Keto Diet

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Prof Tim Noakes was an elite marathon runner who wrote the book on loading up on carbs before an endurance event. Decades later he kept up his fitness regime and was still getting fat on high carb diet. It's not the exercise. Now he totally believes he was 100% wrong. Please if you've got time check out the video clips on the first page.
That's rather like saying you should listen to Nigel Lawson on Climate Change. Noakes isn't an expert on diet, he's an expert on sports science, and particularly on what happens if you drink too much water after a marathon. If he was getting fat on a high carb diet it's because he was eating too much relative to his energy expenditure - unless he's claiming to have discovered a counter-example to the law of the conservation of energy? Which would mean he'd deserve a Nobel prize.
 
OP
OP
Bill Gates

Bill Gates

Guest
Location
West Sussex
Threads like this advocating unusual restrictive diets always become pseudo-science quickly - and this one's no exception.

So far as I can tell (and I'm no scientist but I've read a fair bit and have a nose for bullshit) there are only three things to remember when it comes to diet.

1. Some physics - the law of the conversation of energy means that the only way to lose weight is to consume fewer calories than you expend and the only way to gain weight is to consume more calories than you expend.

2. Some evolutionary biology - we evolved to consume an opportunistic but omnivorous diet. Our bodies are machines that are optimised to consume more calories than we need when it's available, and from any source at all, so that we can survive what were historically inevitable periods of famine. We also evolved big brains and efficient bodies - so that the bulk of our food energy goes on keeping us alive, and the marginal extra amount we can burn by exercise or training is relatively small.

3. Some psychology - we find it very difficult to resist marketing or cravings and incredibly difficult to change habits - especially when we are voluntarily starving ourselves (which is what a weight-loss diet is trying to do).

By all means try and lose weight by pretending that you're on a keto diet (you're probably not) or go vegan or cut out milk or gluten or use intermittent fasting - but unless you're one of the very small minority of people for whom cutting out a particular kind of food is a medical necessity all you're doing is using restrictive eating as a method of cutting your calorie intake relative to your activity levels. Which is fine until that restrictive eating gets in the way of other things you want to achieve - like cycling, or socialising, or enjoying eating.

As it happens I'm currently having some success losing weight by tracking my food, having no alcohol and no cakes or biscuits - but I'm not going to pretend it's a long-term solution. In fact, when I reach a goal weight I will have a different challenge, of eating the right amount to maintain weight.
That's rather like saying you should listen to Nigel Lawson on Climate Change. Noakes isn't an expert on diet, he's an expert on sports science, and particularly on what happens if you drink too much water after a marathon. If he was getting fat on a high carb diet it's because he was eating too much relative to his energy expenditure - unless he's claiming to have discovered a counter-example to the law of the conservation of energy? Which would mean he'd deserve a Nobel prize.
goodness me. Crack on mate. I'm not bothering
 
OP
OP
Bill Gates

Bill Gates

Guest
Location
West Sussex
Threads like this advocating unusual restrictive diets always become pseudo-science quickly - and this one's no exception.

So far as I can tell (and I'm no scientist but I've read a fair bit and have a nose for bullshit) there are only three things to remember when it comes to diet.

1. Some physics - the law of the conversation of energy means that the only way to lose weight is to consume fewer calories than you expend and the only way to gain weight is to consume more calories than you expend.

2. Some evolutionary biology - we evolved to consume an opportunistic but omnivorous diet. Our bodies are machines that are optimised to consume more calories than we need when it's available, and from any source at all, so that we can survive what were historically inevitable periods of famine. We also evolved big brains and efficient bodies - so that the bulk of our food energy goes on keeping us alive, and the marginal extra amount we can burn by exercise or training is relatively small.

3. Some psychology - we find it very difficult to resist marketing or cravings and incredibly difficult to change habits - especially when we are voluntarily starving ourselves (which is what a weight-loss diet is trying to do).

