Calories in and calories is physics at its fundamental. It's literally the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Now, with that said, just because you reduce your calories in, does not mean that the correspondent calories out remains the same. Of course weight matters, so just on the basis of losing weight your calories out changes but so does muscle vs fat, so if you're working out in conjunction with dieting, then weight training will help you keep your BMR up. Age will play in to the metabolism etc. etc. but on a more micro-level there's studies shown that those on restrictive calories will reduce their own body heat reducing energy expenditure. We can discuss hormones and the like but I think for most people that's just noise.
And that's the issue with these 'doctors' who will try to sell you things by being misleading. Oh yeah, sure BMR can change 40%, if we're talking about an 800 pound man who is feed a peanut a day instead of his usual 6000 calories. But for practicality, calories in and calories out is all you need to know if you don't plan on legitimately starving yourself.
And if keto helps you achieve that, or fasting, or whatever go for it. If you find it more sustainable, if you find it gives you more energy (to spend more energy or just feel good), and certainly if you find it more filling, then that works.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
BMR can change slightly in response to diet changes, but for the most part it's fairly stable. Changes to lean body mass and aging affect it over the long term, but the notion that it quickly jumps up and down by 30-40% is crazy.
Is it?
Quote:
Ancel Keys estimated that these subjects were eating roughly 3,200 calories per day. They were put onto a ‘semi-starvation’ diet of 1,560 calories per day with foods similar to those available in war-torn Europe at the time — potatoes, turnips, bread, and macaroni. They were then monitored for 20 weeks after the semi-starvation period.
...
Resting metabolic rate dropped by 40%. Interestingly, this is not that far off from a previous study from 1917 that showed Total Energy Expenditure (TEE) decreased by 30%. In other words, the body was shutting down. Let’s think about this again from the body’s point of view. The body is accustomed to getting 3,200 calories per day and now it gets 1,560. In order to preserve itself, it implements across-the-board reductions in energy.
....
Consider the alternative. The body is used to 3,200 calories per day and now gets 1,560. The body still burns 3,200 calories. Things feel normal. Three months later, you are dead. It is absolutely inconceivable that the body does not react to caloric reduction by reducing caloric expenditure.
Consider many statements to the effect that if you reduce 500 calories per day, you will lose one pound in one week. Does that mean that in 200 weeks you will weigh zero pounds? It is clear that at some point, the body must, must, must reduce caloric expenditure. It turns out that the adaptation happens almost immediately and persists in the long-term. More about this later.
Is this why our Shaw bills are going up? Can we opt out of the "I'm Wrong But Condescending" newsletter you're publishing in this thread?
Yeah, not even gonna bother reading his posts. Waste of time.
The holier than thou approach to this subject blows my mind. The world has never seen an approach to weight loss that worked as well, and was possible long-term for most people like IF and keto are.
And yet constantly people are blasting studies and research at people claiming that Stanford said this, or SkepticsUnited said that.
Absolutely insane.
Again, if you talk to people who are working within the parameters of IF and Keto, and are following the plans properly, it completely changes their life. Short term and long term.
Humans weren't designed to eat carbs at such a high level, nor were we designed to eat multiple times per day. Even from an evolutionary standpoint our adaptation to the 'modern' diet has been a complete failure.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Again, if you talk to people who are working within the parameters of IF and Keto, and are following the plans properly, it completely changes their life. Short term and long term.
I.E. limiting their calorie input. Which is great, you do you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
The argument was that a 30% reduction in calories won't equal a 30% drop in BMR.
Sorry, got to go. I do confess it was a trap Azure hoping you would actually take a look at the study. Because once you bring up the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, you'll find something conveniently lost in most of those talking about the 30%-40% BMR reduction. It was at the end of the starvation period where that number comes from. And participants also lost 25% of their weight during that period. They didn't lose 30% of their calories and the next day had 30% reduction in their BMR. The body tried to compensate over a prolonged time of starving (and it did, to a much smaller degree than you think..)
"In the six months of starvation these men lost an average of 16.8 kg. (37.0 pounds) representing 24.0 percent of their original body weight. "
"Measurements of the basal metabolism before starvation gave values averaging 11.8% below the Mayo Clinic "standard" normal average but this conforms to all experience with normal subjects in this laboratory. During starvation the basal metabolism steadily declined to reach a final average of -39.3% on the Mayo scale."
