T Nation

Ketogenic Dets Have No Advantage

From this article:

Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets1,2,3
Carol S Johnston, Sherrie L Tjonn, Pamela D Swan, Andrea White, Heather Hutchins and Barry Sears

1 From the Department of Nutrition, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ (CSJ, PDS, and AW); Conscious Cuisine, Scottsdale, AZ (SLT); and Inflammation Research Foundation, Marblehead, MA (HH and BS)

Background:Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.

Objective:We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.

Design:Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with {approx}5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; {approx}40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.

Results:Mean (±SE) weight losses (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood �?-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood �?-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum {gamma}-glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet.

Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

Possibly not. But I can promise you you’ll feel better, more energetic, less foggy, and probably train better on a ketogenic diet than a diet that’s quite low carb but just short of being ketogenic. Less carb cravings too.

CT has been saying this for a while now.

According to him, you can lose fat either way but the keto approach will lead to little or no carb cravings, and just a better all around mood.

I have no evidence to back up his opinions, its just hear-say.

Well according to this study “perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet”. Sounds like the non keto dieters had more energy.

Personally I do better on a low carb non keto diet then I do on a keto diet. My cravings are about the same for either but when I’m on a keto diet after about two weeks my energy levels, strength, libido, and everything else goes in the toilet.

There’s disagreement on this site. In the big AD thread, the AD experts were very vocal about the importance of staying out of ketosis.

It would be interesting to see how “perceptions of vigor” were measured. With pain, for instance, people tend to remember the most intense pain that was felt. If the KDers experienced the common “crash” and remembered it the most when reporting vigor, the results would be understandable. The crashes can be bad. Actually, even if the KDers reported vigor frequently, experiencing just one crash would probably lead to these results.

I have no evidence as to which one is better or not (though I personally lean out MUCH better on an almost-zero-carb diet).

As for people “feeling worse” on a keto diet, if you asked them that questions during the first week to two weeks of the diet, especially if it’s their first time doing it, then yeah, they’ll feel like shit. BUT, once the body adjusts to it and you’re in the groove, you’re home free, and you do feel better, IMO – less mood swings, no up-and-down carb crashes, more general clearheadedness and you don’t feel like you need a nap after every meal.

But that’s just me.

Once you make it to the end of week two, you’re in the clear on either diet, in my experience. It’s just that first two weeks. No cheating, no skipping work outs, ultimate clean low carb. Once you get that down, your body knows what’s up.

[quote]Damici wrote:
I have no evidence as to which one is better or not (though I personally lean out MUCH better on an almost-zero-carb diet).
[/quote]

Do you have any idea why this is, given your BioSig results indicated that you have excellent carb tolerance?

According to my Biosig guy the reason is that having high genetic carb tolerance means you’ve got high tolerance to “paleo carbs,” i.e. healthy, non-processed carbs, like real brown rice, whole grains, whole wheat stuff, maybe even potatoes, but hardly anyone (including me) has ever really tried or stuck to a “healthy high-carb” diet.

Basically, when I’m not low-carbing it and trying to cut, as I am now, I’m usually pretty much completely off the dietary wagon, so I’ll eat (maybe not a crazy amount but I’ll have almost no filter): processed foods, pastas, breads (including white breads), pizza . . . the whole nine. Which will make anyone fat.

I asked him if, once I decide that I’m done with my current cutting phase and trying to get lean, and I want to just focus on putting on some size again instead of looking cut for the summer, can I afford to eat carbs and still not put on much fat, given my genetic tolerance for carbs. He said that if they’re paleo carbs I can get away with a lot more of that than most people can, with little problem.

[quote]andersons wrote:
Damici wrote:
I have no evidence as to which one is better or not (though I personally lean out MUCH better on an almost-zero-carb diet).

Do you have any idea why this is, given your BioSig results indicated that you have excellent carb tolerance?
[/quote]