Author Topic: LCHF and healthy eating  (Read 111216 times)

0 Members and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1065 on: November 08, 2018, 06:40:20 PM »
They plateau because the body reaches a state of homeostasis at the lower levels of caloric intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories.

I'd like to see some evidence of this long-term "homeostasis" of which you speak. It sounds like another myth promoted by low-carb evangelists.

Anyway, you guys are still talking about weight loss without differentiating between fat loss, and losses (or gains) in muscle mass.

The more drastic weight loss programs (especially low carb diets) will also reduce muscle mass as well as fat, which in turn lowers the subject's basal metabolic rate (BMR). The reduction in BMR that occurs with rapid weight loss is mostly due to muscle loss, because retaining muscle requires more calories than retaining fat.

And lowering one's BMR is not good for keeping off weight. Quite the opposite; to keep off the weight, it's better to raise one's BMR so that the body burns more calories even in its resting state.

The ideal situation would be to gain lean muscle while losing fat, so that one's BMR goes up as the fat decreases. Consequently, you could tolerate higher caloric intake without putting on fat.

Gaining muscle mass while losing fat would make one more physically fit, but could result in a net increase in overall body weight because muscle is a lot denser and heavier than fat.

There is a sort of homeostasis regarding total energy expenditure per day.  From double-labelled water studies it has been found that the sedentary expend much the same number of calories per day as the moderately active.  The extra calories expended during exercise is balanced by more efficient metabolism at rest.  The overweight and obese are fat because they’re eating too much with too many calories, not because they’re not exercising.

Exercise doesn’t necessarily add muscle mass, particularly if it’s cardio exercise, so exercising won’t increase the basal metabolic rate.  Exercise has many benefits, but weight loss isn’t one of them.  Exercising regularly maintains fitness.  If the person stops exercising, but continues to eat the same as previously, he will gain weight until he’s lost fitness and the basal metabolic rate increases (as metabolism becomes less efficient), at which time weight gain will cease (and the weight will plateau at a higher level with more body fat).

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2163
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1066 on: November 08, 2018, 06:41:44 PM »
They plateau because the body reaches a state of homeostasis at the lower levels of caloric intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories.

I'd like to see some evidence of this long-term "homeostasis" of which you speak. It sounds like another myth promoted by low-carb evangelists.

If you reduce your calorie intake by a fixed amount and do not increase the amount of exercise you do, then you will lose lean body mass, and hence your resting metabolic rate (RMR) will decline.  If you do that long enough, then you will lose enough lean body mass that your RMR, and hence your total energy expenditures, will decline enough such that you will eventually be in energy balance (what CS is calling "homeostasis").  Therefore, if a person has a lot of weight (body fat) to lose, they will have to continue to reduce their calorie intake over time.  If a diet plan doesn't do this, then the diet plan really has failed, because the diet plan was ill conceived.  But most people go off their diets long before this becomes an issue.

The fact that exercise mitigates (or even completely eliminates) the loss of lean body mass is an important reason that weight loss plans that incorporate exercise and diet are more effective than diet-only weight loss plans.

Absolutely.

But losing fat and putting on lean muscle could still result in a net gain in overall weight. So bathroom scale weight alone is not a good measure of overall fitness, because it only tells half the story.

Of course.  But I don't think anybody is talking about body weight per se, but rather using "body weight" as a more conversational way to say "body fat."
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 06:58:00 PM by jt512 »
Nur dass ich nicht nur Katzen gemacht habe.

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1067 on: November 08, 2018, 07:19:11 PM »
They plateau because the body reaches a state of homeostasis at the lower levels of caloric intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories.

I'd like to see some evidence of this long-term "homeostasis" of which you speak. It sounds like another myth promoted by low-carb evangelists.

If you reduce your calorie intake by a fixed amount and do not increase the amount of exercise you do, then you will lose lean body mass, and hence your resting metabolic rate (RMR) will decline.  If you do that long enough, then you will lose enough lean body mass that your RMR, and hence your total energy expenditures, will decline enough such that you will eventually be in energy balance (what CS is calling "homeostasis").  Therefore, if a person has a lot of weight (body fat) to lose, they will have to continue to reduce their calorie intake over time.  If a diet plan doesn't do this, then the diet plan really has failed, because the diet plan was ill conceived.  But most people go off their diets long before this becomes an issue.

