Anabolic Diet and Ketosis

[quote]M.L. wrote:
JMoUCF87 - You seem overly focused on the “deficit”. As others have already said, your claim that the calorie deficit is the only thing that matters for losing fat is highly debatable. I suspect you are wrong, but I’ll let others debate that with you…

What I have already said is that I am concerned about many things other than fat loss… mental clarity, energy levels, mood, etc… These things are directly connected to whether or not I am utilizing ketones for energy.

I’ll feel a whole lot different if I have 3000 calories of pasta as opposed to 3000 calories of steak and olive oil. And I’ll feel a whole lot different before my body begins utilizing ketones as opposed to after. That was my original question, how long until the body adapts to using ketones. This is clearly important for many reasons. [/quote]

if you feel best running off ketones then, yes, being in ketosis would be relevant. however, I submit that using a mixed approach (say, 40% protein, 30% fat and 30% carbs) could work well too, but to each his own I suppose.

[quote]actionjeff wrote:
This isn’t even a study! The author just draws unfounded conclusions from nothing as usual with these type of articles[/quote]

It’s a survey Jeff and does cite specific studies. For example:

[quote]“Finally, a recent randomised, balanced, two diet study compared effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted ketogenic and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight/obese men (n = 15) and women (n = 13) [20]. Despite significantly greater calorie intake (1855 vs. 1562 kcal/day), both between and within group comparison revealed a distinct advantage of a ketogenic diet over a low-fat diet for weight loss/fat loss for men. In fact, 5 men showed more than 10 pounds difference in weight loss. Majority of women also responded more favourable to the ketogenic diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. Furthermore, the individual responses revealed that three men and four women who did the ketogenic diet first, regained body mass and fat mass after the switch to the low-fat, whereas no subjects regained weight or fat mass after switching to the ketogenic diet.”

  1. Volek JS, Sharman MJ, Cómez AL, et al.: Comparison of energy-restricted very-low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2004, in press.[/quote]

And:

[quote]In 1965, Benoit et al. published the first systematic study of the effect of a very-low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) diet on composition of weight loss [21]. They observed that when a 1,000-kcal ketogenic diet (10 g of carbohydrates/day) was fed for 10 days, their seven male subjects lost an average of 600 g/day, of which 97% was fat.

  1. Benoit FL, Martin RL, Watten RH: Changes in body composition during weight reduction in obesity. Balance studies comparing effects of fasting and a ketogenic diet.
    [/quote]

And, if you’d bothered to read past the first paragraph you’d have found a study with equal protein / varying carb diets:

[quote]Young et al. compared 3 isoenergetic (1,800 kcal/day) and isoprotein (115 g/day) diets differing in carbohydrate content (30, 60, and 104 g/day) [22]. After 9 weeks on the 30-g, 60-g, and 104-g carbohydrate diets, weight loss was 16.2, 12.8, and 11.9 kilograms and fat accounted for 95%, 84%, and 75% of the weight loss, respectively.

  1. Young CM, Scanlan SS, Im HS, et al.: Effect on body composition and other paramete[rs in obese young men of carbohydrate level of reduction diet. Am J Clin Nutr 1971, 24:290-296.[/quote]

Granted those results were in an obese population but they should be food for thought rather than an object of ridicule, particularly given the rather dramatic nature of the fat losses described.

I, too, would like to see that last study repeated in a large trained population over a longer time frame under controlled conditions but I doubt we’ll see the perfect science on this any time soon.

I read the whole review before responding

I’ve seen the Young study cited many times and it is not surprising that it was used as a source.

It’s irrelevant. Even if you ignore that only eight people in three groups, and it’s one small study and for every one like it there are 10 saying the opposite, and the issues of reliably reported information and adherence- it is still irrelevant.

the nails in the coffin:

(1) Physical activity was not controlled

(2) the study measured weight loss, not fat loss!

The C group and lower carb groups had a higher average bodyweight to start the experiment and were given lower carb treatments. Of course weight loss is higher! We’ve all experienced the big weight drop at the start of ketogenic dieting.

It is a fact that ketogenic diets induce higher weight loss via loss of water weight, which is not the same thing as quality of weight lost or fat loss.

I take issue with the review because it is the normal baseless garbage with no real support and the same sources recycled.