Ketogenic diets were studied in the 1920′s as a treatment for epilepsy. Somehow the concept resurfaced in the 90′s as a supposed way to lose weight.
The most popular incarnation of this diet philosophy was the Atkins diet.
The theory is intriguing an goes against what most people were being told at the time. Basically you get to eat all the fat and protein you want as long as you stay away from carbohydrates.
The initial thought of steak, cheese, bacon, eggs, chicken, and more steak sounded tasty. But after even a few days on this style of diet most people want to eat some carbohydrate based food very badly.
In short, this diet is unsustainable and not a long term weight loss solution.
In this audio lesson we’ll go over the basics of what a ketogenic diet is and what it can and can’t be used for.
John
(Download Transcription: Ketogenic Diets: The Truth About Extreme Low Carb Diets For Fat Loss)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
{ 67 comments }
I listened to a little bit of this. Then I couldn’t take any more. I felt there was a bias against the idea of controlling carbohydrate in the presentation (although I realize ketogenic method is involved in the topic). What the speaker misses is not that overeating protein and fat in excess amounts will cause “weight” gain (really bodyfat is the enemy, yes?) – yes it will cause weight gain, but he misses that keeping carbohydrate at reasonable levels causes your appetite to be reasonable as well. Very, very important point.
Why do you think you’ll be hungry an hour after eating a bagel with hundreds of kcals? Insulin.
Try marksdailyapple.com for a cogent explanation of why we should be eating less frosted flakes – or even shredded wheat – and more vegetables and protein sources (and yes, some fats as well).
Keep in mind that while meat sources in previous time periods (read 20,000 years ago) used to have a roughly 50/50 percent of omega 3 to omega 6 fat content, the meat we’re raising (esp red meat) is way out of balance in comparison to that ideal due to our cultivation methods. Grass fed beef is the best to approximate that balance and also supplementation with fish oil or equivalent.
Bottom line, if it comes in a package and has more than a couple of ingredients, throw it out.
All the best.
Reed, I think you should listen to the rest of the podcast as they address your questions:
“Why do you think you’ll be hungry an hour after eating a bagel with hundreds of kcals? Insulin.”
Protein also spikes insulin, so insulin itself is not the cause of hunger.
By the way, it seems that chicken thighs do make feel fuller quicker and longer than carbs. But that is just based on a feeling, but I wouldn’t be surprised if fatty meat or something along those lines do indeed make you feel fuller longer. Maybe JB could share his thoughts on what foods could be used strategically to make you feel fuller.
“Keep in mind that while meat sources in previous time periods (read 20,000 years ago) used to have a roughly 50/50 percent of omega 3 to omega 6 fat content, the meat we’re raising (esp red meat) is way out of balance in comparison to that ideal due to our cultivation methods. Grass fed beef is the best to approximate that balance and also supplementation with fish oil or equivalent.”
What does omega-3 and omega-6 have to do with ketosis, hunger, carbs, or glycogen?
“Bottom line, if it comes in a package and has more than a couple of ingredients, throw it out.”
What does this have to do with ketosis, hunger, carbs, or glycogen? And why is it not good to eat something with more than a couple of ingredients?
Just a point on this “protein raises insulin too” argument:
I did about 15mins of research on this and found the study which most people seem to be referring to which compared different food groups with insulin response and gave them and ‘insulin score’ and a ‘glucose score’. The experiment (here: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/66/5/1264) concluded that protein rich foods had an insulin score of 61±7 which seems like a lot (carbohydrate rich foods got a score of 74±8).
However, looking a little closer it became apparent that the researchers had divided the food groups rather oddly, for example peanuts were in the ‘snack foods’ group (I was surprised that this group had a low glucose score until I noticed this)
Baked beans were included in the high protein group (as we know baked beans are full of sugar) and as a result raised the group mean considerably, I re-calculated the group mean without the beans and found it to be 49, which is lower than any of the other food groups.
Jack,
great stuff thanks for bringing this up.
JB
I’m not sure how they are arriving at their insulin “scores”… I know it’s an integration of the insulin curve of a specific food versus the intergration of white bread, but I can’t repeat their numbers and even simple math is all over the place and doesn’t match up.
However, if you look at the second column (Insulin AUC), which is basically the total insulin output over the 120 min time period, and if you remove the statistically skewed baked beans… the total insulin response from both groups is within 10%.
My guess is that the more foods you’d compare, the more this would converge.
The other thing, math wise about the insulin score, is that I don’t see how “fish”, with an insulin score of 59 can have a HIGHER total insulin response (9350) than brown rice (6240) yet the rice has a higher IS (62)
I guess the biggest “rule” from this study is don’t eat straight sugar… all the time… lol.
