Keto diet question

I love reading these discussions and find it positive that the world is changing. I have long had both a personal and professional interest in the areas under discussion and feel like I am pretty well informed but have to acknowledge that there are so many moving parts in each human body and its associated microbiome that it's hard to make sweeping statements.

I find much wisdom in the messages of Yudkin, Taubes, Lustig, Ludwig, Teicholz, Fung and others. The messages in my mind boil down to a few simple components: too much sugar (sucrose, highly processed starch, HFCS), too much fructose (Sucrose, fructose, HFCS), too frequent dosing with these substances (preventing insulin levels from falling to allow fat/triglyceride mobilization/utilization and likely leading to leptin resistance), too many calories in easy to access and non-satiating forms (simple sugars and carbs), too many processed foods with minimal fiber that negatively impacts the microbiome.

All of these things combine in varying degrees to lead to fat gain (most harmfully in the liver and viscera) which leads to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. Subsequently, the individual makes matters worse by recognizing that they have become overweight and start to 'diet' in the traditional way that makes the body turn down its metabolic rate in an attempt to prolong life the face of calorie restriction. The 'diet' ends but the metabolic rate (which accounts for the vast majority of energy burned in all but people like elite athletes) does not return to normal while caloric intake goes back to normal or increases and is still composed of foods that are bad for you.

At some point, something must give and people must realize that once people become metabolically unhealthy the road back is very difficult in our current environment. I am very fortunate to have never been overweight and never had to do much about it but at the same time I haven't had sugar in a beverage (other than milk - lactose [glucose-galactose]) in roughly 35 years and try to advocate and eat a JERF diet. I have also been a breakfast skipper (and sometimes lunch) for most of my adult life.

CICO is for sure a thing it's just that we have very limited tools to measure either CI or CO. I can eat a ton of cellulose (I enjoy celery) and that is a great deal of calories but none of them are available to me initially. Depending on my microbiome I may get some small amount of energy from bacterial break down of the cellulose and gut absorption but it isn't going to be much. As others have pointed out I can also eat exactly the same number of calories in many different simple/complex carb + fat + protein combinations and they will have wildly different effects on my glucose, hormones (insulin, leptin, grehlin, CCK, etc), BMR, satiety, etc. CO is even more difficult as BMR can differ dramatically even in the same individual and as pointed out already calorie expenditure for any given amount of activity varies quite a bit. And then we also have the huge potential impacts of the microbiome on energy expenditure.

One of the great statements above was that we don't eat calories, we eat food (or what we have been told is food). Something that has been clear to me since the 80s is that a 'calorie is a calorie' is definitely wrong. Even when we are talking about substances that can be used by human metabolic pathways. The most obvious illustration is the glucose/fructose paradox. Exactly the same chemical formula and energy content but handled completely differently inside the body. One is the primary stimulus for insulin release, the other causes no insulin release. One can be used by every cell in the body and the other is metabolized exclusively by the liver. The story of fructose is evolving but Dr. Lustig and his colleague's work at UCSF and that of others is incredibly frightening. Non-alcoholic fatty liver, which is inducible with fructose feeding and reversible with fructose restriction, was barely ever seen 40 years ago and now is an incredibly costly epidemic.

Anyway just a few thoughts. Thanks for sharing all of your thoughts and experiences.

PS As an inadvertent IF adherent for 40 years I would point out that the usual goal of IF (the 18:6 variety) is not ketosis but simply to allow insulin levels to fall low enough to allow fat cells to breakdown stored triglycerides (fat) and release glycerol and free fatty acids (FFAs). This was the normal state of affairs until we went on the 'snack, fuel you body, don't let your glucose get low' craze. Glycerol can be converted in the liver to glucose and FFAs are the bodies dominant energy source in the fasting state. If the fast lasts long enough and insulin drops low enough (and counter-regulatory hormones which act to increase glucose production [glucagon, cortisol, epinephrine] increase) then the liver starts turning the FFAs into ketones which the brain can use for fuel (as the brain cannot use FFAs for fuel). The same counter-regulatory hormones increase glucose production from glycerol and some amino acids by the liver (gluconeogenesis) to provide the small amounts of glucose that are necessary for a small number of cells (e.g. RBCs) and to keep mitochondria running. Sorry too much maybe. ;)

@6miths Thanks, this is one of the most helpful pieces I have read on this topic. JERF is interesting and I will read more.

What is your view of eating 6-8 equally sized and spaced meals per day, assuming quality foods/ingredients and CICO?
 
Thank you. Just some of my thoughts not particularly exhaustive although perhaps exhausting.

