Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why can't I look like Mark Sisson!?!?!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me.
    Happy to oblige.
    5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.
      The most valid statement in this entire thread.

      Made in various ways by various people...
      Always right there in red.
      I love it.
      “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
      ~Friedrich Nietzsche
      And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        No, they say the exact same thing. Glucose must either be dietary or it comes from lean mass. You're trying to turn it into something it isn't my creating assumptions that never existed.


        Nice try with the selective quoting. Read further:

        1500 calories were given total.
        Ketogenic dieters were given 33g of carbohydrate a day, which is 9% of total calories.
        "Low carb" dieters were given 157g of carbohydrate a day, which is 42% of total calories.

        How many people in this thread consider 42% total daily calories a "low carbohydrate diet?" 157g/day is in Mark Sisson's "insidious weight gain" area of the (ridiculous) Carbohydrate Curve. They're eating that much on a massive deficit, and it's being call "low carbohydrate."

        This was nothing close to an "Atkins type of diet" as you attempted to indicate.
        I indicated nothing....that was a lyle mc'd quote...blame your mentor

        And 33g of carbs isn't atkins induction level? Huh, let me go get my book.... Hmmmmmm

        Dude YOU stated ketogenic or low carb levels eat up your lean mass. You HAVE NO PROOF. Again from that study:

        "There was no significant change in fat free mass for either diet."
        I'll give you two guess on what "fat free mass" is....

        That is what we are talking about. I'm not fighting for or against your carb curve or your right to eat what you want. I'm telling you that your continued stance on low carb "eating lean mass" is absurd and not backed by any studies that I've seen.

        You can hang your hat on this study done by Sears on 20 people that shows NO statistically significant difference....but I wouldn't if I were you.

        You know the three things I love most about this study:

        ONE: it totally refutes what you claim
        TWO: it was done by a group financially invested in having the higher carb groups outcome be better
        THREE: you went to an anti-lowcarbers website to find it
        Last edited by Neckhammer; 01-22-2013, 12:50 PM.

        Comment


        • In the face of a chronic and/or severe calorie deficit (whether from diet alone or from diet and exercise), inadequate protein intake, and no weight bearing exercise, muscle will be catabolized for energy by the body. However, muscle will also be catabolized on a high carb diet where there is no weight bearing exercise and the deficit is chronic and/or severe. While there can be other drawbacks of a ketogenic diet(low thyroid, poor hormonal balance in women), it doesn't necessarily equate to muscle mass loss in all situations. That being said, there isn't any inherent benefit of ketogenic diets over isocaloric or higher carb diets.

          Lyle McDonald actually wrote a very long book called "The Ketogenic Diet" that goes into the physiological impact of a ketogenic diet. Though some of the information is slightly outdated, it is a great read.

          I love the conversation here. I think the big take-away from this thread is "Different strokes for different folks". I wouldn't do a ketogenic diet long term if you paid me to do it, but I won't take you away from it if it works for you and you are thriving on it.
          Last edited by NDF; 01-22-2013, 04:31 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NDF View Post
            I love the conversation here. I think the big take-away from this thread is "Different strokes for different folks". I wouldn't do a ketogenic diet long term if you paid me to do it, but I won't take you away from it if it works for you and you are thriving on it.
            You sound very reasonable .

            Comment


            • The body can use dietary protein for gluconeogenesis before it uses lean mass as well. That is why if you are trying to get yourself into ketosis, too much dietary protein can actually prevent it. But you could still be VERY low carb and that glucose in your body is still not coming from your lean mass.
              "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NDF View Post

                Lyle McDonald actually wrong a very long book called "The Ketogenic Diet" that goes into the physiological impact of a ketogenic diet. Though some of the information is slightly outdated, it is a great read.
                Freudian slip, there?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                  The body can use dietary protein for gluconeogenesis before it uses lean mass as well. That is why if you are trying to get yourself into ketosis, too much dietary protein can actually prevent it. But you could still be VERY low carb and that glucose in your body is still not coming from your lean mass.
                  I've toyed with a ketogenic diet and could never get into ketosis. When I ate nothing but potatoes for 2 weeks, I was in super-ketosis. I'm sure too much meat was keeping me out, and on potatoes, the super low calories were keeping me in.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                    I've toyed with a ketogenic diet and could never get into ketosis. When I ate nothing but potatoes for 2 weeks, I was in super-ketosis. I'm sure too much meat was keeping me out, and on potatoes, the super low calories were keeping me in.
                    Only one type of ketone, acetone appers on a ketostick. The primary ketone we make, beta-hydroxybutyric acid does not even register on the stick. This is why ketosticks are poor at measuring ketosis. You might have actually been in ketosis, running off of BHBA but it doesn't show on the stick so you wouldn't know. On the other hand, the potato diet may have specifically had a larger effect on spurring acetone production, so you may have had lots of that to register on the stick but actually been less "deep" into ketosis than you think. Tough to say.
                    "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      Dude YOU stated ketogenic or low carb levels eat up your lean mass.
                      No, you stated that. What I've stated is that during a significant caloric deficit, a ketogenic diet is more likely to reduce lean mass than a diet equal in protein with a balanced amount of fat and carbohydrate.

                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      You HAVE NO PROOF.
                      You don't want to admit fault. There is a difference.

                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      Again from that study:

                      "There was no significant change in fat free mass for either diet."
                      There was a change in weight and fat lost in the diet. However, it was close enough that it could fit inside a margin of error. Statistical significance =/= significance. That depends on the reader.

