You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
All Calories are not equal
What about all cm or all °C
You're right of course, all cal are the same much as all kg are, though that's not whats being argued and you know that. What's being suggested is its easier to carry a 5kg steel ball than 5kg of loose 4mm steel ball bearings. Yes they're both the same mass but you handle them very differently.
maintain a small caloric restriction over time.
There are some fascinating studies on calories burnt per unit exercise done and the body adapts based on whether you're in a calorie deficit or surpless.
If you are in a surpless then you are less efficient eg say you burn 10 calories with as single deadlift. Go into deficit and you only burn 8 calories per deadlift (made up numbers as I can't recall what they were). So you have to do more work to burn the same number of calories when in a deficit.
I suspect the ratio varies person to person but just shows how complex the whole calories in / calories out thing is and measuring it as if you change one thing, everything else changes as well....
Doomaniac - you do really seem very defensive
I am fascinated by what you claim to eat and 16g of carb is ridiculously unhealthy and many of your statements are on the surface nonsense - how can you have a brownie with 1 g of carbs - and wTF are "net carbs"
And yes - a calorie is a measure of energy. Its a unit that is not a variable
What about all cm or all °C
In nutritional terms calories don't have identical effects in the body so they aren't equal simply because different pathways are involved and many of these processes are inefficient (2nd law of thermodynamics)
The calories assigned to food represent the energy for complete combustion of that food in oxygen. Calories refer to a chemical reaction, not the food itself.
So if i eat 1 pound of sugar vs 1 pound of butter my body will react in different ways and affect difference hormones. That isn't disputed. Insulin is a hormone that controls fat absorption. That is also not disputed. It stands to reason that if i lower circulating insulin in my body i will have have a tendency to utilise more fat as a source and not store as much fat.
Why this is so hard to understand i do not know
All Calories are not equal
Well equal in a calorimiter but not in the human body.
Eg take 500 calories of rice, cook with a teaspoon of coconut oil then refrigerating it for 12 hours more than halves the number of calories absorbed by the body...
Loads of similar studies on how different gut enzymes cope with different food starch types.
Thermodynamics of weight loss diets
Summary of thermodynamics in living organism
1. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that there is an inevitable metabolic inefficiency in all biological and biochemical processes with heat and high entropy molecules (carbon dioxide, water, urea) as the most common products.2. The first law of thermodynamics is satisfied in living (open) systems by properly accounting for the mass excreted and the heat radiated and exported in high entropy molecules.
It is commonly held that "a calorie is a calorie", i.e. that diets of equal caloric content will result in identical weight change independent of macronutrient composition, and appeal is frequently made to the laws of thermodynamics. We have previously shown that thermodynamics does not support such a view and that diets of different macronutrient content may be expected to induce different changes in body mass. Low carbohydrate diets in particular have claimed a "metabolic advantage" meaning more weight loss than in isocaloric diets of higher carbohydrate content. In this review, for pedagogic clarity, we reframe the theoretical discussion to directly link thermodynamic inefficiency to weight change. The problem in outline: Is metabolic advantage theoretically possible? If so, what biochemical mechanisms might plausibly explain it? Finally, what experimental evidence exists to determine whether it does or does not occur?
The misunderstanding that continues to be repeated in the expression "a calorie is a calorie" appears to be exclusive reference to the first law of thermodynamics. The difficulty with this theoretical approach is that it is only part of the relevant physics and its relationship to biologic systems. The first law says that in any transformation the total energy in the system can be accounted for by the heat added to the system, the work done by the system on its environment and the change in energy content of all the components of the system. It is important to understand, however, that the <b>first law does not say what the relative distribution between these effects will be for any process..</b> In fact, the first law does not even allow us to say whether the process will occur at all. To understand the progress of a physical change it is necessary to <b>understand the second law which introduces an entity known as the entropy,</b> S, a measure of disorder in all processes. In all real (irreversible) processes, entropy increases, usually written ΔS > 0. The most common marker of increasing entropy is heat, although it is by no means the only evidence for increased entropy.
Why this is so hard to understand i do not know
Its not, its just this obsession with saying not all calories are equal that is pure utter bobbins anyone who says this clearly doesnt understand some very basic things.
Well equal in a calorimiter but not in the human body.