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 02-05-2020 at 04:52 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Sorry, got to go. I do confess it was a trap Azure hoping you would actually take a look at the study. Because once you bring up the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, you'll find something conveniently lost in most of those talking about the 30%-40% BMR reduction. It was at the end of the starvation period where that number comes from. And participants also lost 25% of their weight during that period. They didn't lose 30% of their calories and the next day had 30% reduction in their BMR. The body tried to compensate over a prolonged time of starving (and it did, to a much smaller degree than you think..)
"In the six months of starvation these men lost an average of 16.8 kg. (37.0 pounds) representing 24.0 percent of their original body weight. "
"Measurements of the basal metabolism before starvation gave values averaging 11.8% below the Mayo Clinic "standard" normal average but this conforms to all experience with normal subjects in this laboratory. During starvation the basal metabolism steadily declined to reach a final average of -39.3% on the Mayo scale."
I never said that your BMR dropped overnight. I just said that it DOES drop, even if it takes a year. Not sure what point you are trying to make. At the end of the day it is not sustainable or healthy to eat 1500 calories per day and deal with a BMR that is cut in half. Long-term it'll wreck your body.
Now just for fun, go look at what happens to your BMR when you do IF.
Quote:
During periods of fasting, not only is BMR maintained via increased noradrenaline levels, but there is also no net increase in hunger, measured via ghrelin levels. Furthermore, intermittent fasting also preserves lean body mass, and so is said to be muscle-sparing.
As for the people who think the thread got derailed, it sure did. By the people who love to link studies and research selling the big food version of how you should diet. The subject is apparently controversial despite actual evidence from people who have had success with these programs saying otherwise.
Not sure why anyone would think that your BMR would stay the say if you cut calories long-term or short term. Pretty clear what your body will do.
About 70% of the lowered BMR in that experiment was due to loss of fat-free mass, which is something that I mentioned affects BMR. Obviously lighter people with less muscle tend to have lower BMRs and if someone starves themselves to the point that they lose tons of muscle, their BMR will drop.
So only 30% of the lower BMR (so about a 10% lower BMR) was related to the temporary effects of what was a near-starvation diet. Interestingly, a shorter version of that study was reproduced a few years ago and they found that only about 70 kcal/day in lower BMR (about 3.5% of the mean BMR) was a result of anything other than loss of fat free mass.
So in the end, the Minnesota participants reduced their caloric intake by 55% and ate very low protein diets. They lost more than 1/4 of their body weight, nearly 30% of their fat-free mass, and ended up having BMRs that were 39% lower than at the start of the experiment, that vast majority of which was directly resulting from loss of FFM. That's a far, far cry from this nonsense:
Quote:
A 30% reduction in calorie intake is quickly met with a decrease in basal metabolic rate of 30%. The net result is that no weight is lost.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
I never said that your BMR dropped overnight. I just said that it DOES drop, even if it takes a year. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
That BMR is not going to reduce by 30% unless you starve yourself for a prolonged period of time and lose 25% of your weight. That was my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
At the end of the day it is not sustainable or healthy to eat 1500 calories per day and deal with a BMR that is cut in half. Long-term it'll wreck your body.
This is purely a lie. Some may not find it sustainable, others will, just like some will find keto sustainable, and others won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Now just for fun, go look at what happens to your BMR when you do IF.
Yep, IF is a great way to diet. I don't think I've suggested otherwise. It just the results of the weight loss come down to calories in, calories out, as always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
By the people who love to link studies and research selling the big food version of how you should diet.
Funny that the only study I quoted was from the very study used by your snake oil salesman which was used to mislead people into thinking that they can have a quick 30% reduction in BMR (his words). "Big food" is ironic as you're getting information from a guy literally trying to sell you on his next book so he can make that sweet sweet cash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
The subject is apparently controversial despite actual evidence from people who have had success with these programs saying otherwise.
Keto can be great for many people. We're fully in support of those who do it. Just know the underlining reason it works is calories in, calories out. If that's what you need to achieve that, go for it.
If it's limiting your calories to a reasonable (non-starving) number a day (or week or whatever else works), that's also great.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Yeah, not even gonna bother reading his posts. Waste of time.
The holier than thou approach to this subject blows my mind. The world has never seen an approach to weight loss that worked as well, and was possible long-term for most people like IF and keto are.
And yet constantly people are blasting studies and research at people claiming that Stanford said this, or SkepticsUnited said that.
Absolutely insane.
Again, if you talk to people who are working within the parameters of IF and Keto, and are following the plans properly, it completely changes their life. Short term and long term.