By all means try and lose weight by pretending that you're on a keto diet (you're probably not) or go vegan or cut out milk or gluten or use intermittent fasting - but unless you're one of the very small minority of people for whom cutting out a particular kind of food is a medical necessity all you're doing is using restrictive eating as a method of cutting your calorie intake relative to your activity levels. Which is fine until that restrictive eating gets in the way of other things you want to achieve - like cycling, or socialising, or enjoying eating.

As it happens I'm currently having some success losing weight by tracking my food, having no alcohol and no cakes or biscuits - but I'm not going to pretend it's a long-term solution. In fact, when I reach a goal weight I will have a different challenge, of eating the right amount to maintain weight.
Too much to bother with Crack on
 
OP
OP
Bill Gates

Bill Gates

Guest
Location
West Sussex
That's rather like saying you should listen to Nigel Lawson on Climate Change. Noakes isn't an expert on diet, he's an expert on sports science, and particularly on what happens if you drink too much water after a marathon. If he was getting fat on a high carb diet it's because he was eating too much relative to his energy expenditure - unless he's claiming to have discovered a counter-example to the law of the conservation of energy? Which would mean he'd deserve a Nobel prize.
Calories in calories out eh? bullshit


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5o0a4p_3U&t=254s


Please watch this and then come back and say the same again. You won't because you won't watch it.

I totally refute everything you posted. Parts of it are such unbelievable nonsense that it's difficult to know where to start. So I'm not bothering. Cravings are psychological WTF. I can see nothing but vitriol ahead so I won't be responding to your posts.
 
Last edited:

The Jogger

Legendary Member
Location
Spain
Surely this is a contradiction, is it not?
Threads like this advocating unusual restrictive diets always become pseudo-science quickly - and this one's no exception.
As it happens I'm currently having some success losing weight by tracking my food, having no alcohol and no cakes or biscuits - but I'm not going to pretend it's a long-term solution. In fact, when I reach a goal weight I will have a different challenge, of eating the right amount to maintain weight.
 

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
Location
Kirton, Devon.
Q
Calories in calories out eh? bullshit


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5o0a4p_3U&t=254s


Please watch this and then come back and say the same again. You won't because you won't watch it.

I totally refute everything you posted. Parts of it are such unbelievable nonsense that it's difficult to know where to start. So I'm not bothering. Cravings are psychological WTF. I can see nothing but vitriol ahead so I won't be responding to your posts.

Do you ever wonder why you antagonise people?
 
OP
OP
Bill Gates

Bill Gates

Guest
Location
West Sussex
Q

Do you ever wonder why you antagonise people?
SRW coined the bull sh1t phrase in his first post. It's not unreasonable for me to return the compliment. plus you liked his post. what's there to like about it. it's nonsense.
I've tried to behave in a civilised manner on this thread and up until now ive done well. maybe I've let myself down leopard spots and all that
When you're naturally grumpy it will out. I can't help it
 
Last edited:

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
Location
Kirton, Devon.
Anyhow, back to the topic of Keto And diets Obesity and foodstuffs etc....

I watched the video, it was for me 37 mins of my life I won’t get back. Apart from some neat story telling and obfuscation, there was nothing new or revelatory and backs-up my points about not eating refined carbs. The role of insulin is well known and well documented. Nearly 20 years ago I sat through seminars on Syndrome X/Metabolic syndrome. So it’s old-hat.
Furthermore It does not dispel the statement by @srw regarding calories in and out. The laws of thermodynamics still apply, I think if they had been broken it might have made the news - so this aspect was very misleading or unexplained.
Dr Feung is a good (if not irritating imo) presenter. He used some facts and data, always a good thing.

Now it was holocaust week last week. These were people on calorie restricted diets and they lost weight. The prisoners who built the Malay/Burma railways worked hard on restricted calorie diets and they lost weight. I would like to hear his answers.
He offered little in the way of practical solutions but maybe that’s in another lecture or book.

