Disrobing Dogma – Low Carb And Ketogenic Diets In Weight Loss
Low carb nutrition for weight loss is is currently a very popular concept. But is there any scientific evidence that shows low carb or ketogenic diets are superior to others?
From Fat To Carbs
For the last 50 years, the anti-fat dietary paradigm has dominated. Now, as people broaden their knowledge about nutrition, the goal-posts have been moved. The current obsession is with carbohydrates, or, more specifically, the low-carbohydrate diet. First championed into fame by the late Robert Atkins, and later perpetuated into utter idiocy by current diet commentators to the likes of Gary Taubes. This article has the sole intention to examine low-carbohydrate diets and their purported acceleration of fat-loss in isocaloric diets. Also discussed is the brother of low-carbohydrate, the ketogenic diet.
Low Carb, High Folly
The belief holds that if one restricts carbohydrate intake, insulin will subsequently be restricted and thus fat deposition will ultimately be reduced. A number of glaring problems arise when one looks at this in its totality. It completely disregards the fundamental precept of weight-regulation, the calorie in, calorie out model.
Studies observing weight-loss in individuals on isocaloric regimens are of varying quality. There is the ‘free-living’ study, which are basically uncontrolled, observational studies which are notoriously inaccurate in their food intake reporting. Then there is the controlled trial, or most commonly seen in dietary experimentation – metabolic ward trials. These feeding studies involve institutionalized subjects who are confined to a hospital or research facility. These types of studies are fastidious in their control and offer a level of qualitative superiority that free-living studies cannot touch.
Since 1955, metabolic ward trials have failed abysmally to support the contention that low-carbohydrate, isocaloric diets have resulted in statistically significant greater fat-derived weight loss than high-carb diets (Table 1). In other words, they don’t work.
Only studies with a duration either equal to or longer than 3 weeks will be analysed. Short-term studies generally tell us little compared to longer term studies which allow a holistic assessment rather than a mere myopic overview.
Metabolic Ward Feeding Trials of Isocaloric Diets with Different Carbohydrate Quantities | |||
---|---|---|---|
Study Author(s) | Carbohydrate Content (either grams or %cal) | Duration (days) | Statistically significant difference in weight/fat loss for the low-carbohydrate regimen? |
(1) Werner, 1955 | 52g vs 287g | 21 | NO |
(2) Olesen & Quuade, 1960 | 50% vs 18% | 21 | NO |
(3) Pilikington et al., 1960 | 75% vs 13% and 91% vs 9% | 24 | NO |
(4) Kinsell et al., 1963 | 3% vs 64% | 21 | NO |
(5) Krehl et al., 1967 | Widely varying over 10 dietary periods in 3 groups of subjects. | 28 | NO |
(6) Bortz et al, 1967 | 90g vs 0g vs 160g | 24 | NO |
(7) Bortz et al., 1968 | 1. 52g vs 120g vs 0g 2. 80g vs 0g | 24 | NO |
(8) Grey & Kipnis, 1971 | 62% vs 25% | 21 | NO |
(9) Grey & Kipnis, 1971 | 72% vs 0% | 28 | NO |
(10) Rabast et al., 1979 | 170g vs 25g | 30 | YES |
(11) Rabast et al., 1979 | 355g vs 48g | 25 | NO |
(12) Rabast et al., 1981 | 225g vs 40g | 28 | YES |
(13) Bogardus et al., 1981 | 36% vs 1% | 42 | NO |
(14) Hoffer et al., 1984 | 38g vs 0g | 56 | NO |
(15) Hendler et al., 1988 | 2% vs 55% | 21 | NO |
(16) Baggio et al., 1988 | 46% vs 56% | 21 | NO |
(17) Brinton et al., 1990 | 43% vs 76% | 28 | NO |
(18) Leibel et al., 1992 | 75% vs 45% | 28 | NO |
(19) Vazquez & Adibi, 1992 | 76g vs 10g | 28 | NO |
(20) Vazquez & Kazi, 1995 | 9g vs 86g | 28 | NO |
(21) Vazquez et al., 1995 | 10g vs 76g vs 86g | 28 | NO |
(22) Piatti et al., 1994 | 30% vs 60% | 21 | NO |
(23) Golay et al., 1996 | 15% vs 45% | 42 | NO |
(24) Miyashita et al., 2004 | 39% vs 62% | 28 | NO |
(25) Stimson et al., 2007 | 4% vs 35% | 28 | NO |
(26) Gately et al., 2008 | 55% vs 47% | 28 | NO |
Even just a superficial reading of the table shows the clear absence of evidence supporting the low-carbohydrate diet for fat loss. It offers no observable advantage over diets higher in carbohydrate or any other macronutrient.