No they really are the same.
@tjagain you call me a liar and seem surprised that I'm defensive. You're still questioning my carb intake, pm me your phone number and I'll whatsapp you screen shots.
It's a cookie, not a brownie (they are about 2.5g net carb), and it's made from almond flour, erythritol, coconut oil, choc chips, pecans and baking powder. They are slightly smaller than a digestive.
If you did any actual research into Keto you'd understand what net carbs are. You could even read the link I provided.
No they really are the same.
Well the overall energy content is the same but the ratio absorbed vs excreted varies depending on the specific food type, gut biome and wether or not the indiviudal is in a calorie deficit or not. Since the latter is all that really matters from a diet POV, it really doesn't matter that the unit of energy, of 1 calorie, is constant..
The misunderstanding that continues to be repeated in the expression “a calorie is a calorie” appears to be exclusive reference to the first law of thermodynamics. The difficulty with this theoretical approach is that it is only part of the relevant physics and its relationship to biologic systems. The first law says that in any transformation the total energy in the system can be accounted for by the heat added to the system, the work done by the system on its environment and the change in energy content of all the components of the system. It is important to understand, however, that the <b>first law does not say what the relative distribution between these effects will be for any process..</b> In fact, the first law does not even allow us to say whether the process will occur at all. To understand the progress of a physical change it is necessary to <b>understand the second law which introduces an entity known as the entropy,</b> S, a measure of disorder in all processes. In all real (irreversible) processes, entropy increases, usually written ΔS > 0. The most common marker of increasing entropy is heat, although it is by no means the only evidence for increased entropy.
This just reads like bobbins to me. A calorie is certainly a calorie and the first law of thermodynamics stands, the question is simply where does the energy go, is it stored, shat out, used in respiration or lost as heat or other options.
MY advice to anyone reading this dangerous twaddle is to get advice from a registered dietician. "Nutritionist" is not a regulated professional label and all sorts of nonsense some of it dangerous are peddled by so called "nutritionists" A dietician is a regulated profession, they have accredited training and belong to a professional body that ensures they do not give out dangerous tawddle as advice
the question is simply where does the energy go, is it stored, shat out, used in respiration or lost as heat or other options.
Which is all that matters from a diet POV, so just stating that a calorie in a calorie and claiming everyone else is talking bobbins isn't a any help nor provides any insight, just needlessly pedantic IMHO.
This just reads like bobbins to me.
Makes perfect sense to me, in simple terms: Measuring calories in (through the mouth) is relatively simple. Measuring calories out gets more tricky, you need to consider where the energy of each calorie is used, is it in the body or elsewhere - which is very difficult to measure, you have to live in a Calorimiter / drink heavy water at £1000 a pop - all very expensive and not accessible to anyone outside a research lab. Although Cambridge has a couple of labs that do just this eg the MRC-Dunn Human Nutrition Unit does this.
It’s a cookie, not a brownie (they are about 2.5g net carb), and it’s made from almond flour, erythritol, coconut oil, choc chips, pecans and baking powder. They are slightly smaller than a digestive.
No way do they have on 2.5 g of carbs then with that ingredient list - and your link was not to anything worth reading. See my comments about nutritionists
Provide me with links to reputable peer reviewed journals by proper scientists and I will read and learn.
absorbed vs excreted
Absorbed v Egested...just to continue the pendant mode!! I doubt much energy is excreted v egested. I reckon a poo would burn better than a piss. I suppose urea has some energy but doubt its that high.
Which is all that matters from a diet POV, so just stating that a calorie in a calorie and claiming everyone else is talking bobbins isn’t a any help nor provides any insight, just needlessly pedantic IMHO.
True, but anyone who claims to be a scientist and says not all calories are equal just makes me laugh!
I reckon a poo would burn better than a piss. I suppose urea has some energy but doubt its that high.
They do just this at the Dunn unit, you can sign up to one of their diets and they provide the food in exchange for all your poo which they then burn to see what and how much you didn't absorb. You can also volunteer to live in one of their Calorimiter chambers for a few days and have all your expired Co2 measured...
