The FastDay Forum

Posted: **19 Jun 2013, 15:42**

Thanks izzy and robwis! The cake diet, mmmm...

Yes tomtank I saw your posts but the first law of thermodynamics does still apply, so where do your calories go? The research John Briffa referenced suggested a difference in metabolism of c.300 calories per day by eating very low carb rather than low fat, but this doesn't seem enough to explain the difference in your case let alone Sam Feltham.

Some earlier research here does not support the argument that a high fat diet burns more energy.

However an interesting 2006 study in mice did find that the mice on a 'ketogenic diet' (KD) lost weight despite consuming just as many calories as mice on other diets: 'KD-fed mice had a unique metabolic and physiological profile, exhibiting increased energy expenditure and very low respiratory quotient.... [The] weight [of mice on KD] dropped and stabilized at 85% initial weight, similar to those on [66% calorie restriction]. This was consistent with increased energy expenditure seen. Animals made obese on [high fat/high sucrose diet] and transitioned to KD lost all excess body weight, improved glucose tolerance, and increased energy expenditure.'

The researchers reckoned that the increased energy expenditure was down to the mice on KD being hotter:

: Capture.GIF (4.92 KiB) Viewed 327 times

I'm guessing your diet is ketogenic tomtank, so does it make sense that you are burning more energy than those around you who are not on a ketogenic diet? More exercise, more fidgeting, being hotter (no really)?

The alternative I think is that you have energy-filled poops? Don't think I can ask you to research that... :wink:

Posted: **19 Jun 2013, 16:37**

PhilT wrote: You have a good point about the nuts, apart from finding half of them coming out intact at the other end

Sorry Phil, I had to ask if this was your own research finding? :wink:

A paper here suggests that 24% of the calories in almonds get excreted, which lends you some support.

PhilT wrote: there are studies that show almonds having an effect on the calorie intake from other foods too.

references?

A paper here found that eating an almond-enriched diet for 18 months was no different for weight loss, cholesterol or triglycerides than a nut-free diet.

Posted: **19 Jun 2013, 16:54**

I just can't resist joining in!!
I suggest looking at Zoe Harcombe's free down load "20 diet myths BUSTED".
It is a brilliant read, and answers all the questions on this forum re:- the explanation of why the belief of calorie in: calorie out is bunkum.
Her research is impeccable-- and you will see how she asked 7 health organisations for an explanation as to why we are advised to consume a certain number of calories in a certain ratio, for optimum health. Do you know?? NOT ONE organisation could tell her, because these organisations are not conducting primary research,they are just all regurgitating the same old claptrap that has landed us into the unhealthy mess we are in.
I really must stop posting my messages, as they are falling on deaf ears. The research is out there as to why we are having an obesity epidemic, and, I can tell you, the answer is out there how to solve it. It just takes determination to read round the excellent papers, by excellent professionals, who are so willing to pass on their primary research for free, and then for people to put it into practice. I am despairing at the continuing obesity and ill health surrounding me when I travel around the country, but who is going to take any notice of me, when there are so many distinguished scientists being ignored?

Posted: **19 Jun 2013, 17:02**

"The research is out there as to why we are having an obesity epidemic, and, I can tell you, the answer is out there how to solve it. "......Hi 140lbs, you are so right but we now seem to be governed by people who MAY be in the pockets of the folk whose interest is in NOT having us all slim and healthy.Follow the money, it will lead in all very interesting directions from food manufacture to drugs. The incentive is just not there.

Ballerina x :heart:

Posted: **19 Jun 2013, 17:10**

140lbs - definately not falling on deaf ears. I'm determined to continue to avoid any interaction with the medical profession - I'm incorporating low-carb into my diet (with cheating) and fasting, and have never felt better, and I'm sure I wont need to visit a doctor in the foreseeable (unlike so many of my friends of my age). So thank you for reminding me of the benefits of low-carb :grin:

Posted: **22 Jun 2013, 13:44**

Hi Dominic - you wondered where all the calories go when people still lose weight when consuming large amounts of them.

As I have said. I'm not a scientist, but have had a look at my Atkins book for the answer.

He said that when you control carb consumption sufficiently, your body will switch from burning glucose derived from carbs, to burning primarily fat for energy.

