Hi everyone, new here. Weight loss question

41

This isn’t accurate at all. Any of the macronutrients are able to cause you to gain fat. Consuming excess carbohydrate still leads to this. Some carbohydrate is stored as glycogen in the muscles and liver, but excess is stored as fat. In fact, baring in mind that carbohydrates cause insulin levels to spike, and high insulin levels make it a lot more difficult for you to burn fat, consuming a lot of carbs when trying to lose weight is actively harmful.

Second (and in relation to one of your previous posts), fat isn’t stored directly in your body as fat - that doesn’t make any sense, as if it were the case, how would you be gaining any energy from it? Whenever you consume something, to obtain energy from it, it has to be broken down. That breakdown is what releases the energy (I can go into more details here but it’s unnecessary and pretty boring). When you consume fats, they are most often in the form of a triglyceride. Triglycerides are, in short, a glycerol molecule with three fatty acids attached. In the digestion process, these fatty acids (usually two of them) are removed from the glycerol molecule, leaving the isolated fatty acids and a monoglyceride. Those pass to the small intestine, where the triglyceride is reformed in an intestinal cell, and combined with cholesterol and various fat-soluble vitamins - this complex then goes into the bloodstream and travels to various tissues around the body. The triglycerides that go to your muscle, liver or fat tissue are then once again broken down into the free fatty acids and glycerol, and the free fatty acids are able to enter the cells and be burned there for energy, and the glycerol molecule is recycled in the liver and kidneys and reused for triglyceride formation. The fatty acids from excess fat are able to incorporate into fat tissue for future storage.

Fat storage from carbs is somewhat similar. When you consume carbs, glucose (which is essentially what all carbs are composed of in simple terms), which is a six-carbon molecule, is broken down into two three-carbon molecules, called pyruvate, which in turn is turned into acetyl CoA. When you need energy, that acetyl CoA is broken down into ATP and used, which is a quick process (and why carbs provide quick energy generally). Excess carbs lead to excess acetyl CoA which then undergoes lipogenesis (see here: Lipogenesis - Wikipedia), which creates fatty acids. These are then incorporated into fat tissue on our bodies the same way the excess fatty acids from ingested fat are. Proteins are similar, with excess protein being converted into glucose via gluconeogenesis, but you need quite an excess for that.

Tl;dr: The fat you consume does not just stay in that form and incorporate itself into your fat reserves. It is broken down and reassembled many times first. Carbs are also broken down into the same components that add to your body fat reserves.

3 Likes
42

This isn’t accurate at all.

Well, it’s completely accurate actually.

Any of the macronutrients are able to cause you to gain fat.

Yes in theory, but in practice it’s fat that makes you fat.

Some carbohydrate is stored as glycogen in the muscles and liver, but excess is stored as fat.

As I’ve already said, excess carbs are largely burned off as heat. Conversion from carbs to fat would produce toxic waste and would also burn some calories, and the body doesn’t like to do it.

Second (and in relation to one of your previous posts), fat isn’t stored directly in your body as fat - that doesn’t make any sense, as if it were the case, how would you be gaining any energy from it?

You won’t derive energy from fat, it’ll just make you fatter. It’s not that hard to understand, isn’t it? You do have to force yourself to do plenty of endurance exercise to force the body to mobilize this crappy fuel.

Whenever you consume something, to obtain energy from it, it has to be broken down. That breakdown is what releases the energy (I can go into more details here but it’s unnecessary and pretty boring). When you consume fats, they are most often in the form of a triglyceride. Triglycerides are, in short, a glycerol molecule with three fatty acids attached. In the digestion process, these fatty acids (usually two of them) are removed from the glycerol molecule, leaving the isolated fatty acids and a monoglyceride. Those pass to the small intestine, where the triglyceride is reformed in an intestinal cell, and combined with cholesterol and various fat-soluble vitamins - this complex then goes into the bloodstream and travels to various tissues around the body. The triglycerides that go to your muscle, liver or fat tissue are then once again broken down into the free fatty acids and glycerol, and the free fatty acids are able to enter the cells and be burned there for energy, and the glycerol molecule is recycled in the liver and kidneys and reused for triglyceride formation. The fatty acids from excess fat are able to incorporate into fat tissue for future storage.

This is a naive attempt to prove that you know what you’re talking about, but actually, you don’t.

Fat storage from carbs is somewhat similar.