This thread reminds me about how much it annoys me that people do fasted rides to try and lose weight as thats what Froome does. Firstly they arent Froome, secondly Froome et al do it to be more efficient in fat metabolism to increase endurance which it may well do in a very marginal way, which is what they need your general stw nodder just needs a proper breakfast and some structured training with intervals and rest and a good balanced diet with some calorific debt to lose weight.
the question is simply where does the energy go, is it stored, shat out, used in respiration or lost as heat or other options.
Of course, so what controls what gets egested, what gets used for heat, what gets used for movement and what gets sorted as fat?
There are various hormones that control those parameters, and the levels of those hormones and the responses to them are affected by what you eat what you do, how you're trained and your genes.
Aaaaand I'm done beating my head against a brick wall.
I know what I'm eating and the mirror shows me it's working.
Of course, so what controls what gets egested, what gets used for heat, what gets used for movement and what gets sorted as fat?
Staggeringly complex and very person specific.
A huge amount depends on what enzymes you have in your gut, which is a combination of environment, diet and genetics. They can do biome transfusions from thin to fat people and vice versa and dramaticly alter the overall absorbstion ratio.
You not only have absorbtion efficiency but how the process interacts with hunger hormones eg grhelin (IIRC), so some people will feel satiated at a lower absorbtion level than others.
Then on top of that you have effects which are switched on and off depending on whether you are in a calorie deficit or not, so the behaviour can be modified again...
End result, we're all different, one diet might work wonders for one type of person but be hopeless for another as it's just unsustainable for a variety of reasons eg person A might feel a little hungry and be able to stick to it easily, person B might be left with insatiable hunger and mood swings and just can't stick to it. Person A might achieve a higher deficit due to how well their body absorbs the food, person B might be in a paper calorie deficit but in reality be neutral or in a surpless as their body is way more efficiecnt at absorbing calories on that diet.
very person specific.
Is it or are the differences actual quite small. As populations high calorie, high fat and sugar diets combined with lack of exercise lead to increased obesity. If everyone in the country reduced calories by 500 a day or whatever and moved more the country would get slimmer. Some more than others but the normal distribution would shift
20g of carbs per day? 😲
I’d pass our just walking downstairs.
I know what I’m eating and the mirror shows me it’s working.
Yes - you are eating less calories which is why you are losing weight.
I know what I’m eating and the mirror shows me it’s working.
Good for you, I saw the pictures and it's pretty impressive
Yes – you are eating less calories which is why you are losing weight.
you know when you said get advice from a professional, well that isn't you is it? So why should he pay any attention to what you say?
20g of carbs per day? 😲
I’d pass our just walking downstairs.
Yeah, it did feel like that at first. I even bonked on an eBike!
Is it or are the differences actual quite small
You tell me. I'm saying that the differences can be quite large, having seen how much some skinny people can eat and stay thin regardless of how much exercise they do.
Its funny how people fully accept that some people can bulk up in the gym more easily than others, but when you suggest that people might gain fat more easily, you're accused (implicitly) of enabling spineless fatties in denial.
There is no doubt that there are lots of people in denial about how much they eat or exercise. There is no doubt that on the whole, people eat too much, and on the whole this causes excess weight. This is not in question and I said that above. However it IS the case that the types of food you eat change how your body accumulates fat even for the same overall calorie intake, and it IS the case that different people process these foods differently. Sometimes markedly so.
the country would get slimmer. Some more than others
How much more?
your general stw nodder just needs a proper breakfast and some structured training with intervals and rest and a good balanced diet with some calorific debt to lose weight.
Who's a general STW nodder here? Some people on this forum have done quite a bit of training in various sports including cycling. It seems to me to be the congenitally thin who think this weight loss lark is easy, they seem convinced of their own superiority. I don't think many people who have gone from 30% body fat to 8% will tell you it's easy, unless they are selling you a book.
You tell me. I’m saying that the differences can be quite large,
I cant tell you, I havent seen any actual scientific evidence, why do you say it is large?
it IS the case that different people process these foods differently. Sometimes markedly so.
If this was the case the evidence would be easy to find wouldnt it?
Who’s a general STW nodder here? Some people on this forum have done quite a bit of training in various sports including cycling.
Well if they are the "some" they are not the majority or the general/average forum user.
This has really disappeared up its own arse. We have the Atkins diet, the Angelis diet and the TJ diet all stubbornly denying each other, its almost pointless writing anything else down.