I wouldn't feel that I would be the one to comment authoritatively but from what I have read eating high quality, unprocessed food is important while avoiding simple and highly processed carbs - no added sugar in any of its many forms and no or low levels of products containing finely milled grains.

Dr. Jason Fung at the University of Toronto has been a vocal champion of IF for weight loss and improving or reversing Type 2 diabetes. As I discussed the goal of IF is to let insulin levels fall low enough that stored fat can be mobilized and used for energy as it is meant to be in the fasting state. Keep in mind that until very recently, this is how people actually ate - having at least a 12-14 hour fast after the last meal at say 6 pm and that this meal would have a reasonable amount of fat so as to keep insulin levels lower. Thus eating 6-8 meals a day would go against this principle as unless these were very low carb meals one would be spiking up insulin repeatedly and not allowing fat utilization. This would be made worse the more spread out the 6-8 'meals' were. Now if some of these meals were more like snacks and were things with very low carbs then one would be doing something more keto-like I guess (especially if any carbs were crowded together). The other issue I could see with 6-8 meals a day is the tendency we all have to over indulge when food is put in front of us and the chance that even 'good' food might be overdone. In my experience, people have a real predilection to do this with nuts (especially if salted) and some fruits.
 
Among other things, CICO ignores a third major factor, the metabolism, which can reduce significantly and make it very difficult to lose weight long term.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

Wouldn't our metabolism be part of the equation as some of the energy we expend? Energy expended due to our metabolism is harder to measure than the energy we expend while on a treadmill, for example, but it should still be considered as some of the energy we expend on daily activities.
 
There is an assumed constant metabolic rate, but it is not, and can be influenced by fluctuations in inputs, so there is actually feedback in the system. It’s not simple.
 
There is an assumed constant metabolic rate, but it is not, and can be influenced by fluctuations in inputs, so there is actually feedback in the system. It’s not simple.

@audreyh1 Yes, you are right. Metabolism is not constant, and is affected by drugs, as well as by things like thyroid removal, thyroidism, and other things in each individual. It's complex and it's not simple.


And yet CICO governs. Metabolism isn't assumed, it is the actual mechanism by which the body receives energy from nutrition. If intake of nutrition exceeds what the fluctuating, complex and outside-influenced metabolism can burn, weight is gained. Do you agree?
 
CICO works universally, unequivocally, and without exception for the average person, for weight management.

Sorry, but that is simply not correct. There are lots of studies from the past decade or more that pretty much disprove this outdated belief. The body is complex, and various hormones and metabolic processes influence how different types of calories are processed - unlike a simple machine.

Here's one study that looked at this...........there are lots more, if you want to take the time to look them up.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15148063/
 
And to follow up on RAE's comment. I said in my post that 'CICO is for sure a thing' but I didn't want to imply that it was 'the' thing. We cannot reliably measure either input or output and from a practical point of view, in clinical practice, a CICO approach has been shown repeatedly to be woefully inadequate in facilitating sustained weight loss. As well, the body, its component cells and its microbiome are a dynamic and ever changing and adjusting system.

Until very, very recently, the 'average' person has never had to 'manage' their weight by monitoring either CI or CO or even had the capability to estimate these values in any meaningful way.
 
@6miths I appreciate your point. It is indeed difficult to measure CICO. CI can be reliably estimated. I hold the view it can be very accurately estimated, using nutritional label data and measuring one's food. For me, CI is knowable with accuracy. I have periodically journalled my food and have a nice sized (for me) database of nutritional information for foods I commonly eat. This is how I am confident of CI. I modulate (control) CI until I see some weight loss, then I know I am near the control range or equilibrium point.

CO is harder. A Fitbit or facsimile is a good start to measuring caloric expenditure. Absent a Fitbit or similar device, one can gradual reduce CI (eating) and increase CO (exercise) until weight loss begins. This is feeling one's way into CICO. It may take weeks, possibly months, to achieve this state.

CICO is now in place for this particular individual, and I hold that the procedure works for the "average, normal" person as well as the person with a non-static, complex, fluctuating and externally affected metabolism. It might take longer for the second person to know themself well enough to achieve the equilibrium point, or control range.

@6miths does this hold water in your view?

@audreyh1 are you on board with this explanation of CICO, in the case where a person may have a complex, variable and externally affected metabolism?
 
Last edited:
A "broken" metabolism doesn't violate CICO. In the biggest loser study (done by Kevin Hall, a CICO-loving physicist), resting metabolic rates went down after weight loss, which is expected. I.e., CO at rest went down. The magnitude of the drop surprised Hall.