Many traditional societies have eaten carbohydrate-based diets without suffering from rampant obesity. In the 1970s, before the obesity epidemic, the Irish were loving their potatoes. The Asians were loving their white rice. The French were loving their bread.
Many traditional societies have eaten carbohydrate-based diets without suffering from rampant obesity. In the 1970s, before the obesity epidemic, the Irish were loving their potatoes. The Asians were loving their white rice. The French were loving their bread.
Even in America, let’s remember the 1970s. Disco was sweeping the nation. Star Wars and Jaws played to packed theatres. If you looked at an old photograph from that era, perhaps you might be amazed at several things. First, why anybody ever thought bell bottoms were cool. Second, it’s amazing just how little obesity there is. Take a look at some old high school yearbooks from the 1970s. There is virtually no obesity. Perhaps one child in a hundred.
What was the diet of the 1970s? They were eating white bread and jam. They were eating ice cream. They were eating Oreo cookies. There were not eating whole-wheat pasta. They were not eating quinoa. They were not eating kale. They were not counting calories. They were not counting net carbs. They were not even really exercising much. These people were doing everything ‘wrong’ yet, seemingly effortlessly, there was no obesity. Why?
What about the diet of the Chinese in the 1980s? They were eating tons of white rice. On average, over 300 grams per day, compared to a low carb diet of less than 50 grams and all highly refined. Yet they had virtually no obesity. Why?
What about the diet of the Okinawan? Over 80% carbohydrates, and mostly sweet potato, which has some sugar in it. What about the Irish in the 1970s, with their beloved beer and potatoes? They didn’t think twice about what they were eating, but until recently there was almost no obesity. Why?
The answer is simple. When you don’t eat, this is technically known as ‘fasting’. This is the reason there is the English word ‘break fast’ or breakfast, the meal that breaks your fast. During your sleep, you are (presumably) not eating and therefore fasting. This allows time for your body to digest the foods, process the nutrients and burn the rest for energy to power your vital organs and muscles. In order to maintain a stable weight, you must balance feeding and fasting.
During feeding, you store food energy as body fat. During fasting, you burn body fat for energy. If you balance those two, your weight will remain stable. If you are predominantly feeding, you will gain weight. If you are predominantly fasting, you will lose weight. Unfortunately, most nutritional authorities tell you the exact opposite. Instead, it may be better to use intermittent fasting to lose weight.
 
Last edited:

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
Location
Kirton, Devon.
SRW coined the bull sh1t phrase in his first post. It's not unreasonable for me to return the compliment. plus you liked his post. what's there to like about it. it's nonsense.
I've tried to behave in a civilised manner on this thread and up until now ive done well. maybe I've let myself down leopard spots and all that
When you're naturally grumpy it will out. I can't help it
But @srw was right. The laws of thermodynamics still apply....
 

BoldonLad

Not part of the Elite
Location
South Tyneside
Coul
Anyhow, back to the topic of Keto And diets Obesity and foodstuffs etc....

I watched the video, it was for me 37 mins of my life I won’t get back. Apart from some neat story telling and obfuscation, there was nothing new or revelatory and backs-up my points about not eating refined carbs. The role of insulin is well known and well documented. Nearly 20 years ago I sat through seminars on Syndrome X/Metabolic syndrome. So it’s old-hat.
Furthermore It does not dispel the statement by @srw regarding calories in and out. The laws of thermodynamics still apply, I think if they had been broken it might have made the news - so this aspect was very misleading or unexplained.
Dr Feung is a good (if not irritating imo) presenter. He used some facts and data, always a good thing.

Now it was holocaust week last week. These were people on calorie restricted diets and they lost weight. The prisoners who built the Malay/Burma railways worked hard on restricted calorie diets and they lost weight. I would like to hear his answers.
He offered little in the way of practical solutions but maybe that’s in another lecture or book.