This thread reminds me about how much it annoys me that people do fasted rides to try and lose weight as thats what Froome does. Firstly they arent Froome, secondly Froome et al do it to be more efficient in fat metabolism to increase endurance which it may well do in a very marginal way, which is what they need your general stw nodder just needs a proper breakfast and some structured training with intervals and rest and a good balanced diet with some calorific debt to lose weight.
This is exactly what I did during keto November through February, and continued to do and am still doing now with gradual increases in carbs to support the introduction of higher intensity intervals over the period. As I told you, I lost 8KG in the 3-4 month period from September, and ALL of my training metrics across my power zones show much greater levels of endurance. I'm also confidently about to add 15% to my FTP which is a large annual jump, because - before you bang on about an FTP test being HIIT - even threshold level intervals are supported by a wider base aka increased Mitichondria created by whatever the scientific words are for a move toward fat metabolism and mitochondrial development at Endurance level which my body created earlier in the year.
So it can annoy you as much as you like, but it works even for the "general stw nodder" if performed properly. God love a man that use the word "may" for proven science at Pro peloton level using a method thats been around for decades.
Yeah, it did feel like that at first. I even bonked on an eBike!
I’m being serious I have to pretty much constantly eat or I get migraines, I’d never function on 20g calories per day and staggered anyone can.
Is easy to use for photos just copy the direct link into here.
I cant tell you, I havent seen any actual scientific evidence, why do you say it is large?
No one knows. It's incredibly expensive to measure so no one has the budget to measure a large enough number of people with a large enough number of food types in a set of different scenarios. Nutrition research doesn't get a lot of funding compared with say Cancer etc.
In some cases, the ones which get publicised a lot, there are massive differences but as for how representative of the population as a whole they are, no one knows as they've not measured enough people yet.
You basically live in a Calorimiter chamber with everything in and out measured by a bunch of lab assistants - I'd guess at over £1000/day per person. You'd need to baseline each person and then make a change and see what happens.
At some point I suspect they'll build up enough knowledge to look at your DNA, work out which Genes you have etc and know how each one interacts with food, but that's a long way off....
At some point I suspect they’ll build up enough knowledge to look at your DNA, work out which Genes you have
Pedant point 3, we all have the same genes!!
This is exactly what I did during keto November through February, and continued to do and am still doing now with gradual increases in carbs to support the introduction of higher intensity intervals over the period. As I told you, I lost 8KG in the 3-4 month period from September, and ALL of my training metrics across my power zones show much greater levels of endurance. I’m also confidently about to add 15% to my FTP which is a large annual jump, because – before you bang on about an FTP test being HIIT – even threshold level intervals are supported by a wider base aka increased Mitichondria created by whatever the scientific words are for a move toward fat metabolism and mitochondrial development at Endurance level which my body created earlier in the year.
So it can annoy you as much as you like, but it works even for the “general stw nodder” if performed properly. God love a man that use the word “may” for proven science at Pro peloton level using a method thats been around for decades.
Thats a lovely long anecdote thanks.
Maybe if you ate properly you weight wouldnt yoyo, just a thought.
The TJ diet is backed by decades of pure science peer reviewed and is the scientific consensus. Eat all food groups in moderation, run a calories deficit to lose weight, reduce fat and sugar content, stop the refined sugars which includes maltodextrin ( which is an industrial byproduct sold as a food stuff), add fibre ie a basic balanced healthy diet
It has the advantage of being simple, of working and of being healthy
all this Keto nonsense is very unhealthy. Any weight loss on keto is down to running a calorie deficit because its hard to get as many calories from meat as it is from cakes
I loathe the nonsense peddled by "nutritionists" as its often ( but not always - there are some good folk using that label) dangerous twaddle like the keto diet.
Got to love an STW diet thread...
A lot like a pantomime; 'He's behind you, with a cake!'
‘He’s behind you, with a cake!’
Wish someone was today did 90km on roadbike and all the bloody cafes I went to were closed and I didnt have a mask to go in a shop....
Fascinating summary of current understanding of gut biome and obesity...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5082693/
Got to feel sorry for this guy, underwent a FT for a bacterial infection and ended up becoming obese as a side effect!