“keeping carbohydrate at reasonable levels causes your appetite to be reasonable as well”
Untrue, potatoes, for example, have a higher satiety rating than most meats.
Reed,
To be clear I was speaking about the “ketogenic diet” not any variations thereof.
Bodybuilders have adopted different versions of it, but the specific style called ketogenic is different from low carb. Atkins and paleo eating styles aren’t ketogenic diets, but they borrow from the theory.
JB
Worst kind of diet you can follow, even if the eskimos live this way, its not for everyone, same as the PH diet alkaline.
I have recently gone to a new sport doctor for chronic back pain and prolotherapy treatments, and have been sent for some blood test. I had stop eating red meat and any kind of meat except chicken for 10 years, i did feel tired, i was drinking plenty of green tea, energy drinks and coffee. My blood test came back with anemia.
You need to cut the process foods or at least try to limit them as much as possible in your diet, i recently added a few new foods to my diet, black strap molasses, horse and bison meat, calf liver, and beans, not the can ones but various ones like black beans, lentils, red kidnay beans that you can soak in water, you can actually make an amazing soup with them and add the meat in it too. Along with this i have been told to eat some meat for the next 4 months to get my iron up and been given a iron supplement.
All theses diets might be good for someone but very bad for others, low carb diet once said it could prevent cancer, well i know many low carbers who have cancer. Low carb diet while in ketosis you will have no energy, dry hair, dry skin.
This goes a long way, i do beleive in the glycemic index, i lost tones of weight following simple principle, cutting out sugar, and recently drining a lot less green tea, cutting out coffee 100% and never drinking another energy drink again.
Decided to add more foods that contain calcium, natural soy milk, goat milk which is a bit more expensive but got some amazing nutrients.
I used to base my diet on supplements, multi vitamins, whey protein shakes, glutamine.
This says it all, i will never ever make the mistake again of cutting out meat from my diet, but will make sure to get low glycemic high quality carbs.
Ketogenic diet will make you lose tones of weight, but at what price, most people i know and me who did this diet, where seriously weak after the diet.
As for me it will take me a minimum of 4 months to get my normal iron level up and end this anemia problem. Who knows what problems other people can have doing the latest fatloss diet.
Nobody says you can eat all the fat and protein you want when on an anabolic (ketogenic) diet. Of course you have to control calories to reduce weight.
The idea is to increase lypolisis – which is caused by low insulin levels. The diet works – I have been on it for two months – lost 20 lbs while adding lean muscle mass. I find it easy as pie to stick to – am eating my tossed salad with salmon and flax oil as I write this. Sustainable – I will hopefully eat like this for the rest of my life.
You will definately find it difficult the first few days – your body is carb addicted. But get past the first week or two and it is easy as pie.
You bring up the fact that your weight will go up when you go back on carbs – SO WHAT – when have lost two or three inches of fast around your tummy you dont worry that weight goes up – it is your muscles that get pumped up at the higher glycogen /water state.
Read Dr. Di Pasquales book – The Anabolic Solution – he was coach to the World Bodybuilding Federation – you don’t have to go low carb seven days a week. The diet works and is great – combines well with Brad Pilon’s Eat Stop Eat as well.
Anyways -I thought this was a very poorly researched report by you guys.
Best of luck
Phil, JB wasn’t saying that low carb diets tell us to eat as much protein and carbs. He was just pointing out that at the end, it’s still all about calories in and calories out.
Regarding insulin, protein also causes an insulin spike.
Regarding weight going back up when going back on carbs, JB also states (and in detail) that it is the muscles that get pumped up with glycogen and water too.
Phil,
Good to hear that diet program you’re following is working for you. Keep us posted how it goes long term.
To be clear I was never speaking of anything referred to as ‘anabolic diet’ I was referring to ketogenic diet.
JB
If you’re not virtually zero carbs for an extended period of time, then you don’t go into ketosis, which is the point of the podcast.
Even though ketogenic = low carb, low carb does NOT equal ketogenic.
Ohh -one other point. You mention that certain protein and fat combinations can also cause large increases in insulin. In this case – it is a good thing !
Insulin is one of the most anabolic hormones there is under the right conditions. It does not only assist the body in processing carbohydrates (and making fat) – but it also helps shuttle amino acids (from protein) to your muscles.
While dietary protein and carbs both trigger a major insulin response, protein (but not carbs) also triggers a rise in glucagon, which is antagonistic to insulin in several respects (for example, while insulin inhibits lipolysis, glucagon encourages lipolysis).
