Low carb dieting (CKD) debate!

Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Points
0
For my body type, I do best eating like a carnivore. 6 days less than 50g/day post workout, then 2-300gs on 7th. Everyone is going to vary though.

You eat how I eat. I don't keep it that regimented though, unless I'm trying to really lean out, like for summer. I just decide every so often that I wanna eat a pizza after a workout. That becomes a carb up day Lol
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Points
0
All that low carb , Keto bs is for fat people or very low level “ athletes”.. For me low carb never worked well unless I was a fat out of shape mess . Once your in shape and training at a certain level u need carbs just the right kind of carbs .

Yeah, you look really lean. If you do well with carbs, then your insulin sensitivity is really good. But, for every guy on the board like you, there are 10 or 20 guys like me, who can't get that lean on carbs. You say lesser athletes. I'd say more insulin resistant athletes. Joe Thomas, ex Cleveland Brown tackle was quite an athlete. Look at him now. Got there on low carbs.

When you were using low carbs and weren't fat, you say that they "didn't work" for you. Why were you low carb if you were in shape? Just curious.

In the context that I'm taking about low carbs on this board, I'm saying that's exactly what it's for, getting lean (<10% fat), when you just can't seem to while still eating carbs, without losing a ton of muscle, and making it easy to stay that way once you're there. I'd say that's lots of guys on this board. If I'm wrong, then I'd be surprised
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Also if the pic in your avi is you .. it would be considered very average when compared to others on this board .. perhaps far below standard ... have you seen Snake .. Brick .. Trump .. Jin ... and dozens of others ... they are as far ahead of you in physique as a human being is above the 1 celled amoeba ..

Man, why do you come off the way you do? SMH

I'm just some 56 year old dude on low dose TRT. (Yes, that is a recent pic. I have more if you want proof) Any other impression you have of me is just you projecting. I'm sure there lots of pros on this board, just like any other board I've been on over the last 20-25 years.

And the only thing that I'm preaching is that there are a LOT more guys who CAN'T get lean on carbs than can. If you can, that's great. If you can't, and your making real effort, it's not your fault, there's another way. Everyone here is here because they wanna look as great as they can. I'm just trying to add something to the board and help some dudes do that. My reason for getting into the debate with CJ275 was so I could explain the physiology behind why it works
 
Last edited:

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,717
Reaction score
38,427
Points
383
So, yes, I agree that to lose fat, there has to be a calorie deficit.

Awesome, I'm glad we agree on that, because that was a major sticking point. Remember when you claimed that someone would lose bodyfat and "piss out fat" if they ate 10,000 Cals of butter, but would get fat and die if they were to eat 2,000 calories of carbohydrate. (see Post 19 of this thread for complete context). Still not sure how that works, would love an explanation.

Ok, so we're at your claim now that 90% of us are insulin resistant(born that way I believe you said, would love to see proof of this) and can't handle carbohydrates. You even went so far as to say that only 10% of vegetarians aren't overweight, that those were the ones on Instagram, and they were the exception and not the rule. This is why you said low carb or keto is the way to go.

So back to the meta analysis I referenced earlier https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/

and a study within a link YOU referenced https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357.

The meta analysis was of 32 different studies, and showed that in a calorie and protein equated diet, fat to carb ratio did not matter for weight loss.

And your study showed that "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize."

Now if 90% of us don't do well with carbohydrate, how do explain the results of these studies? I highly doubt that it was just shit luck that all 33 studies ended up with participants that were within that 10% of the population that you claim can handle carbohydrate. That's almost statistically impossible to have happened.


And a reminder, the meta analysis was funded by National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland, not exactly pro-carb people, and one of the authors received funding from the Nutritional Science Initiative, Gary Taubes non-profit orginizati, and he's VERY anti sugar.

And we can assume that you have no problem with the study within a link YOU posted as valid evidence. It was published in the NE Journal of Medicine, a highly regarded journal.
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,717
Reaction score
38,427
Points
383
Now your claim of a calorie isn't a calorie.