Keto doesn't break CICO. Nor does eating WFPB. But they both can modulate appetite, which will usually affect CI.
 
A "broken" metabolism doesn't violate CICO. In the biggest loser study (done by Kevin Hall, a CICO-loving physicist), resting metabolic rates went down after weight loss, which is expected. I.e., CO at rest went down. The magnitude of the drop surprised Hall.

Keto doesn't break CICO. Nor does eating WFPB. But they both can modulate appetite, which will usually affect CI.


@twaddle Agree that CICO isn’t broken in the examples you gave. I maintain that CICO is never broken.

CI has its challenges.

CO likewise has its challenges, distinct from CI.

CICO holds universally.
 
@twaddle Agree that CICO isn’t broken in the examples you gave. I maintain that CICO is never broken.

CI has its challenges.

CO likewise has its challenges, distinct from CI.

CICO holds universally.

I think it is time you share your scientific links that support such unwavering blanket opinions. After all, you have repeatedly asked others to share backup for the not-so-fast-it's-more-complicated position, which can be found throughout this thread.
 
@twaddle Agree that CICO isn’t broken in the examples you gave. I maintain that CICO is never broken.

CI has its challenges.

CO likewise has its challenges, distinct from CI.

CICO holds universally.

Agreed, but I think the reason you're seeing a lot of resistance is because CICO doesn't provide a very useful framework for weight control.

The obvious inference is that all you need to do to drop body fat is reduce CI or increase CO, but the body will fight that if you just approach it with "willpower."

The "hormonal" arguments are somewhat misstated by a lot of people, but yeah, if you can regulate appetite by what you eat, then you can take willpower out of the equation.

Many ways to do this: increase protein, increase fiber, and even ketones do seem to help. :)
 
The "hormonal" arguments are somewhat misstated by a lot of people, but yeah, if you can regulate appetite by what you eat, then you can take willpower out of the equation.

Insulin is a hormone, and depending on the cell's ability to absorb it it can reduce/increase hunger, amongst other things. So being insulin resistant can make you feel very hungry even when you shouldn't be based on CICO. That's one very simple example of CICO not being workable without changing what you eat. I suspect I could/would lose weight if I had someone forcibly controlling my diet like I control my dog's diet. But if they did that to me as a weight loss plan, they better count the silverware and not fall asleep around me. Luckily the dogs can't open the drawers.
 
Insulin is a hormone, and depending on the cell's ability to absorb it it can reduce/increase hunger, amongst other things. So being insulin resistant can make you feel very hungry even when you shouldn't be based on CICO. That's one very simple example of CICO not being workable without changing what you eat. I suspect I could/would lose weight if I had someone forcibly controlling my diet like I control my dog's diet. But if they did that to me as a weight loss plan, they better count the silverware and not fall asleep around me. Luckily the dogs can't open the drawers.

Yeah, the main reason to lose weight IMO is to become insulin sensitive. Huge health benefits.

Some people believe that because low-carb or keto keeps insulin low, that's how it works to reduce body fat. Interestingly Taubes himself funded a study to prove that. Turns out that's not how it works, but the studies were still useful to improve our understanding of this stuff....
 
Insulin is a hormone, and depending on the cell's ability to absorb it it can reduce/increase hunger, amongst other things. So being insulin resistant can make you feel very hungry even when you shouldn't be based on CICO. That's one very simple example of CICO not being workable without changing what you eat. I suspect I could/would lose weight if I had someone forcibly controlling my diet like I control my dog's diet. But if they did that to me as a weight loss plan, they better count the silverware and not fall asleep around me.

Yep, and that is why low carb, paleo-type diets work better for weight loss (for most people) than trying to count calories. No diet is going to work for long if you are hungry all the time. Hunger is going to win out in the end, and you're going to eventually revert to eating something to alleviate the hunger, whether it exceeds your calorie allotment for the day or not. Paleo-type diets, rather than focusing on calories, focus on consumption of nutrient-dense whole foods, including moderate amounts of protein and healthy fats. Lower amounts of carbs are consumed in a paleo-type diet, and most of them come from things like veggies, rather than refined grain products. Protein and fat are more satiating than carbs, so hunger is usually not much of an issue with paleo-type diets. And, because the human body processes fats and proteins differently than it does carbs from refined grain products, a lot of people can lose weight on a paleo-type diet, even though they are consuming quite a few calories.

Diets based on restricting calories have been for a long time, and have been tried by millions of people. Yet, our country's obesity problem has gotten progressively worse and worse in recent decades. That should tell you something about their effectiveness.
 
