Support NeoGAF

[Sectorseven]

Chicken & broccoli every meal. You'll look great!

Spoiler

Of course, you'll be dead on the inside.

 

[entremet]

Lustig doesn't say calories don't matter. They absolutely do. What you're saying implies you misunderstand. Thermodynamics dictate that they do. But it's basic biochemistry to understand that your body doesn't take 100 calories and do the same thing with them for every type of biomolecule. Your gut flora eat some of those calories. Your liver handles those molecules differently.

And yeah, he's a researcher. He's an endocrinologist at one of the largest research-focused medical schools in the USA (UCSF).

You can work out the metabolic pathways yourself if you want. He goes over them in the video, and if you've taken some organic chemistry and biochemistry courses like I have, it's pretty simple to follow. I have friends in med school that worked them out themselves too and also acknowledge it is genuine.

My issue with Lustig is the fructose bogeyman. We're not machines I agree. We do have hormones and other things at play.

Fruit versus fruit juice is a good example of this. The fiber in the whole fruit provides a satiating effect that you won't get in fruit juice.

Alan Aragon voiced similar concerns:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

 

[ILoveBish]

I haven't had fructose in over a year. Don't plan on having it anytime soon but who knows, maybe some berries or something down the line. Never been healthier, stronger or more fit in my life.

I ate a lot of fruit during my obese days.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Chicken & broccoli every meal. You'll look great!

Spoiler

Of course, you'll be dead on the inside.

On high protein/fat, at least you're allowed fattier cuts of meat. There's only so much chicken breast a man can take.

 

[tokkun]

You can work out the metabolic pathways yourself if you want. He goes over them in the video, and if you've taken some organic chemistry and biochemistry courses like I have, it's pretty simple to follow. I have friends in med school that worked them out themselves too and also acknowledge it is genuine.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record in these threads, but these arguments based on theorized mechanisms are meaningless if we don't have quantitative data to determine how big a role they play in actual outcomes. It could be that Lustig is entirely correct about the metabolic pathways, but if the magnitude of its effect on weight loss is (for the sake of argument) only 1% of that of caloric restriction, then it ends up being practically worthless.

It's the same sort of reasoning that demonized eggs and saturated fats for years by making arguments about their effect on mechanisms related to cholesterol without actually looking at the impact on the outcome that mattered - namely, heart disease.

 

[The Lamp]

I don't mean to sound like a broken record in these threads, but these arguments based on theorized mechanisms are meaningless if we don't have quantitative data to determine how big a role they play in actual outcomes. It could be that Lustig is entirely correct about the metabolic pathways, but if the magnitude of its effect on weight loss is (for the sake of argument) only 1% of that of caloric restriction, then it ends up being practically worthless.

It's the same sort of reasoning that demonized eggs and saturated fats for years by making arguments about their effect on mechanisms related to cholesterol without actually looking at the impact on the outcome that mattered - namely, heart disease.

Did you see the statistical analyses he made in the second video? He makes a good case for why it has an effect and is not just theoretical.

My issue with Lustig is the fructose bogeyman. We're not machines I agree. We do have hormones and other things at play.

Fruit versus fruit juice is a good example of this. The fiber in the whole fruit provides a satiating effect that you won't get in fruit juice.

Alan Aragon voiced similar concerns:

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

I have a few nitpicks with this blog. Although I will say I agree with some of it because it's true. Overall, I feel that some of the things it points out overlook what Lustig said, and therefore in some instances what the blog is complaining about is not actually something Lustig said. There are some interesting citations there, but I take citations from a blog with a grain of salt compared to the word of a doctor, so I'd need to look into comparisons of research results.

1) It's a blog, not an academic source, so I'm hesitant of the rhetoric present.
EDIT: Just learned that the guy is a nutritionist, so never mind this point, I suppose.

One of Lustig’s opening assertions is that The Atkins diet and the Japanese diet share one thing in common: the absence of fructose. This is flat-out false because it implies that the Japanese don’t eat fruit. On the contrary, bananas, grapefruits, Mandarin oranges, apples, grapes, watermelons, pears, persimmons, peaches, and strawberries are significant staples of the Japanese diet [17]. Lustig’s claim also implies that the Japanese do not consume desserts or sauces that contain added sucrose. This is false as well.

