Effect of Low-Carb, High-Fat Diet versus High-Carb, Low-Fat Diet
acpjournals.org
acpjournals.org
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36051903/
Any type of caloric restriction will improve health outcomes.
These two explanations are correct, but not particularly helpful, because they are tautologies.
This is stupid. Thus I’m questioning what CICO is useful for beyond some academic, theoretical sense. Actual applications. Because the application ain’t applying.
Basically, its simple and accurate to measure calories in. But almost impossible to measure calories out. So TDEE actually shifts by a couple hundred calories every day. That's small but not insignificant, and explains why some people end up quite underweight and others quite overweight, even if they eat the same foods (over a long period of time).
I don't think it's sustainable to do a keto diet if you live and partake in society. You might encounter many scenarios where food options are carb heavy, and in this case, keto is not an option whereas caloric restriction is.
But after getting much more interested in nutrition over the last few years, I now think he is someone to avoid. He is basically outside of the scientific mainstream, and continually says things that are just not supported by actual studies. And there have been many studies on this.
Weight is a product of calories in vs out, both in the trivial sense (conservation of energy), but also in the sense that if you control the amount of calories you eat, and keep it below your calories out, you will lose weight. It's true that calculating your actual calories out is basically impossible, but you can estimate it, and then just reduce more calories if you're not losing weight.
This has been proven multiple times in real experiments with real subjects. This is agreed on by basically everyone who's actually in the field. There is also ample anecdotal evidence that this is true (every athlete, bodybuilder, etc that wants to gain or lose weight can do so basically at will, on a set schedule they plan months in advance. It's almost precise and very scientific.)
If you take the time to watch the talk I linked to (I understand if not, it's pretty long) he spends a substantial amount of time citing and discussing studies. He's not just throwing out a bunch of unsubstantiated theories.
As non-scientific anecdotes go, I've confirmed this myself. I went on keto and absolutely did not reduce my calories, actually I increased them, but severely cut carbs / sugar and I lost 5 notches off my belt in 3 months.
> just not supported by actual studies
Here's the second result on PubMed for last year published "ketogenic weight" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36012064/
Ketogenic Diet Benefits to Weight Loss, Glycemic Control, and Lipid Profiles in Overweight Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trails
> "A ketogenic diet, characterized by low calories with high levels of fat, adequate levels of protein, and low levels of carbohydrates, has beneficial effects on body weight control in overweight patients."
I wouldn't say it's case closed, this area of nutrition science needs many years of additional research, but to say flatly that studies don't support the hormone model of weight gain isn't correct.
unless you've kept a highly detailed journal of things you ate and their precise amounts, then it's indeed just an anecdote.
it's physically impossible to accumulate fat - which is the storage medium for excess energy - without consuming an excess of energy. it is indeed very much case closed.
That's explicitly what I said it was.
> it is indeed very much case closed
As the research I linked to makes clear it's not.
How have we managed to complicate diet and health so much?
We are humans. We are supposed to move. A lot.
Eat mostly whole food and move. Walk. Walk uphill. Lift if you can. Run if you can.
Buy food in the produce section. Buy food in the meat section (if you eat meat). Buy whole grains. It's not expensive. Maybe it takes time to prepare. Try to find value in that time. Do it with family and friends. There's no food product, diet, or gimmick that's going provide a greater marginal benefit
So been overweight is really about eating too much. This does not mean that one should not move. That has a lot of benefits, it is just loosing wright is not one of them.
I don't know what sort of stats there are comparing those who've lost weight and successfully kept it off (for, say, 10 years or so) via exercise/sports vs via dieting alone, though from what I know it's a pretty low percentage that do manage in the latter group. My understanding is that the initial weight loss is primarily down to diet changes, but exercise works better at helping maintaining a healthier weight/lifestyle.
Having a higher cardiovascular capacity increases the number of potential calories you can burn per hour.
Weight loss strategies that don't include exercise can work, but it is silly to do so. Exercise improves longevity, mental health, and expedites weight loss. All things equal, if you add a 5 mile walk to your daily regiment, you will lose weight faster.
Clearly not, even before considering particular disability; average age of children first walking is over a year, and the number of children under 1 is well over 1% of world population.
More relevant to the discussion, though, in the US, 13.7% of adults have a mobility disability with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. [0]
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-d....
This is so wrong. Humans have come up with calories as a measurement of how the body burns fuel. Food is the fuel and burning that fuel is spending calories. You can reduce the calories consumed and/or increase movement to burn more. A quick google indicates 1 mile walking is about 100 calories burned for a 180lb person. So walking 5mi is burning roughly 500 calories and if done daily, this would mean 3500 per week which is roughly 1lb of loss. If you replace that 500cal loss per day with 500cal of ice cream then yeah you’re not going to lose weight. So if someone decided to just eat all the same stuff they currently eat but go walk 5mi day they would likely lose weight.