                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      That is what we are talking about. I'm not fighting for or against your carb curve or your right to eat what you want. I'm telling you that your continued stance on low carb "eating lean mass" is absurd and not backed by any studies that I've seen.
                      Actually it is.

                      The moderate carbohydrate diet of equal caloric value slightly outperformed the ketogenic diet in both weight loss and fat mass reduction. The value not accounted for in the study is the additional water weight and glycogen that must have been lost in the ketogenic dieting group, which should further skew the study in the moderate carbohydrate diet's favor. The ketogenic diet came up a little short (though not "statistically significant"), but when accounting for a major confounding factor...well...this is where you have to be a scientist and analyze the data. I consider this significant, especially since the general formula for very overweight, sedentary people is to keep carbs as low as possible. Well, these were very overweight, sedentary people, which again proves that the success of a diet depends on two things: the caloric deficit, and the sustainability of that deficit.

                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      You can hang your hat on this study done by Sears on 20 people that shows NO statistically significant difference....but I wouldn't if I were you.
                      I will take a well-controlled small study over a mass epidemiological study with an infinity of confounding factors. This is as perfect of a study as you can get, especially since the biggest gripe you can come up with is sample size.

                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      ONE: it totally refutes what you claim
                      It supports it.

                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      TWO: it was done by a group financially invested in having the higher carb groups outcome be better
                      It was controlled. Even protein was kept fairly constant. If anything, it gave the advantage to the ketosis group since it was marginally higher for them! This argument is an ad hominem fallacy, so it's not valid anyway.

                      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      THREE: you went to an anti-lowcarbers website to find it
                      Lyle McDonald literally wrote the book on ketogenic dieting. He was the one that mainstreamed it in the bodybuilding culture. Not only is this a straw man fallacy (which again makes it invalid), but you put your own foot in your mouth there. Lyle is the Lord of Ketosis
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • ^ He wrote a book ...and

                        As to point two there is a reason why people submitting papers have to outright list their own affiliations and possible bias's less have it rejected outright. Noting it is not an ad hominem....simply a statement of fact. Now if I said I said "Sears is a xyz type of person and so you cant trust this study" you could go ad hominem with that. That said, I only pointed it out to reiterate that the data would almost certainly not be slanted in favor of the lower carb diet due to bias.

                        Interesting what you say about that water data. You know that water is counted as fat free mass right? So if the scientist make this observation:

                        "There was no significant change in fat free mass for either diet."

                        But don't account for water loss (i.e. fat free mass) what would that tell you about the lean mass of the keto dieters? Just think about that for a moment. Seems that you are making the case of less weight loss, but increased overall lean mass (compared to the other diet) in the keto dieters.
                        Last edited by Neckhammer; 01-22-2013, 02:12 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Neckhammer, I frequently make two points around here:

                          1.) If you are losing weight on your diet, it's not due to fat count, carb count, macro skewing, etc. You are simply burning more energy than you are consuming.

                          2.) For the vast majority of people, they will diet down best and most healthfully on a mix of all macronutrients and not treating one as the enemy.

                          This study suggests one of two things: there is either no metabolic advantage to a ketogenic diet versus a mixed diet of equal calories, or a slight disadvantage.

                          I don't like ketogenic diets for the majority of the population because they are not ideal for the majority of the population. A mixed diet is going to preserve lean mass the best, you're going to have the most exciting meals due to the wide array of foods available to you and you'll be least likely to develop any nutrient deficiencies or metabolic issues because you will have a more varied diet. If a ketogenic works best for you, it is probably because the food is relatively boring by comparison so you just don't eat as much. But the success of a diet shouldn't be measured solely in terms of weight loss, either.

                          Now, you have to use some common sense. A baked potato covered in cheddar cheese, bacon and green onions may be perfectly Primal on paper...but that's kind of easy to overeat. That's not the fault of the starch in the potato. That's not the fault of the fat in the bacon or cheddar. You just have to be responsible. And this is what I recommend: responsible, balanced dieting using whole foods.
                          Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 01-22-2013, 02:13 PM.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • ^Again, wasn't talking about your diet philosophy. Simply the claim that low carb burns lean mass more so than another diet of approximately the same calories. That was all we were discussing, not the primal diet or humanity at large.

                            Comment


                            • Something else hardly anybody talks about, too, is that when you are on a prolonged weightloss journey, and you hit a stall, you are going to have to make some changes to get it moving downward again.

                              When you finally reach your goal, however you are eating when you do...that is how you must eat forever more to maintain that new weight.

                              You can't diet your way down to a goal weight and expect to stay there if you start eating more. With that in mind, every little tweak you make to your diet needs to be sustainable long-term.

                              If one isn't prepared to be in ketosis for the rest of their life, maybe using ketosis to reach a goal weight isn't all that smart.

                              Now, eating a ton of potatoes and rice along with the fruit, veggies and meat is very sustainable and allows for brief off-plan eating, ie. holiday pie. If weight starts to climb, it's easy to cut the fat portion a bit to lose a few pounds.

                              On a keto diet, if you start gaining weight after a long time on it, what do you cut to lose some extra pounds? Fat? Meat? In reality, you shouldn't be able to gain weight eating keto, but lots do.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                                On a keto diet, if you start gaining weight after a long time on it, what do you cut to lose some extra pounds? Fat? Meat?
                                You cut portions. Duh.
                                Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X