2) If you watch the videos, Lustig doesn't have a problem with fruit. When he refers to fructose, he's obviously referring to non-fruit contexts. Lustig explains both in the video and in other articles that fruit doesn't have a harmful effect on you with fructose because of the fiber content. It allows more of the fructose to be digested by your gut flora and allows it to more slowly absorb in your body. It's also much less fructose per fiber than other foods.

The thing is, he uses data spanning from 1989-1995 on children aged 2-17. Survey data is far from the gold standard of evidence, but if you’re gonna cite it, you might as well go with something more recent that includes adults.

3) He has a second video he released last year with up to date research, including his latest research.

It’s also safe to say that all this finger-pointing at carbohydrate is just as silly as the finger-pointing toward fat in the ’80’s. Lustig takes the scapegoating of carbohydrate up a notch by singling out fructose. Perhaps the most passionate point he makes throughout the lecture is that fructose is a poison. Well, that’s just what we need in this day and age – obsessive alarmism over a single macronutrient subtype rather than an aerial view of the bigger picture.

4) This is a useless paragraph because it doesn't make evidence for anything and tries to dismiss the issue Lustig brings up because it's convenient for them to do so.

The answer is not an absolute yes or no; the evilness of fructose depends completely on dosage and context. A recurrent error in Lustig’s lecture is his omission of specifying the dosage and context of his claims. A point he hammers throughout his talk is that unlike glucose, fructose does not elicit an insulin (& leptin) response, and thus does not blunt appetite. This is why fructose supposedly leads to overeating and obesity.

Hold on a second…Lustig is forgetting that most fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions

5) Lustig doesn't forget this, he specifically states in the video that sucrose and HFCS have glucose molecules attached to them.

both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite [3-6].

But wait, there’s more. In studies directly comparing the effect of fructose and glucose preloads on subsequent food intake, one showed no difference [7], while the majority have shown the fructose preload resulting in lesser food intake than the glucose preload [8-10]. A recent review of the literature on fructose’s effect on satiety found no compelling case for the idea that fructose is less satiating than glucose, or that HFCS is less satiating than sucrose [11]. So much for Lustig’s repeated assertion that fructose and fructose-containing sugars increase subsequent food intake. I suppose it’s easier to sensationalize claims based on rodent data.

I would need to compare this to the data in his second video.

 

[Psychotext]

Did you see the statistical analyses he made in the second video? He makes a good case for why it has an effect and is not just theoretical.

See also Ancel Keys.

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that statistical data is reliable for this sort of thing. It's also the same thing that got us into this mess with the hypothesis that fat = fat (Seven countries study et al).

 

[The Lamp]

See also Ancel Keys.

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that statistical data is reliable for this sort of thing. It's also the same thing that got us into this mess with the hypothesis that fat = fat (Seven countries study et al).

That's true.

I definitely do not subscribe to Lustig's notion that it's even realistic for me to cut out all fructose from my diet. As he says, 80% of our grocery store is loaded with it. I will eat fructose. I will of course minimize unnecessary use. But I will have to eat it. Life without HFCS and sucrose is simply unfeasible for most Americans because of the way our food industry is set up (this might be Lustig's main cricitism, however, of America's food industry).

But the point is, my original point, is that it's definitely NOT as simple as just counting calories. You can eat 2000 calories of sugar in a day and I guarantee you it does not have the same effect on your body as 2000 calories of balanced food. If we agree on that, then that's the only real point I want to push.

The rest is simply stuff that is not quite my expertise that I would like to learn more about, but of course, we have to take with a grain of salt, because knowledge capture in this field is slow (for good reason, we don't want to make hasty recommendations on health).

 

[entremet]

That's true.

I definitely do not subscribe to Lustig's notion that it's even realistic for me to cut out all fructose from my diet. As he says, 80% of our grocery store is loaded with it. I will eat fructose. I will of course minimize unnecessary use. But I will have to eat it. Life without HFCS and sucrose is simply unfeasible for most Americans because of the way our food industry is set up (this might be Lustig's main cricitism, however, of America's food industry).

But the point is, my original point, is that it's definitely NOT as simple as just counting calories. You can eat 2000 calories of sugar in a day and I guarantee you it does not have the same effect on your body as 2000 calories of balanced food. If we agree on that, then that's the only real point I want to push.

The rest is simply stuff that is not quite my expertise that I would like to learn more about, but of course, we have to take with a grain of salt, because knowledge capture in this field is slow (for good reason, we don't want to make hasty recommendations on health).

To be fair. I think we agree more than we disagree. It's really the conclusions that I'm not so sure on yet.

