end of the week.

galileo
10-15-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by JuniorMint6669
Not to doubt you, because you are my hero, but your "maintainance" calories is constantly changing, based on your activity. And im guessing those depletion workouts are insanely demanding, calorically speaking. You may have been only 1600 calories under what your maintainance was before you started UD2.0, but you may have been 3500 calories under your UD2.0 maintainance.

I agree to an extent. It's less maintenance calories changing, but changing what your body needs to do with those calories that come in. If you force it to use them for something other that the simple premise of "weight gain/loss" then it's not simple. As far as the workouts go, they are somewhat demanding, but it would be difficult to show they account for a five thousand calories or so. The reason the diet works is because it is burning fat when you want it to and not using excess calories to replace the fat that's removed through supercompensation. It's very similar to a standard cyclic diet that includes refeeds, except much more extreme and takes better advantage of these "loopholes" in the system.


Originally posted by bradley
This is still a function of calories in/calories out, in the long run anyway. Whether your body stores the cals as fat or glycogen, used as energy (heat production, etc.), it still comes down to calories in/calories out. Although I agree that it is not as simple as (calories consumed - calories burned = weight loss/weight gain) when referring to one day. Looking at the larger picture would give a more accurate understanding, i.e. over the course of a couple of days.

What I'm saying is exactly what you're saying. It is not just that simple. You can't take a set caloric point and say with X deficit I will lose Y weight. It's all about your body reacting to the environment you've created for it. That's why you can not use blanket statements such as in vs. out to describe weight loss.


Originally posted by bradley
How does prove there is more to it than cals in/cals out? ... This still leaves you with a net calorie deficit at the end of the week.

Yes, the net weekly deficit was 1600 (+workouts), like I said. Which is a lot less than 2lbs of fat. Even with the exercise it is no where near 7000kcal for the week. Especially given I weigh exactly the same today as I did the day I started the diet and I have been off of it for 4 days (normal isocaloric style). If you want to break it down day to day you can easily shows that in the end there is a lage enough deficit for fat loss at the right times and an excess for replenishment at the right times. Calories don't appear or disappear through any magic, but it kind of takes away from the "simple in vs out" for the week, like we both said [sort of].

All in all, my point was and is : You can't make such elementary statements to describe a complex system. Sure, your body's foundation relies on some basic principles, but you can't just say that someone can't lose 1lb of fat without a weekly deficit of 3500 calories. We all know that you can't create or destroy energy (within our limitations, heh), but there are ways to trick your body and fat loss is not always determined by a weekly net deficit.

Fenbay
10-15-2003, 07:44 AM
This is a little detour from the main topic, but this thread is what got me wondering this:

Calories in/ Calories out and the law of thermodynamics....

If you ate a 1000 calories meal and had indigestion and therefor did not absorb all of the caloric benefit of the food via a quick exit from the bowels you didn't break the law of thermodynamics because those calories were still lost from the body, right?

Is it possible that a higher fat/protein meal just makes one absorb less of the calories in the first place compared to a carbohydrate meal?

galileo
10-15-2003, 07:57 AM
I've noticed that eating some fats (fish oil caps...grrr) in high volumes will cause them to go through your system quickly and seemingly intact. Not sure if the passed oil is digested fully, partially, or not at all.

bradley
10-15-2003, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Fenbay
If you ate a 1000 calories meal and had indigestion and therefor did not absorb all of the caloric benefit of the food via a quick exit from the bowels you didn't break the law of thermodynamics because those calories were still lost from the body, right?

Is it possible that a higher fat/protein meal just makes one absorb less of the calories in the first place compared to a carbohydrate meal?

In general your body is very effecient at absorbing the food you consume. The absorption rate for fat is somewhere around 95%, protein ~90%, and carbs would be dependant on the type (fiber content being the main variable).

aka23
10-15-2003, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Fenbay
Is it possible that a higher fat/protein meal just makes one absorb less of the calories in the first place compared to a carbohydrate meal?

A higher fat/protein diet may burn extra calories from wasting energy when converting fat to ketones and using ketones as fuel. The body makes less than 7 calories worth of usable energy per gram of ketones, perhaps as little as 4.5 cal/g, and about 9 calories per gram of free fatty acids. This would be more of an issue during the early weeks of such a diet when ketones are used more significantly.

Holto
10-15-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by galileo
[B]What I'm saying is exactly what you're saying. It is not just that simple. You can't take a set caloric point and say with X deficit I will lose Y weight.

* nobody is saying this, nor have I ever heard it said

It's all about your body reacting to the environment you've created for it.

* it can change the calories out side of the eqation by slowing production of TSH etc...

all of these factors are pretty straightforward