Question: weight loss and Fruit consumption in day

[aleCcowaN]

Those two people may be the same height and weight, but I assure you - they aren't the same build.

For the sake of the argument, let's suppose they are of a very similar build.

ETA: and gender
ETA2: and age

 

[Segnosaur]

One of the things they were told by their relative is not to eat fruit before 4pm in the afternoon. That kind of set off some skeptic alarm bells.

No reason for those bells.

If the diet is not one with and exact diet plan but general recommendations, this limitation serves the purpose of reducing the options in the menu for breakfast and lunch, and as self-deception to avoid taking the mid-afternoon tea earlier (if you way until 16:00, you can eat fruit!!).

But fruits were the only food she was told to avoid before 4. If you are going to ingest something in the morning/afternoon to provide calories/prevent hunger, and you were going to limit something, it would have been better to avoid something like carbs rather than fruit.

Fruits are healthy and relatively low in calories, but vegetables are much healthier and they have less calories than fruit.

They weren't told to substitute vegetables for fruit, only to avoid fruit.

I actually talked to a dietician yesterday about something totally unrelated, but I did ask her about the whole 'fruit before 4pm' thing. She seemed perplexed that someone would actually suggest that, and thought it was exactly the opposite of what people should be doing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How the body burns calories is complex. Weight loss is, however, as simple as calories in less than calories out.

Your second sentence is basically restating the first law of thermodynamics. It's technically true, but unhelpful when it comes to talking about the real world.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

Your second sentence is basically restating the first law of thermodynamics. It's technically true, but unhelpful when it comes to talking about the real world.

As someone who's lost over 30 lbs since August - I found it rather helpful. But I'm not trying to over-think things.

Eat less. Move more.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

For the sake of the argument, let's suppose they are of a very similar build.

ETA: and gender
ETA2: and age

Then I would start looking to other underlying medical issues.

Person number 2 might have a tape worm. Or Crohn's disease. Maybe one or both have thyroid issues.

No way a 2,800 kcal difference in daily consumption would have the kind of results you suggest without a significant difference in activity or other medical explanation and result in two people having the same build. Even if they start at the same build - it wouldn't be the same for long. Just the weight gain / loss in the individuals would change it after the first month.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As someone who's lost over 30 lbs since August - I found it rather helpful. But I'm not trying to over-think things.

Eat less. Move more.

[...] while the basic idea is right, it's slightly more complicated than just calories in vs. calories out.

...

 

[The Don]

No diet works for everyone: humans are different, no question.
But the fact that schemes like paleo, Atkins or Keto diets with very high caloric values work for some proves that calories alone aren't sufficient to make people gain weight. Anecdotal, but everyone I know who used diets based on low glycemic index food has lost weight, often rapidly (though not necessarily sustainably - curse you potato chips!).

The whole reason why diet fads come and go is because they work so well for some and so little for others. But all that means is that you have to find out what makes your body tick, and eat/sleep/exercise accordingly.

Are you sure about the highlighted ? My understanding was that the dietary restrictions on those diets meant that people who lost weight successfully on those diets reduced their overall caloric intake below their caloric output.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If you check the Ketogenic diet, you will find that the usual caloric intake is well in excess of that of other diets, or even normal nutrition. That is due to the high energy density of high-fat foods and lack of any restrictions on amounts: you can eat as many avocados, pots of cream and cheese as you want, and wash it down with clear spirits such as vodka or gin.
And it has worked, at least for me, to lose weight, especially bodyfat.

 

[Hellbound]

Are you sure about the highlighted ? My understanding was that the dietary restrictions on those diets meant that people who lost weight successfully on those diets reduced their overall caloric intake below their caloric output.

Yep. That's the case. Back of the envelope calculation:

Carbs and Fats have 9 Calories per gram.
Proteins offer 4 Calories per gram.

Let's take our hypothetical Joe Blow. He eats a mix of all three:

90g of fats for 810 Calories
90g of carbs for 810 Calories
90g of protein for 360 Calories

Total Calories: 1980

Now, he goes on an Atkins diet. Any carbs he would've eaten before get replaced with fats and proteins:
130g of fats for 1170 Calories
130g of protein for 520 Calories
10g of Carbs for 90 Calories

Total Calories: 1780

Unless you replace all the carbs with fats, your calorie count goes down for the same amount of physical stuff consumed. Any diet that replaces either fats or carbs with protein (or fiber/non-digestible stuff, which just increases the effect) will tend to lower your calorie count, assuming the same amount of consumption.

 

[Segnosaur]

Your second sentence is basically restating the first law of thermodynamics. It's technically true, but unhelpful when it comes to talking about the real world.