That's absolutely FALSE. As stated correctly earlier by Snake, a calorie isn't a "thing", it's merely a unit of measure of potential energy within a food, as measured by a bomb calorimeter. Much like a "degree" of temperature isn't a thing, just a unit of measurement.

I'm sure what you mean is that the body merabilizes carbohydrates and fats differently within the body. Absolutely! They're two different things, no argument from me. I even laid out the chemical formulas as to how they're broken down for energy in an earlier post, albeit a simplified version.

Your big thing is insulin, and how it's used to store fat. Yes, excess blood glucose, after the liver and muscles are full and blood sugar levels are stable, will be shuttled off to adipose tissue to be stored as fat.

But what happens AFTER that, when your meal is digested and insulin and blood sugar are back to stable. Well you're still alive, correct? You're still doing things/processes that require energy, correct? As long as you're breathing, you're using energy. Remember that the CO2 we breathe out is a byproduct of metabolizing carbs and fats. So where does this energy come from? Glucose and fatty acids within the cells needing energy. And as it's being used, those cells are pulling in fatty acids and glucose from the blood supply.

As the fatty acids and glucose are being taken from the blood, it triggers a hormone called glucagon to be released. Think of it as sort of the opposite of insulin. Glucagon stimulates the release of glycogen from the liver into the blood, and also adipose tissue to release fats. These fats are broken down into individual fatty acids and a glycerin backbone. The fatty acids are available in the blood for cells to pick up, or to the liver to synthesize ketones, yes, if glucose is low) while the glycerin goes to the liver to be converted to glucose, via gluconeogenesis. Glucagon is the reason we don't need to be in a constantly fed state, why we can go for long periods of time without food. Fatty acids and glucose within the blood don't just magically get there.
 
Last edited:

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,717
Reaction score
38,427
Points
383
Calorie deficits can be measured over all sorts of time periods. Do I assume when you speak of them, you mean measured on a daily basis? When I speak of then, I mean daily, hourly, momentary. I mean, in the body, that's really how processes operate, in the moment. Any other time period of measure is really just an arbitrary time frame we impose. So, what if by being in a ketogenic state, I can create LOTS of moments of calorie deficit, consistantly/constantly over a prolonged time period, without gaining fat in the interim moments? Think about it....

Yes, throughout the day you're both burning and storing fat in small amounts. It's the long term balance of this that adds up to meaningful fat gain or loss. I addressed this in an earlier post, I believe I used an analogy of people enrering/exiting an office building.

You don't HAVE TO be in a ketogenic state for this to occur, that's just 1 of many possible "diets" that do this. Again, please look at the studies linked earlier.
 
Last edited:

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,717
Reaction score
38,427
Points
383
I tried the link, but it didn't work because it's a pdf. Search this header.

A review of low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets - ‎Westman - Cited by 163

I tried to find this, but couldn't. Maybe it's being a pay wall???

Either way, I have a decent understanding of how ketosis works. As I've stated many times in this thread already, it's an absolutely effective way to lose weight. Or to gain weight if one were to overconsume foods on it, although admittedly that's hard because fats are very satiating. Law of thermodynamics still applies though.


Edit:
Finally got to it, gave it a quick read. Yes, I'm familiar with the physiology laid out in the article. No issues with it at all. And of all the diets studies shown, every type of dietshowed weight loss, not just the keto groups, although the keto groups groups lost a little more(at least some is water weight, obviously, due to glycogen depletion). And none were calorie equated. No argument from me about the keto diet being effective.

