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

[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1069420][COLOR="#FF0000"][B]Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. [/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Happy to oblige.

[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1069489][SIZE=3][COLOR="#FF0000"]Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

The most valid statement in this entire thread.

Made in various ways by various people...
Always right there in red.
I love it.
:o

[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1069489]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 [B]33g of carbohydrate[/B] a day, which is [B]9% of total calories.[/B]
"Low carb" dieters were given [B]157g of carbohydrate[/B] a day, which is [B]42% of total calories.[/B]

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.[/QUOTE]

I indicated nothing....that was a lyle mc'd quote...blame your mentor :p

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:
[B]
"There was no significant change in fat free mass for either diet." [/B] 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

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 "[URL="http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-ketogenic-diet"]The Ketogenic Diet[/URL]" 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.

[QUOTE=NDF;1069545]
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.[/QUOTE]

You sound very reasonable :).

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.

[QUOTE=NDF;1069545]

Lyle McDonald actually [B][I]wrong[/I][/B] a very long book called "[URL="http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-ketogenic-diet"]The Ketogenic Diet[/URL]" that goes into the physiological impact of a ketogenic diet. Though some of the information is slightly outdated, it is a great read.
[/QUOTE]

Freudian slip, there?

[QUOTE=Drumroll;1069573]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=otzi;1069579]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1069516]
Dude YOU stated ketogenic or low carb levels eat up your lean mass.[/quote]
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.

[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1069516]You HAVE NO PROOF.[/quote]
You don't want to admit fault. There is a difference.

[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1069516]Again from that study:
[B]
"There was no significant change in fat free mass for either diet." [/B] [/quote]
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.

[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1069516]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.[/quote]
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.

[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1069516]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.[/quote]
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.

[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1069516]
ONE: it totally refutes what you claim[/quote]
It supports it.

[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1069516]TWO: it was done by a group financially invested in having the higher carb groups outcome be better[/quote]
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.

[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1069516]THREE: you went to an anti-lowcarbers website to find it[/QUOTE]
Lyle McDonald [URL="http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-ketogenic-diet"]literally wrote the book on ketogenic dieting[/URL]. 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 :)