A recent case report described a patient who underwent a successful fecal microbial transplant for Clostridium difficile infection but then developed new-onset obesity after receiving stool from an overweight donor.
Also, on the subject of DNA sequencing:
In the study, the authors found that there was large variation in the glycemic response to the same food items between subjects, as well as to the consumption of standardized meals. In an attempt to explain this variation in the glycemic response, the gut microbiome was analyzed with both 16S rDNA and whole metagenomic sequencing and combined with traditional measures, such as blood sugar, diet, physical activity, and body measurements, to create a machine-learning algorithm that accurately predicts personalized responses to real-life meals. Moreover, the algorithm accurately predicted glycemic response in a separate validation cohort and in a follow-up dietary intervention study. This study provides an exciting framework to better understand an individual’s response to dietary interventions based on their microbiota. Perhaps the next step would be to use a similar approach to investigate whether information about an individual’s microbiota can predict dietary energy availability and better personalized diets for obesity prevention and/or treatment.
I suppose urea has some energy but doubt its that high.
Remarkably high actually, fixing nitrogen takes a lot of energy.
Pedant point 3, we all have the same genes!!
OK, now you're just trolling (or ignorant) No two human (not even identical twins) have identical sets of genes.
OK, now you’re just trolling (or ignorant)
How was the human genome mapped then?
OK, now you’re just trolling (or ignorant) No two human (not even identical twins) have identical sets of genes.
I’m going to call you out as wrong I’m afraid nick, as there’s overwhelming evidence over many years and threads culminating in this one that TJ and AA obviously both have the “I’m right despite masses of evidence to the contrary” gene.
How was the human genome mapped then?
Really? A small sample of humans were sequenced and combined to form a complete set of each chromosomes...The map is a "made up" human example, but doesn't represent one person, as the genome of everyone is different, it's why you can have a genetic fingerprint...
I’m going to call you out as wrong I’m afraid nick, as there’s overwhelming evidence over many years and threads culminating in this one that TJ and AA obviously both have the “I’m right despite masses of evidence to the contrary” gene.
Actually that would funnily enough make me wrong.
Also if you get one copy of each gene from each parent how would that work if we all had different genes?
mostly copy variations and mutations.
No two human (not even identical twins) have identical sets of genes.
well they do TBF
as there’s overwhelming evidence over many years and threads culminating in this one that TJ and AA obviously both have the “I’m right despite masses of evidence to the contrary” gene.
Masses of bullshine you mean? Ask a dietitian - you know a proper registered and trained professional if you should eat a balanced diet with low refined sugars or some fad diet like Keto
I have not read every post here but I have seen no credible evidence at all - just wo wo bullshine.
And you have provided no evidence that it's dangerous.
I have and here is more - from proper journals
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-try-the-keto-diet
https://ep.bmj.com/content/102/4/194
The first link contains this comment from an actual dietician;
only short-term results have been studied, and the results have been mixed. We don't know if it works in the long term, nor whether it's safe
“We don’t know”
Hardly conclusive.
The second link only refers to studies of Keto diets for epileptic children. I didn’t see any reference to the Keto diet for non epileptic adults. I did only skim read it though.
mostly copy variations and mutations.
They are still the same genes, the genes are the same, different versions are alleles of the same gene.
well they do TBF
No, they don't. Even Zygotic twins have copy differences and mutations in their genes. Minor variations in the most part, but enough to see a difference. As well as that they could have aged related or exposure to carcinogens over time, (the same as all of us) which will change their genome
https://www.tvguide.co.uk/m-detail/3796564/30658687/lose-a-stone-in-21-days-with-michael-mosley
On channel 4 tonight, should be interesting
The TJ diet
Ok look. No-one is saying this is wrong, ok? So relax. Your disdain for bullshit (which I share) is colouring your view of this discussion. The principles you state are fine for most people in most situations, that's why it's the general GP grade advice.
On this thread we are interested people digging a little deeper, trying to understand the nuances. You've met me, you know I am not a fat tubber and I can ride. A GP would tell me I'm fine (and they have).
However my issue is that I want to be leaner because I want to race bikes, this is a pretty niche thing to do. So I want to know why I struggle to shift the 10kg I want to. What is it specifically about my habits or physiology (either genetic or acquired) is making it harder than it needs to be; or what I can do to make it more successful. Unlike you, I have tried a lot of experiments and come across various effects that I wish to understand.