Rabast et al. reported supportive findings for a low-carbohydrate diet (10,12) but there is much doubt over these conclusions. In the first of these studies obese patients that followed the low-carbohydrate diet lost an extra 2.3KG. The authors remarked, “…an increased rate of metabolism presents itself as the most feasible explanation.” And in the second study subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost an average of 2.45KG more than the high-carbohydrate group, and again the authors were quick to ascribe this to an ‘increased metabolism’.
Weak Studies
A closer analysis of these papers reveals perplexing abnormalities that significantly weaken the case for these two studies. Foremost, there was an unusually high dropout rate, which in the 1979 study was to the figure of 40%. In ward studies, where supervision and support are emphatically implemented, dropout rates are traditionally non-existent to minimal. The authors offer absolutely no explanation for this huge attrition. This surely had an effect on study results; it can be clearly observed in the paper that results fluctuated between statistically significant (on day 30) and not statistically significant (5 days earlier).
The authors’ claim that an increased metabolism explained the difference in weight-loss, however this runs opposite to the very fact that they did not measure metabolic rate at all. And moreover, tightly controlled studies have shown no greater increase in metabolic rate or dietary-induced thermogenesis (DIT) on low-carbohydrate meals or diets(27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36). Ultimately, the many discrepancies and overwhelming weight of conflicting evidence cast aspersions on the validity of the studies conducted by Rabast et al.
The perceived effectiveness of low-carbohydrate dieting comes from the dramatic inital weight-loss. And indeed, many of these studies have found weight-loss to be accelerated in the first 1 to 2 weeks on a low-carbohydrate regimen. However, this is nothing more than fluid-loss via glycogen depletion (37) which is particularly exacerbated on low-carbohydrate diets(38, 39).
Corroborating the findings of ward studies, long-term free-living studies have also investigated the claims of faster fat-loss on a carbohydrate restricted diet. Results have shown similar endpoint weight-losses with widely varying carbohydrate content (40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50).
As far as any expediting effects on fat-loss go, low-carbohydrate diets offer nothing as clearly demonstrated. Despite this, low-carbohydrate diets need to be be appreciated for their powerful satiating effects through glucostatic mechanisms (51, 52), increased CCK-8 secretion from possibly higher fat intakes (53,54,55) and similar hunger suppression and appetite control exerted by possibly higher protein intakes (56, 57,58,59).
Calories, Not Carbohydrates
Perhaps the best summation of the low-carbohydrate diet comes from the conclusion in the Krehl et.al paper – “The wide appeal of carbohydrate restricted diets may relate to the fact they offer something different, are generally more permissive than the usual dietary programs for weight-reduction. and in the initial loss of weight is quite significant as a result of diuresis of salt and water; this is not related to an increased catabolism of fat and hence is artifactual. [The] continued and sustained loss of adipose tissue depends in the final analysis on prolonged restriction of calories, whether these are derived from fat, carbohydrate, or protein.” (5)
If carbohydrate-restriction had any extra beneficial effects on fat loss this should be easily reproducible in studies and well documented in the literature. Decades of closely controlled, metabolic ward feeding trials have clearly refuted this. The ‘low-carb mania’ is kept alive with the selective citation of unreliable and sub-par quality, short-term free-living studies. The amassed research presents the clear conclusion that it is unequivocally calories, not carbohydrates that dictates weight regulation.
Ketogenic Diets – Equally As Useless, Twice As Stupid
The ketogenic diet is conventionally a high-fat, moderate-to-high protein and very low-carbohydrate eating regimen. It’s sole purpose is to induce the state of ketosis, where the body derives fuel from fatty acids and ketone bodies rather than glucose.
Much to the chagrin of ketogenic diet exponents, metabolic ward trials have routinely failed to support the notion that ketogenic diets accelerate fat loss (4,6,7,9,13,14,15,19,20,21).