Sorry, but that is simply not correct. There are lots of studies from the past decade or more that pretty much disprove this outdated belief. The body is complex, and various hormones and metabolic processes influence how different types of calories are processed - unlike a simple machine.

Here's one study that looked at this...........there are lots more, if you want to take the time to look them up.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15148063/

@RAE Thanks for the link. The study says nothing about CICO. Did you mean to post something else? Or maybe the link provided was intended for another thread?
 
I think it is time you share your scientific links that support such unwavering blanket opinions. After all, you have repeatedly asked others to share backup for the not-so-fast-it's-more-complicated position, which can be found throughout this thread.

@Aerides I don't have a link. I don't seek scientific papers for things which are patently obvious. I don't need a peer reviewed journal article to know that if I step in front of a bus, I will be harmed. Similarly, reducing caloric intake and increasing caloric expenditure will result in either slowed weight gain, or weight loss. CICO is ground truth.

Nowhere have I written about fat loss. This has been introduced by a number of posters. I don't really care about fat or carbohydrates in the big picture. CICO is the framework, when you get to your target weight, fat can be targeted if desired. If a person is fat, they don't need to lose fat, they need to stop eating so much, start exercising, and lose weight.

In recent posts, words such as hunger, willpower, feel, forcibly controlling, and appetite have been used.

These are the true obstacles, psychological ones, to using the natural mechanism of CICO. We are our own worst enemies. If one is obese, it's a real project to get un-obese. I acknowledge this. But it's quality of life, or life itself, that is at stake, so it's worth the effort. Right?

How does one get obese? One eats in excess of what one needs. CICO

Let's eat real food. Raw ingredients prepared simply at home. It means people need to learn to cook. This is another piece of "work" or "effort" required to lose weight and have a healthy lifestyle. If someone is too lazy to prepare quality nutrition, they are their own executioner when their weight approaches 400lbs because they eat large portion, high fat, high salt, high sugar restaurant and convenience foods.

It's effort to eat less and overcome the feeling of hunger. You must feel hunger if you are going to lose weight. You will get to become familiar with hunger, and even enjoy it when it has come under your control.

It's effort to exercise more. It's effort to turn off the TV and get off the couch when it's raining, hot, snowing, windy or you are tired. The funny thing about exercise, is that after doing it you often less tired.

It's effort to learn to cook, shop for quality ingredients, and prepare them. It's the right thing to do.

CICO is ground truth. And it takes effort, more effort than the alternative. But far more healthy than the alternative.
 
Last edited:
@Aerides I don't have a link. I don't seek scientific papers for things which are patently obvious.

In other words, "I know I'm right, and no amount of facts will change my mind. But I'll hammer at you (without proof) until you agree with me".

Luckily there's another choice, both on this site and IRL.

Have a good life.
 
@chassis, you're right about CICO in some ways. It's basically the first law of thermodynamics.

But I'm sure you know that countless people have tried the "eat less, move more" approach and it didn't work for them. The reason has nothing to do with thermodynamics. If there's one rule in biological systems, it's "homeostasis."

Your body wants to stay where it is. If you exercise a lot, your body will notice, and hunger will increase. This is also "ground truth."

Sure, you can try to starve yourself. You can also try to deprive yourself of sleep. Or keep yourself from using the bathroom. Willpower!

Or you can "hack" the system and try to figure out a way to convince your body to reach a new set-point.

Keto is popular because a lot of people have had success with it when all else has failed.
 
@chassis, you're right about CICO in some ways. It's basically the first law of thermodynamics.

But I'm sure you know that countless people have tried the "eat less, move more" approach and it didn't work for them. The reason has nothing to do with thermodynamics. If there's one rule in biological systems, it's "homeostasis."

Your body wants to stay where it is. If you exercise a lot, your body will notice, and hunger will increase. This is also "ground truth."

Sure, you can try to starve yourself. You can also try to deprive yourself of sleep. Or keep yourself from using the bathroom. Willpower!

Or you can "hack" the system and try to figure out a way to convince your body to reach a new set-point.

Keto is popular because a lot of people have had success with it when all else has failed.

@twaddle Yes thermodynamics is a reasonable analogy.

Let's talk about hunger. What is it?

Is hunger, or the response to it, a habit? For example, when I feel the first twinge of hunger, I eat. I fact, I eat more than my body needs, because that is an additional habit I have developed. In fact, I eat crummy food, because that is yet another habit I have developed. This is one hypothetical case.

While a hypothetical example, I'll bet alot of people fit into it. There is more than one person in my sphere that fits this case perfectly.