That is why we can eat, for example, 2,500 calories and still lose weight without exercising.

Burning fat takes more energy, so you expend more calories.

Posted: **22 Jun 2013, 17:05**

Thanks for your reply tomtank!

tomtank wrote: He said that when you control carb consumption sufficiently, your body will switch from burning glucose derived from carbs, to burning primarily fat for energy.

Yes that makes sense, it is called ketosis and we think you might get some of the same effect with 5:2 depending on how you do it (i.e. if you have a longer true fasting period by consuming all your calories in the evening).

tomtank wrote: That is why we can eat, for example, 2,500 calories and still lose weight without exercising. Burning fat takes more energy, so you expend more calories.

So the hypothesis is that in order to release energy from fat the body has to use more energy than to release it from glycogen (the short term carb store)? Hence you burn more calories on Atkins than on a non-ketogenic diet. This is the 'metabolic advantage'.

A pro-Atkins 2007 research study here (funded in part by a grant from the Robert C Atkins foundation) discusses this under the heading 'Unanswered questions on low carbohydrate metabolism'. To be honest I found it pretty hard to follow but what they seem to be sayng is that there may indeed be an effect and it is not impossible but it is also unproven. They feel on much stronger ground on the finding that Atkins dieters voluntarily limit their intake.

Maybe some of our real scientists know more about this 'metabolic advantage' idea? @carorees, @PhilT or anyone else? The paper I have referenced contains references to several others...

Posted: **22 Jun 2013, 19:15**

dominic wrote: A paper here found that eating an almond-enriched diet for 18 months was no different for weight loss, cholesterol or triglycerides than a nut-free diet.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v27/n ... 2411a.html found " A 62% greater reduction in weight/BMI, 50% greater reduction in WC and 56% greater reduction in FM were observed in the almond-LCD as compared to the CHO-LCD intervention " - same calories (1000) same protein (29%E) switching fat from nuts for carbs. Not specifically an almond trial as it's really a HF/LC vs HC/LF.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18716179 is an older review paper on nuts.

Posted: **22 Jun 2013, 19:29**

Dr A's "metabolic advantage" was the empirical observation that weight loss was faster for given calories on a low carb/high fat/moderate protein regime and hence there was an advantage to this diet - perhaps due to energy lost to ketones in urine / breath or to the use of different metabolic pathways to provide glucose in the blood which may be less efficient and hence need more calories.

Studies have struggled to confirm this, partly as the effect is around the same size as the errors or uncertainties I suspect. The ketone thing is quite small when you calculate it out, and I'm not enough of a bioligist to know if the pathways thing could be significant.

It's a bit like the "metabolic slowdown when dieting" thing - you can find this, find it isn't there, or blame it on errors and unmeasured variables depending on what you believed or wanted to prove.

Some more pragmatic souls suggests that the metabolic advantage of the Atkins diet is the demonstrable tendency of people on it to simply eat less calories on an ad lib regime. Another angle is the removal of hunger.

Personally I'm agnostic about it - you will gain weigh eating 5000 or 7000 calories a day of high fat low carb foods under controlled conditions, and epileptic kids on ketogenic diets do grow to be healthy and normal sized adults. In a metabolic chamber with good experimental design you should be able to measure everything you need to know if it exists, as after all a calorie is 4.18 kJ.

Posted: **22 Jun 2013, 19:37**

PhiT, do you know of any studies on ketogenic diets and autism?

Posted: **22 Jun 2013, 19:52**

dhana wrote: PhiT, do you know of any studies on ketogenic diets and autism?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12693778

http://researchautism.net/autism_treatm ... nfolevel=4

Posted: **22 Jun 2013, 20:13**

PhilT, you're a wee STAR!! Thanks!

Posted: **22 Jun 2013, 21:04**

Wow, what a debate. As I am just sitting around waiting to go to a couple of my favorite pubs :grin:

, I figure I might as well join in for a bit.

The 5:2 diet covered by this site began as a life extension diet. It can be completely described as eating 600 calories or less two days a week. The other 5 days, Dr. M ate the way he usually ate. After 5 weeks he lost a little more than 14 pounds and his blood work improved. The two 'fasting' days were the key to the WOE, not what was or was not eaten. Studies mentioned in the program confirmed that similar weight loss and blood work results were obtained from groups eating both low and high fat diets, supporting this position.