This is what I believe, just observational so far.

--Whole foods regulate appetite best. They're also hard to overeat and are not as calorie dense.
--Processed foods, while also being of higher calories, are engineered to induce a greater hunger response--think cookies, potato chips, most fast foods, soda, etc. Leading to more overconsumption of total calories.
--Daily activity is important and modern living has reduced it due to office work, automobiles, leaving a huge about of calories that we used to burn, now absent.

I personally don't believe carbohydrates are the enemy like many low carb gurus advocate--I know Dr. Lustig is not one and I have to read more of his work in text admittedly.

If low carb, paleo, vegan, etc, works for you, keep doing doing. In the end, successful weight loss is about adherence and not short term fixes.

I do love that paleo and low carb emphasize whole foods. That's a good thing! But many populations eat a majority of carbs and remain lean.

 

[The Lamp]

To be fair. I think we agree more than we disagree. It's really the conclusions that I'm not so sure on yet.

This is what I believe, just observational so far.

--Whole foods regulate appetite best. They're also hard to overeat and are not as calorie dense.
--Processed foods, while also being of higher calories, are engineered to induce a greater hunger response--think cookies, potato chips, most fast foods, soda, etc. Leading to more overconsumption of total calories.
--Daily activity is important and modern living has reduced it due to office work, automobiles, leaving a huge about of calories that we used to burn, now absent.

I personally don't believe carbohydrates are the enemy like many low carb gurus advocate--I know Dr. Lustig is not one and I have read more of his work in text admittedly.

If low carb, paleo, vegan, etc, works for you, keep doing doing. In the end, successful weight loss is about adherence and not short term fixes.

I do love that paleo and low carb emphasize whole foods. That's a good thing! But many populations eat a majority of carbs and remain lean.

Yes, I pretty much agree.

And just regarding the blog posted above, I found this much more compelling. Apparently Lustig had a debate with Alan Aragon right in the comment section, and this sums it up. I mean, it's written kind of biased in favor of Alan, and even if Lustig lost the debate, it could just mean that Lustig is poor at communicating his ideas on the spot instead of that he is a poor researcher or unfamiliar with his subject.

 

[entremet]

Yes, I pretty much agree.

And just regarding the blog posted above, I found this much more compelling. Apparently Lustig had a debate with Alan Aragon right in the comment section, and this sums it up. I mean, it's written kind of biased in favor of Alan, and even if Lustig lost the debate, it could just mean that Lustig is poor at communicating his ideas on the spot instead of that he is a poor researcher or unfamiliar with his subject.

I actually need to read Lustig's stuff. I'm better dissecting stuff in text. I think he's on the right track.

I just think we need more studies, but nutritional metabolic ward studies are extremely expensive and food companies, who make those pesky processed foods, wouldn't fund this type of stuff. They're usually the biggest sponsors of nutritional research.

 

[IceCold]

Imo, physical activity is almost more important than diet. The body is meant to move. If you are active, even going for long walks every day makes a huge different. You can get away with eating more crap like empty carbs. Being more active also means that your metabolic rate is higher. You will be burning more calories at a rest position than a couch potato for example. Also if you do resistance/cardio work (not just weights but biking). You will ensure that your heart is in a good condition and that your muscles and bones don't atrophy. This is huge as you get older. Especially since, for men, your testosterone goes down as you age. Those comparison X rays pics of triathlon athletes says everything.

 

[entremet]

Imo, physical activity is almost more important than diet. The body is meant to move. If you are active, even going for long walks every day makes a huge different. You can get away with eating more crap like empty carbs. Being more active also means that your metabolic rate is higher. You will be burning more calories at a rest position than a couch potato for example. Also if you do resistance/cardio work (not just weights but biking). You will ensure that your heart is in a good condition and that your muscles and bones don't atrophy. This is huge as you get older. Especially since, for men, your testosterone goes down as you age. Those comparison X rays pics of triathlon athletes says everything.

Yep.

We evolved as active species. This car to desk to car to couch lifestyle is wreaking havoc on us. We're sitting way too much.

 

[Coriolanus]

Also if you do resistance/cardio work (not just weights but biking). You will ensure that your heart is in a good condition and that your muscles and bones don't atrophy. This is huge as you get older. Especially since, for men, your testosterone goes down as you age. Those comparison X rays pics of triathlon athletes says everything.