Calculating weight loss is mathematically very simple and software devs should be familiar with feedback loops. The simple formula is track calories, weigh yourself, adjust calories for loss, weigh self. Daily tracking works. The LoseIt app does this for you and adjusts calorie budget when you lose weight (less weight means lower budget).
I wish I got into slow living, but I don’t have enough friendships to be happy with less work. Vicious circle ;)
Maybe whole grains are not expensive, but the outside walls of a grocery store (produce, meat, eggs, dairy) are very expensive, and have gotten a lot more expensive on the last two years. Especially if you are buying higher end (organic, pasture raised, etc..) stuff. Nuts and seeds, also very expensive right now. Good oils like olive oil also expensive.
"The percentage of the population who can afford the least-cost diet adhering to food-based dietary guidelines (henceforth ‘a nutritious diet’) increases from 15% (at the median) in countries with rural and informal food systems to nearly 100% in countries with industrial and consolidated food systems (Fig. 1). We estimate that nearly all residents of industrialized countries and a median of 82% in countries with an emerging and diversifying food system are able to afford a nutritious diet"
Besides, the question is relative to what? What percent of your income is worth spending on healthy food? Put a number on it and then we'll talk.
63% of income on food is expensive
the question is relative to what
Relative to the standard American diet, what you are suggesting is expensive. Processed foods may be bad for you, but they are unarguably cheap calories.
Paper is baed on prices from 2020.
11. Herforth, A. et al. Cost and Affordability of Healthy Diets Across and Within Countries: Background Paper for the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020 (FAO, 2020); https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2431en Return to ref 11 in article
13. FAO, IFAD, WFP & UNICEF. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020 (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020); https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9692en
Can free will bend inflation ?
This isn’t even talking about what sort of thing forever chemicals are doing to me. No idea what microplastics in my bloodstream are up to.
Im just a dude, my dude. I didn’t make the game so hard.
Are those kids who were exposed to cigarettes personally responsible? How about those folks who are addicted to opioids now? And of course all those Americans at the time, they just should’ve decided against following official nutrition guidelines by their government (assuming they can afford to! Poor kids were fed according to these guidelines in school lunches…)
And that’s just the stuff we know about!
I think the original comment was pointing out that our discussion of diet and nutrition is overly complicated. Not that it's easy to make the right choices, but that it is easy knowing what those right choices are.
I hear you on how difficult it is though. People who are able to manage it confuse the simplicity of knowing what to do and the difficulty of actually achieving it.
> No one is perfect. I'm sorry for being snarky, but how else can we make meaningful change without starting with personal responsibility. We can't blame big food for our choices.
Yeah. Actually we can. The marketing and psychological warfare big food is waging against customers take its toll on personal responsibility when it's time to cook something after your second job night shift.
You obviously see a problem in one our biggest industries. Go disrupt it. Do something about it. No one is going to pay you to complain.
This is so effing stupid to read. You don't innovate to reduce costs and time prep to squeeze out more time out of people so they can work 3 jobs instead of 2 to pay for microwaved food, that's not the end game.
> This is why I'm being a smart ass and why it's so frustrating to listen to excuses.
No, you are a smart ass because you are riding the personal responsibility trope to ignore fuck tons of external and internal reasons for why people are not robots and don't follow the perfect diet and lifestyle recipes. That's a simplistic nickelodeon outlook that helps no one.
One day you'll bump into a wall and maybe you'll realize your belief that your mind is free and your body a dumb machine to program to overcome anything is bullshit, like your stance that "we are all free so everything is our fault and anyone can do anything if only they apply themselves" is bullshit as well.
> You obviously see a problem in one our biggest industries. Go disrupt it. Do something about it.
What a stupid and empty edge lord counter argument is this ?
Too busy working on climate change at the moment [0] if you want to know it all.
> No one is going to pay you to complain.
If you could stop complaining about "people's excuses" as well that'd be even better.
[0] For real. And big food industries is part of this problem and we are trying to tackle it at work.
edit: dammit, I'll even play along:
> Then go innovate in that area. Find ways to reduce cost and time prep through new technology and business models.
What makes you think faster to cook or even healthier food can beat billions of €/$ poured in advertising and marketing at scale ? It's not working, that's the reality, that's the facts, this is the environment your purely intellectual vision of the problem doesn't want to account for.