Requiring further investigation are the numerous adverse health effects. It is commonly touted that ketogenic regimens have been used successfully in epileptic persons for the better half of 90 years and this attests to the safety of such a diet. Indeed, it has been a tool employed to treat refractory epilepsy however this is not without its problems.
Ketogenic diets have been associated with lethargy, halitosis (bad breath), constipation(60, 61) , menstrual irregularities (62,63), a higher excretion of sodium, potassium (64) and selenium (65, 66), deteriorated mood and cognition (67,68,69,70), dehydration, cardiomyopathy, bruising, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, gastritis and constipation, vitamin and mineral depletion, hepatitis, pancreatitis, metabolic acidosis, gout, bone mineral deficiency, kidney stones and hypoglycemia (71,72,73,74,75,76,77).
It makes little sense to follow a diet that offers no benefit to fat-loss all while incurring a multitude of possible adverse health implications.
Calories Are King
Those who claim superiority for the low-carbohydrate and ketogenic diet have either not bothered to review the literature, or they remain completely ignorant of it. As illustrated, quality research since the 1950s does not support the role of the low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diet in fat-loss any more than a low-protein or low-fat diet. Despite the dogmatic low-carb guru’s who vehemently defend their scientifically untenable position, you as the reader are capable of drawing your own conclusions based on the existing evidence. Calories have always been, are, and forever will be the only determinant of absolute weight regulation.
Final Words
While I wholly acknowledge that carbohydrate-restricted diets work and have produced weight-loss for millions of people worldwide, this article is solely addressing the claim that they accelerate the weight-loss process through some magical metabolic effect. Yes, low and no-carbohydrate works, but (metabolically) no more than any other isocaloric diet.
This is part 1 in a series of articles called ‘Disrobing Dogma’, which tackles the widely propagated and hugely popular dogmatic diet and nutrition claims that actually have no basis in scientific reality. I am also pleased to be on board here at evilcyber.com, hopefully I can contribute information of value to the public while also allowing myself to sharpen my writing skills and further my own knowledge. Thank you for reading.
Pictures courtesy of “Like_the_Grand_Canyon“, “admiller“, Cam Switzer and “bigbirdz“.
51 Comments
Nice post, Rani. Glad you are posting on a quality spot like this among some passionate and skilled writers. I look forward to more of your posts! (and maybe some original research in the future!)
Thanks for kind words.
Happy new year!
I’m just 1 person, but I found I lost 50 lbs quite easily by restricting carbohydrates and using quality oils (butter, olive oils, coconut oil). I know I feel more energetic and satiated when all processed foods and vegetable oils were removed from my diet.
All I know is that a diet that prevents me from over-eating, incorporates satisfying food choices, and makes me have enough energy to actually look forward to excercise, it’s the winner. No one is going to stay on a diet if they are miserable, low-carb diets are easy to stick with for years.
Exactly Katie, like I mentioned in the article the low-carbohydrate diet needs to be appreciated but for reasons other than its purported acceleration of fat loss.
Congratulations on your weight-loss and happy new year.
This article is total and utter garbage. I have lost weight effortlessly on a ketosis diet.
This is my third round on keto over 10 years. This time is my most stringent round ever. I’ve lost 50 pounds since September. I feel great, I have had no negative symptoms and my bloodwork numbers are better than ever before.
“Even just a superficial reading of the table shows the clear absence of evidence supporting the low-carbohydrate diet for fat loss.”
Even just a superficial observation of ACTUAL EVIDENCE shows the clear and irrefutable benefits of ketosis diet.
The weight loss effects are absurd considering what it is. Effortless, painless and effective. No other diet ever worked for me.
I always expected this article to attract the ire of low-carb zealots, but this is just amazing.
Firstly, I -NEVER- said that the low-carb/keto diet does not work. I merely shattered the myth that they somehow accelerate weight-loss. That’s what this whole article is about, did you even read it?
“Even just a superficial reading of the table shows the clear absence of evidence supporting the low-carbohydrate diet for fat loss.” Yes, I say this. But why don’t you quote the next sentence where I make perfectly clear that – “It offers no observable advantage over diets higher in carbohydrate or any other macronutrient.” Stop cherry-picking quotes.