Why would cardio be any more advantageous than weightlifting, as far as keeping and increasing muscle mass is concerned?

 

[Psychotext]

I may be missing something, but to me their post looks like they're talking about keeping heart and muscles healthy.

 

[tokkun]

Did you see the statistical analyses he made in the second video? He makes a good case for why it has an effect and is not just theoretical.

The outcome-oriented studies we have show little, if any, difference between calorie controlled diets. That's why this thread exists, and it is merely echoing the same conclusions found by previous studies. Why would I ignore that data and instead go with Lustig's loose correlations?

Maybe these previous studies are all flawed. If there really is a significant effect on fat loss from macro-based diets, it ought to show up in the outcome-oriented studies eventually. But until that happens, it's just wishful thinking.

 

[ILoveBish]

Imo, physical activity is almost more important than diet. The body is meant to move. If you are active, even going for long walks every day makes a huge different. You can get away with eating more crap like empty carbs. Being more active also means that your metabolic rate is higher. You will be burning more calories at a rest position than a couch potato for example. Also if you do resistance/cardio work (not just weights but biking). You will ensure that your heart is in a good condition and that your muscles and bones don't atrophy. This is huge as you get older. Especially since, for men, your testosterone goes down as you age. Those comparison X rays pics of triathlon athletes says everything.

I lifted and did cardio and ate the average american diet for 1 year, and didnt drop even a single pound. It wasn't till i started eating whole foods and tracking macros that i started losing lbs on the scale. I am being 100% literal, not a single pound in a year of heavy lifting 3-5 days a week for a year, along with cardio on the majority of those days. People over estimate what exercise will do for you.

Proper food intake with tracking is what is most important, exercise is a great benefit ontop of that in the form of lifting. Cardio, no thanks. Maybe a nice walk along the beach every once in a while, but when it comes to the gym, i prefer heavy compound lifts by leaps and bounds. And my results show it.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...fects-of-high-protein-low-carb-diet/index.htm



The first diet I ever did was a low carb one. It was great for appetite control and I lost 4 pants sizes.

As I became more active I started adding carbs. I wouldn't call them miracle diets, but they got me eating well. I dropped soda, baked goods and general crap.

I'm not low carb anymore but it was a good starting point.

Anyone still follow this protocol? Do you all remember the low carb craze?

You speak as if going low carb/high fat (this part is important and often gets forgotten) to lose fat and treat health issues is a thing of the past. Maybe it's just the circles that I'm in, but it seems, if anything, to be gaining traction as you see more and more main stream reports on how we've been lied about the low-fat dogma that was spread without any evidence for decades.

I started down the path in 2011 and I still stick to it as my default way of living. Absolutely no carbs ever until the evening/night. Most days no carbs at all. If I'm in the gym and lifting regularly, I'll do carb ups after a heavy work out. Never been healthier.

 

[entremet]

You speak as if going low carb/high fat (this part is important and often gets forgotten) to lose fat and treat health issues is a thing of the past. Maybe it's just the circles that I'm in, but it seems, if anything, to be gaining traction as you see more and more main stream reports on how we've been lied about the low-fat dogma that was spread without any evidence for decades.

I started down the path in 2011 and I still stick to it as my default way of living. Absolutely no carbs ever until the evening/night. Most days no carbs at all. If I'm in the gym and lifting regularly, I'll do carb ups after a heavy work out. Never been healthier.

I'm not a low fat adherent at all. I use grass fed butter and coconut oil pretty liberally.

I just think vilifying all carbs is shortsighted. There's a huge difference between a sweet potato and a pop tart.

Both are primary carb sources by chemistry, but you're body reacts very differently to both.

I'm a fan of paleo/low carb in their focus on whole food sources. That's much better than the Standard American Diet.

My personal diet very similar to paleo plus sourdough bread, milk, rice, beans, lentils, and white rice.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Can't believe the "a calorie is a calorie" horseshit myth is still alive. Behold the latest studies:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/

It's only because people have a strong desire for things to be simple. There really is no expectation, from a scientific point of view, for all sources of calories (food) to behave and be used the same once ingested. It's pure nonsense.

I'm not a low fat adherent at all. I use grass fed butter and coconut oil pretty liberally.

I just think vilifying all carbs is shortsighted. There's a huge difference between a sweet potato and a pop tart.

Both are primary carb sources by chemistry, but you're body reacts very differently to both.