Because it's easier to say "people are free so it's their fault" than admit "hey... that world is surprisingly hard to model and predict and understand, lots of things going on and parameters interacting with each other here...".
Maybe if you used a sliver of creativity you could think of a solution that doesn't result in this outcome. This is false dichotomy. I'm not saying this is end game.
>No, you are a smart ass because you are riding the personal responsibility trope to ignore fuck tons of external and internal reasons for why people are not robots and don't follow the perfect diet and lifestyle recipes. That's a simplistic nickelodeon outlook that helps no one.
>One day you'll bump into a wall and maybe you'll realize your belief that your mind is free and your body a dumb machine to program to overcome anything is bullshit, like your stance that "we are all free so everything is our fault and anyone can do anything if only they apply themselves" is bullshit as well.
I'll reiterate that yes, it does come down to personal responsibility. Also a fallacious argument since you don't have to follow a perfect diet and lifestyle to achieve mostly optimal outcomes. Promoting the idea that we don't have personal sovereignty is insidious and wrong.
>Too busy working on climate change at the moment [0] if you want to know it all.
Food systems account for 1/3 of global emissions. You act like there is some moral superiority tied to your own work while ignoring the low hanging fruit of food systems in climate change mitigation.
>If you could stop complaining about "people's excuses" as well that'd be even better.
I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out erroneous narratives and harmful mindsets.
>What makes you think faster to cook or even healthier food can beat billions of €/$ poured in advertising and marketing at scale ? It's not working, that's the reality, that's the facts, this is the environment your purely intellectual vision of the problem doesn't want to account for.
>Because it's easier to say "people are free so it's their fault" than admit "hey... that world is surprisingly hard to model and predict and understand, lots of things going on and parameters interacting with each other here...".
The same was said about transitioning away from fossil fuels and going against the billions of dollars poured into climate denial. Change will come. Maybe you should extend the scope of your imagination to entertain a better food system instead of rolling over.
But you'll keep believing what you believe, and that's fine. Keep resorting to edge cases to defend your claims, and accept that big food will maintain its grip on your free will. I'll still be here actually doing things that make a difference, not caving to the complexity of models, and maintaining ownership of my decisions.
Have a good day.
> Maybe if you used a sliver of creativity you could think of a solution that doesn't result in this outcome. This is false dichotomy. I'm not saying this is end game.
Maybe if you used a sliver of creativity you could think of a solution that is not tech based. Because, guess what ? The problem is not tech based. Moreover you claim it's about personal sovereignty and yet your solution is to ignore the core problem and jump to techno gadgets. Why would tech help if the solution is for people to take personal responsibility ? Talk about tunnel vision...
> I'll reiterate that yes, it does come down to personal responsibility.
And I'll reiterate that no, it does not come down solely to personal responsibility. I get it it's easier for you to think/believe people make bad choices willingly because it fits your narrative and is simple to understand but it's naive and short sighted. You won't get results or changes out of people if your framework is that narrow and limited.
> >Too busy working on climate change at the moment [0] if you want to know it all.
> Food systems account for 1/3 of global emissions. You act like there is some moral superiority tied to your own work while ignoring the low hanging fruit of food systems in climate change mitigation.
Moral superiority ? I think you are projecting because, too bad, I happen to put my skin in the game and you couldn't imagine that when you wrote You obviously see a problem in one our biggest industries. Go disrupt it. Do something about it. No one is going to pay you to complain. Who was trying to get the moral high ground ?
> >If you could stop complaining about "people's excuses" as well that'd be even better.
> I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out erroneous narratives and harmful mindsets.
You are pointing at the obvious and easy parts of the problem and reducing the problem to those parts only. See your comment I am sorry you lost your free will. Arrogant, not empathic and not helpful.
> The same was said about transitioning away from fossil fuels and going against the billions of dollars poured into climate denial. Change will come. Maybe you should extend the scope of your imagination to entertain a better food system instead of rolling over.
I don't understand how you came to the conclusion I don't believe change will come. Don't put words in my mouth.
Why are you now advocating for a better food system since you claimed it's all about personal responsibility ? Isn't what you said earlier enough ?
> Eat mostly whole food and move. Walk. Walk uphill. Lift if you can. Run if you can.
> Buy food in the produce section. Buy food in the meat section (if you eat meat). Buy whole grains.
> But you'll keep believing what you believe, and that's fine. Keep resorting to edge cases to defend your claims, and accept that big food will maintain its grip on your free will.
Hey, you are the one calling on bodybuilders and (every athlete, bodybuilder, etc that wants to gain or lose weight can do so basically at will, on a set schedule they plan months in advance.... but all athletes and bodybuilders combined are the edge cases compared to the majority of people.