I'm not a fan of keto, personally, but as I understand it the jury is out as to whether or not it's bad for you either short or long term. But low GI certainly isn't, particularly as I eat far more vegetables when I do the iDave diet.
No, they don’t. Even Zygotic twins have copy differences and mutations in their genes.
The genes are the same though.
or some fad diet like Keto
It's just another diet, works for some, not for others. When it works it has managed to overcome the two main obstacles with diets: compliance and achieving a calorie deficit. When it doesn't work it has failed on one of those two. Nothing to get your knickers in a twist over.
Ok - so how in the next two weeks can I make a difference to the spare tyre? Will most probably be able to get in 60-80 miles riding each week..and would like enough energy for rides...
I had success in both loosing and gaining weight using the templates from Renaissance Periodization ( https://renaissanceperiodization.com/). They're mostly aimed at strength sports, but I'd argue that if you're eating to loose weight then you should definitely be doing some strength training to help loose fat rather than muscle.
In a nut shell: eat to a plan and/or record what you're eating, measure your weight. If you're loosing weight at the appropriate rate keep at it. If you're not then adjust your plan so that you're eating a bit less (reducing carbs first, other than around workouts, then fat). Repeat until you've reached your target (assuming your target is realistic).
Ok – so how in the next two weeks can I make a difference to the spare tyre?
Very difficult in two weeks, that's not really enough time to make lasting changes.
My general advice is to minimise (or eliminate) the 'starch' portion of meals and replace with lots of vegetables and pulses, then ride relatively gently but long. Reserve carbohydrates for during the long rides and immediately after. But this is quite a change to make without a fair bit of culinary thought - search the forum for iDave diet recpies if you are brave, or just google for low GI recipes.
But as above - it takes a lot longer than two weeks.
I’d argue that if you’re eating to loose weight then you should definitely be doing some strength training to help loose fat rather than muscle.
On the other hand, when I did strength training (5x5) I got strong and my riding improved but by god was I hungry. All I could do was maintain weight not lose it. Kettlebells, with much lower weight and many more reps (20-60 depending on exercise) were more successful with weight loss.
Thank you to molgrips (always like your posts) and impatientbull - your considered advice, details ideas and links appreciated. Just the ticket. Under no illusions that two weeks is no silverbullet, if only, but want to make a concerted effort to apply the mind and body and get into some good habits, which hopefully can see a few tangible results.
Molgrips - I have no issue with folk being interested in metabolism nor have I criticised that. What I have criticised is the evangelical promotion of a dangerous fad diet quoting obvious crap sources
From my link above - and that took 30 seconds to find
A ketogenic diet has numerous risks. Top of the list: it's high in saturated fat. McManus recommends that you keep saturated fats to no more than 7% of your daily calories because of the link to heart disease. And indeed, the keto diet is associated with an increase in "bad" LDL cholesterol, which is also linked to heart disease.
Other potential keto risks include these:
Nutrient deficiency. "If you're not eating a wide variety of vegetables, fruits, and grains, you may be at risk for deficiencies in micronutrients, including selenium, magnesium, phosphorus, and vitamins B and C," McManus says.
Liver problems. With so much fat to metabolize, the diet could make any existing liver conditions worse.
Kidney problems. The kidneys help metabolize protein, and McManus says the keto diet may overload them. (The current recommended intake for protein averages 46 grams per day for women, and 56 grams for men).
Constipation. The keto diet is low in fibrous foods like grains and legumes.
Fuzzy thinking and mood swings. "The brain needs sugar from healthy carbohydrates to function. Low-carb diets may cause confusion and irritability," McManus says.
Those risks add up — so make sure that you talk to a doctor and a registered dietitian before ever attempting a ketogenic diet.
Keto diet is dangerous and unhealthy. NO doubt at all
In your own case - are you still eating 500g a week of refined sugars? - thats what you were doing with your sports drinks and your recovery drinks doing all sorts of weird things to your insulin response. A can of coke is 35 grammes of sugars. Isotonic sports drinks are full of sugars in huge quantities
Lots of mays and coulds in that. Short on will and does.