I definitely don't vilify carbs, but treat them as a tool--a drug perhaps. If a person is overweight, unhealthy, and relatively sedentary, though, they would almost certainly benefit from completely avoiding carbs outside of the very rare occasion.

Then there's this...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

Such a damaging experiment (or at least how it was reported) for the general perception in society... That was by no means a Twinkie diet. If you look at his food logs, it was a lot healthier than what most Americans eat and on many days, rather low-carb in comparison.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

When I lost a lot of weight, I cut down on carbs but not significantly. My body just felt so drained without them.

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

“Diets only work by lowering calories,” says David Seres, M.D., director of medical nutrition at the Columbia University Medical Center in New York and a member of Consumer Reports’ medical advisory board. “Where the calories come from doesn’t matter.”

wow lol this couldn't be any more wrong. Throwing processed garbage into your body is going to ruin your metabolism and throw the whole notion of "calories in vs calories out" out the window.

 

[entremet]

It's only because people have a strong desire for things to be simple. There really is no expectation, from a scientific point of view, for all sources of calories (food) to behave and be used the same once ingested. It's pure nonsense.



I definitely don't vilify carbs, but treat them as a tool--a drug perhaps. If a person is overweight, unhealthy, and relatively sedentary, though, they would almost certainly benefit from completely avoiding carbs outside of the very rare occasion.

I'm not saying you do. I just hear low carbs gurus group all carbs as some sort of devil lol.

A carrot or an apple is not going to make you fat. Sure if you want to get in nutritional ketosis, avoid that, but I think processed foods are the bigger culprit and sure many of them are refined carb sources--potato chips, cookies, cakes, sodas, etc.

That's what I like about paleo and low carb, they get people off those terrible foods.

However, many traditional cultures have relied on whole food carb sources without incidence of obesity--rice for East Asians, tuber and starchy vegetables for many lean island populations.

 

[Kraftwerk]

All you plebs need to join us enlightened ones and start water fasting if you want results

No food. Just water.

After three days you enter ketosis.

Then you lose 1lbs a day. You stop when you have achieved your ideal weight. Go a few pounds lower since you will regain 5 ish pounds when you start eating again.

Yogis have been doing this for hundreds of years. Full proof plan.

You will also achieve incredible discipline doing this.

Go my friend

Achieve nirvana.

 

[Surface of Me]

I lifted and did cardio and ate the average american diet for 1 year, and didnt drop even a single pound. It wasn't till i started eating whole foods and tracking macros that i started losing lbs on the scale. I am being 100% literal, not a single pound in a year of heavy lifting 3-5 days a week for a year, along with cardio on the majority of those days. People over estimate what exercise will do for you.

Proper food intake with tracking is what is most important, exercise is a great benefit ontop of that in the form of lifting. Cardio, no thanks. Maybe a nice walk along the beach every once in a while, but when it comes to the gym, i prefer heavy compound lifts by leaps and bounds. And my results show it.

I'd argue portions are more important than what you eat. I still ate like crap mostly, but cut back on portions combined with exercise and lost 80 pounds. I also somewhat doubt that you didnt lose a single pound if you were really lifting and doing cardio, unless you upped your caloric intake at the same time.

 

[Skeyser]

Proper food intake with tracking is what is most important, exercise is a great benefit ontop of that in the form of lifting. Cardio, no thanks . Maybe a nice walk along the beach every once in a while, but when it comes to the gym, i prefer heavy compound lifts by leaps and bounds. And my results show it.

Skipping cardio is just stupid, it has a lot of benefits on your overall health. Well unless you're playing sports or something to replace it. And no, lifting doesn't make up for it.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Skipping cardio is just stupid, it has a lot of benefits on your overall health. Well unless you're playing sports or something to replace it. And no, lifting doesn't make up for it.

Is it? I don't know. Many studies conclude that it's the elevated heart rate part of cardio exercise that gives you general health benefits. Others even conclude that while some cardio is beneficial, more than a little cardio exercise on the regular can actually be harmful. It's all very inconclusive.

Obviously, if you want more endurance, cardio is probably a good idea, though.

 

[entremet]

Skipping cardio is just stupid, it has a lot of benefits on your overall health. Well unless you're playing sports or something to replace it. And no, lifting doesn't make up for it.

Walking is actually better than traditional cardio. It's easier on your joints, can be done until elderly age without problems and easier to get into for coach potatoes.

Cardio is nice if you love it, but its not essential for health or weight loss. We're more designed to be walkers mechanically.