What about developing another habit, to either ignore or delay the response to hunger. And when responding to hunger, eat a smaller quantity of food than "feels" necessary. And when eating, eat good quality food produced from raw ingredients prepared simply at home. This is a second hypothetical case.

It's the views and responses towards hunger that probably need to be discussed. What do you think about the two possible hunger responses outlined above?
 
Last edited:
Let's talk about hunger. What is it?

Is hunger, or the response to it, a habit? For example, when I feel the first twinge of hunger, I eat. I fact, I eat more than my body needs, because that is an additional habit I have developed. In fact, I eat crummy food, because that is yet another habit I have developed. This is one hypothetical case.

Now you're talking my language! :)

Our vocabulary for hunger (and satiety) is lacking for sure, but consider the case where you "eat more than your body needs." How should your body respond? You should not be hungry again for many hours after that, because your body knows what happened, right? Your body should seek homeostasis, as it evolved to. Your body wants to protect itself from harm.

So what went wrong? Honestly, we don't really know, but there seem to be several things about our environment that are killing us: processed foods, high-calorie liquids, easy access to food around the clock, and relatively low nutritional density in the foods that are cheap and easy to get.

So that's why JERF works pretty well. It just takes crap out of the equation.

Keto takes that a step further. Most processed foods are high in fast-acting carbs, so low-carb diets avoid them. Ketones themselves seem to have both anti-inflammatory properties and suppress appetite. Basically, people have lost weight without effort.

Fiber fills your stomach and that triggers hormones that communicate "satiety."

But, yeah, you have to resist the easy-and-cheap food environment we live in, and that requires changing habits for most people. For me, that process took about a month, and I never really looked back after that.
 
Now you're talking my language! :)

Our vocabulary for hunger (and satiety) is lacking for sure, but consider the case where you "eat more than your body needs." How should your body respond? You should not be hungry again for many hours after that, because your body knows what happened, right? Your body should seek homeostasis, as it evolved to. Your body wants to protect itself from harm.

So what went wrong? Honestly, we don't really know, but there seem to be several things about our environment that are killing us: processed foods, high-calorie liquids, easy access to food around the clock, and relatively low nutritional density in the foods that are cheap and easy to get.

So that's why JERF works pretty well. It just takes crap out of the equation.

Keto takes that a step further. Most processed foods are high in fast-acting carbs, so low-carb diets avoid them. Ketones themselves seem to have both anti-inflammatory properties and suppress appetite. Basically, people have lost weight without effort.

Fiber fills your stomach and that triggers hormones that communicate "satiety."

But, yeah, you have to resist the easy-and-cheap food environment we live in, and that requires changing habits for most people. For me, that process took about a month, and I never really looked back after that.

@twaddle I like the acryonym "JERF". I have no further knowledge of it, so I don't support JERF any further than the literal denotation of the acronym.

Satiety is another myth. Myth: I need to feel full (sated). Truth: no you don't.

Because this is a financially-oriented site, think of CICO as an investment portfolio. The name of the portfolio is Healthy Nutrition and Weight Management Portfolio.

Investment 1: Calories In management
Investment 2: Calories Out management

Portfollo weightings should be 90% Investment 1 and 10% Investment 2.

Invest time and effort into each of the portfolio holdings and you will earn very handsome returns.
 
Satiety is another myth. Myth: I need to feel full (sated). Truth: no you don't.

I guess this is where we differ. Like the bathroom analogy I gave earlier: you don't really have to pee *right now* do you? Hold it. A little longer.

Then what happens? Yeah, your body compensates big time. And this is the reason "eat less, move more" has been an epic failure. Biology fights it.
 
I guess this is where we differ. Like the bathroom analogy I gave earlier: you don't really have to pee *right now* do you? Hold it. A little longer.

Then what happens? Yeah, your body compensates big time. And this is the reason "eat less, move more" has been an epic failure. Biology fights it.

@twaddle this is going well into the grey zone. Easy to lose one’s way in the great zone. And that’s OK. We all choose our own paths. That’s another theme to explore - personal choices as it relates to how much, when and what kind of food to eat.

Satiety commentary from hypothetical subjects:

1. “I’m stuffed, can’t eat another bite. I can barely move.”
2. “I’m full.”
3. “That was good, I’ve had enough for now.”
4. “Great meal! Looking forward to next time. It made me feel great!”

Responses 1 and 2 are unacceptable behavior, and common in my view. Responses 3 and 4 are more appropriate in my view.

All four examples touch on the idea of satiety.
 
Back
Top Bottom