Look again at the calorie equated studies I linked earlier. When Cals are equated, carbs vs fats don't matter. One should use a diet that fits their lifestyle/goals. Keto or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DF

transcend2007

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
4,190
Reaction score
3,396
Points
193
Thank CJ ... for all the great info in this thread ... you stated the logic and science behind what most of olders guys feel or have stated more anecdotally ... through a life time of experiences while seeing fads (including low carb) come and go ... there is a reason why statements like eat less and exercise more stand the test of time ... there is "no magic" to the process ... there only the facts that remain ... nearly everyone not selling something know carbs have a place in a healthy diet and lifestyle ... this thread has confirmed that fact more than any other I've ever seen ...
 

transcend2007

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
4,190
Reaction score
3,396
Points
193
Thank you ImThatFitGuy ... for responding credibly and presenting your info ... many guys get butt hurt at the first sign of being in the crosshairs of the less-popular side of a discussion ... I do not agree with your points but I do respect you and contribution to the conversation and the board ...
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,717
Reaction score
38,427
Points
383
I said as far as fat loss is concerned, a calorie is NOT a calorie. You've extrapolated that to imply that I don't feel there's a need to have a calorie deficit because you believe that in order to achieve one, you MUST eat less calories than you burn...because you believe a calorie is a calorie. I do not. The study you posted, and that I quoted, said that very thing. That all sorts of hormonal changes that occur during fat loss make it NOT a simple math equation.


Actually, here's exactly what the study said...

"We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects on daily energy expenditure and body fat of isocaloric diets differing in their fraction of carbohydrate to fat but with equal protein. To minimize confounding by dietary nonadherence, we included only controlled feeding studies where all food was provided to the subjects. We found 32 studies representing 563 subjects matching our inclusion criteria with dietary carbohydrate ranging from 1%–83% and dietary fat ranging from 4%–84% of total calories (see Supplementary Materials).

Figure 2A shows the daily energy expenditure differences between isocaloric diets with equal protein but differing in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat. The pooled weighted mean difference in energy expenditure was 26 kcal/d (P <.0001) greater with lower fat diets. Figure 2B shows differences in the rate of body fat change between diets with the pooled weighted mean difference of 16 g/d (P <.0001) greater body fat loss in favor of the lower fat diets. These results are in the opposite direction to the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model, but the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless. In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat."



You can say a calorie is not a calorie, but to say that the study also said that is FALSE.

Here's the specific statement from the study again, to be clear......In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat."



Carbohydrates are not the problem, overeating is. Consuming more calories than one utilizes results in bodyfat accumulation.
 
Last edited:

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,717
Reaction score
38,427
Points
383
Thank you ImThatFitGuy ... for responding credibly and presenting your info ... many guys get butt hurt at the first sign of being in the crosshairs of the less-popular side of a discussion ... I do not agree with your points but I do respect you and contribution to the conversation and the board ...

I couldn't agree more.

I love this, mental exercise/stimulation. I don't get much of it in my life, I feel like I need it. I try to debate my wife sometimes, but she wants none of it! Sometimes ill argue a point with her that I don't even believe, just to get the mental stimulation. I need to stop that, for my own safety. :32 (18):
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,717
Reaction score
38,427
Points
383
[ That all sorts of hormonal changes that occur during fat loss make it NOT a simple math equation.

.

Yes, many things affect the Calories Out side of the equation. Neither side of the Cals in vs Cals out equation is static, they're both fluid numbers. And many things affect whether it's lean tissue or fat gained/lost, specifically protein intake and proper training. Never said otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Bro Bundy

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
18,873
Reaction score
15,858
Points
383
I’m also one who says not all calls are equal. No pop tarts here . At my prime I’m 215 6 7 % . Trust me I can be260 fat if I wanted . I never did
 

Redemption79

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2019
Messages
112
Reaction score
46
Points
18
https://www.themanual.com/outdoors/ultra-runner-zack-bitter-100-mile-low-carb/
Dude ran 100 miles at a 6:48/mile pace. I don't think he was 100% keto when he did it, but being fat-adapted does seem to have a positive effect for long-distance guys that run far too long to depend on glucose.

I can't argue with a whole lot of what you say CJ275, as I fundamentally agree with most of it. I do think there is a significant difference in ketogenic capability between someone who has eaten a keto diet for long period and someone who is just trying it out though. I also think results are specific to individuals to a degree as well.

I'm going to share a few things here without really participating in the debate. Take it or leave it, it's just my experience.