People tried the WOE and began reporting weight losses, and Dr. M realized he had a commercially viable weight loss diet on his hands. He rushed out a book to hit 'diet season' after the holidays, and the rest is history.

I read the book for the heck of it a couple of weeks ago (the diet can be described in a sentence, so where is a book in that?) and nowhere in the book did I find that I could eat as much as I wanted of anything I wanted for 5 days and lose weight. That argument is just foolish.

The debate then shifts to eating 5 days as you usually do. Common sense should apply here, also. If a person comes to 5:2 while gaining weight, their 'usual' eating habits must be providing calories above their TDEE. 5:2 will then slow their gain, stabilize their weight or cause a small weight loss, depending on the amount of their 'overeating'. Depending on their results, a person can then modify their 'feast' day caloric intake to achieve a better weight loss result.

The genius of 5:2 is that you can easily learn to modify it to get the results you are after. There is no need to also eat a low carb, low fat, paleo, grapefruit or boiled egg diet. Just eat foods you enjoy eating in amounts that produce the results you are after. It really can be that simple! :grin:

Posted: **23 Jun 2013, 03:07**

dominic wrote: Thanks izzy and robwis! The cake diet, mmmm...

Yes tomtank I saw your posts but the first law of thermodynamics does still apply, so where do your calories go? The research John Briffa referenced suggested a difference in metabolism of c.300 calories per day by eating very low carb rather than low fat, but this doesn't seem enough to explain the difference in your case let alone Sam Feltham.

Some earlier research here does not support the argument that a high fat diet burns more energy.

However an interesting 2006 study in mice did find that the mice on a 'ketogenic diet' (KD) lost weight despite consuming just as many calories as mice on other diets: 'KD-fed mice had a unique metabolic and physiological profile, exhibiting increased energy expenditure and very low respiratory quotient.... [The] weight [of mice on KD] dropped and stabilized at 85% initial weight, similar to those on [66% calorie restriction]. This was consistent with increased energy expenditure seen. Animals made obese on [high fat/high sucrose diet] and transitioned to KD lost all excess body weight, improved glucose tolerance, and increased energy expenditure.'

The researchers reckoned that the increased energy expenditure was down to the mice on KD being hotter:
Capture.GIF

I'm guessing your diet is ketogenic tomtank, so does it make sense that you are burning more energy than those around you who are not on a ketogenic diet? More exercise, more fidgeting, being hotter (no really)?

The alternative I think is that you have energy-filled poops? Don't think I can ask you to research that...

Whilst I can't definitively answer your qus above you may find the following talk by Peter Attia of interest re energy usage and diet. In the talk Attia, who lives on a ketogenic diet, spent three days in a metabolic chamber largely following his normal daily routine including exercise plus his usual diet which consisted of 2970kcal (Carbs 110kcal, protein 520kcal, fat 2340kcal).
At around the 51:20 mark on the video he talks about some of the key observations, the first being that his resting BMR was c20% higher than what any standard algo would predict it to be (his words). In the vid he says he has some ideas as to why this happened but unfortunately doesn't elaborate.
His RQ when exercising also interestingly took a good drop during his aerobic exercise (shifted to greater reliance on fat for energy)etc etc

Admittedly this is just self experimentation with 1 subject however interesting to note the similar result to your above mentioned mice study.

http://eatingacademy.com/personal/my-qu ... elf-part-i

Posted: **23 Jun 2013, 09:57**

Thanks skippy for the Peter Attia link, I had already bookmarked it and will try to make time to watch it today.

Phil, thanks for posting those links re almonds (and for your thoughts re the 'metabolic advantage'). The first almond study (2003, so earlier in fact than the second) is very positive but as you say it isn't really evidence about almonds because the two diets being compared were so different in other ways. So why do the study in this way - when effects from other things can be confusingly suggested to be down to the almonds? Oh, it all becomes clear in the last line:

This research was supported in part by a General Clinical Research Center Grant NIH (M01RR00043) awarded to the City of Hope National Medical Center, a satellite center of the University of Southern California, and, the Almond Board of California.

So it's just the money talking!

The FastDay Forum

a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie

Re: a different take on the calorie