KETO doesn't work why you think it does

[mbasic]

I am seriously puzzled as to what you guys are trying to say here.

Overeating leads to obesity.

That is a lot easier to do with an diet heavy in carbs.

That is also a lot easier to do, by too frequent eating.

It is harder to lose weight (fat), for a majority of the population, by continuing to eat diet heavy in carbs, even though the total calories are lower.

There IS probably something to that whole "insulin model" ...

I do believe it's much trickier to get fat without carbs, but I'm not sure I believe it's specifically to do with the carbs themselves as such.

If you cut out carbs, you cut out the vast majority of hyperpalatable calorie dense foods. But is it the fact that those foods tend to contain carbs that actually make them fattening? I'm not sure it is.

Most of those hyperpalatable foods that people overindulge in that makes them fat seem to be some combination of sugar, salt and fat. French fries? Salt and fat. Donuts? Sugar and fat. Pizza? Salt and fat.

Meanwhile, I'd really like to see a person who got fat by eating oatmeal, because it'd be interesting to meet a fictional person.

Point being, I doubt it's the existence of carbs specifically that makes people fat. It's the combination of high caloric density, hyperpalatability and low satiety.

There's a number of other issues with the carbs make people fat hypothesis. For example:

If carbs make people fat, why do plant based diets usually tend to lead to weight loss (and other improvements in lipids etc.)?

If carbs make people fat, why is it that carb consumption has gone down over the last 20 years or so (if I remember the years correctly), but obesity rates continue to climb?

Bingo (underlined).

I think your last point might be referring to the following?

you gotta a source for those charts?
yeah, i'm gonna say fuck those charts.
This is from the actual study ( i think , see the NHANES thing at the bottom?)

BTW, that's "sugar"

The NCHS uses the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to determine the sugar consumption per person. This survey assesses food and beverage consumption through an interview based on the self-reported recall of dietary information from a respondent from the last 24 hours [CDC, 2012]. These values are then converted into numerical values for caloric energy intake [Blair et al., 1992]. Although the NHANES has been used frequently to determine the per capita sugar consumption, it has methodological limitations. The majority of the caloric intake measured from this survey were found to be physiologically unlikely due to misreporting, suggesting that it may have a poor ability to estimate population trends in caloric intake, therefore making analyses using data from these surveys extremely limited in utility [Archer et al., 2013].

Funny enough, this is one the secondary reasons CICO doesn't work: the individual's glaring inability to assess portion size, count calories, macros, etc.

Because of the demonization (maybe unfairly) of the S.A.D./high carb diet in the late 90's early 2000's, people know/think they should be eating less carbs ... and therefore see themselves with their own rose colored glasses.... "yeah, I've been watching my carb intake lately. sure. I don't drink coke any more; I have an energy drink (orange juice, coffee-milk-shake, etc) after my morning run now. i'm doin' great ! "


Validity of U.S. nutritional surveillance:National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey caloric energy intake data, 1971-2010

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24130784/

Results: The historical rEI/BMR values for men and women were 1.31 and 1.19, (95% CI: 1.30-1.32 and 1.18-1.20), respectively. The historical disparity values for men and women were -281 and -365 kilocalorie-per-day, (95% CI: -299, -264 and -378, -351), respectively. These results are indicative of significant under-reporting. The greatest mean disparity values were -716 kcal/day and -856 kcal/day for obese (i.e., ≥30 kg/m2) men and women, respectively.

Conclusions: Across the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI [Energy Intake] data on the majority of respondents (67.3% of women and 58.7% of men) were not physiologically plausible. Improvements in measurement protocols after NHANES II led to small decreases in underreporting, artifactual increases in rEI, but only trivial increases in validity in subsequent surveys. The confluence of these results and other methodological limitations suggest that the ability to estimate population trends in caloric intake and generate empirically supported public policy relevant to diet-health relationships from U.S. nutritional surveillance is extremely limited.

[Allentown]

Troll posts troll post.
Stop.

[mbasic]

Troll posts troll post.
Stop.

Don't understand the troll accusation.
If the facts I presented make you upset and you can only counter with "troll" ... IDK, maybe just don't say anything.

Soooo ... you think the layman, via a phone interview, can accurately estimate their calorie intake by recalling what they ate yesterday ... and would accurately know calories, portion size, carbohydrate makeup, sugar content of said food list?

And that's good data to hang your hat on? Even The Sciences say that's highly bunk.

All the same, say taking at face value, looks like a 60 gram decrease? (540-480?).
500+/-40 grams of carbs is still a lot of carbs anyway you cut it.
... still going to cause all of the problems the Insulin-Hormone-model people are talking whining about.

=======================

A scarier explanation for obesity rates still increasing.

This is an intergenerational thing now.
There's some science out there showing obese mothers (metabolically defunct) can alter the genetics/epigenetic traits of their fetuses .... and those alterations can affect the babby's predisposition to their own metabolism, etc in a negative way....making them more prone to being obese.
It maybe harder to right the whole ship now than say 30 years ago....

[Allentown]

Look, I generally ignore you and don't bother with your posts, but I was mildly intrigued by the title. I regret clicking it.
Not that I care, but for the sake of other people who might stumble on your clickbait: The basis of your argument seems to be that "CICO doesn't work for weight loss because on the people don't calculate their intake." Is that correct?