The fact that exercise mitigates (or even completely eliminates) the loss of lean body mass is an important reason that weight loss plans that incorporate exercise and diet are more effective than diet-only weight loss plans.

Well, that's partially right. Here's what you're missing.

As you build fat over the years, you increase your body's capacity to store fat. That includes larger fat cells, in some cases added fat cells, and the arteries, capillaries and veins to support that additional capacity. As you lose weight the fat cells don't go away, and while they shrink (like deflated balloons) they still have significant surface area exposed to circulation, and they still have insulin receptors on their membranes that take cause them to readily take in fat and keep fat stored. 


Once you've lost the bulk of your fat, the last x number of pounds become extremely stubborn. On any diet.

If you cut calories to an extreme you can lose weight beyond your homeostasis set point, but that weight comes back almost instantly when you go off the extreme.

And, not this is not a  myth. It's fairly well recognized. You can google diet with "Set Point" or "energy balance" or "homeostasis"


Also, when you see in those studies that LCHF diets had a lead in weight loss up to x months, then LF diets catch up, that simply means LCHF reaches the set point sooner, and both settle on basically the same set points and weight loss is essentially the same. One gets there faster, with better improvement of just about all risk factors for chronic disease, and allows T2Diabetics to reduce or eliminate their medicine, but strictly in terms of weight loss, homeostasis occurs at that same level of weight/fat storage.

You’ve previously claimed that there’s a plateau with weight loss in people on a weight reducing diet.  When you went on your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet to lose weight, did you have a plateau?  What was your reaction?  What did you do?  Did you settle at the plateau, or did you manage to break through it?

When I decided 33 years ago that I needed to lose weight by going on a high carbohydrate/low fat diet, I rapidly lost 10 kg going from 85+ kg to 75 kg in 6 months, but then I plateaued at that weight for a few months.  But then I changed hospitals and adopted the habit of swimming in a heated pool in the hospital’s nurses’ quarters in the morning wearing a snorkel (I’m a very indifferent swimmer and can only get my heart rate to increase by the panic at being at the edge of drowning), which started my trend to dropping breakfast, which also reduced the calorie intake - and also caused me to restart the weight loss, to the stage that I’m now below 62 kg in weight.

And then 6 months later I was told that the pool was going to be closed for 3 weeks for maintenance so I bought a pair of running shoes.  And one week later there was a big 12 km ‘fun run,’ which I did and enjoyed.  And 3 weeks after that, there was a half marathon, which I also did and enjoyed too.  And 3 weeks after that, there was a full marathon, which I foolishly did (with only 7 weeks of totally inadequate training), and both sets of quads gave out going downhill at 27 km, and the last 15 km became a hard walk resulting in a finishing time of 4 1/2 hours, and I decided I wasn’t going to let the marathon defeat me, setting me on the path of running (too many) more marathons and my obsession of keeping my weight to around 61 to 62 kg (to reduce the stress on the joints) by watching my diet carefully.


Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1068 on: November 08, 2018, 10:50:38 PM »
They plateau because the body reaches a state of homeostasis at the lower levels of caloric intake. As you lose weight you need fewer calories.

I'd like to see some evidence of this long-term "homeostasis" of which you speak. It sounds like another myth promoted by low-carb evangelists.

If you reduce your calorie intake by a fixed amount and do not increase the amount of exercise you do, then you will lose lean body mass, and hence your resting metabolic rate (RMR) will decline.  If you do that long enough, then you will lose enough lean body mass that your RMR, and hence your total energy expenditures, will decline enough such that you will eventually be in energy balance (what CS is calling "homeostasis").  Therefore, if a person has a lot of weight (body fat) to lose, they will have to continue to reduce their calorie intake over time.  If a diet plan doesn't do this, then the diet plan really has failed, because the diet plan was ill conceived.  But most people go off their diets long before this becomes an issue.

The fact that exercise mitigates (or even completely eliminates) the loss of lean body mass is an important reason that weight loss plans that incorporate exercise and diet are more effective than diet-only weight loss plans.

Absolutely.

But losing fat and putting on lean muscle could still result in a net gain in overall weight. So bathroom scale weight alone is not a good measure of overall fitness, because it only tells half the story.

Of course.  But I don't think anybody is talking about body weight per se, but rather using "body weight" as a more conversational way to say "body fat."