And again, just like personal sovereignty and free will absolutism are more often than not not enough to defeat bad habits it so happens that big food doesn't have total grip on people's free will (who said they totally controlled us aside from your straw man argument ?) . But they do have a huge budget to spend on marketing and lobbying that is at war with people's will and motivation.
> I'll still be here actually doing things that make a difference, not caving to the complexity of models, and maintaining ownership of my decisions.
I don't think calling people's personal circumstances "excuses* and being a smart ass with stupid one liners like * I'm sorry to hear about your loss of free will. * will help anyone and make any differences.
> Walk. Walk uphill. Lift if you can. Run if you can.
AKA waste half of your life to prolong it by 3%
This is laughable.
> and adds far more than 3%
And this is simply not true. The increase is under 4 years, so under 5% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395188/
That's a lot more than just a few number of years.
> "This is laughable."
Really? Exercise is linked to decreased stress, increased stamina, clarity, and general well-being. Being physical and mentally capable and competent into older age is a good thing and a major improvement in quality of life. Not sure how this is "laughable".
No, the number of years is listed in the study. Your implication that reduced risk has any other impact is baseless.
> Really? Exercise is linked to decreased stress, increased stamina, clarity, and general well-being. Being physical and mentally capable and competent into older age is a good thing and a major improvement in quality of life. Not sure how this is "laughable".
You should check your clarity already, you seem to be deluded by "common sense".
From: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22368221/
> While there is an association between some indicators of PA and IQ, there was no consistent evidence that higher PA levels might lead to increased IQ scores.
The anecdotes abound about the positive impacts. Dismiss them in favor of scientific studies at your own peril.
My own anecdote: I lost 90 lbs and started lifting and it's done wonders for various aspects of my life. I recognize that my experience may not apply to everyone but it also seems reasonable given our evolutionary history that regular movement would have benefits.
- move
- eat fresh, few and varied
- be around people or pets
- sleep well
Now I'm not against filling in some gaps in case nature misses a spot (improving low level things like mitochondial health) ..No need to go on a restrictive keto or carnivore diet, it does have some benefits yes but you're missing out on variety.
I thought I did.
Just be aware of whats in your food. I don't look for specific ingredients just learn what the makeup of your food is and decide if you should be eating that. Awareness is 80% of the battle.
Boiled/roasted potatoes are really satiating for their calories. But most people associate potatoes with a lot of fat, like french fries or mashed potatoes which make them very high calorie.
Deep frying anything I think should be a special occasion, you shouldn't be having deep fried food every day or even week, it adds a lot of useless calories. Stir frying is healthier
Seed oils (modern oils like canola, invented in 1974) are suspicious. There is a lot of conspiracy theories out there and not a lot of data, but I try to stay away from it. After all we've been using olive oil for thousands of years, no need to stop.
Think candy, chips, soda, bread, cured meats and things in bags. Low in nutrition, high in calories.
A chopped apricot or a smoked salmon are in a literal sense processed food, but nobody is referring to that kind of processes. Rather, they're referring to the processes that turn an apricot into a Sachertorte, or a salmon into spreadable salmon-flavoured cheese. Dehydrating, extensive cooking, adding massive amounts of salt/sugar/fats - processes that destroy vitamins and other nutritionally important characteristics and mix the original food with large quantities of unhealthy ingredients.
Sounds like cheese to me.
"Typical junk food," on the other hand, usually contains a lot more calories (and sugar/carbs and fat), sprinkled with various things that make them super-appealing. It's not impossible, but not incredibly appealing to overeat rice. Overeating a bag of Doritos on the other hand is very easy.
Olive oil is great fresh, as a part of sauces, dressings, etc, but care should be taken not to burn it when frying things [2].
Deep-fried stuff is a traditional part of many cuisines of Eastern Asia [3], where people often live pretty long [4], are usually less overweight, and experience less heart diseases than in the US. Quite possibly it's not the most nutritional choice, but often the safest for street food in hot climates. Likely other parts of East Asian diets, like abundance of fresh vegetables, somehow offset whatever detrimental effects deep-fried food items may have, in a way they don't in a typical US diet, especially at lower income levels.
Interestingly, canola oil is officially considered somehow beneficial for health [5].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_oil#Health_concerns
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil#Culinary_use
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_frying#Asia
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan#High_life_expec...
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed_oil#Nutrition_and_hea...