For this reason (i.e., increased glucagon too), a rise in insulin due to dietary protein may have different overall effects than a rise due to dietary carbs.
Hence – a low carb diet high in protein and fats can increase lipolysis – fat burning – and increase insulin to ensure adequate amino acid transfer to muscles.
‘Nuff Said
It’s not the combination, it’s protein itself that causes the insulin rise.
Naturally, no where in this podcast did we demonize insulin at all, we just made the connection that low carb did not equal low insulin due to protein
JB,
To optimize muscle gains, should there be a minimum amount of carbs to eat to maintain optimum levels of glycogen? If so, does it matter where the carbs come from? I notice that bread, vegetables, and even Muscle Milk protein powder have carbohydrates.
You missed the boat on the history of the keyogenic diet as well. An earlier documented low cal diet came from Banting.
I agree that some people say or believe that unlimited fat and protein can cause weight loss, but you are way oversimplifying what the diet is about.
When people cut back on refined carbs and sugars, their appetite tends to go down, this leads to a comfortable reduction in calories, probably due to hormonal variations.
Nobody disagrees that vcarbs perturb your hormones and metabolism more than the other macronutrients.
Ketosis is not a problem, your statement that it’s a problem is BS.
Low carb diets can be especially effective in people who have followed the low-fat recommendations from FDA for years and have become insulin and leptin resistant.
Atkins says that people should find their level of carbohydrate restriction that works for them.
It is hard to follow a ketogenic diet, but that’s because of the social factors. When the kids want to go out for ice cream, etc. It’s hard. I think it comes back to in our evolutionary envioronment, sweet foods were rare and provided a source of calories and some nutrients. The continual input of sugar and carbohydrates is a bit outside of many people’s design limitations.
I have been eating low carb for about 3 years now. I have occasional plates of pasta, I drink socially, and find ways to work around it. I am not continually in ketosis, but that’s ok. Many people do have trouble at the start of a low carb diet, adjusting to the physical change.
You should read Lyle McDonald’s “The Ketogenic Diet” and read Good Calories Bad Calories for perspective.
You guys are just way off-base on this.
Tony
Tony, did you really listen to the podcast?
JB never said that ketosis is bad/a problem/or doesn’t work. He only says that for most people, it’s not sustainable (just like with most other “diets”).
At the end, ANY diet will work as long as you maintain a caloric deficit. Whatever strategy you use, whether it be with Atkins, ESE, Jenny Craig, whatever, it will work as long as it’s sustainable. All JB is arguing here is how sustainable it is. Just because you’re an example of someone who can maintain this diet doesn’t mean most people can as well.
Instead of telling us to read a book, can you tell us the reasoning behind “The Ketogenic Diet” and “Good Calories, Bad Calories” on why it’s not just simply calories in and calories out? I know many of us, like myself, don’t have the time to read every book that every detractor tells us to read. Personally, I found that with every objection, it always ultimately boils down to total calories in and total calories out. I’d like to hear your argument(s) against this though.
There have been a lot of straw man arguments lately. Not sure if it’s just knee jerk reactions, not fully listening to the podcast, and/or not fully understanding the podcast.
So I did listen to most of the podcast through about 16 minutes, but found it so full of misleading statements that I stopped.
I will say that I conflated the low carb and ketogenic issues. Apparently I’m not the only one, but I do understand a little better now how you’re thinking about it.
On the cal-in cal-out thing. Mathematically it is true. It is an identity. DeltaE= calories in – calories out. If you do not have a calorie deficit you will not lose weight.
But, our bodies are not adding machines. What you eat affects your body’s hormones and metabolic state. The nutrient content does matter from a few standpoints: adherence and body composition.
Adherence itself has two components: sense of hunger and psychological and societal elements.
Sense of hunger – fats and proteins are more satisfying to your body. You can eat a ton of carbs and feel hungry again shortly thereafter. It’s much less likely with P and F.
Eating a hypocaloric diet with mostly F and low C has another impact. By lowering excretion of insulin, it allows for easier transport of fat from the fat cells. So even in a modest hypocaloric state, the individual cells in your body are nourished. A high carb, standard American USDA-approved diet (SAD) does not get most people in that state.
Read about Ancel Keys starvation study during WW2. Those boys were fed inadequate protein and fat on a 1200 kcal diet. It’s ugly. I can eat 1200 cals of fat and protein and live off my own fat…
In my experience when I have tried simply reducing calories while maintaining fairly high carbs, I lost weight, but my energy levels plummeted and my weight lifting ability crashed. It flat did not work.