Many traditional societies have eaten carbohydrate-based diets without suffering from rampant obesity. In the 1970s, before the obesity epidemic, the Irish were loving their potatoes. The Asians were loving their white rice. The French were loving their bread.
Many traditional societies have eaten carbohydrate-based diets without suffering from rampant obesity. In the 1970s, before the obesity epidemic, the Irish were loving their potatoes. The Asians were loving their white rice. The French were loving their bread.
Even in America, let’s remember the 1970s. Disco was sweeping the nation. Star Wars and Jaws played to packed theatres. If you looked at an old photograph from that era, perhaps you might be amazed at several things. First, why anybody ever thought bell bottoms were cool. Second, it’s amazing just how little obesity there is. Take a look at some old high school yearbooks from the 1970s. There is virtually no obesity. Perhaps one child in a hundred.
What was the diet of the 1970s? They were eating white bread and jam. They were eating ice cream. They were eating Oreo cookies. There were not eating whole-wheat pasta. They were not eating quinoa. They were not eating kale. They were not counting calories. They were not counting net carbs. They were not even really exercising much. These people were doing everything ‘wrong’ yet, seemingly effortlessly, there was no obesity. Why?
What about the diet of the Chinese in the 1980s? They were eating tons of white rice. On average, over 300 grams per day, compared to a low carb diet of less than 50 grams and all highly refined. Yet they had virtually no obesity. Why?
What about the diet of the Okinawan? Over 80% carbohydrates, and mostly sweet potato, which has some sugar in it. What about the Irish in the 1970s, with their beloved beer and potatoes? They didn’t think twice about what they were eating, but until recently there was almost no obesity. Why?
The answer is simple. When you don’t eat, this is technically known as ‘fasting’. This is the reason there is the English word ‘break fast’ or breakfast, the meal that breaks your fast. During your sleep, you are (presumably) not eating and therefore fasting. This allows time for your body to digest the foods, process the nutrients and burn the rest for energy to power your vital organs and muscles. In order to maintain a stable weight, you must balance feeding and fasting.
During feeding, you store food energy as body fat. During fasting, you burn body fat for energy. If you balance those two, your weight will remain stable. If you are predominantly feeding, you will gain weight. If you are predominantly fasting, you will lose weight. Unfortunately, most nutritional authorities tell you the exact opposite. Instead, it may be better to use intermittent fasting to lose weight.
Couldn’t agree more. I was born in 1947. Some of the things I (and other children) ate, were frightenly fat and carbohydrates laden (chips, cooked in dripping, potatoes, bread, Jam, etc etc). There was very little obesity. I our intake of sweets was severely limited, by money and lack of availability), we walked to school, played in the street, etc etc.
 
OP
OP
Bill Gates

Bill Gates

Guest
Location
West Sussex
Anyhow, back to the topic of Keto And diets Obesity and foodstuffs etc....

I watched the video, it was for me 37 mins of my life I won’t get back. Apart from some neat story telling and obfuscation, there was nothing new or revelatory and backs-up my points about not eating refined carbs. The role of insulin is well known and well documented. Nearly 20 years ago I sat through seminars on Syndrome X/Metabolic syndrome. So it’s old-hat.
Furthermore It does not dispel the statement by @srw regarding calories in and out. The laws of thermodynamics still apply, I think if they had been broken it might have made the news - so this aspect was very misleading or unexplained.
Dr Feung is a good (if not irritating imo) presenter. He used some facts and data, always a good thing.

Now it was holocaust week last week. These were people on calorie restricted diets and they lost weight. The prisoners who built the Malay/Burma railways worked hard on restricted calorie diets and they lost weight. I would like to hear his answers.
He offered little in the way of practical solutions but maybe that’s in another lecture or book.