And of course, many bathroom scales measure more than body weight.  The measurements provided by body composition bathroom scales have to be taken with more than a grain of salt, but from experience their measurements are fairly precise even if they’re not necessarily accurate.  A person’s body fat in kg shouldn’t vary much from day to day (a change of 100 g represents an imbalance of intake over output of around 700 kcals, which is a fairly large amount of food).  From experience, the scales provide fairly consistent readings of body fat weight.  A fairly typical measurement for me is 7.2 kg, which occurs often.  Sometimes it may vary by 0.1-0.2 kg and less commonly by 0.3 kg.

When my body weight varies by much more than 0.3 kg, it’s because the total water weight has changed by that amount, which also affects the muscle mass in the same direction (lean body mass contains much more water than fatty tissue at 10%).

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1069 on: November 09, 2018, 07:41:36 PM »
I don't think anybody is talking about body weight per se, but rather using "body weight" as a more conversational way to say "body fat."

But that's a misconception because body weight is not an accurate indicator of body fat.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2163
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1070 on: November 09, 2018, 07:49:01 PM »
I don't think anybody is talking about body weight per se, but rather using "body weight" as a more conversational way to say "body fat."

But that's a misconception because body weight is not an accurate indicator of body fat.

As a conversational convention, it is a misnomer, but not a misconception.
Nur dass ich nicht nur Katzen gemacht habe.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1071 on: November 09, 2018, 08:18:00 PM »
It's a misnomer, yes. And it's also a misconception to conflate body weight losses with just fat losses.

If you rapidly lose a lot of weight without exercising, then a large proportion of your weight loss will result from losses in muscle mass.

Conversely, if you exercise a lot while on a restricted diet, your apparent weight loss might appear to slow down and plateau because fat is less dense than the muscle mass you're putting on.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2163
    • jt512
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1072 on: November 09, 2018, 08:27:23 PM »
It's a misnomer, yes. And it's also a misconception to conflate body weight losses with just fat losses.

Yes, losing body weight is not the same as losing body fat.  Who in this conversation thinks they are?

Quote
If you rapidly lose a lot of weight without exercising, then a large proportion of your weight loss will result from losses in muscle mass.

Assuming you are overweight (or, since you're being a stickler, "overfat"), I don't think a "large" percentage of it will be, but certainly some percentage will.

Quote
Conversely, if you exercise a lot while on a restricted diet, your apparent weight loss might appear to slow down and plateau because fat is less dense than the muscle mass you're putting on.

No, not if your calorie deficit is significant.  A 500 kcal/day calorie deficit will result in over a pound of fat loss per week.  No one can put on anything close to a pound of muscle in a week. 
Nur dass ich nicht nur Katzen gemacht habe.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1073 on: November 09, 2018, 08:56:38 PM »
It's a misnomer, yes. And it's also a misconception to conflate body weight losses with just fat losses.

Yes, losing body weight is not the same as losing body fat.  Who in this conversation thinks they are?

I don't exactly know who thinks what, but there seems to be a lot of conflating weight loss with fat loss, which is why I piped up to comment on that.


Quote
If you rapidly lose a lot of weight without exercising, then a large proportion of your weight loss will result from losses in muscle mass.

Assuming you are overweight (or, since you're being a stickler, "overfat"), I don't think a "large" percentage of it will be, but certainly some percentage will.

Quote
Conversely, if you exercise a lot while on a restricted diet, your apparent weight loss might appear to slow down and plateau because fat is less dense than the muscle mass you're putting on.

No, not if your calorie deficit is significant.  A 500 kcal/day calorie deficit will result in over a pound of fat loss per week.  No one can put on anything close to a pound of muscle in a week.

Is that just fat loss, or total weight loss (which includes losses of muscle and fat)? That would of course depend on how lean the person is to begin with, how much protein they're taking in, and how much they exercise.

Anyway, the leaner a person becomes on a caloric deficit, the more their body will start to break down muscle. And as I pointed out before, muscle is a lot more dense, so it weighs more than fat.

Which is why you guys should be looking specifically at fat losses, instead of body weight alone. I'm just saying it's another thing to think about.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 09:48:19 PM by John Albert »

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1074 on: November 09, 2018, 11:18:12 PM »
This is a very amusing conversation.

The entire approach of the alternate theory of diet and nutrition focuses on insulin’s role as the regulator of fat storage.