I’ll say right here, your mileage may vary. Some people do not have this problem, their hormones are less affected by carb ingestion. However, there are many people, who after a lifetime of SAD are insulin and leptin resistant. A small ingestion of carbs leads to a large insulin response, which inhibits lypolysis, which leads to hunger.
The psychological and social elements are different. I think those are what makes any diet hard to follow. Eating with your family or friends, wanting to have ice cream with the kids, going to a restaurant are all challenges for anyone trying to eat clean, but especially if we’re talking clean low-carb.
And of course there are the comfort eaters…
On the body composition side, adequate protein is important along with resistance exercise. This is especially important in a low carb hypocaloric diet. In fact the more calorie restricted a diet is, the more protein you should eat. Your body has an absolute need of 50 calories of carbs per day (not eating, burning). It will get those carbs from the food you eat or from gluconeogenesis (conversion of protein to carb). If you don’t eat 50 g of carbs, protein will convert either from your body or diet. If it’s from your body, it will have a negative impact on your AI.
So to sum up, calories matter. Taubes, Eades, and most proponents of low-carb lifestyles agree with this as well. But there are physiological drivers that contorl hunger that many people find low-carb diets help with. Young, very physically active people who have not picked up families, kids, and time responsibilities can pull off sub-optimal lifestyles and get by ok. Time and baggage exert an enormous influence on that ability.
Cheers,
Tony
Tony,
Thanks for the recommendations. I have read good calories bad calories. Thanks for reminding me about Banting.
The statement about ‘ketosis’ being a problem is correct in disease states (such as diabetic ketoacidosis), or starvation ketosis. Normal healthy people eating in a pattern that leads to ketosis is fine, but clinically this isn’t common.
And to be clear, I was speaking specifically about ‘ketogenic diet’. Not low carb eating.
JB
Thanks for the clarification.
Regards,
Tony
It appears there is some confusion about the topic of this podcast.
I was specifically talking about the ‘ketogenic diet’ and not the various incarnations of it such as atkins, or the anabolic diet, low carb etc.
The ketogenic diet itself is an extreme clinical diet intervention meant to treat a specific disease state. The various eating styles that have spawned from it were not really the point of the discussion rather it was the extreme origin of where they came from.
JB
Then I am failing to understand the point of the podcast – who promotes a true ketogenic diet for fat loss ? or as a diet a normal healhty human being should follow ?
The podcast came across as opposed to the concept of highly carbohydrate restricted diets of all types – Atkins or whatever – as saying they are too hard to follow. Any diet is hard to follow as someone else mentioned.
The water fluctuations you guys mentioned are why I abandoned Eat Stop Eat for a regular low cal diet.
It was psychologically jarring to me b/c my waist fluctuated what felt like an inch between days when I ate and fasted. My pants fit different.
It comes down to kcals really and finding a diet that works for you. like i need bread or a carb for breakfast and it needs to be the biggest meal of my day or i will be hungry all day. and some people dont do breakfast or see the need for carbs and would like to wait ti lunch and have fried chicken. its all about finding what fills you and stops you from over eating. and i love your idea of not eatting loads to build muscle. im on around 1700 kcals aday (which im told could be lowered)due to the eat start not being possible for me. but im seeing good things. my waist is in between 27-29 and im 5’9 and got my bodyfat done a week ago at it at 8%, which is amazing for me. also any way if your eating less them 1700 kcals you will naturally go into a lower carb, fat and protein state. im getting on average 120 protein, carbs about the same and 70gs of so fat. so just keep kcals down and find foods that fill you.
sorry about the typos or the bad english
Can I just point out that the email specifically stated this was a podcast on the ‘truth about Low Carb diets’ NOT the truth about ketogenic diets. Also you state the atkins diet in the preface but in the comments you are saying that you weren’t. (atkins isn’t ketogenic in the way you describe it)
…And another thing:
You continuously talk about how diet is calories in Vs calories out, but it’s more complicated than that, if a person has a thyroid problem they can eat 500 calories a day and still not loose weight. Why? because their hormones are out of whack. It’s also possible to gain weight without eating more if a person takes steroids. What does this tell us? Hormones are more important that calories.
The point of restricting carbohydrates is that all of your hormonal systems are improved; it increases lipolysis; testosterone and growth hormone are increased (specifically from extra saturated fat); most fat sources are anti inflammatory; the speed of your immune system is (loosely) inversely proportional to the amount of carbs in your system.
one more? The normal amount of sugar in the blood if you have a normal blood sugar is around 1 tablespoon (in over 5 litres of blood). Eating a large (read: normal) amount of carbohydrate would kill you if insulin doesn’t get released to bring it back down, and insulin brings it back down by storing the carbs in your fat cells. Protein only causes an insulin surge in order to promote protein synthesis (build muscle).