Thirdly, it’s apparent you cannot appreciate solid science when you see it. The table collated the highest quality literature available yet you make reference to “actual evidence” which you don’t bother cititng (because it probably does not exist).
philb, your statement that my article is “total and utter garbage” is purely your opinion. However your reasoning behind it is entirely fallacious. I suggest you actually read what I wrote because it’s clear you haven’t. If you feel I have misinterpreted or misrepresented a study or if you even have a study that I have missed then by all means make it aware to me and the issue will be redressed.
But please, for your sake and mine, don’t post nonsense (again).
Nonsense? You mean like saying a ketogenic diet can produce hepatitis? That kind of nonsense?
Nonsense? Ummm, hepatitis is just a inflammation of the liver, it isn’t talking about the viral disease. And yes, a ketogenic diet can put stress on some people’s livers to a point where they become inflamed, but it is rare.
“I merely shattered the myth that they somehow accelerate weight-loss.”
Oh you are cute. What do you do when you aren’t shattering myths with blog posts? I imagine something equally impressive.
I think what philb and a lot of others are wondering about is the high success rate that we generally seem to see in people on LCHF diets. I’m glad I read this, as it gives me a more balanced perspective on ketogenic diets, but I think a lot of people might be confused as it seems from whatever (erroneous or not) information there is on the Internet, ketogenic diets seem to almost produce better results than other diets. Also, personal experience is a factor.
Clearly you cannot comprehend what you read.
Interesting article, though the chart indicates the diets are isocaloric. One of the arguments advanced for low-carb diets is that carbs increase appetite, whereas fat and protein are satiating — so daily caloric intake drops naturally (and perhaps significantly) as a result of the diet. Would be interesting to see a follow-up considering that angle.
There are many different arguments for low-carb, many of them have a basis in reality and many don’t. This article addressed specifically the false claim that (and as I said), “…if one restricts carbohydrate intake, insulin will subsequently be restricted and thus fat deposition will ultimately be reduced.” This is what the entire low-carb ‘acceleration of weight-loss’ is predicated on; it’s written in black and white in Atkin’s book.
And I already briefly discuss about the beneficial satiating effects of low-carb diets. That’s one claim that does indeed hold water.
I just want to add in a thought on a part of individual health that a lot of people never address. The MIND. There are a lot of factors that play into whether or not an individual will lose weight on a “diet.” I firmly believe there is a strong mind-body connection, and that one’s determination and commitment to losing weight has a large factor in the success of a given diet of any one person.
This mental determination, coupled with the drastic change that typically accompanies a person’s attempt to adhere to a new diet, usually will get results. The hard part is maintaining the new way, and adopting the change of habit that lead to it over a long period of time.
That being said, your view of any given diet/exercise plan you decide to try is directly related to whether you TRULY believe it will work in the beginning 🙂 All “diets” tend to work for those who set their minds to accomplishing their goals because it involves making major changes in their lifestyles. So everyone needs to stop arguing over which diet is better, blah blah blah…and focus on themselves and be open to change and trying different things to find what works for you. Everyone is different, and will respond differently to different stimulus. So decide on your goal, come up with a plan to reach it, believe in it, and act on it! Regardless what path you take to better health, you are likely to reach your destination as long as you are truly determined to get there when you begin your journey!!! *steps off soap box*
I find it very hard to take the writer seriously, considering at one point in the article he says that a ketogenic diet can produce hepatitis. That’s right, he said a diet can cause a virus.
Viruses are just one possible cause of hepatitis. It can also be caused by the body’s own immune cells, liver damage from alcohol abuse and certain medications:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002139/
Regardless, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say hepatitis could be directly linked to a ketogenic diet. Is there a study or source that proves this?
Yes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15329077
I’m sorry, but that does not prove anything. 129 people studied for 6 years and some of them developed hepatitis? I’m sure some of them developed cancer too, did a ketogenic diet cause this as well?
The liver processes fats, hence why it can become inflamed in ketogenic dieters. Just like the kidneys can be damaged in those people with weak kidney function who begin a ketogenic diet.
The only thing I will admit here is that I may have worded the sentence incorrectly and will ask Evil to change it.
I said “has been shown to produce…” which is implying causation. I never asserted that ketogenic diets cause any of the listed ailments. I should have said “have been associated with…”, that would have been a more accurate statement.