[mbasic]

Look, I generally ignore you and don't bother with your posts,

nice passive agressive attack there

but I was mildly intrigued by the title. I regret clicking it.
Not that I care, but for the sake of other people who might stumble on your clickbait:

mgil asked I/we take this out of the Rippened thread.

The basis of your argument seems to be that "CICO doesn't work for weight loss because on the people don't calculate their intake." Is that correct?

You would have had to follow the whole convo going back a week.

It seems a lot of fitness/nutrition gurus have distilled the CICO vs Insulin-Hormone model thing down to "macros make-up doesn't matter very much at all, it all comes down to total calorie intake (and expenditure) ".
I don't think its one OR the other .... nothing is binary of course.

But I think the "its-only-CICO"-people are SEVERLY discounting the negative effects of a high carb diet, chronically high insulin/glucose, insulin resistance, etc. It seems Keto gets a lot of undue hate .... its the scientology of diets right now.... I get it. So the pro-CICO come out with a lot of their own bullshit, which doesn't pan out.

In my mind, from a strictly mechanistic standpoint, Keto(+I.F.) is more optimal for weight loss/fat loss, especially for Joe Q Public.
But I'm willing to admit, logistically and practically, its too hard for most to pull off.
That doesn't mean its not effective, or doesn't work ... "yOu ArE jUsT EaTINg lESs CalORIes!!!11"

[Allentown]

[mbasic]

yeah ... I would agree with that post for the most part.
Except for picking on Biden and the elderly.

I don't think I have ever said/wrote keto was better for "high intensity training" or "[typical] strength or resistance training".
The general context of this thread was/is average-inactive-overeating-slob-'mericans and "y so fatt, we can't figure it out".

You are going to need some carbs for how a typically 'power-builder' lifts and trains.... for HIIT / HIT / fake-HIT / hard running / etc.

But I don't think its as many as many carbs as they think it is.....and they're probably fat becasue they're overeating carbs, and over eating in general. Especially if you are doing lower volume stuff in the weight room.

I chilled out a bit after my keto spell.
I still think its: too many carbs, insulin, are a big problem.

NOW I'm WAY more worried about forever-chemicals and global warming than the USA obesity problem.....
...our gov't can keep slogging along with our current stalemate with the war against obesity.

Those other things (toxic chems and GW) will be more of the problem on nearer time horizon or whatever.

may God* have mercy on our souls

* intentionally did this because you have a thing against religious peeps and their sky-people

[Allentown]

yeah ... I would agree with that post for the most part.
Except for picking on Biden and the elderly.

I don't think I have ever said/wrote keto was better for "high intensity training" or "[typical] strength or resistance training".
The general context of this thread was/is average-inactive-overeating-slob-'mericans and "y so fatt, we can't figure it out".

You are going to need some carbs for how a typically 'power-builder' lifts and trains.... for HIIT / HIT / fake-HIT / hard running / etc.

But I don't think its as many as many carbs as they think it is.....and they're probably fat becasue they're overeating carbs, and over eating in general. Especially if you are doing lower volume stuff in the weight room.

I chilled out a bit after my keto spell.
I still think its: too many carbs, insulin, are a big problem.

NOW I'm WAY more worried about forever-chemicals and global warming than the USA obesity problem.....
...our gov't can keep slogging along with our current stalemate with the war against obesity.

Those other things (toxic chems and GW) will be more of the problem on nearer time horizon or whatever.

may God* have mercy on our souls

* intentionally did this because you have a thing against religious peeps and their sky-people

I mostly put that post here because I found the content interesting even aside from the ketone stuff, and this thread was about keto.

[Hardartery]

yeah ... I would agree with that post for the most part.
Except for picking on Biden and the elderly.

I don't think I have ever said/wrote keto was better for "high intensity training" or "[typical] strength or resistance training".
The general context of this thread was/is average-inactive-overeating-slob-'mericans and "y so fatt, we can't figure it out".

You are going to need some carbs for how a typically 'power-builder' lifts and trains.... for HIIT / HIT / fake-HIT / hard running / etc.

But I don't think its as many as many carbs as they think it is.....and they're probably fat becasue they're overeating carbs, and over eating in general. Especially if you are doing lower volume stuff in the weight room.

I chilled out a bit after my keto spell.
I still think its: too many carbs, insulin, are a big problem.

NOW I'm WAY more worried about forever-chemicals and global warming than the USA obesity problem.....
...our gov't can keep slogging along with our current stalemate with the war against obesity.

Those other things (toxic chems and GW) will be more of the problem on nearer time horizon or whatever.

may God* have mercy on our souls

* intentionally did this because you have a thing against religious peeps and their sky-people

I did not notice any negative impact at all from being keto when I was running it. I hit a hard wall on weight loss though, which I think was actually more about my body making too many carbs on it's own after a while. Adding back in some carbs in the morning seemed to help a little. I would wonder if increasing red meat consumption or supplementing with creatine might overcome any possible oxygen burning issues within the cells via the extra water that would be stored there. Don't know, I don't use creatine.