The funny fact is that there is a discussion thread on the t-nation forums where at least most people get generally how wrong this article is however like usual, we have the countless bros who talk science without getting it whatsoever. This is basically my views on this matter atm (what I posted on t-nation):
Its not that ketogenic diets/ very low carb diets are not effective, its the fact that treating them as the godly standard in everything from fat loss to muscle gain is highly misguided. Cutting out all carbohydrates is not the most important place to start when trying to lose fat. Reducing overall caloric intake to just below maintenace level, increasing protein intake, consuming moderate amounts of fat and healthy carbohydrates, and increasing activity are the basic tenets of fat loss and 80% of results can be achieved just by adhering to such rules. Low carbohydrate diets are simply a dietary modification that chooses fat as the preferred energy nutrient over carbohydrates.
Take two identical individuals with a maintenance level of 3000 calories; they both consume a diet of about 2500 calories, both consuming lets say 1g of protein/pound of bodyweight and the rest of their calories from carbs or fat. The first guy consumes the remainder of his calories from 50% high quality carb sources and 50% high quality fat sources. The second guy ditches carbs completely and only opts for fats. Both individuals do identical exercise. Does anyone honestly think there will be a substantial difference in their results? Both ways are easy to argue for; one can say that the added benifit of ketogenisis will augment fat loss and that controlling blood sugar and insulin will prevent fat from being stored. On the other hand, one can argue that carbohydrates are probably a better energy source for exercise and do have a higher thermic effect vs. fat. Still, against the laws of thermodynamics either argument does not stand very strong.
|