Nevertheless, it’s very difficult to ignore the well-documented adverse health effects experienced when following a ketogenic diet. You seem to do just fine at it though.
And, you are right on the money, Rani. –Thank you for your post blasting those diets that continue to advertise that food groups can somehow be manipulated into something other than calorie in vs calorie out.
Good article. I think one of the few advantages of such diets is that they generally force you to be extremely strict in terms of counting macros/calories, with this often resulting in the supposed accelerated weight loss(obviously this would still be a minimal amount). You should present this to the people of bodybuilding.com, many there still blindly swear by the miracle that is the ketogenic diet.
It is quite odd that you would write this article, with the underlying vitriol, that you have. I started reading the links you yourself posted. While sure, there wasn’t much of an advantage to the weight loss in each study, there were most definitely major health advantages reported on the LCHF side of the coin, which you seem to want your readers to ignore. I read 6 of the links at random, and all of them reported major benefits to following LCHF over moderate to low fat, moderate carb diets.
No Kirk, what is quite odd is that you have totally missed the purpose of the article. I write very clearly in the introduction, “This article has the sole intention to examine low-carbohydrate diets and their purported acceleration of fat-loss in isocaloric diets.” This article was about weight-loss per se, not actual health outcomes.
Perhaps you should pay closer attention to what you read.
Your attitude in “debunking” low carb diets is abysmal. Perhaps an edit to remove the condescension would allow your ideas to shine through. As is your blog post is both polarizing and over-hyped. If you want examples of well researched and well written blog posts take a look at denise mingers posts. Take notes.
“…would allow your ideas to shine through”.
Brian, I don’t operate with “ideas”, so I don’t know what your talking about. I do however, operate with solid science. Until you can refute my claims on scientific grounds, you have absolutely no case. And btw, I’m well familiar with Minger’s blog, she’s great.
I didn’t know about her blog. Indeed some good things to read there.
For those interested:
http://rawfoodsos.com/
Yeah she’s best known for her dissection of The China Study.
“Calories have always been, are, and forever will be the only determinant of absolute weight regulation.”
That’s just a tautology. But it’s not very useful to plan a weight-loss diet.
You can easily design a reduced calorie diet. Thing is, you won’t be able to stick to it for long. Hunger is a very powerful drive.
So the best thing to do is to eat in such a way that your appetite decreases – and with it, the number of calories you get. And here is where low-carb diets excel.
The calorie tautology you so smugly proclaim is as meaningful as prescribing walking on your hands to avoid feet calluses. It certainly works. But how long can anybody sustain it?
It has been repeatedly shown that in the long run, all diets are equal, as long as the amount of calories is reduced:
https://evilcyber.com/losing-weight/eat-less-of-whatever-lose-weight/
https://evilcyber.com/losing-weight/diets-that-work/
You’ve missed the point of the article. I was not talking about satiety (although I do speak briefly on it) or adherence or anything else. I was talking about the effectiveness of manipulating carbohydrate intake per se.
You also claim the “calorie tautology” is unsustainable. This makes absolutely no sense seeing as fat loss can ONLY occur in a caloric deficit.
Sorry if I didn’t address your whole article. I just intended to comment on your statement about calories, and its inevitable corollary: “just eat less!”.
I agree that fat loss only can occur in a caloric deficit (that’s implicit in the definition of fat loss). What I dispute is that such a caloric deficit can be voluntarily-sustained over a long time, because of hunger. It must be spontaneous. If one takes care of appetite (by eating low-carb), calories take care of themselves.
In the context of this article, satiety is largely a red-herring.
Quantitatively, low-carb diets do not accelerate fat loss at all. Atkins and Taubes had this totally wrong.
Qualitatively, yes, the ostensibly higher protein and fat intakes in low-carb diets have their benefits on satiety amongst other things.
My article addressed the former.
Way to cherry-pick a bunch of articles to support your totally irrelevant conclusion !
Of course, in the context of this article, anything having to do with the reality of losing weight is a red herring…as long as you can find some irrelevant point on which to proclaim that Atkins and Taubes had it totally wrong.
And if anyone points this out, just proclaim that you have raised the ire of a bunch of low-carb fanatics !
Hey, how about this? Why don’t you go figure something useful out instead of nipping at the heels of those who have?