As someone who's lost over 30 lbs since August - I found it rather helpful. But I'm not trying to over-think things.

Eat less. Move more.

The trick is, how do you get yourself to eat less, in a manner that does not cause excessive hunger (which can reduce your quality of life) or constant 'backsliding' on whatever dietary plan you might have. Yes, 'Eat less' (calories) is what you ultimately want to do, but its almost a useless catch phrase for most people, without some sort of guide on how to accomplish that goal.

And move more is also a good idea. But then, not everyone is capable of a full range of motions. (I've got one relative who is confined to a wheelchair. A friend of mine had a severe break in their foot and now their range of motion is limited.) And even for those of us who are relatively healthy, it would be nice to know just what type of exercises provide the best benefits.

 

[aleCcowaN]

But fruits were the only food she was told to avoid before 4. If you are going to ingest something in the morning/afternoon to provide calories/prevent hunger, and you were going to limit something, it would have been better to avoid something like carbs rather than fruit.


They weren't told to substitute vegetables for fruit, only to avoid fruit.

I actually talked to a dietician yesterday about something totally unrelated, but I did ask her about the whole 'fruit before 4pm' thing. She seemed perplexed that someone would actually suggest that, and thought it was exactly the opposite of what people should be doing.

The diet should consist of something, shouldn't it? No fruit before 4 p.m. is surely a part of it, not the whole. Otherwise we are before another case of Chinese whispers involving health care (Yesterday I briefly chatted with a coach driver who claimed he had 700 total triglyceride): the person telling you this forgot or didn't realize they were told a lot of elements of the diet.

When I follow a diet I seldom eat fruit. Just strawberries. I could eat some melon or watermelon, but I can't help taking too much of them, so I avoid them. These three are the only inexpensive fruits that pack nice nutrients together with few calories.

 

[The Don]

If you check the Ketogenic diet, you will find that the usual caloric intake is well in excess of that of other diets, or even normal nutrition. That is due to the high energy density of high-fat foods and lack of any restrictions on amounts: you can eat as many avocados, pots of cream and cheese as you want, and wash it down with clear spirits such as vodka or gin.
And it has worked, at least for me, to lose weight, especially bodyfat.

The thing is, did you actually consume so many calories or is it that the avocados, cream and cheese is so satiating that you actually ended up eating fewer calories ?

Cutting out the vast majority of carbohydrates would be a way of eliminating 30%-40% of calories from most people's diets and leave quite a lot of headroom for calories from fat and protein.

This is the best I can find from a quick search:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945587/

Atkins’ original hypothesis suggested that weight loss was induced by losing energy through excretion of ketone bodies, but more recently different hypotheses have been proposed: one hypothesis is that the use of energy from protein in KD is an “expensive” process for the body and so can lead to a “waste of calories” and therefore increased weight loss compared to other “less expensive” diets. During the first phase of a KD 60–65 g of glucose per day are needed by the body, 16% of this is obtained from glycerol whilst the major part is derived via gluconeogenesis from proteins, of either dietary or tissue origin. Gluconeogenesis is an energy-demanding process calculated at approximately 400–600 Kcal/day (due to both endogenous and food source proteins. There is though no direct experimental evidence to support this intriguing hypothesis, on the contrary a recent study reported that there were no changes in resting energy expenditure after a KD [

So I could be quite wrong and eating, say, 3000 calories on a ketonic diet is the equivalent in providing energy to the body of eating 2400-2600 on a balanced diet.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Then I would start looking to other underlying medical issues.

Person number 2 might have a tape worm. Or Crohn's disease. Maybe one or both have thyroid issues.

No way a 2,800 kcal difference in daily consumption would have the kind of results you suggest without a significant difference in activity or other medical explanation and result in two people having the same build. Even if they start at the same build - it wouldn't be the same for long. Just the weight gain / loss in the individuals would change it after the first month.

No diseases, no diarrhoea (provided both individuals equally tolerate cellulose and other kind of fibre) , just "the thing as they are". Yes to the difference, though I may have chosen a risky combination from a health standpoint. Reducing the intake of individual B in 700 Kcal (I prefer this) or making his weight loss just 2 pounds a month, we will be in a realistic, not on the edge, situation.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yep. That's the case. Back of the envelope calculation:

Carbs and Fats have 9 Calories per gram.
Proteins offer 4 Calories per gram.

Let's take our hypothetical Joe Blow. He eats a mix of all three:

90g of fats for 810 Calories
90g of carbs for 810 Calories
90g of protein for 360 Calories

Total Calories: 1980

Now, he goes on an Atkins diet. Any carbs he would've eaten before get replaced with fats and proteins:
130g of fats for 1170 Calories
130g of protein for 520 Calories
10g of Carbs for 90 Calories

Total Calories: 1780

Unless you replace all the carbs with fats, your calorie count goes down for the same amount of physical stuff consumed. Any diet that replaces either fats or carbs with protein (or fiber/non-digestible stuff, which just increases the effect) will tend to lower your calorie count, assuming the same amount of consumption.

I'm not sure you understand how Atkins -or any cetogenic diet- works.

I followed a strict version of Atkins in 1982. I lost exactly 50 pounds (22.8Kg) in 10 weeks of which a period of 9 days in the middle was "vacation" (I ate whatever and as much I fancied). I went from 106 kg (233 pounds) to 83 kg (183 pounds), almost my ideal weight as a youngster (I'm 6'1). I WOULD NEVER FOLLOW SUCH A DIET EVER AGAIN: IT'S DISASTROUS!

I have a complete register of calories and weight regarding that diet. My breakfast was one boiled egg and two olives, and then, a 5 km walk (Don't make me remember, I will start to puke just by imagining my after-labour-like skin, with losing so much weight in such short period). At least 15% of my weight loss was muscle.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It so simple the math that there are 5'10 people weighing 200 pounds with a BMI of 29 who eat 1700 kcal per day and gain weight, and people with exactly the same body built who eat 4500 kcal a day and lose 6 pounds a month.

Let's call them individuals A and B. Both are male, reaching their 40s with a pretty sedentary life, same build and in good health. Their excuse of physical activity is climbing a ladder to change a lightbulb or pushing the cart in the hypermarket once each two weeks.

Both are overweighted and both are dieting.

Individual A lost 10 pounds (from 210 to 200) in previous weeks by following a 1700 Kcal traditional diet. Lots of fruit and vegetables. No fat excess. Limited consumption or starchy items, etc. Let's say each day he eats 120 g proteins, 200 g carbohydrates and 50 g fat.

He has reached a "barrier". His ideal weight is 157 pounds, and being him one of that 40% of the population who goes up and down in "quanta", his quanta are about each 11 pounds.

As a consequence, his adipocytes have become lighter but they are resisting apoptosis, secreting inadequate levels of leptin and because some adipocytes are dying, the fagocites taking care of them are secreting cytokines with different effects including stimulating a higher level of ghrelin

As a consequence, his brain has received signals to low down his basal metabolism, to be hungry and to solve the problem by looking for food and eating it.

Of course Mr A is a civilized person and he is not going to pay attention to what his primitive body is telling him. A weak will is fatal when diets are involved -he thinks- and he is resolved to persevere.

The final result is his body saving energy. In an unconscious fashion he is moving less so he saves some 200 Kcal a day, but his basal metabolism went down a 30% so he's saving 600 Kcal extra. That is, he started his diet eating 1700 Kcal a day and burning 2300 Kcal, so he start to lose one pound a week during 9 weeks. Then, his problems began.

Now he feels cold. He has turn up the heating. He wears some warm clothes indoors. He is hungry all day long. He's depressed. His nose is starting to drip and he's afraid he's gonna catch a cold.

He doesn't know but after several days of suffering this weight impasse he's going to drop the diet with a very well though leptin-ghrelin driven cerebral made excuse.

[Individual A is "100% belly": he has a bit of man boobs, but his extremities, neck and face are pretty lean]

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

WRT the Atkins diet and calorific intake:

NARRATOR: Behind the scenes of a popular television series a groundbreaking study put four famous diets on trial. [...] Three of the diets were conventional low fat, low calories diets. Weight Watchers, Slim-Fast and Rosemary Conley. The fourth was of course the Atkins diet. One of the most important parts of the study was that the dieters kept detailed diaries of what they ate. [...] Joe Milward is an expert in nutrition and was in charge of analysing the data.

Prof JOE MILWARD: We had four groups with sixty in each, so that's two hundred and forty people. And we had planned to do three diaries. So that's more than six hundred diaries all together.

NARRATOR: All four diets performed similarly when it came to weight loss.

[...]

NARRATOR: There was no mystery why the low fat, low calorie dieters were losing weight.

[...]

NARRATOR: They were eating fewer calories than normal. The puzzle was why was the Atkins diet just as effective? But when the researchers turned their attention to the Atkins diet diaries something intriguing began to emerge. The diaries showed that even though they could eat as much as they liked they were actually eating as few calories as the low calorie dieters.

Prof JOE MILWARD: They were losing weight because they were eating less calories. In exactly the same way as those going to the slimming clubs on their low fat diets were losing weight because they had reduced their calorie intakes. It was a simple matter of if you eat fewer calories you lose weight.

NARRATOR: So for all the talk of limitless calories the diaries actually showed the Atkins dieters were eating less than they would normally.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Let's call them individuals A and B. Both are male, reaching their 40s with a pretty sedentary life, same build and in good health. Their excuse of physical activity is climbing a ladder to change a lightbulb or pushing the cart in the hypermarket once each two weeks.

Both are overweighted and both are dieting.

Individual B just started his diet. He departs from 200 pounds. He chose to follow a strict ketogenic diet, let's call it "Dr. Kevorkian's Diet".

He became aware on how ketogenic diets work. They take advantage of abnormal metabolic pathway human beings are allowed to cope with starvation.

Normal metabolism is conducted via Krebs Cycle. If you are not interested in biochemistry but you are willing to learn, you just need to know this shortcut: proteins and fats burn in the flame provided by hydrocarbons. If there are no enough hydrocarbons, proteins and fats start to produce "smoke" (ketones), and a smoky combustion is highly inefficient: a lot of fuel is burnt just to get the same amount of energy. That's the trick of these diets. The other element is the fact that the nervous system and other organs only can burn glucose, so, if you don't eat enough hydrocarbons then your body has to synthesize it. Another inefficient mechanism: only 43% of the energy stored in proteins can become glucose, and worse -or better-, just 10% of fats can turn into glucose (it's called "glucogenetic power").

So, let's summarize:

starvation: the body mobilizes reserves of fat and destroys muscle to get ahold its proteins. It sends fat to muscles -including the heart- for them to work. It metabolises proteins and part of the fats into glucose. If the body runs out of fat, you die (rabbit starvation); exactly what happened to the individual in my avatar (photo taken 2 weeks before his demise)

extreme diet: you reduce the hydrocarbon intake and eat proteins and fat -either moderately or galore-. Lack of glucose means you start to generate ketones which you'll get rid off via urine, respiration and perspiration. If you're doing it well -you can use those sticks diabetics used to buy to check your level of ketones in urine- you'll have a slightly vinegarly body odor and breath. If you exaggerate, you'll smell like a Granny Smith apple and probably will faint.

 

[Hellbound]

I'm not sure you understand how Atkins -or any cetogenic diet- works.

I followed a strict version of Atkins in 1982. I lost exactly 50 pounds (22.8Kg) in 10 weeks of which a period of 9 days in the middle was "vacation" (I ate whatever and as much I fancied). I went from 106 kg (233 pounds) to 83 kg (183 pounds), almost my ideal weight as a youngster (I'm 6'1). I WOULD NEVER FOLLOW SUCH A DIET EVER AGAIN: IT'S DISASTROUS!

I have a complete register of calories and weight regarding that diet. My breakfast was one boiled egg and two olives, and then, a 5 km walk (Don't make me remember, I will start to puke just by imagining my after-labour-like skin, with losing so much weight in such short period). At least 15% of my weight loss was muscle.

I was simplifying intentionally, and generally I include all the low-carb diets under the Atkin's umbrella. Me culpa for the inaccuracies.

That being said, I know how they're claimed to work. But, as others have posted, the primary reason they work is you eat fewer calories. Besides the change if you eat the same amount of stuff (as I gave a simple example of), people tend to eat fewer calories in general with these diets.

ETA: Just as an aside, you mean "carbohydrates" rather than "hydrocarbons", I think. They are not the same thing. Most modern Atkin's-based diets don't restrict the carbohydrate intake enough for severe or starvation ketosis/ketoacidosis.

 

[aleCcowaN]

WRT the Atkins diet and calorific intake:

Atkin's is a ketogenic diet, so it follows the mechanism I explained above.

Anything that says otherwise is ignorant CRAP! A second year student of medicine knows it, so no excuse for ignorance.

ETA: There is not Atkin's diet above 1200 Kcal a day. The reason is, if you eat too much calories in proteins you synthesize enough glucose to fulfil the Krebs cycle again.

That's why Scarsdale's works better.

 

[Hellbound]

The actual Atkins diet should be a 4:1 ratio of fats to combined protein/carbs. IN addition, Medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) as opposed to Long-chain triglycerides are more ketogenic. It was originally used to treat seizures.

Most of what's called the "Atkin's diet" today is actually a modified Atkin's diet, that uses a ketogenic ratio closer to 1:1.

ETA: Or to put it another way, the majority of them today don't have a high enough ketogenic ratio to stop the Krebs cycle (most not even if religiously followed, the rest not in practice). The ones that do are a significant danger to the health of the dieter. A full Atkin's diet used for seizure treatment includes medical monitoring and regular supplements to make up for the nutritional deficiencies.