Many traditional societies have eaten carbohydrate-based diets without suffering from rampant obesity. In the 1970s, before the obesity epidemic, the Irish were loving their potatoes. The Asians were loving their white rice. The French were loving their bread.
Many traditional societies have eaten carbohydrate-based diets without suffering from rampant obesity. In the 1970s, before the obesity epidemic, the Irish were loving their potatoes. The Asians were loving their white rice. The French were loving their bread.
Even in America, let’s remember the 1970s. Disco was sweeping the nation. Star Wars and Jaws played to packed theatres. If you looked at an old photograph from that era, perhaps you might be amazed at several things. First, why anybody ever thought bell bottoms were cool. Second, it’s amazing just how little obesity there is. Take a look at some old high school yearbooks from the 1970s. There is virtually no obesity. Perhaps one child in a hundred.
What was the diet of the 1970s? They were eating white bread and jam. They were eating ice cream. They were eating Oreo cookies. There were not eating whole-wheat pasta. They were not eating quinoa. They were not eating kale. They were not counting calories. They were not counting net carbs. They were not even really exercising much. These people were doing everything ‘wrong’ yet, seemingly effortlessly, there was no obesity. Why?
What about the diet of the Chinese in the 1980s? They were eating tons of white rice. On average, over 300 grams per day, compared to a low carb diet of less than 50 grams and all highly refined. Yet they had virtually no obesity. Why?
What about the diet of the Okinawan? Over 80% carbohydrates, and mostly sweet potato, which has some sugar in it. What about the Irish in the 1970s, with their beloved beer and potatoes? They didn’t think twice about what they were eating, but until recently there was almost no obesity. Why?
The answer is simple. When you don’t eat, this is technically known as ‘fasting’. This is the reason there is the English word ‘break fast’ or breakfast, the meal that breaks your fast. During your sleep, you are (presumably) not eating and therefore fasting. This allows time for your body to digest the foods, process the nutrients and burn the rest for energy to power your vital organs and muscles. In order to maintain a stable weight, you must balance feeding and fasting.
During feeding, you store food energy as body fat. During fasting, you burn body fat for energy. If you balance those two, your weight will remain stable. If you are predominantly feeding, you will gain weight. If you are predominantly fasting, you will lose weight. Unfortunately, most nutritional authorities tell you the exact opposite. Instead, it may be better to use intermittent fasting to lose weight.
In the context of the post
Anyhow, back to the topic of Keto And diets Obesity and foodstuffs etc....

I watched the video, it was for me 37 mins of my life I won’t get back. Apart from some neat story telling and obfuscation, there was nothing new or revelatory and backs-up my points about not eating refined carbs. The role of insulin is well known and well documented. Nearly 20 years ago I sat through seminars on Syndrome X/Metabolic syndrome. So it’s old-hat.
Furthermore It does not dispel the statement by @srw regarding calories in and out. The laws of thermodynamics still apply, I think if they had been broken it might have made the news - so this aspect was very misleading or unexplained.
Dr Feung is a good (if not irritating imo) presenter. He used some facts and data, always a good thing.

Now it was holocaust week last week. These were people on calorie restricted diets and they lost weight. The prisoners who built the Malay/Burma railways worked hard on restricted calorie diets and they lost weight. I would like to hear his answers.
He offered little in the way of practical solutions but maybe that’s in another lecture or book.

Many traditional societies have eaten carbohydrate-based diets without suffering from rampant obesity. In the 1970s, before the obesity epidemic, the Irish were loving their potatoes. The Asians were loving their white rice. The French were loving their bread.
Many traditional societies have eaten carbohydrate-based diets without suffering from rampant obesity. In the 1970s, before the obesity epidemic, the Irish were loving their potatoes. The Asians were loving their white rice. The French were loving their bread.
Even in America, let’s remember the 1970s. Disco was sweeping the nation. Star Wars and Jaws played to packed theatres. If you looked at an old photograph from that era, perhaps you might be amazed at several things. First, why anybody ever thought bell bottoms were cool. Second, it’s amazing just how little obesity there is. Take a look at some old high school yearbooks from the 1970s. There is virtually no obesity. Perhaps one child in a hundred.
What was the diet of the 1970s? They were eating white bread and jam. They were eating ice cream. They were eating Oreo cookies. There were not eating whole-wheat pasta. They were not eating quinoa. They were not eating kale. They were not counting calories. They were not counting net carbs. They were not even really exercising much. These people were doing everything ‘wrong’ yet, seemingly effortlessly, there was no obesity. Why?
What about the diet of the Chinese in the 1980s? They were eating tons of white rice. On average, over 300 grams per day, compared to a low carb diet of less than 50 grams and all highly refined. Yet they had virtually no obesity. Why?
What about the diet of the Okinawan? Over 80% carbohydrates, and mostly sweet potato, which has some sugar in it. What about the Irish in the 1970s, with their beloved beer and potatoes? They didn’t think twice about what they were eating, but until recently there was almost no obesity. Why?
The answer is simple. When you don’t eat, this is technically known as ‘fasting’. This is the reason there is the English word ‘break fast’ or breakfast, the meal that breaks your fast. During your sleep, you are (presumably) not eating and therefore fasting. This allows time for your body to digest the foods, process the nutrients and burn the rest for energy to power your vital organs and muscles. In order to maintain a stable weight, you must balance feeding and fasting.
During feeding, you store food energy as body fat. During fasting, you burn body fat for energy. If you balance those two, your weight will remain stable. If you are predominantly feeding, you will gain weight. If you are predominantly fasting, you will lose weight. Unfortunately, most nutritional authorities tell you the exact opposite. Instead, it may be better to use intermittent fasting to lose weight.
All very good. I'm impressed. no I'm very very impressed.

In the context of what we are discussing for this thread re the keto diet, i.e high fat low carb versus low fat high carb -
We should compare a calorie of a a refined carbohydrate ingested to a calorie of an MCT oil.
There is an immediate difference as to how that calorie is metabolised. The carb calorie will go to fat stores and the MCT calorie to instant energy.
If you are not exercising this MCT calorie could be expended as heat, i.e. got rid of without you even noticing. This satisfies your law of thermodynamics. So it's not as simple as calories in same as calories out in relation to how it has an effect on the body. The type of calorie you ingest is the key here.

I had a bullet proof coffee at lunchtime, Butter and Coconut Oil blended in coffee maybe around 300 calories or so. That's gone out in burned energy by now. if I had eaten a bowl of rice 300 calories my insulin levels would have gone up and the calories stored as fat. Plus the body feels satiated from the drink but not from the rice which would cause a craving for more carbs.

OK. Notwithstanding you like his law on thermodynamics what about the rest of what he posted. Do you agree with that?
 
Last edited:

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
Location
Kirton, Devon.
In the context of the post

All very good. I'm impressed. no I'm very very impressed.

In the context of what we are discussing for this thread re the keto diet, i.e high fat low carb versus low fat high carb -
We should compare a calorie of a a refined carbohydrate ingested to a calorie of an MCT oil.
There is an immediate difference as to how that calorie is metabolised. The carb calorie will go to fat stores and the MCT calorie to instant energy.
If you are not exercising this MCT calorie could be expended as heat, i.e. got rid of without you even noticing. This satisfies your law of thermodynamics. So it's not as simple as calories in same as calories out in relation to how it has an effect on the body. The type of calorie you ingest is the key here.

OK. Notwithstanding you like his law on thermodynamics what about the rest of what he posted. Do you agree with that?
Please don’t be impressed, I copied and pasted the bit about traditional societies, fasting for weight control etc. onwards....

I have already explained what I thought. His attempt to dismiss the law of thermodynamics is nonsense and the rest about the impact of Insulin I know and understand.

Now, why don’t you explain to me the benefit of MCT?
I reckon as it’s a fat, when it’s if taken- up by the body then it’s either burned which means it’s calories or it’s used to synthesise other molecules such as membranes, hormones etc (which one might argue contributes to mass). As a fat it will have little impact on Insulin response like other fats.

So what’s the deal with MCT?
 
Last edited:

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
Location
Kirton, Devon.
By the way for the record, and if you read what I have written, I am not and have NEVER EVER been a supporter of a high carb diets for exactly the same reason (insulin response) as proffered by Dr Feung. I have believed this since the early 80s when Dr Feung waa probably in nappies!
 
Top Bottom