The reality of losing weight is that you don’t need to buy anyone’s book, you just need to eat less.
noname,
I consider ‘cherry-picking’ a serious allegation. Unless you have proof (which of course you don’t) I suggest you don’t entertain such a notion again.
My conclusion is not an irrelevant one, in fact it’s very important for anyone who’s trying to lose weight.
Taubes and Atkins have been shown many times to be completely wrong, as evidence in my article. If you have evidence to support your views then sure let’s hear it. If not, then goodbye :).
Funny, i am a type 1 diabetic. On a low carb diet i needed less insulin, which also reduced my overall hunger. I lost weight because insulin stores fat. My blood sugar is in the normal range.
Great post with good citation of sources. I read this and the one written by evil on carbohydrate-cycling. Both very enlightening. To “pollito”:
Of course a calorie deficit causes hunger. It’s a natural reaction from your body, telling you that you need to eat more. Makes sense, right? You say “You can easily design a reduced calorie diet. Thing is, you won’t be able to stick to it for long. Hunger is a very powerful drive.” This is the difference between people who can’t lose weight and people who can. It’s about having a little self control, a little willpower. Rani does however accredit the satiating effect of an increased protein/fat diet, and that is why his post isn’t at all meaningless but totally neccesary and correct. The fact is you can clearly lose weight as long as you’re on a caloric deficit, and you don’t need to do either stupid shit or something uneccesary to accomplish weight loss. I for one like his “condescending” tone as all this bullshit is only spread with one intent; to make money and sell. This gross misinterpretation of facts and observations deserves to be outright slaughtered and removed from the general perception. To claim that these diets have evidence based in science is ridiculous.
To “noname”:
Obviously a troll. If you don’t like what you’re reading, keep buying into bullshit and do uneccesary and pointless shit. It’s your life.
Finally, to Rani; kickass!
Evil Cyber and Rani,
I was wondering, have either of you tried the ketogenic diet?
Nope.
So basically your saying that calories in/out is the most important factor. What would you then recommend as a macronutrient breakdown? 40% carbs, 30% fat, 30% protein? Or higher carbs lower protein/fat? Higher fat? I have found that at the same number of calories, I feel more full eating more protein and fat and less carbs. Grains make me feel bloated, especially if not prepared correctly.
The optimal diet, in my opinion, will allow you to keep eating the same basic breakdown of macronutrients while adjusting calories when you want to lose/gain weight. But as we know, weight isn’t the important thing; it’s body fat, blood lipids, micronutrients, antioxidants, etc.
Basically, I feel like following a diet like the Paleo diet but a little flexible would result in the optimal health. I’ve found that a calorie deficit makes you lose weight, but the macro-nutrient profile determines how much of it is fat and how much is muscle. Once I switched to higher fat/protein and no more than 100g carbs a day, my body fat percentage started to fall faster in relation to my weight; hence, more fat loss, less muscle loss. Plus, when you get 100g of carbs with NO GRAINS, you get way more good nutrients and just sheer volume of food.
Sorry this was so long. Just wanted to say, while I agree with calories in/calories out, it’s super important to focus on what those calories are made up of. Essentially, I have yet to find a convincing argument for eating grains. There seems to be absolutely no reason to consume any grains at all.
No need to eat grains? OK
There’s no need to eat meat either.
There’s no need to eat vegetables either.
There’s no need to eat fruit either.
There’s no need to eat eggs either.
There’s no need to eat/dink dairy products either.
There’s no need to eat legumes either.
There’s no need to use spices either.
Enjoy you miserable life.
You have made the same mistake as other people who commented here. I -specifically- argue that low-carbohydrate diets do not accelerate fat-loss. At no point do I suggest an optimal macronutrient ratio, that’s up to people to work out for themselves.
As an aside, your technically right that bodyweight per se is not indicative of overall health, but you forget that its a powerful surrogate marker (the mechanism being lifestyle, of course). You are going to be hard-pressed to find an obese person who is not a T2D as well.
I agree grains are by no means necessary. Personally, I don’t eat any grains because they make me feel crappy. I get 99% of all my carbs from tubers and fruit. My general macronutrient breakdown is around 25/40/35 (P/F/C).
“You have made the same mistake as other people who commented here.”