It’s similar AFTER they’ve been converted to fat, which in practice WONT happen, as already explained.

When you consume carbs, glucose (which is essentially what all carbs are composed of in simple terms), which is a six-carbon molecule, is broken down into two three-carbon molecules, called pyruvate, which in turn is turned into acetyl CoA. When you need energy, that acetyl CoA is broken down into ATP and used, which is a quick process (and why carbs provide quick energy generally). Excess carbs lead to excess acetyl CoA which then undergoes lipogenesis (see here: Lipogenesis - Wikipedia), which creates fatty acids. These are then incorporated into fat tissue on our bodies the same way the excess fatty acids from ingested fat are.

Another attempt at proving that you know what you’re talking about. You don’t.

Proteins are similar, with excess protein being converted into glucose via gluconeogenesis, but you need quite an excess for that.

Conversion from protein to glucose is not unlikely but not all protein gets converted. This conversion will also burn some calories naturally, and it’ll also produce some toxic byproduct.

In summary, eating more protein than recommended can be ok for fat loss but it’s not really healthy for the long term. Vegetable proteins are much more healthy than animal proteins.

Tl;dr: Anyone who recommends eating fat for losing body fat is either incompetent or evil. Beware.

43

This is a good summary: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/gluten/

Some people have celiac diseae. They’re really gluten intolerant and this can be tested and diagnosed properly. For everyone else, they may have some “sensitivity” to the foods that typically come with gluten, but probably it’s not really about gluten. But vast majority of people with self-diagnosed gluten or grain intolerance are simply delusional and they have been influenced by low carb bullshit from cranks like Loren Cordain.

I was joking but only in part. If your parents had any kind of intolerance or allergy to grain, they would be at great disadvantage in the past. There was nothing else to eat for common people.

44

Shouting won’t help you. The text preceding the above explained nothing. You confuse making assertions with explanation. You confuse lots of things. Your words demonstrate such lack of critical thinking I doubt you have anything to contribute to a rational discussion.

BTW Tim, this is me being polite.

1 Like
45

The best explanation possible for people without proper biochemistry and medical knowledge is exactly what I’ve said: conversion of carbs to fat would burn calories and would produce toxic byproducts. The human body will not do this conversion in any significant amount under normal circumstances. It’s that simple.

EDIT: And the corollary is also simple: If you want lose weight, eat a healthy plant-based low fat diet.

46

And this is an amazing projection. You have no critical thinking and you’re incapable of having a rational discussion, and you do think everyone else is as bad as you. Sorry, that’s not the case.

47

Seriously? That’s your response? I post using my real name. Anyone with the inclination can check my capability in that respect. Bye.

1 Like
48

:thinking:
User, I’d like to know where you were taught about biology, and why your ideas about digestion are so different to what is widely taught. You haven’t really attempted to explain the mechanisms for what you are claiming, you’ve just told people they are wrong and don’t know what they’re talking about.

In response to the coeliac thing, I can’t help myself:
Yes, for a long period the majority ate grains, and in certain areas the predominant grain of choice was a form of wheat, barley or rye. But at the same time there were huge areas with human populations who hadn’t ever eaten those grains. Rice was the grain of choice in much of Asia, and although the Americas had corn, their diets were more varied due to the milpa method of farming- growing multiple crops in the same field. There were also many nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes around the world who would not have relied on grain farming. Thus, your premise of ‘coeliacs would have starved’ is rather narrow minded.

49

Klaire, I’ve looked up the facts for myself. I invite you to trust yourself over “experts”, including me. Ironically, I agree with Michal when he says you should trust more the people that put their real name.

What I’m saying is based on this (and similar studies): http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/6/707.full

Because storage of energy as lipid is much more efficient than storage as carbohydrate, the presumption has been that animals use de novo lipogenesis as a metabolic safety valve for storage of carbohydrate energy present in excess of carbohydrate oxidative needs (ie, carbohydrate energy surplus). On the basis of this presumed role, inhibitors of de novo lipogenesis [such as (–)hydroxycitrate, an inhibitor of ATP citrate (pro-S)-lyase] have received attention as potential therapeutic agents for obesity and hyperlipidemia.

Most experimental data in humans, however, contradict this view of the function of de novo lipogenesis. Initial studies in which indirect calorimetry was used showed little or no net de novo lipogenesis after short-term carbohydrate overfeeding (1). Subsequent isotopic studies confirmed the absence of quantitatively significant flux through hepatic de novo lipogenesis under most conditions of carbohydrate energy surplus (2,3).

Some experimental evidence for a potential role of adipose de novo lipogenesis has emerged. Aarsland et al (6) administered glucose to human subjects at rates greatly above TEE. After 4–7 d of overfeeding, hepatic de novo lipogenesis (measured isotopically) was stimulated 10-fold above baseline values but remained <3% of whole-body net de novo lipogenesis according to indirect calorimetry. These authors concluded that adipose de novo lipogenesis must be occurring. Using very-long-term labeling protocols with 2H2O, we recently observed considerably more de novo lipogenesis in adipose tissue than in liver in rodents (S Turner, E Murphy, MK Hellerstein, unpublished observations, 2001). Studies in which adipose lipids of humans consuming euenergetic diets were labeled with 2H2O have not shown high rates of de novo lipogenesis (7; F Antelo, A Strawford, MK Hellerstein, unpublished observations, 2001), but these techniques have not yet been used under conditions of carbohydrate overfeeding. This is an area that needs further investigation.

Just read it all, then look up the terms that you don’t know on wikipedia. If wikipedia isn’t clear enough, then you have to read more articles. It’s hard work. If you’ve questions you can ask and I’ll try to help.

But this is just one study. The problem is that you should base your judgement on as much evidence as possible. That’s why it’s so easy for low carb pseudoscience to ruin the health of common people. Because common people have no time to explore nutrition science in every direction and from every angle. Anyway, NutritionFacts.org is an extremely good website for this purpose. It’ll help you see who is lying to you.

50

About the celiac disease, if you’ve asian genetics, then ok, you may have a point. Or if you’ve the genetics of population living in north europe. But otherwise, the point still apply. Having said this, it’s true that there are some people with celiac disease. They exist, and the problem is known and can be diagnosed. I think there are also some theories on where and when the mutation that give rise to celiac disease happened.

My point is, if you think you’ve that, get a real diagnosis. In absence of a real diagnosis of that, it’s reasonable to assume that the problem is psychological/sociological. You can administer a blind test to yourself and verify for yourself if your problem is purely psychological/sociological or not. You already know my opinion.

51

I’d like to know where you were taught about biology, and why your ideas about digestion are so different to what is widely taught.

This topic isn’t called digestion but metabolism. My ideas on metabolism are based on balance of evidence and scientific consensus among people who know what they’re speaking about and have no conflict of interest.

The low carb ideas are based on misleading studies (and you can verify for yourself that they’re misleading by reading the articles) and the only people that promote them are cranks and quaks (and you can verify that they’re cranks and quaks by reading their biographies). All you have to do is to open your eyes.

Oh, and if you want to talk about digestion, it’s entirely a different topic but the conclusion are exactly the same. Eat more plants and more carbohydrates, and eat less fat. You can read more on this on NutritionFacts. In summary, the more whole plants you eat, the more calories will be consumed in your digestive system.

EDIT: There is a whole website dedicated to low carb cranks and quaks: http://plantpositive.com/. Listen to a few lectures here so you see who you’re dealing with and what are their arguments and methods.

52

Here is another study, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2003.150/pdf

The data collected provide a clear picture of the effects of
carbohydrate overfeeding on the disposal of a large oral
glucose load. Under standard isocaloric conditions, 42% of
the ingested glucose was oxidized over the 5-hour postingestive
period. The remaining 58% was essentially stored as
glycogen (54%), with very little net de novo lipogenesis
(4% of the glucose load). There is no indication as to where
such de novo lipogenesis occurred. It is likely that part of it
took place in the liver because it has been reported that
fractional hepatic de novo lipogenesis represents 1–5% of
very-low-density lipoprotein-fatty acids turnover under
such conditions (16). Because indirect calorimetry measures
only net de novo lipogenesis (i.e., fat synthesis in excess of
fat oxidation), it is quite possible that this figure somewhat
underestimates absolute de novo lipogenesis. Isotopic measurements
of hepatic de novo lipogenesis in humans after
carbohydrate administration, however, confirm that the absolute
amount of fat synthesized is small under such conditions
(17).

You can find as many as you want. The result is always the same. Vast majority of the fat in your body comes from the fat you’ve eaten. The conversion of carbs to fat is unlikely to happen in large amounts (as shown by all experiments with carbs overfeeding) and, moreover, when it happens it’ll burn plenty of calories.

53

A great summary of what is known (written in 2011):

http://www.clinicalnutritionespen.com/article/S1751-4991(11)00006-0/pdf

I’ll quote the relevant passage here:

Nevertheless, dietary CHO does not generally increase an individual’s
fat storage by de novo lipogenesis, even after ingestion of
CHO-rich diet for 3 days,38 and fat deposited in the adipose tissue
comes mainly from ingested lipids. Only after 7 days CHO overfeeding,
body glycogen stores increase by w500 g, and appreciable
de novo lipogenesis begins.38 After 7 days on high-CHO low-fat diet
(CHO 77%, lipid 5%, and protein 18% kcal), about 50% of the CHO
intake (w500 g) is oxidized and the remaining 50% is used for de
novo lipogenesis.39 Nevertheless, such large amounts of CHO are
usually not spontaneously eaten, because such bulky food with its
great satiating effect reduces desire for overconsumption and limits
the energy intake. Thus, the human body can easily accommodate
the daily ingestion of relatively large amounts of CHO without
having a need to convert CHO to fat.

In contrast to the high CHO diet that stimulates CHO oxidation,
high-fat diet does not stimulate fat oxidation. A supplement of 50 g
margarine (containing 40 g fat) to a breakfast providing 75 g CHO
and 20 g protein fails to promote the use of fat as a metabolic fuel.40
Fat utilization does not appear to be regulated acutely, and fat
added to a relatively normal meal is largely stored.

Although fat is one of the main fuels of the body in the post
absorptive state, there is a rapid shift to CHO when feeding begins,
regardless of the fat content of the food consumed.41 This can be
explained by the fact that several organs and tissues, for example
the brain, have an obligatory requirement for glucose. Trembley
et al.42 believe that the occurrence of satiety coincides with a level
of CHO intake that is sufficient to satisfy the expected body CHO
needs. They suggest that, as long as the CHO requirements are not
met, food intake increases.42 In the case of low-CHO, high-fat diet,
this can cause hyperphagia and induce a long term increase in
adiposity, as reflected by higher levels of body fatness in high-fat
consumers.43

Again, read whole article for yourself. It’s a good summary.

EDIT: I repeat, just open your eyes. The people who eat primarily rice, wheat, beans are on average very lean. The people that eat meat and cheese and olive oil are fat. This is true always and everywhere.

54

I’ve been busy and had problems logging in since this post but I’ve been meaning to come back to this.

Aside from this being a kind of irrelevant tangent to the thread in question that we’ve both gone on, we’ll assume for now that this is true - it’s still not relevant. OP is asking about weight loss (more specifically fat loss). Whilst weight gain on a typical diet (with both fat and carbs) may come primarily from the fat and only a limited amount from de novo lipogenesis, the relevant part of the thread, when it comes to weight loss, already assumes operating at a calorific deficit. Due to thermodynamics, you can’t gain weight whilst maintaining a calorific deficit (with some stupid exceptions like becoming more hydrated, subjecting yourself to a greater gravitational pull etc). To be clear here, I’m not saying your arguments are right with typical diets, but I’m basing my responses around them being so to demonstrate why you’re wrong.

So, we’re agreed that you can not gain weight whilst on a calorific deficit, correct? And we also agree that OP is concerned with weight/fat loss as opposed to simply avoiding weight gain for now, yes? Then as I said, all this talk of what makes you fat isn’t relevant here - I’m just as guilty as going off-topic here, but I feel we should claw our way back to the topic at hand.

Demonstrably untrue. If you’d like to research, look into 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP). It’s a very dangerous weight loss drug that essentially inhibits the ability for the mitochondria in our cells to produce energy from ATP as efficiently as normal. When it comes to high-carb intakes whilst on DNP which would normally cause a very limited temperature rise (if any at all), it hugely increases body temperature to often dangerous levels. This fact alone shows when excess carbs are consumed, most must be used as energy and not released as heat, as otherwise, like is the case with DNP, excess carb consumption would lead to hyperthermia, which doesn’t happen.

And this is where your argument goes a bit weird. If we don’t derive energy from fat, presumably if someone were to only consume protein for muscle maintenance and fat, even if at a calorific deficit they must gain weight. Again, this is demonstrably untrue because a lot of people have success with a ketogenic diet. What you’re trying to get at, I believe, is that assuming the presence of a high volume of carbs in the diet, then fat won’t be used for energy - that’s true to an extent - the carbs get burnt for energy first as it is more efficient. However, if you’re operating at a calorific deficit, you won’t gain fat. If you aren’t getting enough carbs to meet energy needs, the fat is used instead. Again, this is extremely basic and I outlined the mechanisms for the process in my earlier post.

I provide you with mechanisms displaying your flawed argument, you respond with, essentially, “you don’t know what you’re talking about so I don’t need to provide evidence to the contrary”. One of us comes out of this looking far more like we know what we’re talking about.

Depends what you mean by recommended. And vegetable proteins being healthier is debatable - they’re certainly less complete and less digestible than animal proteins, but assuming balance they are likely healthier.

This is the first time your post actually mentions fat loss so now we can go into more mechanisms that explains why ketosis can be beneficial, both for fat loss and generally. First, generally:

Insulin is released in response to carb intake. As per this scientific paper:

“Insulin is probably the most important hormonal factor influencing lipogenesis. By increasing the uptake of glucose in the adipose cell via recruitment of glucose transporters to the plasma membrane, as well as activating lipogenic and glycolytic enzymes via covalent modification, insulin potently stimulates lipogenesis”

So in short, insulin is released in response to intake of carbs, and also potently stimulates lipogenesis (the metabolic formation of fat). Yes, this fat won’t be stored very much if dietary fat intake is zero, but likewise, a great deal of this fat won’t be stored if dietary carb intake is zero. Higher GI carbs raise insulin levels to higher peaks, so a diet high in both sugar (or other high-GI carbs) and fat would in theory increase bodily fat stores by the greatest amount, and for preventing fat gain, the most important thing is to avoid both of these together.

Onto how ketogenic diets can help with fat loss:

I don’t generally reference Wikipedia but as you have done to someone else below, I have no issue with doing so here. Relevant article is here, relevant quote is:

“Circulating insulin also affects the synthesis of proteins in a wide variety of tissues. It is therefore an anabolic hormone, promoting the conversion of small molecules in the blood into large molecules inside the cells. Low insulin levels in the blood have the opposite effect by promoting widespread catabolism, especially of reserve body fat.”

Wait, what’s that? Low insulin levels promote widespread catabolism (aka breakdown) of reserve body fat? Well that suggests that a good strategy for losing body fat would be to lower your circulating insulin levels… but wait… if carb consumption promotes insulin release and low insulin levels promote widespread fat reserve breakdown, then carb consumption is actively hindering the breakdown of bodily fat due to its anabolic, protective effect on fat stores.

So again, via mechanisms I’ve provided for you, it can be seen your understanding is flawed. For weight gain, fat alone won’t do it any more than the same calorific intake of other macronutrients (protein slightly different due to energy requirements for storing it) unless in combination of carbs, DNP proves most excess carb energy isn’t lost as heat, it is the combination of fat and high-GI carbs that is most likely to increase bodily fat stores, and insulin, which is released following carbohydrate consumption, actively hinders the burning of bodily fat.

And finally, this quote from this paper is important:

“In conclusion, we found that a high carbohydrate intake was associated with an adverse impact on total mortality, whereas fats including saturated and unsaturated fatty acids were associated with lower risk of total mortality and stroke. We did not observe any detrimental effect of fat intakes on cardiovascular disease events.”

Stop demonising a dietary choice many thousands, possibly millions, of people have made and had success with because you haven’t done your research properly.

2 Likes
55

unless you have a medical condition losing fat isnt hard. Its just about getting the balance right. You dont need to go keto or any of that rubbish. Restricting yourself in a food group isnt sustainable. We are meant to eat carbs, fats and proteins and hormones work a lot better when we eat a balanced diet. Restricting a food group will FAIL in the end. Just watch your simple carbs intake and when you eat make sure you eat all the food groups to slow down glucose release which wont spike blood sugar as much.

Go to a TDEE calculator and put in your details. Eat around 500/750 cals a day less. The calculators are a guess on your calorific needs, the number isnt set in stone. use them as a guide.

Do HIIT exercises 3 times a week for 20-30 minutes. HIIT is by far the best way to burn body fat. Going for a walk or even a steady state cardio are not as effective. Plus a short HIIT session you are done and can get on with other things. Slogging yourself for hours at the gym is pointless.

Do resistance training by lifting heavy things or get resistance bands a few times a week to increase muscle mass which will increase metabolism and combat the lesser calories you need to consume.