 

[ILoveBish]

I'd argue portions are more important than what you eat. I still ate like crap mostly, but cut back on portions combined with exercise and lost 80 pounds. I also somewhat doubt that you didnt lose a single pound if you were really lifting and doing cardio, unless you upped your caloric intake at the same time.

I ate exactly what i was eating before i started working out, and weigh'd myself all the time, i did not drop a single pound, but i did not gain a single pound either. I didn't up the food at all, ate exactly like i did previously which is what got me obese in the first place. Again, your typical american diet of fast food and processed meals.

Skipping cardio is just stupid, it has a lot of benefits on your overall health. Well unless you're playing sports or something to replace it. And no, lifting doesn't make up for it.

Skipping cardio is actually really smart. If endurance was all i cared about, then perhaps it has its place. Otherwise, cardio makes you good at..... cardio. The health benefits are really poor in comparison to lifting which builds actual muscle, strengthens your bones and pretty much your entire body from top to bottom.

Is it? I don't know. Many studies conclude that it's the elevated heart rate part of cardio exercise that gives you general health benefits. Others even conclude that while some cardio is beneficial, more than a little cardio exercise on the regular can actually be harmful. It's all very inconclusive.

Obviously, if you want more endurance, cardio is probably a good idea, though.

Walking is actually better than traditional cardio. It's easier on your joints, can be done until elderly age without problems and easier to get into for coach potatoes.

Cardio is nice if you love it, but its not essential for health or weight loss. We're more designed to be walkers mechanically.

Agreed with both. Walking is fine, cardio on a treadmill or running outdoors is asking for your joints to get thrashed for very little benefit in comparison to a lifting program. You build more muscle lifting, and when you have more muscle, you burn fat faster just due to your higher metabolism, and its all a chain effect. You want to get in shape and be healthy, you hit the weights.

 

[Rand6]

Those comparison X rays pics of triathlon athletes says everything.

Do you have a link please?

 

[Coriolanus]

Do you have a link please?

Obv since we talking leg muscle mass, i fail to see why squats wouldn't be ideal in this scenario.

Man, even the bone on the sedentary man is way smaller. sad.

 

[Psychotext]

I wonder what happens if you take someone at 40 and have them do the exercise though. Or if it's too late at that point (at least in terms of bone size).

 

[Coriolanus]

Dont think it'll ever be too late nowadays, since you can always go into TRT and start with zero impact exercises like hydro gymnastics and the like. Bone mass can be regained.

Heck, just pumping testosterone into withered old husks that are sitting around should improve their muscle mass.

 

[Who]

From my experience there are 3 ways to lose weight from dieting:

1. Eat as much as you want but no carbs, high protein.

2. Eat whatever you want but limit the portions to a very small ammount throughout the day.

3. Eat whatever you want but limit it to just one giant meal per day

 

[Psychotext]

From my experience there are 3 ways to lose weight from dieting:

1. Eat as much as you want but no carbs, high protein.

2. Eat whatever you want but limit the portions to a very small ammount throughout the day.

3. Eat whatever you want but limit it to just one giant meal per day

The reason any of these work would purely be by co-incidence.

1: High protein in very satiating. If you're lucky you'll not feel hungry enough to hit too much overall calorie intake. Given many bodybuilders are using technique to bulk though... yeah, probably not the best way of not gaining weight.

2: There are numerous studies debunking the "many small meals" dieting method. You'd still lose weight if you ate a carrot every meal for 20 meals... but for obvious reasons.

3: Would be self limiting for most people as you'd struggle to eat enough to gain weight... but most people couldn't handle the other 23 hours a day without food... and some would binge so crazy hard that they'd still put on weight.

 

[Who]

The reason any of these work would purely be by co-incidence.

1: High protein in very satiating. If you're lucky you'll not feel hungry enough to hit too much overall calorie intake. Given many bodybuilders are using technique to bulk though... yeah, probably not the best way of not gaining weight.

2: There are numerous studies debunking the "many small meals" dieting method. You'd still lose weight if you ate a carrot every meal for 20 meals... but for obvious reasons.

3: Would be self limiting for most people as you'd struggle to eat enough to gain weight... but most people couldn't handle the other 23 hours a day without food... and some would binge so crazy hard that they'd still put on weight.

I have lost 100 pounds in my life. I don't know what makes you such an expert but I was just telling people whats worked for me. Go ahead and stick with your studies though.

