50/30/20- who else uses this macronutrient profile for cutting and what do you think

[lylemcd]

Yeah, I dont where I stand on the Keto-diet yet either. I am reading more and more articles that are saying people lose more weight (and fat) even with equal calories.Maybe Lyle could shed some more light onto the subject.

I already commented, most of the recent studies are poorly done, confuse water weight loss with true weight loss and are relying on self-reporting of food intake (which is notoriously unreliable). The weight loss tends to be massively variable as well. In one of the recently written about studies, obese kids were put on either a keto diet or a carb-based diet The average weight loss on keto was like double but the range was monstrous. One kid on keto only lost 2 lbs over 4 months, another lost nearly 50. The kids were supposedly eating like 800-1200 calories per day (not goddamn likely). When you look at averages, you lose the real facts. When you take out the three keto kids who lost a shitpile of weight, the differences almost disappear and the results are very comparable.

And, as i said, I've been getting feedback from people on keto diets for years, if there is an increased fat loss from being in ketosis, I haven't seen it to a huge degree.

Another huge confound in a lot of the studies is that protein intake is going up on the lowcarb groups. Saying it was the lowcarbs that caused the effect is fallacious, you're increasing protein at the same time. At least one researchers thinks the increase in protein is causing the real effects.

But once protein is set at adequate amounts (1 g/lb LBM or so), shuffling carbs and fat has more to do with controlling appetite than anything else in my experience.

I am thinking another reason studies say that Keto diets lose more fat is because you become glycogen depleted. So lets say you lose 5 lbs of glucose (from the muscle I mean), and keep all of your muscle tissue (the actual protein), scientists just might assume that 5lbs was fat (because you didnt lose muscle or bone tissue, so it came from somewhere). Could this be plausible Lyle, or am I just sounding like an uneducated moron?

A lot depends on how they do the measurement of weight or whatever. Glycogen depletion will show up as weight and LBM loss, not fat loss.

Sometimes I just think overall weight gain is purely thermodynamics (calorie in/calorie out), but how the weight is distributed (as muscle, fat, etc.) depends on macronutrient intake, hormone levels (test, estrogen, insulin, GH, thyroid, etc.), training and genetics. Is this the commonly held belief?

Yes, but a few things have to be met first.
The main one, IMO, is adequate protein intake. If you read articles by folks saying a calorie isn't a calorie, they invariably cite studies comparing low and high protein intakes. Those studies consistently show differences in body composition changes even if caloric iintake is the same. Well no shit.

Essential fatty acid intake is important too, studies comoparing low EFA intake to adequate EFA intake usually find better results with adequate EFA intake. Well no shit.

Once protein is set at adequate levels and you're getting sufficient EFA's and calories are controlled strictly, you tend to see minimal, if any differences, in shuffling carbs and fats around. At least not from a body composition standpoint.

There may be other benefits to choosing one diet vs another, some people feel better in ketosis than on carb-based diets (and some people feel worse), a number of studies has found that obese and/or hyperinsulinemic individuals have their health worsen on higher carbs and things get better with lowered carbs. Many people find appetite is better controlled on lowered carbs, making it easier to control calories. So there are other variables than just body composition to take into account. Read teh article at my website for an 11 page look at some of them

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com

Lyle