Low carb dieting may be hard but for OPTIMUM health and fitness it’s just simply the best.
Jack,
It seems that there is some intense opinion and belief around carbohydrate content of the diet (clearly as this podcast seemed to really stir up some conversation).
There are a few distinctions that probably needed to be made, namely the difference between carbohydrates as a category and sugar as it’s own category within carbohydrates.
And the biggest distinction of all that is never really talked about is what the definition of ‘low carb’ is. I think in many cases most north american diets are just loaded down with way to much refined carb sources, and what many people need to do is just get back to a respectable level of carbs (which to them might seem to be “low carb”).
I think there is a big difference in what two people will view as ‘low carb’. Some might view it as 20-30 grams of carbs for the day, all coming from non sugar sources, while others might view it as 100-200 grams per day (if they previously used to eat 400-500 grams per day).
The discussion seemed to mean different things to different people based on their current view of what ‘low carb’ and ketogenic means.
JB
Jack,
Let me just speak anecdotally as well to your “thyroid” example. I have hypothyroidism and I tried every diet on the market including the low carb and ketogenic to lose weight. I did not loose weight. It wasn’t until I started reading and listening to John Barban and Brad Pilon that I began losing weight. It is both calories in/calories out, but also kind of calories. As I have posted elsewhere a person can and will lose weight eating a KK donut only for breakfast, lunch and dinner, but their body will not function as well especially if they’re doing any kind of strength training. By the way, I’m down 23 pounds by reducing my calories.
Reducing calories and working out ( almost any real work out program) is all you need to loose weight.
Pod cast suggestion: How about a podcast about the proper time/situation to try and work through an injury. And if you can`t how do we know when it`s ok to start working the injured part again.
Hi guys, I just wanted to say that the low carb dogma began because it’s apparently proven that starchy carb sources like potatoes, rice and bread, especially the refined versions, can cause the body to store them as fat if they’re not used for energy. I mean, it’s widely accepted now that the carbs that aren’t burnt for fuel or stored in your glycogen banks in your body are going to be stored as fat. Taking into account that carbs that aren’t utilized are stored much more quickly as fat than the other macronutrients and that protein’s primary function is for growth and repair of body tissues and fat’s is to form the cytosol of cells, wouldn’t you say that people are justified by being more critical of carbs than the other 2 macronutrients?
Bear in mind that I’m not an opponent of carbs. I’m just taking things at face value. My diet consists about 50% carbs, in fact!
As a Type 2 diabetic I’ve got some news for you, eating less carbs is the only way to keep my blood sugar from spiking! I’m not currently on any specific low carb diet, although I’m looking at the South Beach plan. I’m currently experimenting with fewer carbs. I can tell you that at breakfast, even 1 slice of whole grain bread (complex carb) spikes my sugar a lot. If I eat just protein for breakfast, eggs & canadian bacon for example, my sugar stays steady. So the premise that protein raises blood sugar is simply false, at least in my case. I can also tell you that the standard ADA diet of 50% carbs, 20% protein is probably the worst diet a diabetic could be on. That’s my experience, your mileage may vary.
Hey Terry,
Could you point out where we said protein increases blood sugar?
Protein causes an insulin response, not a blood sugar response.
B
Terry,
I agree and understand that type 2 diabetics definitely have different needs than non diabetics, to be clear we weren’t discussing this topic as it pertains to diabetes.
And if you’ll notice I said that protein stimulate an insulin response, not a rise in blood sugar, two different things.
JB
You’re right, I misunderstood when you said “insulin” spike. My mistake and I apologize!
I heard you say that someone can get to the point of ketosis by eatting no carbs or low carbs but its just hard to eat that way for any real length of time…Well, my question is if someone can actually reach the point of ketosis, then is the body forced to constantly burn fat as the only fuel option? Also, if I eat a can of tuna, which has 2g of carbs, does that mean I am not really reaching ketosis?
Mitch,
I think it would depend on how long you go without any other carb source, 2 grams is pretty low and would be metabolized very quickly and from what I have seen it would fit into a definition of ketogenic eating.
JB
Hey guys
This is a subject that I have debated in my own head and via experiments on myself for more than a decade. I love your podcasts but this one was the first which was a little disappointing.
