-
^ He wrote [B]a[/B] 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. [B]fat free mass[/B]) 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.
-
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.
-
^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.
-
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.
-
[QUOTE=otzi;1069635]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?[/QUOTE]
You cut portions. Duh.
-
[QUOTE=sbhikes;1069640]You cut portions. Duh.[/QUOTE]
Yep, you simply eat less.
I know, shocker, right? :eek:
-
[QUOTE=sbhikes;1069640]You cut portions. Duh.[/QUOTE]
So you're in a never-ending spiral of screwing over your metabolism by continuously eating less and less meat until your body begins cannibalizing its own protein mass?
-
[QUOTE=sakura_girl;1069655]So you're in a never-ending spiral of screwing over your metabolism by continuously eating less and less meat until your body begins cannibalizing its own protein mass?[/QUOTE]
Apparently so. And there was I thinking that PB rejected CW low-calorie dieting.
-
[QUOTE=paleo-bunny;1069680]Apparently so. And there was I thinking that PB rejected CW low-calorie dieting.[/QUOTE]
I love your new signature line, although now I can't tease you about plank progress.
-
[QUOTE=otzi;1069681]I love your new signature line, although now I can't tease you about plank progress.[/QUOTE]
Hi. Thanks. Certainly no plank progress to boast about recently. But yay, I'm eating more resistant starch. Mostly cooked bananas and white potatoes, and it feels good. Just gotta keep it up.