Humans weren't designed to eat carbs at such a high level, nor were we designed to eat multiple times per day. Even from an evolutionary standpoint our adaptation to the 'modern' diet has been a complete failure.
Actual science is holier than what some random dude ranting about the "big food" conspiracies on a hockey forum goes on about, yep.
You are using the exact same arguments as an anti-vaxxer. Find some website that fits your narrative, rant about your personal experience, and conveniently ignore the facts if it goes against your opinion. Oh and don't forget the conspiracies.
What a joke. Glad people are finally calling you out on your crap.
An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
That BMR is not going to reduce by 30% unless you starve yourself for a prolonged period of time and lose 25% of your weight. That was my point.
This is purely a lie. Some may not find it sustainable, others will, just like some will find keto sustainable, and others won't.
Yep, IF is a great way to diet. I don't think I've suggested otherwise. It just the results of the weight loss come down to calories in, calories out, as always.
Funny that the only study I quoted was from the very study used by your snake oil salesman which was used to mislead people into thinking that they can have a quick 30% reduction in BMR (his words). "Big food" is ironic as you're getting information from a guy literally trying to sell you on his next book so he can make that sweet sweet cash.
Keto can be great for many people. We're fully in support of those who do it. Just know the underlining reason it works is calories in, calories out. If that's what you need to achieve that, go for it.
If it's limiting your calories to a reasonable (non-starving) number a day (or week or whatever else works), that's also great.
Thanks for actually reading his own study and calling him out.
An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
I'm not even sure why people feel the need to inject pseudoscience and snake oil into keto/IF discussion. The diets have their merits and they can stand on those.
I've seen keto work miracles on friends who've been overweight their entire adult lives. They simply were unable to stick to a traditional, balanced calorie restricted diet but have been able to keep going with keto because it does a much better job of satisfying their hunger and they find they have more energy despite being in a caloric deficit. Granted there might be some caveats to reducing carbohydrate intake to that degree, but any side effects are dwarfed by the myriad of health problems that being overweight/obese causes. And anything that reduces peoples' intake of processed carbohydrates and sugar is a good thing.
But that doesn't change the fact that the mechanism of the weight loss is eating fewer calories than you expend or that there are many other ways to lose weight just as well.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Some here who are arguing against the keto diet still seem to go solely based off this, engrained (pun!) in their psyche of what a proper diet should be.
Spoiler!
Brought to you by the FDA and the US department of Agriculture, who is heavily lobbied by grain and corn companies.
It's always been about who gives the most money to politicians.
Remember kids! Fat bad! Cereal and corn good good good! Eat your Corn Flakes™
I actually think most arguing against Keto here would be equally critical of the food pyramid.
Generally we would say that dogmatic approaches to diet are flawed and unlikely to provide the real health benefits they promise. You can trump almost any diet in credibility with three small pieces of advice.
1) Don't over eat
2) Eat mostly vegetables, as colourful as possible.
3) The remainder of your diet should be as diverse as possible.
Bonus) Pop and Candy are terrible for you, while hasidism is the wrong approach for most people, you should limit those as much as you are comfortable with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadianman
Man, what a thread.
Sorry dissentowner, this is what you get for breaking the first rule of keto.
I would endorse this, the faux trappings of science and false promises are the problem here. If you feel good eating what your eating, have fun, just don't feed me your BS.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
It's odd that there's any arguments happening at all.
Keto and calorie control aren't republicans and democrats. They're closely related and work together when keto is done right.
The topic really shouldn't be broken into team keto vs team calorie deficit like some have made it.
Anyway back on topic: Those of you on Keto, do you use exogenous ketones?
Any benefits or marketing upsell?
I actually think most arguing against Keto here would be equally critical of the food pyramid.
Generally we would say that dogmatic approaches to diet are flawed and unlikely to provide the real health benefits they promise. You can trump almost any diet in credibility with three small pieces of advice.
1) Don't over eat
2) Eat mostly vegetables, as colourful as possible.
3) The remainder of your diet should be as diverse as possible.
Bonus) Pop and Candy are terrible for you, while hasidism is the wrong approach for most people, you should limit those as much as you are comfortable with.
I would endorse this, the faux trappings of science and false promises are the problem here. If you feel good eating what your eating, have fun, just don't feed me your BS.
It's so simple, yet for some reason people love the whole "you gotta try this amazing new diet!" crap.
An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheSutterDynasty For This Useful Post:
