Keto and Nutritionally Induced Thermogenesis

  1. Keto Jedi / HomeBrew Advocate
    chi_town's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Achieving the Impossible by All Means Necessary
    Posts
    173
    Rep Power
    229

    Cool Keto and Nutritionally Induced Thermogenesis


    Postprandial Thermogenesis is Increased 100% on a High-Protein, Low-Fat Diet Versus a High-Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Diet in Healthy, Young Women
    Reference:
    Johnston, C.S., Day, C.S., Swan, P.D., "Postprandial Thermogenesis is Increased 100% on a High-Protein, Low-Fat Diet Versus a High-Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Diet in Healthy, Young Women," Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2002, 21(1), pages 55-61.

    Summary:

    OBJECTIVE: The recent literature suggests that high-protein, low-fat diets promote a greater degree of weight loss compared to high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets, but the mechanism of this enhanced weight loss is unclear. This study compared the acute, energy-cost of meal-induced thermogenesis on a high-protein, low-fat diet versus a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet.

    METHODS: Ten healthy, normal weight, non-smoking female volunteers aged 19-22 years were recruited from a campus population. Using a randomized, cross-over design, subjects consumed the high-protein and the high-carbohydrate diets for one day each, and testing was separated by a 28- or 56-day interval. Control diets were consumed for two days prior to each test day. On test day, the resting energy expenditure, the non-protein respiratory quotient and body temperature were measured following a 10-hour fast and at 2.5-hour post breakfast, lunch and dinner. Fasting blood samples were collected test day and the next morning, and complete 24-hour urine samples were collected the day of testing.

    RESULTS: Postprandial thermogenesis at 2.5 hours post-meal averaged about twofold higher on the high protein diet versus the high carbohydrate diet, and differences were significant after the breakfast and the dinner meals (p < 0.05). Body temperature was slightly higher on the high protein diet (p = 0.08 after the dinner meal). Changes in the respiratory quotient post-meals did not differ by diet, and there was no difference in 24-hour glomerular filtration rates by diet. Nitrogen balance was significantly greater on the high-protein diet compared to the high-carbohydrate diet (7.6 +/- 0.9 and -0.4 +/- 0.5 gN/day, p < 0.05), and at 24-hour post-intervention, fasting plasma urea nitrogen concentrations were raised on the high protein diet versus the high-carbohydrate diet (13.9 +/- 0.9 and 11.2 +/- 1.0 mg/dL respectively, p < 0.05).

    CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate an added energy-cost associated with high-protein, low-fat diets and may help explain the efficacy of such diets for weight loss.

  2. Registered User
    windwords7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,318
    Rep Power
    1565

    Nice!
  3. Keto Jedi / HomeBrew Advocate
    chi_town's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Achieving the Impossible by All Means Necessary
    Posts
    173
    Rep Power
    229

    Even though this particular study was done on high-protein, low-fat diet versus a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet, I am speculating that the effect would be similar to a KETO or CKD which is actually A High Fat, moderately high protein, severly restricted carb diet. I'm not really sure if the higher fat would make much of a difference..........What do you guys think.....and why?
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    Vageta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    143

    This is an apples to oranges comparison. I thought anyone halfway versed in nutrition basics realized that protein has a higher thermic effect than both fat and carbs. Therefore a diet with high protein with the same caloric intake of a diet with low protein intake fact. I don't know anyone who would dispute this 6th grade level science question.

    What they should have done was went the next step and kept protein high in both diets, but did a low fat/high carb versus a high fat/low carb scenario and then tested thermic effect. Since both fat and carbs have about the same thermic effect it'd be nice to see how the protein's thermic properties affected fat loss on both types of diets.
  5. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Southwest Florida
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Rep Power
    7016

    Samaha, F.F., Iqbal, N., Seshadri, P., et al., "A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared With a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity," The New England Journal of Medicine, 348(21), 2003, pages 2074-2081.

    Background - The effects of a carbohydrate-restricted diet on weight loss and risk factors for atherosclerosis have been incompletely assessed.

    Methods - We randomly assigned 132 severely obese subjects (including 77 blacks and 23 women) with a mean body-mass index of 43 and a high prevalence of diabetes (39 percent) or the metabolic syndrome (43 percent) to a carbohydrate-restricted (low-carbohydrate) diet or a calorie- and fat-restricted (low-fat) diet.

    Results - Seventy-nine subjects completed the six-month study. An analysis including all subjects, with the last observation carried forward for those who dropped out, showed that subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet (mean [±SD], –5.8±8.6 kg vs. –1.9±4.2 kg; P=0.002) and had greater decreases in triglyceride levels (mean, –20±43 percent vs. –4±31 percent; P=0.001), irrespective of the use or nonuse of hypoglycemic or lipid-lowering medications. Insulin sensitivity, measured only in subjects without diabetes, also improved more among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet (6±9 percent vs. –3±8 percent, P=0.01). The amount of weight lost (P<0.001) and assignment to the low-carbohydrate diet (P=0.01) were independent predictors of improvement in triglyceride levels and insulin sensitivity.

    Brehm, B.J., Seeley, R.J., Daniels, S.R., et al., "A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women," The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 88(4), 2003, pages 1617-1623.

    Untested alternative weight loss diets, such as very low carbohydrate diets, have unsubstantiated efficacy and the potential to adversely affect cardiovascular risk factors. Therefore, we designed a randomized, controlled trial to determine the effects of a very low carbohydrate diet on body composition and cardiovascular risk factors. Subjects were randomized to 6 months of either an ad libitum very low carbohydrate diet or a calorie-restricted diet with 30% of the calories as fat. Anthropometric and metabolic measures were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Fifty-three healthy, obese female volunteers (mean body mass index, 33.6 +/- 0.3 kg/m(2)) were randomized; 42 (79%) completed the trial. Women on both diets reduced calorie consumption by comparable amounts at 3 and 6 months. The very low carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 1.0 kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 +/- 0.67 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.75 kg; P < 0.01) than the low fat diet group. Mean levels of blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and insulin were within normal ranges in both groups at baseline. Although all of these parameters improved over the course of the study, there were no differences observed between the two diet groups at 3 or 6 months. beta- Hydroxybutyrate increased significantly in the very low carbohydrate group at 3 months (P = 0.001). Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.

    Its close.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  6. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Southwest Florida
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Rep Power
    7016

    Effects of a Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diet

    Program Compared With a Low-Fat, Low-

    Cholesterol, Reduced-Calorie Diet (NASSO

    Young Investigator Award Finalist)

    W. S. Yancy Jr., R. Bakst, W. Bryson, K. F. Tomlin,

    C. E. Perkins, E. C. Westman, Duke University

    Medical Center, Durham, NC

    The Effect of a High Protein Weight Loss Diet

    in Overweight Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes

    P. Clifton, M. Noakes, CSIRO, Adelaide, Australia;

    B. Parker, Department of Medicine, Adelaide

    University, Adelaide, Australia

    The Effect of Protein Intake on Bone

    Mineralisation: A Randomised Controlled 6-

    months Trial in Overweight Subjects

    A. Astrup, A. R. Skov, N. Haulrik, S. Toubro, C.

    Mølgaard, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural

    University, Frederiksberg C., Denmark

    Low Carbohydrate Diet Reduces BMI and

    Fasting Insulin Level in Obese Children

    D. Preud'homme, A. Stolfi, Wright State University

    SOM and Children's Medical Center, Dayton, OH;

    T. Taylor, Children's Medical Center, Dayton, OH

    L. Zarzaur, C. D. Johnson, University of Tennessee,

    Memphis, TN; G. Sacks, K. A. Kudsk, University of

    Wisconsin, Madison, WI

    These represent randomized controlled trial comparing the Atkins Diet with a conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate plan that restricted daily caloric intake to 1200-1500 kcal for women and 1500-1800 kcal for men.[10] The study included 63 obese (BMI 33.8 ± 3.4 kg/m2 ) males and females who were randomized to 1 of the 2 diets. Subjects received an initial session with a dietitian to explain the assigned diet program. At 12 weeks, the researchers found that the Atkins group had a lower rate of attrition (12%) compared with that of the conventional program (30%). In addition, subjects in the Atkins group lost significantly more weight (8.5 ± 3.7%) compared with the conventional group (3.7 ± 4.0%). In terms of serum lipids, the Atkins group demonstrated slight increases in total cholesterol (TC; 2.2 ± 16.6%) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (6.6 ± 20.7%), whereas the conventional group showed significant decreases in these measures (TC -8.2 ± 11.5%; LDL -11.1 ± 19.4%). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol significantly increased in the Atkins group (11.5 ± 20.6%) but did not change in the conventional group, whereas triglycerides showed a significant decrease for the Atkins group (-21.7 ± 27.9%) and no change in the conventional group. At 26 weeks, these changes persisted in both groups even though the sample size was smaller. The researchers concluded that the Atkins Diet produced favorable effects on weight, HDL, triglycerides, and retention compared with a conventional low-fat, low-calorie program, whereas the conventional plan was associated with more favorable effects on TC and LDL cholesterol.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  7. Registered User
    Vageta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    143

    I'm aware of these studies actually, was thinking more along the lines of the same type of study as the original where protein was the main player. The other studies listed don't say how much protein was ingested along with the high fat and high carb diets. My guess would be if protein was increased to as much as 50% then the differences in weight loss would be less dramatic(assuming lower GI carbs were the focus). If protein is somewhat low then it's no surprise that the low carb, atkins style diet would have the advantage.

    Then again there are so many other variables as to the type and timing of carb intake that it would be hard to conduct a legitimate study.
  8. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Southwest Florida
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Rep Power
    7016

    Then deduce from the available data present.

    So am I to assume you think a 40/40/20 split or slight variation will be as effective as a keto typ diet? (ckd, tkd, etc..) If so, explain why.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  9. Registered User
    Vageta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    143

    Actually I personally like to go more on the lines of 50/25/25, staying away from both extremes. I believe there are some definite advantages with reduced carb intake, that much is obvious. I do think however that 75-150g of carbs is still "low", even though it's not necessarily ketogenic. If you take half of those carbs directly post workout, and the rest in the morning or even as a 2nd post workout meal then you will gain some of the benefits of a keto style diet (insulin control most importantly) while not having to be in ketosis and craving carbs all the time.

    I do however think carb choice is just as important as amount. I wouldn't suggest my above plan would be as great if you were eating higher GI carbs, or worse highly processed foods. If you had some oatmeal for breakfast with even perhaps a small amount of brown rice for lunch, then followed your workout with dextrose or other high GI carb(or even low GI if you were so inclined) then you'd get just as good of results than if you did a straight CKD.

    This opinion is from personal experience as well though. I lost plenty of fat on a CKD but seem to lose just as much with diets similar to what I've listed above and more importantly I just feel better in general.

    I think the general public could make a huge improvement in their poor health and bodyfat levels just by "reducing" carbohydrate intake, not necessarily dropping them altogether. There a huge difference between a high carb diet vs a ketogenic diet. I see no need to choose either one when there is plenty of grey area in between.
  10. I am faster than 80% of all snakes
    Dwight Schrute's Avatar
    Stats
    6'1"  221 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Southwest Florida
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,913
    Rep Power
    7016

    True but you know you don't count your post workout carbs in your daily carb count. So in essence your closer to a CKD that you think. That and the fact you can eat plenty of fibrous veggies without effectiving ketosis. You actually are probably in a form of ketosis, granted not heavy, throughout the majority of the day. I actually consume carbs pre and post workout and still stay in ketosis. I don't have a problem with your type of plan at all. There are so many forms of keto diets that have different ratios and they all seem to work well. It is all about insulin control.
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...et/twitter.png http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...t/facebook.png

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  11. Keto Jedi / HomeBrew Advocate
    chi_town's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Achieving the Impossible by All Means Necessary
    Posts
    173
    Rep Power
    229

    Originally posted by Bobo
    There are so many forms of keto diets that have different ratios and they all seem to work well. It is all about insulin control.


    That's for sure.

    The advances in nutrition now and in the future will heavily weighted by controlling our hormonal responses through our nutrition.
  12. Keto Jedi / HomeBrew Advocate
    chi_town's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Achieving the Impossible by All Means Necessary
    Posts
    173
    Rep Power
    229

    Originally posted by Vageta
    Actually I personally like to go more on the lines of 50/25/25, staying away from both extremes. I believe there are some definite advantages with reduced carb intake, that much is obvious. I do think however that 75-150g of carbs is still &quot;low&quot;, even though it's not necessarily ketogenic. If you take half of those carbs directly post workout, and the rest in the morning or even as a 2nd post workout meal then you will gain some of the benefits of a keto style diet (insulin control most importantly) while not having to be in ketosis and craving carbs all the time.

    I do however think carb choice is just as important as amount. I wouldn't suggest my above plan would be as great if you were eating higher GI carbs, or worse highly processed foods. If you had some oatmeal for breakfast with even perhaps a small amount of brown rice for lunch, then followed your workout with dextrose or other high GI carb(or even low GI if you were so inclined) then you'd get just as good of results than if you did a straight CKD.

    This opinion is from personal experience as well though. I lost plenty of fat on a CKD but seem to lose just as much with diets similar to what I've listed above and more importantly I just feel better in general.

    I think the general public could make a huge improvement in their poor health and bodyfat levels just by &quot;reducing&quot; carbohydrate intake, not necessarily dropping them altogether. There a huge difference between a high carb diet vs a ketogenic diet. I see no need to choose either one when there is plenty of grey area in between.

    As bobo said......you may be closer to a CKD than you think.

    I personally have cut many times using a carb restriced diet, that is just above ketonic levels. Depending on my current activities (time of year, training program, mental state) I too have found that just above keto levels that I FEEL BETTER.

    You don't have to be ketonic to cut or lose fat that's for sure.
    When I'm out to cut at a faster rate......fully ketonic works best for me. But many other times I do practice a cutting diet that is 30-50 grams over ketosis levels for me. Especially if I'm trying to maintain a certain type of training style or volume at the given time.

    I'm aware of these studies actually, was thinking more along the lines of the same type of study as the original where protein was the main player. The other studies listed don't say how much protein was ingested along with the high fat and high carb diets. My guess would be if protein was increased to as much as 50% then the differences in weight loss would be less dramatic(assuming lower GI carbs were the focus). If protein is somewhat low then it's no surprise that the low carb, atkins style diet would have the advantage.
    Yeah, to bad they don't poll guys like us before they decide exactly how they are going to preform these studies ...LOL

    Actually if you go 50P/25F/25C you are making protein your main source of fuel. I would only advocate this for cutting to the most experienced and deciplined, as I feel to many people would not have the decipline (and/or lifestyle) to pull this off without it being somewhat detrimental. But I do know for the truely hardcore and deciplined....this has worked.
    At 25% fat though.....the amount of protein conversion would be higher than on a true High Fat keto diet.

    Great points guys.......it's been fun.

    PEACE
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Proper Hydration and Exercise-Induced GH response.
    By chi_town in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-06-2007, 06:57 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-26-2006, 03:26 PM
  3. starvation and stressed induced hypothyroidism
    By hardasnails1973 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-06-2004, 09:27 AM
  4. 7-Keto and Tea Extract
    By muscle_tank in forum Supplements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-23-2003, 04:49 PM
  5. BBing, Work and nutrition.
    By DoctorX2k2 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-03-2003, 09:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in