The 2 big questions in my mind (which were not answered) are:
1) If we ignore compliance for now (although I appreciate this is a huge issue), are ketogenic diets superior to non-ketogenic diets for fat loss, all other things (calories consumed / burned etc) being equal. In my experience, they are superior (it seems I can only get VERY lean without carbs) but I would value your take on this.
2) If muscle is c70% water and carbs encourage water storage, does that mean that diets which contain carbs will be far superior for muscle building (i.e. increased muscle cell hydration and therefore ability to grow) OR would a ketogenic diet provide equal results in terms of muscle building?
I would LOVE to hear what you guys think about these these issues.
Thanks.
A few things to ponder:
1. Compliance is likely 80% of the battle, maybe more. To say its a huge issue is an understatement. Any weight loss/fat loss program that doesn’t start with compliance in mind is doomed to fail.
2. How are we measuring very lean, and how are you accounting for water? Are you lean because you’ve shed a lot of water, or is it truly FAT?
3. Can you easily maintain the look over a period of time? By you saying that you “can only get very lean” implies that you bounce between lean and not lean.
4. What’s your definition of “ketogenic”? It sounds to me like you’re letting “ketogenic” and “low carb” be interchangeable.
5. What is your criteria for “best”? And during what time frame?
6. I don’t know anyone of significant muscle size that is “low carb” (which then again, we have to define what “low carb” is.)
“Best” and “Superior” are very lifestyle and person to person dependent.
Everyone that’s won any place during our contests just figured out a way to eat less and lifted. (and a few were “contest ripped”) Nothing special was done as far as carbs, protein, etc.
B
Thanks for your reply.
My thoughts on your points:
1) I appreciate this (which is why I alluded to it) but it IS possible to eat a ketogenic diet for an extended period. I once did it for 11 weeks. It was hell
but the results were astonishing.
2) Measuring using Biosignature. It was fat primarily.
3) No, havent been able to maintain it for a long time. I bounce between lean and very lean. 12% to 7%.
4) No confusion. I mean ZERO carbs apart from very small amount of lettuce, spinach and broccoli.
5) By “best” I mean biggest progress in the shortest time possible.
6) You may not know anyone (probably because you dont know anyone on a long term ketogenic diet) but that wasn’t the question I was asking. The question is whether carbs are required for optimal muscle gains.
I have found that even if I eat very large quantities of steak, fish oil, poultry, eggs, fish (relatively high cal) I can stay absolutely ripped more so than if I eat low cal with more carbs. This is what I am really trying to get to the bottom of.
Thanks for your input.
V,
Interesting suggestions. Might be a good podcast topic moving forward.
JB
Thanks for the great info dog I owe you btiggiy.
Is there a possibility of a high carb type of diet that could result in fat loss?
*It seems many quality muscle gaining diets have high carb mentalities, but apparently they dont translate to fat gain. Or so they say..
Thoughts on a fat loss diet with a high carb theme? Or just higher in general
Guys,
Let me first say that I usually find myself frustrated by you because you are right. I don’t want you to be right but you usually are. But this podcast was wrong. I appreciate that you took responsibilty for it in your follow up e-mail but, I feel you may have done damage to the diet plans of those that look up to you. I have lost a lot of weight in the last couple years, almost 100 pounds and I can tell you that for me proper amounts of fat in my diet are essential to keep my appetite in check. If your point was that carbs are not the only enemy than you have a point, but don’t give that “we were only talking about ketogenic diet” line. If that was your plan you failed horribly. In your denfense I will say that since I have started to listen to your show I have actually done more fasting and calorie watching then I had been and I continue to lose about 2 pounds a week even though I drink, horror of horrors a soda with every meal and I love tripple whoppers from BK. I fast about 23 hours a day and twice a week 47 hours because I like to eat big fatty meals. If that one meal were a giant plate of pasta I would never make till my next meal. People look up to you guys and to throw a podcast together like that was a massive shirking of your responsiblities. One last thing, Brad (John says he has already read it) there is no reason that someone taking a position on health issues should have yet to read Good Calories Bad Calories. Spend a little less time working on your ridiculous High Gravity Male podcast and read the book, it has changed (scratch that) saved the lives of many of its readers.
Why would I waste my time reading something that both Barban and Pilon have told me is fundamentally flawed?
And congrats for the weight loss, you’ve found a system for yourself that you can stay consistent with – and that’s the whole point.
One final thing, your last comment is equivalent to flinging monkey poo… you know you’re better than that.
If Pilon and Barban think it is flawed then I want to hear that podcast. GCBC is pretty much just a compehensive survey of the scientific research done on the diet-heart hypothosis and I and I think others would be very interested to know were they think Taubes went wrong.