 

[vas_a_morir]

We need a Keto official thread for Community.

I've gone from 205 to 178 since October! It's less of a fad diet and more of a lifestyle change. You just don't eat bread and processed food anymore.

 

[Yukiari]

I have lost 100 pounds in my life. I don't know what makes you such an expert but I was just telling people whats worked for me. Go ahead and stick with your studies though.

Yea, I'm going to go with this. I've lost weight through my life and am currently on track towards my ideal goal.

 

[rtcn63]

I have lost 100 pounds in my life. I don't know what makes you such an expert but I was just telling people whats worked for me. Go ahead and stick with your studies though.

He wasn't exactly being hostile, just trying to giving explanations as to why your bullet points may or may not be effective in the universal sense. What works for you may not work for others. As for being an expert... your post says he's referring to studies...

And he's right. Meal-wise, do whatever makes you feel comfortable. Some people can't handle large meals, due to weak stomachs, etc. And very tiny meals can be problematic due to the required frequency and satiety. A smaller woman who's trying to limit herself to 1200 calories a day, may find it easier (and more enjoyable) to eat two 600 or three 400 calorie meals as opposed to four 300 calorie ones. In the end, it's still about total caloric intake.

 

[Coriolanus]

I'd just like to remind people recommending high protein diets that Rabbit starvation is a thing. Fats matter. Don't skip on them.

 

[Psychotext]

I don't know what makes you such an expert but I was just telling people whats worked for me. Go ahead and stick with your studies though.

That's great, and I'm just explaining to people why those methods might work, and why they might not. You don't need to be so sensitive about it.

 

[rtcn63]

I'd just like to remind people recommending high protein diets that Rabbit starvation is a thing. Fats matter. Don't skip on them.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should *only* eat protein. Just emphasizing it over fats and (particularly) carbs. Unless they are. Then that would be bad.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I don't think anyone is saying that you should *only* eat protein. Just emphasizing it over fats and (particularly) carbs. Unless they are. Then that would be bad.

Shouldn't be emphasizing it over fat in a low/no carb diet, honestly.

 

[vas_a_morir]

I'd just like to remind people recommending high protein diets that Rabbit starvation is a thing. Fats matter. Don't skip on them.

A large majority of your Cals on low carb are supposed to come from fats, yeah? At least, that's what bro-science folks say. May or may not be true.

 

[sirap]

When I substituted rice with the same amount of protein calorie wise, I lost weight. What's up with that?

 

[rtcn63]

Shouldn't be emphasizing it over fat in a low/no carb diet, honestly.

Maybe you're right, at least without specific context. I know that if you're lifting, in a calorie deficit, and are trying to prevent significant muscle loss, high protein is recommended.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/ketogenic-diets-high-fat-or-high-protein-qa.html/

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/protein-intake-while-dieting-qa.html/

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Keto is the truth when you do it right. No cheat days!

 

[vas_a_morir]

Keto is the truth when you do it right. No cheat days!

I disagree! I feel like a cheat day (no more than once every 30 days) helps me break through plateaus. Don't know why, but it's like you reset or something.

 

[Coriolanus]

I don't think anyone is saying that you should *only* eat protein. Just emphasizing it over fats and (particularly) carbs. Unless they are. Then that would be bad.

A large majority of your Cals on low carb are supposed to come from fats, yeah? At least, that's what bro-science folks say. May or may not be true.

That's the thing. A lotta people hear low carb and think high protein. That's wrong. It ain't high protein. It is high fat. You'll eat exactly as much protein as you need, and nearly all the rest of your daily kcal intake should come from fat. Fat should be the primary source of calories.

For some reason, this gets glossed over a lot.

The explanation is gluconeogenesis or whatever.

Maybe you're right, at least without specific context. I know that if you're lifting, in a calorie deficit, and are trying to prevent significant muscle loss, high protein is recommended.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/ketogenic-diets-high-fat-or-high-protein-qa.html/

And this first link explains how to calc how mutch protein you should need.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Maybe you're right, at least without specific context. I know that if you're lifting, in a calorie deficit, and are trying to prevent significant muscle loss, high protein is recommended.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/ketogenic-diets-high-fat-or-high-protein-qa.html/

Yep, the only thing that protects muscle loss is the nutrient that helps build it. Low carb is easy peezy cause you set your protein level based on lean body mass and total fat pivots on the rest of your caloric needs. Protein intake is always constant.