I went on a ketogenic diet after a physically destructive experience with a nasty antibiotic. I was weak, nearly unable to walk, and had mental struggles I'd never experienced (like constantly not being able to recall names, what I was talking about 10 seconds ago, or even simple spellings). I had severe and constant muscle cramps from head to toe (some parts worse than others), and pain that often kept me from sleeping at night. I spent every spare moment I had researching anything I thought could help (there are many people affected indefinitely by these drugs and no real known cures). I focused a lot on mitochondrial biogenesis, energy production, cellular function, etc. In combination with a number of supplements, I started a ketogenic diet, and over the last few years, I've recovered to the point that I'm now doing more physical activity and I'm stronger/more fit than 95% of the population. I'm not saying keto is a magical cure and definitely not soley responsible for my recovery, but I can verify that it made a difference. For a long time, every time I left the keto diet for a more normal diet, I had an increase in inflammation.

I'm not eating keto now. I went to a lower-fat diet in an effort to lower cholesterol and better fuel my workouts. If nothing else, I can definitely say my muscles are more full with carbs than without. However, I still feel like my brain runs better on ketones, and I get fewer cramps and flare-ups eating low-carb. Also, in terms of cardio, my heart rate is higher at the same work output on keto than with carbs, but the perceived effort is, if anything, lower (I'm not labeling this a benefit or a hindrance, just interesting information).

I realize this loosely relates to the discussion here, and my reaction/situation isn't average. I'm only sharing this because at one time, I would have thought keto to be a BS fad diet and not really considered possible benefits. There are a number of systems in the body that can't function well in a constant energy surplus. For some of these, I think a lack of glucose may be as sufficient or at least somewhat comparable to an actual fast, resulting in some benefits we otherwise may not consider. (Side note: there are some other therapeutic uses for the keto diet; such as alternative treatment for epilepsy, certain cancers, prevention of seizures in divers who wear rebreathers, and recovery from lyme disease and the treatment of such.)

I've never done a cyclical keto diet (I stayed in ketosis for over a year with just a few short exceptions) and would be interested in what the OP recommends to his clients. I'm certainly toward the endo end of the spectrum and struggle getting beyond "decently lean". If he really could make getting under 10% easier without a significant negative impact, I'd be interested in logging it...possibly.
 

Bro Bundy

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
18,873
Reaction score
15,858
Points
383
Yeah, you look really lean. If you do well with carbs, then your insulin sensitivity is really good. But, for every guy on the board like you, there are 10 or 20 guys like me, who can't get that lean on carbs. You say lesser athletes. I'd say more insulin resistant athletes. Joe Thomas, ex Cleveland Brown tackle was quite an athlete. Look at him now. Got there on low carbs.

When you were using low carbs and weren't fat, you say that they "didn't work" for you. Why were you low carb if you were in shape? Just curious.

In the context that I'm taking about low carbs on this board, I'm saying that's exactly what it's for, getting lean (<10% fat), when you just can't seem to while still eating carbs, without losing a ton of muscle, and making it easy to stay that way once you're there. I'd say that's lots of guys on this board. If I'm wrong, then I'd be surprised
I tried every kind of diet until i found what works well for me..I lose to much muscle on low carb and not enough energy to fuel the kinda workouts i enjoy..I eat alot of oats and sweet potato
 
Last edited:

DF

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
9,247
Reaction score
5,130
Points
283
Sonofabitch! I'm going to be forced to go back & read this.... :32 (9):
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2020
Messages
7
Reaction score
12
Points
0
I do think there is a significant difference in ketogenic capability between someone who has eaten a keto diet for long period and someone who is just trying it out though. [FONT=&quot]I also think results are specific to individuals to a degree as well.[/FONT]

I agree with this statement!!!


I tried every kind of diet until i found what works well for me..I lose to much muscle on low carb and not enough energy to fuel the kinda workouts i enjoy..I eat alot of oats and sweet potato

I know this is an older thread but I have to say I found it very interesting.

I think a big part that is missed when two people are working so hard to make their point in this debate is It all depends on what works for you!