Barban’s comments on it are in the comments section of this podcast… about halfway down.
http://blog.adonislifestyle.com/body-fat-regulation-can-we-change-it/
Nickt, James Krieger is doing a chapter-by-chapter critique of GCBC on his site, weightology.net. He started with Chapter 14. I would post the direct link, but the spam filter may block my comment if I do that. So just search for it on his site.
That was a very good post and thank you so much for the link. I will say that, that chapter I feel was one of the weakest in the book so I am interested to see how he handles the others. What I think is most important from that book is the stuff relating to the diet heart hypothosis. I think a lot of people would be able to stick to a diet better if thay were not so affraid of fat. I think Taubes does a good job of showing why he doesn’t believe fat causes CHD. But the Krieger does a good job of showing Taubes’s errors and I agree with pretty much everything he said.
Alright ailgrht alright that’s exactly what I needed!
Let’s see if this goes through:
http://weightology.net/?p=265
Good post.
At the very least this podcast has generated some serious discussion which is very healthy. BH, BP and JB are the very definition of “challenging peoples beliefs” so I am very excited to see where this goes.
I for one have found ketogenic diets to be VERY effective (I am a strength coach with 17 years in the NATURAL iron game) and I really value what you guys have to say. Looking forward to getting deeper into this subject.
V
Good Calories and Bad Calories is the worst example of pseudo-scientific cherry-picking pop-nutrition book. You can’t find a worst and more misleading book even if you searched for years.
Enough calories-controlled studies have been conducted that show without a doubt that a ketogenic or even a low-carb diet DON’T cause more fat loss than other diets.. Isocaloric diets produce the same identical fat loss, as long as protein intake is adequate, whether they’re ketogenic or high-carb. And DiPasquale never showed any evidence that his diet has any advantage over any other diet that provide the same amount of proteins and calories.
Brad I think you should read a page on Martin Berkhan blog called “low-carb talibans”. It proves that there’s no scientific or sound argument that will prevent low-carb fanatics from acting lik zealots, cherry-picking studies, ignoring counterevidence and attacking rational concepts. If this will turn like any other article or podcast trying to put some logic into the low-carb dogmatism, you’ve no idea what is yet to come. Straw man is an understatement.
I got a topic for you, go and review the Paleolithic diet. I follow it pretty well. I notice that I can eat pretty much whatever amount I want and not gain anything, but I didn’t lose anything, for that I just have to fast a bit. I notice wheat seems to mess with how I feel so I don’t eat very much of it, but when I do eat grains like rice or corn or even get in too much wheat(darn cookies taste so good!) I look terrible the next day, 6-pack washed out a bit and I feel bloated. So did I really not gain any fat, lets say, but its the water retention? I try to stay strict on the paleo diet after eating stuff like that, and in a couple of days, I look back to normal. I still eat plenty of carbs in the day, I eat so much fruit its not funny, like 8 pieces of fruit at least. It seems to work for me, by keeping me full of lower calorie foods.
I had some time to look over Krieger’s previous entery and I think this quote sums up how I feel about the low carb issue.
“Low-carbohydrate diets are certainly an effective strategy for some people intending to lose weight…but they are not the only strategy, nor are they the best strategy for everyone. And they do not work for the reasons that some people think they work. ”
I think they are misunderstood by both those who practice them and those who fear them.
The bulk of any weight loss success revolves around a sustained caloric deficit over time, which mainly
involve:
Hunger Control
Social Control
Lifestyle Constraints
Controlling for error
I wrote a good piece on this a few months ago that helps put all of this in perspective and will actually help you put what you’re doing now on the fast track.
http://blog.adonislifestyle.com/proven-never-fails-step-by-step-method-for-blistering-fat-loss/
If you take your current approach, you’ll see that it falls within this method
Another topic that I would like you to research that might be a good podcast is, does doing squats and deadlifts really release that much testosterone or HGH? I would be interested in finding out if its worthwhile or negligible? I do a mix of sprints, long distance running, squats or dead lifts depending on how I feel or what I would rather do that particular day. So does sprints release the same test/HGH as weight training? and is it worth it for the test & HGH release?
Nickt, that’s a good point. You might enjoy this post, as well:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285
I think the last paragraph is a good summation of the issue:
“The bottom line is that there is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate intake that is independent of a high protein intake. There is a metabolic advantage to a high protein diet, which will increase the calories you burn by 80-100 calories per day. There is also a dramatic satiety advantage to a high protein intake. A low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) can increase this satiety advantage, but individual responses will vary. The best dietary approach for you will depend upon a variety of factors.”