Gary Taubes constantly refers to the issue as adiposity and the epidemics of overweight and obese in America as an issue of disregulation of fat storage.

Had you bothered to read any of the papers you constantly rant about you’d realize the the distinction between weight and fat is central to the alternate theory.

It’s the caloric  balance and calories in and calories out and laws of thermodynamics side that conflate excess weight and excess fat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1075 on: November 10, 2018, 02:39:04 AM »
This is a very amusing conversation.

The entire approach of the alternate theory of diet and nutrition focuses on insulin’s role as the regulator of fat storage.

Gary Taubes constantly refers to the issue as adiposity and the epidemics of overweight and obese in America as an issue of disregulation of fat storage.

Had you bothered to read any of the papers you constantly rant about you’d realize the the distinction between weight and fat is central to the alternate theory.

It’s the caloric  balance and calories in and calories out and laws of thermodynamics side that conflate excess weight and excess fat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, the reason for the epidemic of obesity in America, Australia and other developed countries is that people are just eating too much.  Consuming more calories than they expend.

If you eat 500 kcals each day more than you expend, you’re going to gain 1/2 kg in weight, mainly in adipose tissue, each week, regardless of whether the calories are mainly in the form of carbohydrates or fats.

And if you eat 500 kcals each day less than you expend, then you’re going to lose 1/2 kg in body weight, mainly in adipose tissue, each week, regardless of whether the calories are coming mainly from carbohydrates or fats.

The obesity epidemic is largely because there’s an increasing plague of fast food restaurants selling calorie dense heavily advertised and allegedly tasty food.

By the way - I asked you whether you experienced the plateau on your ketogenic diet.  And asked what you did.  The plateau being given as a reason why diets fail in the great majority of people.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 03:20:32 PM by bachfiend »

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1076 on: November 10, 2018, 04:52:07 AM »
And I’ll repeat the link to a meta-analysis of named diets:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/1900510/joi140107.pdf

Low carbohydrate diets showed superior weight loss at 6 months (which makes sense since they deplete glycogen stores first, and glycogen is associated with 4 times its weight in water, and the initial weight loss is mostly water not fat), but low fat diets showed slightly superior weight loss at 12 months.

And the authors concluded:

‘The weight loss differences between individual named diets were small with likely little importance to those seeking weight loss.  This supports the practice of recommending any diet that a patient will adhere to in order to lose weight.’

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1077 on: November 10, 2018, 09:53:04 AM »
That study was discussed hear when it came out. The problem is very simple. Any diet that reduces carb intake below 40% of calories is dumped into the same category and averaged together. That has no relevance to LCHF ketogenic diets which limit carbs to 5% of calories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 767
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1078 on: November 10, 2018, 03:19:10 PM »
That study was discussed hear when it came out. The problem is very simple. Any diet that reduces carb intake below 40% of calories is dumped into the same category and averaged together. That has no relevance to LCHF ketogenic diets which limit carbs to 5% of calories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don’t know what you’re talking about.  It’s not the Lancet paper.  It’s from the Journal of the American Medical Association (that’s what JAMA stands for).  Obviously you do have problems with reading comprehension, and it’s not an insult, it’s a statement of fact.

It was a meta-analysis of named diets, including the Atkin’s diet, which is a very low carbohydrate diet.  It has nothing to do with long term health and life expectancy.  It was only looking at reported weight losses at 6 and 12 months (your ‘speciality’ - short term studies).

Low carbohydrate and low fat diets showed similar weight loss at 12 months, with low fat diets having a slight edge, meaning that they’re the clear winner regarding reduction in body fat.  Low carbohydrate diets deplete glycogen stores, which are associated with four times its weight of water, meaning a appreciable percentage of their weight loss is in glycogen (of which there’s normally about 600 g) and water, and not entirely fat.

And your response to my other recent comments and queries?
« Last Edit: November 10, 2018, 03:26:52 PM by bachfiend »

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9187
Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Reply #1079 on: November 10, 2018, 09:52:14 PM »
It’s one thing to not read the links I post, but it’s another to not read the articles you yourself  link to.

And still another thing  to continue insulting others while it’s you that don’t know what they’re talking about. And once again when you question someone else’s reading comprehension it is you that doesn’t understand.

Go back and actually read the paper you linked to. The lump all diets with less than 40g per day into the LC category and report the average.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain