Low carb vs. moderate carb - Page 3 - UK-Muscle Body Building Community

Tatyana · 07-03-2006, 09:33 PM

A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.

A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.
"A calorie is a calorie"

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.
This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.
However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.
Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.
Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

Tatyana · 07-03-2006, 09:35 PM

The "calories don't matter" school of thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.
Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!
The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.
The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Weight loss vs. fat loss!

This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables...
Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition
...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:
"Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses;
macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses"
This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).
Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect.
Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie intakes are identical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).
Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked at the issue concluded:

"Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12)

The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the "calorie is a calorie" school with the "calories don't matter" school to help people make decisions about nutrition?
Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's another article altogether).
Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions:
An optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight.

A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa.

Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be ignored.

This is why the diets I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals.

Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables.

Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to deliver the results people want.

Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)?

Simply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the wrong question which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaningful answers.

Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can't keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very laws of physics!
People that want to know my thoughts on the correct way to lose fat should read my ebook Diet Supplements Revealed, see this website http://www.aboutsupplements.com
There are of course many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet another nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your expense.
Any diet that claims calories don't matter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food source is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will work for all people all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it to someone you don't like!

About the Author - William D. Brink

Will Brink is a columnist, contributing consultant, and writer for various health/fitness, medical, and bodybuilding publications. His articles relating to nutrition, supplements, weight loss, exercise and medicine can be found in such publications as Lets Live, Muscle Media 2000, MuscleMag International, The Life Extension Magazine, Muscle n Fitness, Inside Karate, Exercise For Men Only, Body International, Power, Oxygen, Penthouse, Women’s World and The Townsend Letter For Doctors. He is the author of Priming The Anabolic Environment and Weight Loss Nutrients Revealed. He is the Consulting Sports Nutrition Editor and a monthly columnist for Physical magazine and an Editor at Large for Power magazine. Will graduated from Harvard University with a concentration in the natural sciences, and is a consultant to major supplement, dairy, and pharmaceutical companies.

He has been co author of several studies relating to sports nutrition and health found in peer reviewed academic journals, as well as having commentary published in JAMA. He runs the highly popular web site BrinkZone.com which is strategically positioned to fulfill the needs and interests of people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge. The BrinkZone site has a following with many sports nutrition enthusiasts, athletes, fitness professionals, scientists, medical doctors, nutritionists, and interested lay people. William has been invited to lecture on the benefits of weight training and nutrition at conventions and symposiums around the U.S. and Canada, and has appeared on numerous radio and television programs.

William has worked with athletes ranging from professional bodybuilders, golfers, fitness contestants, to police and military personnel.

Article References:

(1) Farnsworth E, Luscombe ND, Noakes M, Wittert G, Argyiou E, Clifton PM. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jul;78(1):31-9.

(2) Baba NH, Sawaya S, Torbay N, Habbal Z, Azar S, Hashim SA. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet for the treatment of obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1202-6.

(3) Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar;25(3):425-30.

(4) Skov AR, Toubro S, Ronn B, Holm L, Astrup A.Randomized trial on protein vs carbohydrate in ad libitum fat reduced diet for the treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 May;23(5):528-36.

(5) Piatti PM, Monti F, Fermo I, Baruffaldi L, Nasser R, Santambrogio G, Librenti MC, Galli-Kienle M, Pontiroli AE, Pozza G. Hypocaloric high-protein diet improves glucose oxidation and spares lean body mass: comparison to hypocaloric high-carbohydrate diet. Metabolism. 1994 Dec;43(12):1481-7.

(6) Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C, Christou DD. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. J Nutr. 2003 Feb;133(2):411-7.

(7) Golay A, Eigenheer C, Morel Y, Kujawski P, Lehmann T, de Tonnac N. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Dec;20(12):1067-72.

(8) Meckling KA, Gauthier M, Grubb R, Sanford J. Effects of a hypocaloric, low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, blood lipids, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and body composition in free-living overweight women. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2002 Nov;80(11):1095-105.

(9) Borkman M, Campbell LV, Chisholm DJ, Storlien LH. Comparison of the effects on insulin sensitivity of high carbohydrate and high fat diets in normal subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Feb;72(2):432-7.

(10) Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Apr;88(4):1617-23.

(11) Garrow JS, Durrant M, Blaza S, Wilkins D, Royston P, Sunkin S. The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects. Br J Nutr. 1981 Jan;45(1):5-15.

(12) Agus MS, Swain JF, Larson CL, Eckert EA, Ludwig DS. Dietary composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction.Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Apr;71(4):901-7.

Tatyana · 07-03-2006, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pscarb

Tatyana thanks for the link but like i have said many many times this is only the opinion of one person and to be honest he has some valid points.
But he is mainly talking about Keto diets the thread is concerning Low V Moderate carb intake....
I ask once again who decided what is low and what is moderate for each individual person.

this guys says pretty much the same as me in the way that we are all diffrent and should each adjust our carb intake to suit ourselves.

I agree with what you have posted as well, however Mr. Hackskii recommends a keto diet to nearly every new member. This is what I have taken issue with. THe keto diet is NOT a good option for everyone, in fact, I think it is highly irresponsible to suggest it!

Tatyana · 07-03-2006, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinytom

It is impossible to acheive 4% bodyfat because 5% of bodyfat is internal organ fat essential for survival.

Also I've seen pics of this guy on stage and no way is he close to 4%. His conditioning is not even close to some of the top amateur naturals in this country such as Rob Feesey, Dean Garrett, Ian stocks etc.

Sorry but I think his definition of ripped has a long way to go.

To be fair the guy is in top shape and what he says about a moderate carb lifestyle does make sense to me as I follow a similar intake of carb in the off season but then I'm training 5 times a week so this helps keep me lean. I don't lose bodyfat in the offseason I just stay at what I am and keep my calories just above maintenance to gain muscle.

If I want to lose weight I drop some carbs out because I want to reduce the amount of glycogen I have available for the body to use so it has to go to the fat stores sooner.

Yes, my diet records show that I am often low to moderate carbs (according to the definitions I posted earlier), and I do find that carb cycling and carb tapering are the way to get 'ripped'.

As I mentioned, my issue is with the keto diet, when people state that eating zero carb or less than somewhere in between 30-70 g is applicable to people who just want to lose some weight (I would claim body fat) who ARE NOT competitive bodybuilders!

I think that a more balanced approach to diet is more appropriate for the majority of people, and COMPLETELY eliminating one of the macronutrients IS NOT a sensible diet for the majority of people. I think you will find that it is not me that is taking a positional stance on diet, I am for moderation, transition food, just getting people to eat a healthy version of bread, not one loaded with refined sugar, IMO, is a victory!

**hackskii** · 07-03-2006, 09:53 PM

Well, that is not what I said.
I said there was nothing wrong with a low carb diet.
That is what I said.

Taking my words out of context is irresponsible.

You suggest irresponsible as if there are health concerns here.
Hate to break the news to you that Keto diets are safe.
I never suggested that they are permanent like you say I suggest.
Read Atkins book if you want to understand what keto is and does and how long one should stay on it. Keto diets do work and are not unhealthy as you suggest by saying I am irresponsible.

By suggesting I am irresponsible is just your effort to get even with me or to make look bad on the board. Don’t be a spoiled sport here. Post up your information and let it go.
I told you this debate was going to happen.

Your own words are low carb diets are a NO NO!
Your words to TinyTom several posts ago.
I said low carb diets do work.....There is evidence they do work and many of the members use this type of diets for comps.
I do suggest keto type diets for some people and this is not irresponsible.

You can diet how ever you want, so can I. I know what works for me and what doesn’t.
I am carb sensitive and low carb helps me to lose fat. I feel good and am looking much better. This only validates my point.
I did a keto diet for about 6-7 weeks and felt great, is this irresponsible?

Tatyana · 07-03-2006, 09:54 PM

For the record fat is the most efficient fuel the body has.
Protein whether taken or used is the least efficient.

And there in lies an important factor in people wanting to lose weight/bodyfat. As you only get about 87% of the calories from protein (the rest is considered thermogenic), you will be taking in fewer calories from your food, and being able to eat more. I forget what percentage of the calories are lost in the digestive/thermogenic process for carbohydrates, somewhere around 94%. HOWEVER 100% of the calories from FAT, which is a very SMALL macronutrient 1 g = 9 kcal, compared to the other two 1 g = 4 kcal.

One can eat an entire brocolli+ before it even comes close to one tablespoon (15g) of fat.

I am not saying DO NOT EAT FAT! I am saying that a diet that is high in fat and protein, eliminating all carbohydrates is not sound dietary advice.

Killerkeane · 07-03-2006, 10:09 PM

Wow, what a thread.... Loving it

Really good information, has helped me a lot in understanding certain aspects to the role of fats in diet and nutrition.
Hackskii, your knowledge on fats outstands me mate, very impressive indeed.

**hackskii** · 07-03-2006, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatyana

For the record fat is the most efficient fuel the body has.
Protein whether taken or used is the least efficient.

And there in lies an important factor in people wanting to lose weight/bodyfat. As you only get about 87% of the calories from protein (the rest is considered thermogenic), you will be taking in fewer calories from your food, and being able to eat more. I forget what percentage of the calories are lost in the digestive/thermogenic process for carbohydrates, somewhere around 94%. HOWEVER 100% of the calories from FAT, which is a very SMALL macronutrient 1 g = 9 kcal, compared to the other two 1 g = 4 kcal.

One can eat an entire brocolli+ before it even comes close to one tablespoon (15g) of fat.

I am not saying DO NOT EAT FAT! I am saying that a diet that is high in fat and protein, eliminating all carbohydrates is not sound dietary advice.

Now I agree with you here.
Remember depending on the fat has zero effects on the storage hormone insulin.
Where as carbohydrates and depending on which ones have the highest effects on spiking insulin.

if you ate 200 cals of fat compared to 200 cals of glucose the fat would increase fat stores less in comparison to the glucose.
Not only that but because insulin lowered your blood sugar you would be hungrier after the gluscose than the fat.

Fat supresses hunger better than carbs.
Adding fat in your diet slows down spiking of the carbs in the meal.

I will take it to an extreme here but you can live without carbohydrates and you can not live without fat.

Taking in Omega 3 fatty acids reduces inflammation along with a host of benefits and actually aids in fat burning, it revs up your brown fat burning machine.

Again, low carb diets are not unhealthy.

Ketogenic diets have been around since the 1860's
100 years later they reappeared.
Keto diets can lower cholesterol and will lower triglycerides.
Saying they are irresponsible or unhealthy is actually not true and there is no medical evidence to support your opinion.
On the other hand Atkins was a Cardiologist and in his books are case studies that confirm they are safe.

100 years ago they used to treat epileptic children for epilepsy using ketogenic diets and were successful till the introduction of drugs this was the method of choice for treating them. Studies ran for over a year and no health concerns.

Again look at the Eskimos and you will see there were no carbohydrates in their diets and they lived long healthy lives in the worst environment.

Again saying I am irresponsible in recommending them only shows that you are basing this on your opinion and not fact.

Let me say that you are wrong in saying they are unhealthy and until there is any proof otherwise it is only your opinion and nothing more than you defending your own argument.
Calling me irresponsible or my advice is not sound is based on your own opinion and has no merrit.
In fact it shows you are only defensive and acting childish.

**hackskii** · 07-03-2006, 11:05 PM

The Ketogenic Diet
The ketogenic diet is a special high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet that helps to control seizures in some people with epilepsy. It is prescribed by a physician.

The name ketogenic means that it produces ketones in the body (keto = ketone, genic = producing). Ketones are formed when the body uses fat for its source of energy. Usually the body usually uses carbohydrates (such as sugar, bread, pasta) for its fuel, but because the ketogenic diet is very low in carbohydrates, fats become the primary fuel instead. Ketones are not dangerous. They can be detected in the urine. Ketones are one of the likely reasons why the diet works to help seizures, although we still do not know why they help.

Who will it help?
Doctors usually recommend the ketogenic diet for children whose seizures have not responded to several different seizure medicines. It is particularly recommended for children with the Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, but also has benefits for children with infantile spasms, Dravet syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, Doose syndrome, and children with gastrostomy tubes (easy to provide).

Doctors seldom recommend the ketogenic diet for adults. Although adults seem to do well on the diet, it is often restrictive for them to stay on it for long periods of time. The Atkins diet may be an alternative, and is being studied for adults. The ketogenic diet can also be used in infants and adolescents.

What is it like?
The typical ketogenic diet, called the "long-chain triglyceride diet," provides 3 to 4 grams of fat for every 1 gram of carbohydrate and protein. The dietician recommends a daily diet that contains 75 to 100 calories for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight and 1-2 grams of protein for every kilogram of body weight. If this sounds complicated, it is! Foods, calories, and fluids are all carefully calculated for the individual child. That's why parents need a dietician's help.

The kinds of foods that provide fat for the ketogenic diet are butter, cream, mayonnaise, and heavy whipping cream. The diet can be made creatively, and many families use foods such as shrimp, cheese, hot dogs, nuts, and sugar-free jello to make it tastier for kids. Because the amount of carbohydrate and protein in the diet have to be restricted, it is very important that the meals be prepared carefully. No other sources of carbohydrates can be eaten. (Even toothpaste and some medications might have some sugar in it!). For this reason, the ketogenic diet is supervised by a dietician. The parents and the child become very familiar with what can and cannot be eaten.

Alternatives being investigated include a modified Atkins diet and a low glycemic index diet (at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, respectively). Both allow for more carbohydrates and protein and avoid the need for hospitalizations, weighing foods, and fasting. However, both have possible side effects and should not be done without a physician or dietitian involved.

What happens first?
Typically the diet is started in the hospital. The child usually begins by fasting (except for water) under close medical supervision for 48 hours. For instance, the child might go into the hospital on Monday, start fasting at 6 p.m. and continue to have only water until 6 a.m. on Wednesday. Then the child's urine is tested to see if it shows ketones. If ketones are found, the diet is then begun. The child stays in the hospital for another 2 to 3 days for close monitoring. During this time, the parents are taught more about the diet. Some hospitals and ketogenic diet centers do not fast, or shorten it. There is good evidence for both approaches.

Does it work?
Several studies have shown that the ketogenic diet does reduce or prevent seizures in many children whose seizures could not be controlled by medications. Over half of children who go on the diet have at least a 50% reduction in the number of their seizures. Some children, about 1 in 10, even become seizure-free.

Children who are on the ketogenic diet continue to take seizure medicines. Some are able to take smaller doses or fewer medicines than before they started the diet, however.

It is not clear how the diet works, though doctors have some theories. What is clear is that it must be followed precisely. If the person goes off the diet for even one meal, it may lose its good effect. So it is very important to stick with the diet as prescribed. It can be especially hard to follow the diet 100% if there are other children at home who are on a normal diet. Small children who have free access to the refrigerator are tempted by "forbidden" foods. Parents need to work as closely as possible with a dietician.

Are there any side effects?
A person starting the ketogenic diet may feel sluggish for a few days after the diet is started. Common side effects include constipation, increased cholesterol, and acidosis. Most of these are very treatable. More infrequent side effects include kidney stones (1 in 20), slowed growth (especially in babies), weight loss, and bone fractures.

Because the diet does not provide all the vitamins and minerals found in a balanced diet, the dietician will recommend vitamin and mineral supplements. The most important of these are calcium and vitamin D (to prevent thinning of the bones), iron, and folic acid. .

How is the patient monitored over time?
Early on, the doctor will usually see the child every 1-3 months. Blood tests are performed to make sure there are no medical problems. The height and weight are measured to see if growth has slowed down. As the child gains weight, the diet may need to be adjusted by the dietician..

Can the diet ever be stopped?
If seizures have been well controlled for some time, the doctor might suggest going off the diet after about 2 years. Usually, the patient is gradually taken off the diet over several months or even longer. Just as happens if seizure medicines are stopped suddenly, seizures may become much worse if the ketogenic diet is stopped all at once. Children usually continue to take seizure medicines after they go off the diet. However, many children with good success on the diet stay on for many years.

Topic Editor: Steven C. Schachter, M.D.
Last Reviewed:10/17/05

**hackskii** · 08-03-2006, 01:14 AM

Haaaaa Haaaaa
Another marketing ploy to suggest he has some cutting edge usefull information that makes dieting tailored just for fat loss for each individule.

IMPORTANT PRICE UPDATE -- Due to the success of our recent marketing tests we have extended our special offer and will continue to maintain the discounted price to just $69 $39 (for a limited time only). We will maintain this offer as long as the increase in sales continues to outweigh the reduction in price. If at any point in the future it doesn't, then Diet Supplements Revealed will return to the normal price of $69 without any prior notice.

Above is his marketing ploy to sell you his good information that targets fat loss due to "His Unified Throry".
Oh man if this not some funny stuff here OMG, what a dork.
I bet his E-Book is not any better than that other Vince dude

These guys make tons of money fleecing the flock in hopes of having that magic bullet e-book for fat loss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatyana

Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets.

Sure taking this piece out appears to be out of context but man oh man are you making my job easier Tatyana.
This is what everyone says.

Dude is beating round the bush to say what I and most are already saying.
This is too funny.

Hey honey keep posting more stuff, It only validates what I am saying anyway.
Keep up the good work

Haaaa haaaa

Tatyana · 08-03-2006, 02:21 AM

Your own words are low carb diets are a NO NO!
Your words to TinyTom several posts ago.
I said low carb diets do work.....There is evidence they do work and many of the members use this type of diets for comps.
I do suggest keto type diets for some people and this is not irresponsible.

I think the issue is not out of context but an issue of semantics, we throw around these terms like low carb and keto but DO NOT DEFINE THEM. Some people think that less than 20 g of carbs/day is a low carb diet, others would call it a keto diet. Therein lies the confusion.

Sure taking this piece out appears to be out of context but man oh man are you making my job easier Tatyana.

This is what everyone says. And we all know that agreement dicates realityDude is beating round the bush to say what I and most are already saying.
This is too funny.

Hey honey keep posting more stuff, It only validates what I am saying anyway.
Keep up the good work

Haaaa haaaa

So who is trying to make who look bad? So what is the difference between buying book in a shop or on-line? Are you suggesting that people need not be financially compensated for their knowledge? I don't think that people asking money for 'what they know' invalidates their knowledge.

I keep telling you we are arguing the same point, I just have noticed that 'dropping your carbs' seems to be the first bit of dietary advice that is given. This gleeful attitude is not condusive to a debate, therefore, I do not see any point in continuing, unless the approach to 'fighting fair' is applied.

Tatyana · 08-03-2006, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hackskii

By suggesting I am irresponsible is just your effort to get even with me or to make look bad on the board. Don’t be a spoiled sport here. Post up your information and let it go.
I told you this debate was going to happen.

I feel good and am looking much better. This only validates my point.
I did a keto diet for about 6-7 weeks and felt great, is this irresponsible?

This is not a debate. It is not my intention to make you look bad. I am sorry if you feel this way.

I do find it interesting that only the articles that have been cut and pasted in by yourself are valid, Mr. Brink has referenced his article with 12 papers from medical and scientific journals, he is a Harvard graduate and is a consultant to quite a number of reputable organisations. And he is referred to as a 'dork'.

I have asked you for the original references to the research that you quote. These have not materialised.

I will state it again, this is not a debate.

07-03-2006, 09:33 PM	#31 (permalink)
Tatyana My name is EARL Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: On my bloody bike doing cardio Posts: 3,477	Can't get this in one post! A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article. A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact. "A calorie is a calorie" The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source. This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight. However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned. Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc. Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

07-03-2006, 09:35 PM	#32 (permalink)
Tatyana My name is EARL Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: On my bloody bike doing cardio Posts: 3,477	MORE think it is the bullets! The "calories don't matter" school of thought This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet. Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics! The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality. The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets. Weight loss vs. fat loss! This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables... Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition ...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition which states: "Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses; macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses" This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.). Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect. Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie intakes are identical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11). Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked at the issue concluded: "Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12) The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the "calorie is a calorie" school with the "calories don't matter" school to help people make decisions about nutrition? Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's another article altogether). Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions: An optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight. A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa. Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be ignored. This is why the diets I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals. Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables. Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to deliver the results people want. Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)? Simply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the wrong question which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaningful answers. Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can't keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very laws of physics! People that want to know my thoughts on the correct way to lose fat should read my ebook Diet Supplements Revealed, see this website http://www.aboutsupplements.com There are of course many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet another nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your expense. Any diet that claims calories don't matter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food source is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will work for all people all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it to someone you don't like! About the Author - William D. Brink Will Brink is a columnist, contributing consultant, and writer for various health/fitness, medical, and bodybuilding publications. His articles relating to nutrition, supplements, weight loss, exercise and medicine can be found in such publications as Lets Live, Muscle Media 2000, MuscleMag International, The Life Extension Magazine, Muscle n Fitness, Inside Karate, Exercise For Men Only, Body International, Power, Oxygen, Penthouse, Women’s World and The Townsend Letter For Doctors. He is the author of Priming The Anabolic Environment and Weight Loss Nutrients Revealed. He is the Consulting Sports Nutrition Editor and a monthly columnist for Physical magazine and an Editor at Large for Power magazine. Will graduated from Harvard University with a concentration in the natural sciences, and is a consultant to major supplement, dairy, and pharmaceutical companies. He has been co author of several studies relating to sports nutrition and health found in peer reviewed academic journals, as well as having commentary published in JAMA. He runs the highly popular web site BrinkZone.com which is strategically positioned to fulfill the needs and interests of people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge. The BrinkZone site has a following with many sports nutrition enthusiasts, athletes, fitness professionals, scientists, medical doctors, nutritionists, and interested lay people. William has been invited to lecture on the benefits of weight training and nutrition at conventions and symposiums around the U.S. and Canada, and has appeared on numerous radio and television programs. William has worked with athletes ranging from professional bodybuilders, golfers, fitness contestants, to police and military personnel. Article References: (1) Farnsworth E, Luscombe ND, Noakes M, Wittert G, Argyiou E, Clifton PM. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jul;78(1):31-9. (2) Baba NH, Sawaya S, Torbay N, Habbal Z, Azar S, Hashim SA. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet for the treatment of obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1202-6. (3) Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar;25(3):425-30. (4) Skov AR, Toubro S, Ronn B, Holm L, Astrup A.Randomized trial on protein vs carbohydrate in ad libitum fat reduced diet for the treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 May;23(5):528-36. (5) Piatti PM, Monti F, Fermo I, Baruffaldi L, Nasser R, Santambrogio G, Librenti MC, Galli-Kienle M, Pontiroli AE, Pozza G. Hypocaloric high-protein diet improves glucose oxidation and spares lean body mass: comparison to hypocaloric high-carbohydrate diet. Metabolism. 1994 Dec;43(12):1481-7. (6) Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C, Christou DD. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. J Nutr. 2003 Feb;133(2):411-7. (7) Golay A, Eigenheer C, Morel Y, Kujawski P, Lehmann T, de Tonnac N. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Dec;20(12):1067-72. (8) Meckling KA, Gauthier M, Grubb R, Sanford J. Effects of a hypocaloric, low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, blood lipids, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and body composition in free-living overweight women. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2002 Nov;80(11):1095-105. (9) Borkman M, Campbell LV, Chisholm DJ, Storlien LH. Comparison of the effects on insulin sensitivity of high carbohydrate and high fat diets in normal subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Feb;72(2):432-7. (10) Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Apr;88(4):1617-23. (11) Garrow JS, Durrant M, Blaza S, Wilkins D, Royston P, Sunkin S. The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects. Br J Nutr. 1981 Jan;45(1):5-15. (12) Agus MS, Swain JF, Larson CL, Eckert EA, Ludwig DS. Dietary composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction.Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Apr;71(4):901-7.

07-03-2006, 11:05 PM	#39 (permalink)
hackskii UK-Muscle Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sunny Southern California U.S.A. Posts: 24,337	The Ketogenic Diet And Epilepsy. The Ketogenic Diet The ketogenic diet is a special high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet that helps to control seizures in some people with epilepsy. It is prescribed by a physician. The name ketogenic means that it produces ketones in the body (keto = ketone, genic = producing). Ketones are formed when the body uses fat for its source of energy. Usually the body usually uses carbohydrates (such as sugar, bread, pasta) for its fuel, but because the ketogenic diet is very low in carbohydrates, fats become the primary fuel instead. Ketones are not dangerous. They can be detected in the urine. Ketones are one of the likely reasons why the diet works to help seizures, although we still do not know why they help. Who will it help? Doctors usually recommend the ketogenic diet for children whose seizures have not responded to several different seizure medicines. It is particularly recommended for children with the Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, but also has benefits for children with infantile spasms, Dravet syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, Doose syndrome, and children with gastrostomy tubes (easy to provide). Doctors seldom recommend the ketogenic diet for adults. Although adults seem to do well on the diet, it is often restrictive for them to stay on it for long periods of time. The Atkins diet may be an alternative, and is being studied for adults. The ketogenic diet can also be used in infants and adolescents. What is it like? The typical ketogenic diet, called the "long-chain triglyceride diet," provides 3 to 4 grams of fat for every 1 gram of carbohydrate and protein. The dietician recommends a daily diet that contains 75 to 100 calories for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight and 1-2 grams of protein for every kilogram of body weight. If this sounds complicated, it is! Foods, calories, and fluids are all carefully calculated for the individual child. That's why parents need a dietician's help. The kinds of foods that provide fat for the ketogenic diet are butter, cream, mayonnaise, and heavy whipping cream. The diet can be made creatively, and many families use foods such as shrimp, cheese, hot dogs, nuts, and sugar-free jello to make it tastier for kids. Because the amount of carbohydrate and protein in the diet have to be restricted, it is very important that the meals be prepared carefully. No other sources of carbohydrates can be eaten. (Even toothpaste and some medications might have some sugar in it!). For this reason, the ketogenic diet is supervised by a dietician. The parents and the child become very familiar with what can and cannot be eaten. Alternatives being investigated include a modified Atkins diet and a low glycemic index diet (at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, respectively). Both allow for more carbohydrates and protein and avoid the need for hospitalizations, weighing foods, and fasting. However, both have possible side effects and should not be done without a physician or dietitian involved. What happens first? Typically the diet is started in the hospital. The child usually begins by fasting (except for water) under close medical supervision for 48 hours. For instance, the child might go into the hospital on Monday, start fasting at 6 p.m. and continue to have only water until 6 a.m. on Wednesday. Then the child's urine is tested to see if it shows ketones. If ketones are found, the diet is then begun. The child stays in the hospital for another 2 to 3 days for close monitoring. During this time, the parents are taught more about the diet. Some hospitals and ketogenic diet centers do not fast, or shorten it. There is good evidence for both approaches. Does it work? Several studies have shown that the ketogenic diet does reduce or prevent seizures in many children whose seizures could not be controlled by medications. Over half of children who go on the diet have at least a 50% reduction in the number of their seizures. Some children, about 1 in 10, even become seizure-free. Children who are on the ketogenic diet continue to take seizure medicines. Some are able to take smaller doses or fewer medicines than before they started the diet, however. It is not clear how the diet works, though doctors have some theories. What is clear is that it must be followed precisely. If the person goes off the diet for even one meal, it may lose its good effect. So it is very important to stick with the diet as prescribed. It can be especially hard to follow the diet 100% if there are other children at home who are on a normal diet. Small children who have free access to the refrigerator are tempted by "forbidden" foods. Parents need to work as closely as possible with a dietician. Are there any side effects? A person starting the ketogenic diet may feel sluggish for a few days after the diet is started. Common side effects include constipation, increased cholesterol, and acidosis. Most of these are very treatable. More infrequent side effects include kidney stones (1 in 20), slowed growth (especially in babies), weight loss, and bone fractures. Because the diet does not provide all the vitamins and minerals found in a balanced diet, the dietician will recommend vitamin and mineral supplements. The most important of these are calcium and vitamin D (to prevent thinning of the bones), iron, and folic acid. . How is the patient monitored over time? Early on, the doctor will usually see the child every 1-3 months. Blood tests are performed to make sure there are no medical problems. The height and weight are measured to see if growth has slowed down. As the child gains weight, the diet may need to be adjusted by the dietician.. Can the diet ever be stopped? If seizures have been well controlled for some time, the doctor might suggest going off the diet after about 2 years. Usually, the patient is gradually taken off the diet over several months or even longer. Just as happens if seizure medicines are stopped suddenly, seizures may become much worse if the ketogenic diet is stopped all at once. Children usually continue to take seizure medicines after they go off the diet. However, many children with good success on the diet stay on for many years. Topic Editor: Steven C. Schachter, M.D. Last Reviewed:10/17/05

08-03-2006, 02:21 AM	#41 (permalink)
Tatyana My name is EARL Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: On my bloody bike doing cardio Posts: 3,477	Your own words are low carb diets are a NO NO! Your words to TinyTom several posts ago. I said low carb diets do work.....There is evidence they do work and many of the members use this type of diets for comps. I do suggest keto type diets for some people and this is not irresponsible. I think the issue is not out of context but an issue of semantics, we throw around these terms like low carb and keto but DO NOT DEFINE THEM. Some people think that less than 20 g of carbs/day is a low carb diet, others would call it a keto diet. Therein lies the confusion. Sure taking this piece out appears to be out of context but man oh man are you making my job easier Tatyana. This is what everyone says. And we all know that agreement dicates realityDude is beating round the bush to say what I and most are already saying. This is too funny. Hey honey keep posting more stuff, It only validates what I am saying anyway. Keep up the good work Haaaa haaaa So who is trying to make who look bad? So what is the difference between buying book in a shop or on-line? Are you suggesting that people need not be financially compensated for their knowledge? I don't think that people asking money for 'what they know' invalidates their knowledge. I keep telling you we are arguing the same point, I just have noticed that 'dropping your carbs' seems to be the first bit of dietary advice that is given. This gleeful attitude is not condusive to a debate, therefore, I do not see any point in continuing, unless the approach to 'fighting fair' is applied. Last edited by Tatyana; 08-03-2006 at 02:30 AM.

07-03-2006, 09:53 PM	#35 (permalink)
hackskii UK-Muscle Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sunny Southern California U.S.A. Posts: 24,337	Well, that is not what I said. I said there was nothing wrong with a low carb diet. That is what I said. Taking my words out of context is irresponsible. You suggest irresponsible as if there are health concerns here. Hate to break the news to you that Keto diets are safe. I never suggested that they are permanent like you say I suggest. Read Atkins book if you want to understand what keto is and does and how long one should stay on it. Keto diets do work and are not unhealthy as you suggest by saying I am irresponsible. By suggesting I am irresponsible is just your effort to get even with me or to make look bad on the board. Don’t be a spoiled sport here. Post up your information and let it go. I told you this debate was going to happen. Your own words are low carb diets are a NO NO! Your words to TinyTom several posts ago. I said low carb diets do work.....There is evidence they do work and many of the members use this type of diets for comps. I do suggest keto type diets for some people and this is not irresponsible. You can diet how ever you want, so can I. I know what works for me and what doesn’t. I am carb sensitive and low carb helps me to lose fat. I feel good and am looking much better. This only validates my point. I did a keto diet for about 6-7 weeks and felt great, is this irresponsible?

07-03-2006, 09:54 PM	#36 (permalink)
Tatyana My name is EARL Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: On my bloody bike doing cardio Posts: 3,477	For the record fat is the most efficient fuel the body has. Protein whether taken or used is the least efficient. And there in lies an important factor in people wanting to lose weight/bodyfat. As you only get about 87% of the calories from protein (the rest is considered thermogenic), you will be taking in fewer calories from your food, and being able to eat more. I forget what percentage of the calories are lost in the digestive/thermogenic process for carbohydrates, somewhere around 94%. HOWEVER 100% of the calories from FAT, which is a very SMALL macronutrient 1 g = 9 kcal, compared to the other two 1 g = 4 kcal. One can eat an entire brocolli+ before it even comes close to one tablespoon (15g) of fat. I am not saying DO NOT EAT FAT! I am saying that a diet that is high in fat and protein, eliminating all carbohydrates is not sound dietary advice.

07-03-2006, 10:09 PM	#37 (permalink)
Killerkeane The Geezer Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Somerset although im not proud lol. Posts: 2,978	Wow, what a thread.... Loving it Really good information, has helped me a lot in understanding certain aspects to the role of fats in diet and nutrition. Hackskii, your knowledge on fats outstands me mate, very impressive indeed.