Simple.

56

The method that works for some won’t work for others. The best diet for weight loss is the one you can stick with - for some that is keto. Restricting a food group doesn’t necessarily fail if you are happy with the diet you are on and are getting your required micronutrients and enough calories to not drastically alter your metabolism.

The reason for my response above was to correct harmful misinformation from the poster above - whilst I do advocate the ketogenic diet for some, I’m fully aware that for others it isn’t right.

2 Likes
57

I’m not impressed by your arguments. I will not even reply to them. Well, the insulin part is the 2nd worst part of your post. The worst part is the claim that there are some ketogenic diet success stories. Not really. There is not such thing. Human biochemistry prevents that. Anyway, if you’ve questions, I will try to reply.

EDIT: Caloric deficit depends on your caloric expenditure. Caloric expenditure depends on what you eat. If you eat carbs you burn around 200kcal more a day. And no, you will not get overheated. You’ll just get healthy.

EDIT: Dehydration and loss of muscle mass and bone density are not “stupid exceptions”. They’re the norm when you follow an insane low carb diet. High protein can lead to weight gain due to increase in muscle mass and organ size, but I don’t consider them healthy. I think high protein at least has a rational purpose.

58

Then I consider you to have no counter to them so it would seem you’re conceding on these points. Excellent, we’re getting somewhere.

What part about insulin? Are you denying that insulin is an anabolic hormone and that low levels are catabolic to body fat? Well, if you’re denying that based on the Wikipedia source we must also disregard every claim you’ve made that has been sourced by Wikipedia. Would you like me to provide an alternative source to this statement? They’re all about so it won’t take me very long to do so.

Is everyone here just a shill then? Human biochemistry is extremely complicated, and it seems you don’t have much of a grasp of it beyond a few mechanisms you’ve latched onto that aren’t representative of the full picture.

Citation needed, and where does that energy go then? If it’s released as heat, your body temperature must rise. As I previously mentioned, the effect of this is seen when DNP is used, and it leads to hyperthermia and death. As people aren’t dying when consuming high-carb diets, it can’t all be being released as heat.

You clearly know what I meant when I said stupid exceptions, because I was referencing gaining weight on a caloric deficit. As such, it’s pretty clear that when I say “stupid exceptions” I’m talking about things that aren’t relevant to the typical person seeking to lose weight, such as being more hydrated (as is actually the case if you do a ketogenic diet properly), or being subjected to a different gravitational pull which will make your weight appear different. No idea where you got bone density from but fair enough. When a low-carb diet is done properly, muscle mass doesn’t drop, and can in fact easily be gained. High protein will only lead to weight gain when there is also a caloric excess, though it can lead to muscle mass gain without weight gain when there is no caloric excess.

Again, I request that you back up any of what you say that is counter to my points with scientific articles (as I have done for my points that go against yours), and stop trying to act like you’re in a superior position to me, with quotes like “I’m not impressed by your arguments”. Frankly, I don’t care whether or not you’re impressed with my arguments or not, I’m simply responding to your easily disproven arguments.

EDIT: Let’s throw in some studies reporting beneficial effects from a ketogenic diet:

1 Like
59

I just have no incentive or motivation to reply and provide citations and so on. You should pay me (100€/hour) if you want to know the details. Or you can use google and spend months researching these issues and verify (or disprove) my claims. Your choice. I’m only warning the potential victim(s) of your bad dietary advice.

EDIT: Let’s comment on the 3 studies you cite as “success stories”:

1st study: 24 weeks long, no control group
2nd study: 10 or 15 weeks long, reduction in performance observed
3rd study: It’s only a theoretical discussion, they conclude with: “The duration of ketogenic diet may range from a minimum (to induce the physiological ketosis) of 2–3 weeks to a maximum (following a general precautionary principle) of many months (6–12 months).”

You think “long term” in the title of a paper is enough to argue that this insane diet is safe for “long term”?

2nd EDIT: Let’s entrust our health to reddit anonymous comments. What could go wrong! :slight_smile:

60

Your arguments are so stupid that it’s a joke to reply.

Example:

You’re arguing that carb can’t boost metabolism because DNP causes Hyperthermia!

You’re arguing that I’m arguing that low levels of insulin aren’t catabolic of body fat.

Etc etc… I don’t even bother sorry…

P.S: I hope that you follow your own dietary advice. You’ll reap what you’ve sowed.