Keto diet is dangerous and unhealthy. NO doubt at all
Yes there is.
Ketogenic diets don't prescribe eating lots of saturated fat, nor do they prevent you eating vegetables.
Certainly the diet I've advocated (which isn't ketogenic, just low carb) forces you to eat an absolute ton of vegetables, because you have basically nothing else to eat. It's much healthier than filling up on starch.
So, if you know what you are doing and eat vegetables along with your meat, why's it dangerous?
In your own case – are you still eating 500g a week of refined sugars? – thats what you were doing with your sports drinks and your recovery drinks doing all sorts of weird things to your insulin response.
Why are you even asking that? You want to drag an old argument up, where you were wrong last time? You don't know the difference the role of insulin during exercise, post-exercise and at rest.
MOlgrips - my point about the sugars is you are taking in ( or were) 2000+ calories a week in refined sugars. But yes - old argument but thats my guess as to why you cannot shift the weight and because I was interested I discussed it with a proper dietitian who was horrified
keto diets like those advocated on here preclude most fruit and veg simply because fruit and veg contains carbs. Thats why they are dangerous. Low carb is fine. Keto is not the same as low carb
Jonv - thats because they are proper scientists - causality is hard to prove so its couched in those terms.
I'llk bow out now. Hopefully I have said enough to make folk who could have been sucked in by the evangelic shite spouted by some on this thread ( not you Moley) to think twice before the damage their bodies irrevocably
Plenty of doubt, even in the very link you're quoting;
The first link contains this comment from an actual dietician;
only short-term results have been studied, and the results have been mixed. We don’t know if it works in the long term, nor whether it’s safe
“We don’t know”
Hardly conclusive.
The second link only refers to studies of Keto diets for epileptic children. I didn’t see any reference to the Keto diet for non epileptic adults. I did only skim read it though.
You keep telling yourself that Doomanic
Hopefully People will listen to the real scientists and avoid this dangerous fad diet.
My supper was a piece of baked fish (Basa in a chilli marinade), 150g of cauliflower rice (mixed with 48g of soft cheese and some crushed garlic), 150g of brocolli and 75g of green beans. Desert was a low cal jelly, 50g of strawberries, 30g of raspberries and some double cream. 13.6g of net carbs. Who needs spuds?
@tjagain Your own link doesn't support your hypothesis, you really need to wind your neck in and stop spouting bollox while claiming it's fact.
I know what scientists do, thanks. I manage 45 brilliant ones, way smarter than you and me. They hypothesize based on observation and then experiment to gather evidence to try to prove or disprove their theory. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming and the scientific community absorbs it as fact. Sometimes the evidence points strongly to a conclusion but there are niggly outliers that suggest the theory is not yet perfect.
Which is what I think we have here. Strong evidence of harmful effects in a (large) proportion of individuals, but enough cases to think there is more to know.
Hence why your "Keto diet is dangerous and unhealthy. NO doubt at all" is IMHO incorrect. If you'd said highly likely or widely believed or even that YOU have no doubt...
but thats my guess as to why you cannot shift the weight
That discussion was over ten years ago and was at a time when I did shift weight. You can guess all you like about my weight, but I'd appreciate it if you credited me with some intelligence.
Genuine question though - can someone explain what is meant by 'net carbs' ?
On channel 4 tonight, should be interesting
We did his last one which boiled down to a similar thing. Basicly soup or protein shake 3x a day and a big plate of roast veg for dinner, circa 700-800 calories a day. Looks like he's swapped some of the soup for meat and eggs this time.
It did work, with the following caveats:
1) You then need some fuel on the bike, I found I pretty much had to inhale harribo on a long ride as you have very little stored energy to access. I just treated bike rides as cheat times and it seemed to still work as long as I kept the extra calories arround 400 an hour (e.g. a banana every 20 minutes).
2) You need willpower. I'm fine if there's no junk in the house, so if I buy a cauliflower to roast in tandori spices then thats what I'll eat and I'll enjoy it. If there's a tub of ice cream I'll eat that too though. My OH claims that shes the opposite and wont crave stuff if its in the house. This is patently rubbish judging by the ammount of crisps we buy.
Going to try it again, it was working well until panic buying made it impossible to buy a shopping trolley of soup and she compensated by just buying junk for weeks on end, she does the big shop, I do the little shops usually.
Certainly the diet I’ve advocated (which isn’t ketogenic, just low carb) forces you to eat an absolute ton of vegetables, because you have basically nothing else to eat. It’s much healthier than filling up on starch.
No doubt but it will contain a load of carbs including starch and lot of a different types, almost all will be absorbed as glucose if it can be. Cellulose for example isnt digested by humans.
Hopefully People will listen to the real scientists
What, You? At the very least you see to have read the thread properly and just for a minute your assumption that people were only eating meat and fat seemed to vanish.
Just because people are Keto or low carb, or use sports drinks doesn’t mean they are unhealthy as Doomanics menu demonstrates. In fact, if you are training for sports balanced diets are more important and can also be periodised, as mine is.
You need willpower.
This until it becomes habit or you can keep your mind busy. I’m currently having a big rest week desperate to keep my weight (w/kg) down to give me a good crack at a target FTP on Sunday, but with barely any additional calories out its proving a struggle, especially when ones wife spends the day cooking banana loaf and apple strudel flapjack...
So net carbs doesnt include things like cellulose which humans cant digest and absorb, that makes sense.
Low carb and Keto seem to be very different things and shouldnt talked about together imo.
hijack
@Kryton75
Any chance of the apple strudel flapjack recipe
hijack over
Low carb and Keto seem to be very different things and shouldnt talked about together imo.
Perhaps some people (TJ) are confusing ketogenic diets with "the keto diet", and even that seems to have spun off variations.
Standard ketogenic diet (SKD): This is a very low-carb, moderate-protein and high-fat diet. It typically contains 75% fat, 20% protein and only 5% carbs (1Trusted Source).
Cyclical ketogenic diet (CKD): This diet involves periods of higher-carb refeeds, such as 5 ketogenic days followed by 2 high-carb days.
Targeted ketogenic diet (TKD): This diet allows you to add carbs around workouts.
High-protein ketogenic diet: This is similar to a standard ketogenic diet, but includes more protein. The ratio is often 60% fat, 35% protein and 5% carbs.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/ketogenic-diet-101#3
I’m following the high protein version of the diet. As is the friend who put me on to it and has done even better than me, losing 50KG since Christmas (he did have more lose than me, both literally and figuratively being a 120KG soldier in danger of being medically discharged).
The iDave diet was not advertised as being low carb, it's actually low-insulinemic i.e. reduces the amount of insulin your body needs to produce. In fact it works better if you can get as much carbs as possible through veg (other than potatoes) which in practice means lots of beans.
almost all will be absorbed as glucose if it can be.
Can you explain this? Eating say, beans has a different effect on your body than eating glucose which is palpable if you've ever tried this kind of diet, so I don't see how beans are 'absorbed as glucose'.
You then need some fuel on the bike
Yeah this is where it varies. Those of us who have lots of type I fibres are happy to ride all day on fat reserves. I could do this but I'd have to walk up most hills as it stands I am too heavy to get up them in my zone 2. Along with a natural tendency to smash it which is probably both psychological and physiological (and both related) I need some carbs on rides. If I have too few I then get too hungry to be sustainable, and I don't recover; if I have too many then I maintain weight.
It seems that paradoxically, for me, riding less helps as I put my body under less strain which means I can stick to the diet much more easily.
Can you explain this? Eating say, beans has a different effect on your body than eating glucose which is palpable if you’ve ever tried this kind of diet, so I don’t see how beans are ‘absorbed as glucose’.
I am certainly no expert but if you eat beans for example the digestible parts will be broken down by enzymes into glucose and other smaller sugars for absorption into the blood. Only small molecules, monomers, like glucose or amino acids (building blocks of protein) can get into the blood. Beans will however contain a lot more indigestible parts such as cellulose a polymer, we dont have enzymes that can break up cellulose into the glucose its made up of. Starch and cellulose are both glucose polymers. The undigested parts referred to as Fibre are whats good for your colon. Beans gave other bits that gut bacteria ferment producing gas that makes you fart.
I expect this is where not all calories are equal comes from. Cellulose contains lots of calories in its bonds, we just cant access them.
This is all AFAIK the reality will be much more complex.