For example I quoted Bro Bundy because I too have tried every kind of diet until I found what worked for me. Unlike Bro however I found for me it was the no carb diet that worked best. I found it for the same reason Bro found it didn't work for him. I just lost to much hard gained muscle on anything but a no carb diet.

Let me first say I have a very efficient body for storing energy. Meaning I can gain weight (muscle & fat) very easy. I'm one of those people if you use one of those calculators that tells you your maintenance calorie based on body weight, age and activity level, if I take in that amount of (clean) calories a day I would gain at least 2 lbs a week.

Back in the 90's most BB were using high (clean) carbs, moderate protein and low fat so this was the first pre-contest diet I used. I got lean, but not lean enough and by the end of the diet I had lost almost as much muscle as fat. I started out around 250 in January and competed in May at 212 probably still about 8% BF. For the next few years I used many different types of diets and the funny thing is they all worked, just not good enough. Some effected my mood more than others, some effected energy levels more than others. I always felt good on diets that were split an even 1/3 ratio. I think the worst was the high protein, low carb, low fat.

Then in the late 90's Dan Duchaine wrote a book call Underground Body Opus: Militant Weight Loss & Recomposition. Being that I had already read anything Dan had written I picked up the book and after reading it, twice, I decided to use it for my next pre-contest diet. I'm not going to go into the diet or program in detail but it is basically a cycle diet of no carbs Mon - Friday, then carb up Sat & Sun. I'm way over simplifying it, as it has many small things that make it work.

The first time I used Bodyopus I only lost around 1% of muscle and more than 12% fat and it was the first time I was on stage over 220 at 223 at around 5%. The next year I used it and hit 225 at around 5%. The next year I hit the stage at my best ever 228 at around 3%. I mixed in just a bit of DNP at the end of this diet, talk about feeling like shit, DNP made me feel worse than any diet I had ever used. I got nationally qualified at that show, however, I never did compete at nationals.

2 years later I got into Strongman and didn't worry about body weight until I wanted to dip into the 232 class. So I used Bodyopus again and noticed that my strength didn't suffer as much as I thought it would. One year I let my weight get up to far (265) and started dieting to late for a contest so I had to loose 33 lbs in about 5 weeks. I new I couldn't do this using Bodyopus because by carbing up on the weekends you take your body out of fat burning and into recovery. I would need all the next 35 days if I wanted to make weight. This is when I found out if I stayed in keto long enough my body adjusts and my energy stamina come back.

Basically what I found out was when I cycled Mon-Fri no carbs and Sat-Sun carb load I would feel great starting Sunday til about Wednesday morning with Thursday & Friday being tired. Then what I found when I went on 5 weeks without carbs is at about day 3 I started feeling sluggish but sometime the next week, maybe day 8, I came out of it and felt good, even doing tire flips for 100 feet or 60 minute cardio sessions.

Again all this is based on my own experiences but the point I wanted to make is don't write off any diet based on someone research paper. Find what works for you to reach your goals at the time.

Lifthvyw8s
 
  • Like
Reactions: CJ

A1c

Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
5
Reaction score
2
Points
3
researchgate.net/profile/Jacob_Wilson2

I used to post on the forum back in the late 90’s. At least I think it was this form. I know it was called undergroundbodybuilding.com. Anyway, that was when I was in medical school. It’s been along time since those days. I will say that I am a low carb advocate. A lot of the supposed negative points of low carb that people believe are not actually true. If you follow the link you will find many studies that debunk some of this so-called bro science. Also, there is a website called low-carb down under which has a lot of videos on it that debunk some significant miss about low carb dieting. These are from very reputable physicians who I really enjoyed listening to. If all of you were to actually take the time and research the specific questions that you have, I think you would find the answers quite shocking. Anyway, I’m not here to argue or debate just to share a little bit of knowledge. I feel like I have to try to convince patients all day long to follow my advice. I don’t want to come home and do it on some form at night time. LOL. Good luck!
 

andy

Elite
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
982
Reaction score
777
Points
93
sorry , can't be bothered to read all that.. so I'll just hang around
 

New Threads

Top