Not sure why you have to immediately try to point out some irrational ‘mistake’ I didn’t make. Many of the comments above are just trying to continue the discussion past what you already said. Just disregarding all their points and referring to your specific argument is persnickety. If you really think you are correct you should not be afraid to engage a broader discussion of the topic.
“At no point do I suggest an optimal macronutrient ratio”
I know you didn’t specify a macronutrient ratio. That actually seemed odd to me because that is integral to what you were discussing. That is why I asked…
I would think that low-carb diets do help preserve muscle while losing fat; in any case the macro-nutrient ratio is important here. It’s basically the entire point of the article; you say it doesn’t matter because no ratio will burn fat faster or slower. If you believe that then why do you eat less carbs than the USDA recommends? At what percent breakdown is a diet ‘low-carb’? Why not follow the USDA guidelines of 18/29/53? Why bother writing all this if you are NOT going to make any recommendations?
You say “…carbohydrate-restricted diets work and have produced weight-loss for millions of people worldwide, this article is solely addressing the claim that they accelerate the weight-loss process through some magical metabolic effect. Yes, low and no-carbohydrate works, but (metabolically) no more than any other isocaloric diet.”
Ok, I get it, you just wanted to show that eating close to zero carbs and loads of fat does not make you burn more body fat. Especially if you eat way more calories. I agree with you. I just believe that puffing yourself up and telling everyone how right you are doesn’t really lead to any meaningful advice. My personal breakdown is around 30/45/25. If we’re not talking specifics what’s the point?
Oh and as for “You are going to be hard-pressed to find an obese person who is not a T2D as well.”
A laughable claim really. YOU forget that body weight alone is basically useless in the context of health. No I will not be ‘hard-pressed’ to find someone who is ‘obese’ and does not have T2D. How about most NFL athletes, a lot of the NBA, military, virtually every bodybuilder… you get the point. Many of the healthiest people in the country have a BMI in the overweight/obese category. There are also many people with very ‘healthy’ body weights with T2D and heart disease. For an article claiming to ‘disrobe dogma’ and challenge conventional wisdom, you sure do spout a lot of it off.
At least we can agree on one thing though. Grains definitely make me feel shitty as well. Sweet potatoes FTW.
I’m definitely not “afraid” to talk about broader issues, its just that its a red-herring. The article only argues a specific point.
I said it before, the macronutrient composition of your diet is always going to be different person to person. Some thrive on a high-carb raw vegan diet whereas other thrive on low-carb high-fat regimen. The point is fat loss will be the same if both diets are isocaloric. I eat the macronutrient ratio that I do because I have found it to be optimal.
And I do make recommendations. I clearly say to forget obsessing over macronutrient composition and focus on total calories instead. The composition of those calories should be individually based.
The point is very clear, you just don’t get it. Again, I’m ONLY talking about calories and the fact that calories matter. I don’t need to give a specific breakdown of macro’s, it doesn’t matter. All I need to show (and did show repeatedly) is that calories matter. What they are made of is up to you. Are you starting to get it?
As for the bodyweight issue, I already said I agreed with you that bodyweight doesn’t mean much per se. But you totally ignore my second comment that it is a powerful surrogate for just about everything in the metabolic syndrome. And you knew full well that I was referring to people with extremely high levels of body fat when I said obese and not referring to BMI. As for your other statement about thin people and heart-disease etc. sure, of course they develop it but how often compared to people with a high body fat? Your focusing on the minority here to support your failing argument.
Some sad creatures obviously can’t imagine a life without diet gurus…
Just wanted to add after 10 years in fitness I lose the most weight the fastest and retain the most muscle on Keto.
Works for me! + I really like steak and butter 🙂
Thank God for people like you, Rani. Please do keep shattering the myths! I crown the calorie King!
When you use phrases like “perpetuated into utter idiocy,” and “twice as stupid,” you flip a switch in my mind that causes me to completely disregard anything you say that might be valid. Just saying…
Hi Rami. I linked to this article inside of my blog post titled “Lose Weight Fast and Climb Harder. I did, and My Climbing Went from V2 to V6.”
Although I don’t agree with your conclusions, I believe that your article is solid. I agree that a ketogenic or low-card diet is not for everyone. And, more than anything, this article should prompt smart people to think more deeply about what they put into their bodies for fuel.
Keep up the good work,
Jason