And as I wrote in the comments section: “Satiety is an interesting factor. If someone has a raging appetite, I can only assume that that would make it very difficult to adhere to a calorie deficit. Maybe that’s why I’ve been successful with a low-cal approach, with no focus on reducing carbs- or increasing protein, for that matter. I just haven’t had any issues with appetite/ hunger. My stomach will grumble a little bit here and there, but it’s minor and very manageable. So, for me, a high protein/ low carb diet (or should I say a specifically ketogenic diet?) to increase satiety hasn’t been necessary. So why should I do it? Other than to conform to some dogma, of course.”
And consider a recent Brad Pilon tweet: “I’ve probably averaged around 50-70 grams of protein per day for the last 5-6 months…just not something I stress about anymore”
I’m a quote machine today! lol.
Brad
Ah the old Carb Protein stuff ,
Well I no longer care cause i follow Eating to RMR , RMR+Activity , or eat stop eat , and as the Boys say if you want to control fat stores its about How Much CALORIES , As far as what makes up these calories well that’s quite simple .. How long do you want your AI Bio engine to last ?
If you get your calories from nutrient and mineral rich sources , you’ll build a long lasting Bio Engine,
If you don’t you’ll still build a nice engine but it wont last long .
Moderation is the Key to longevity.
Repetition is the key to endurance.
In response to your request for more topics…
Factors in measuring strength: Distance, time, weight
I would like have your explanation on determining Strength/power , First a definition of Power , strength , Then the means by which they are measured. I ask this question for a special reason , what puzzles me is : We are all only as strong as our weakest range of motion’
This presents implications when progressively adding weight to any exercise, the barrier is not the strongest range of the movement, but the weakest. Therefore we must overcome our weak muscle’s to train the strong.
‘The level of weakness determines ones strength’ and so I put forward that if a full range of motion test is performed, it is a measure of how weak not how strong we are. I don’t think this is a bad thing but what are the Effects of progressively pushing ones weak range ?, does it Results in a knock on effect to the Strong range of a given movement ? Or does it just allow one to approach maximum potential strength ( max Kg in full contraction ). are there benefits to reversing the standard protocol of lifting from weak to strong range ?
Imagine multi gym machines and rack systems which begin each movement from the strong range to weak ( negative), and then provided some assistance to return the weight to strong range You know like the multi gym assisted Lat pull up Machines but reversed , So in effect machines/racks that allow an individual to do negatives without a buddy .
I don’t know what the benefits of long term training in this way would have, But I’m sure some of you have felt the exhilarating Rush from a negative , I like the feeling from putting a stack of weight on a smith machine at just below bench press full extension , setting safety !!! so upper arm (elbow triceps) are just above 90 deg , when the bar is lowered . Then lift the bar off the rack and begin to slowly lower the bar in controlled manner, Then suddenly you feel the transfer of strong to weak range Hit from nowhere , followed by complete and total failure , and the bar hits the safety.
In one single negative i truly know how WEAK Not how strong i am , Ill keep training my weak range so one day i will lower that bar in negative lift , not fail But push it back up .
Ketogenic diets are actually really good, and I love them, I actually prefer to be eating loads of vegetables and fruits with lean protein sources, OK maybe its not fully keto, but a healthy lifestyle choice, to eat healthy home cooked meals, and this way I keep the fat down, while adding muscle, I think this approach is a way forward for me, I dont know about others, but I like recommending to people, things that I have tested and tried myself
Inrfoamtion is power and now I’m a !@#$ing dictator.
straight carbs alone is what gives insulin spikes. if 2 different macro sources are put together it completely changes the Gi ratings.
Dave, protein also causes a rise in insulin.
As a side note (this Keto thing is a whole can of worms) the vast majority of people who claim to be in a state of ketosis aren’t. It’s fiendishly hard to reach and amazingly tough to maintain – I doubt your average Atkins diet plan would actually allow you to reach it. It’s up there with rhabdomyolysis and hyperplasia as one of those things which ‘happens’ when you do ‘X’.
I agree that this diet isn’t sustainable for average folk, but what about athletes especially those where body fat can inhibit performance. For example, I’ve researched that a short term targeted ketogenic diet (TKD) is acceptable for an athlete trying to shed body fat and develop lean muscle over a reasonable amount of time.
With TKD, the athlete would only digest the amount of carbs needed before training to make sure they have a sufficient amount of energy to perform, afterwards – going back on ketosis and limited calories to shed more body fat and develop lean muscle for when competition day finally arrives.
Your thoughts on this TKD are appreciated.
Comments on this entry are closed.