Result:
The mean age was 56 years (SD, 10), and 58% were women. Compared with the HCLF diet, participants on the LCHF diet had greater improvements in hemoglobin A1c (mean difference in change, −6.1 mmol/mol [95% CI, −9.2 to −3.0 mmol/mol] or −0.59% [CI, −0.87% to −0.30%]) and lost more weight (mean difference in change, −3.8 kg [CI, −6.2 to −1.4 kg]). Both groups had higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lower triglycerides at 6 months. Changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were less favorable in the LCHF diet group than in the HCLF diet group (mean difference in change, 0.37 mmol/L [CI, 0.17 to 0.58 mmol/L] or 14.3 mg/dL [CI, 6.6 to 22.4 mg/dL]). No statistically significant between-group changes were detected in the assessment of NAFLD. Changes were not sustained at the 9-month follow-up.
Imho i think this also plays into the misinformation in the space. It's hard to prove anything and I find I mostly wait for a good meta analysis before putting my eggs in that basket
If intended to be funny, it certainly is. If not, I believe "asterisk" is the word you're looking for.
However, I could see astrix becoming the word of 2023.
Related: https://www.asterix.com
Been finding just eating lower-carb (not as low as keto, and some days where there have been carb binges) and focusing more on whole foods and not eating high-fat foods and my triglycerides and cholesterol numbers are back to normal levels, and I'm back to losing weight again, albeit a lot slower (down 25 lbs this year).
I know another guy who lost 107lbs off Keto (he was my initial inspiration to try it, in fact) and he eventually went off it and he had regained about half of that when I saw him last (according to him).
I'm sure there are people who have been able to keep the weight off, but it was difficult for me.
Doctor said my cholesterol was getting high, so I radically cut saturated fats. Suddenly I was losing weight at a pound a week, eating as much as I wanted. Shed 25+ lbs that way.
Would that work for everyone? I sincerely doubt it. Find what works for you, I say, and to heck with the naysayers.
And it's not just what works for people in the biological sense (since any diet that's restricting calories will make you lose weight.) It's really what diet works for you psychologically or situationally.
If eating in a time-restricted way (Intermittent fasting) causes you to lower total calories, and is easy for you, great. If cutting out carbs is easier for you, great. If counting calories and eating only a certain amount of calories works for you, great - that's what I personally prefer cause it's the most flexible, though counting is a pain at first.
N=1 personal non-random uncontrolled experiment: 4+ years of drug-free diabetes control to below pre-diabetic levels via an LCHF diet, regularly measured with continuous glucose monitoring. I suspect that the success rate among self-selected followers is higher than among the randomly assigned.
I believe that the common denominator is nearly zero sugar.
Interestingly, as a pre-diabetic zero carber my blood sugar is excellent in as little as a week. Not meaning to make fun of your diet, just observing that what you ingest != what's in your blood stream, we are very complex chemical machines.
In this case a moderately high carb diet like yours results in low sugar, while a diet with <5g of carbs a day results in healthy sugar levels.
(The reason is insulin. Remove dietary carbs, you generate less insulin, so blood sugar flatlines, with gluconeogenesis to maintain the minimal levels to function, while the rest of the energy is provided by fatty acids)
For the first while I found that using coconut oil or olive oil was a trivial way of adding just pure fat to my daily numbers. Both of them are relatively cheap (though high cal) and can be added to any heated drink like coffee or tea with minimal impact on for flavor. Over time, this just became unnecessary, but it was helpful early on as it was trivial to prep a small container with n grams of oil every morning.
There are also nutrient bars that are explicitly higher on fat and protein and lower on carbs for this very purpose, e.g. 'good fats' bars.
Unlike what others report, while I felt generally good and had energy for day to day things, I simply could not ever work up enough energy for more rigorous cardio or weightlifting, compared to when I'm on a normal/carb-rich diet.
In OTC A1C tests, I reduced mine from 10.6 to 7.6 to 6.0 over the course of 6 months with keto. I wanted to get a continuous glucose monitor so that I could discover if any foods were unwittingly sabotaging my efforts, but I can't find any that I can buy without a formal diagnosis and prescription.
I haven't gone to a doctor yet b/c I don't have a primary care physician and, to be blunt, it's expensive, even with insurance!
I worked around it by just getting a prescription, which was easy and cheap, and comes with a consult from a live doctor.
There is a new Abbott sensor that looks really promising but there are no news about it so maybe it is vaporware.
Never looked back. Never went on any drugs, running is slower, but can last much longer. Don't really feel hungry - just eat to my activity level and snacks.
Eating is simple - if it has more than 2g of carbs per serving, then I don't eat it. Only supplements required are chlorides: sodium - that's easy, potassium - from NoSalt, and magnesium - an occasional capsule.
It is possible that some markers improve as a function of weight, but it is not necessarily so.