Lyle McDonald ketogenic diet book good?

[JustSofi]

Hey guys!

So I'm currently not trying to lose weight. I'm doing the opposite and trying different methods. Although I've become strangely interested in the ketogenic diet and how it work, it's affect on the body, and what happens after you end the diet. I love learning about the body and want my goal is become a doctor.
I've been reading many things on Lyle McDonald's site. It all sounds very interesting. Have any of you read his book? And what do you think about his research?

[TigerLily1]

Hey guys!

So I'm currently not trying to lose weight. I'm doing the opposite and trying different methods. Although I've become strangely interested in the ketogenic diet and how it work, it's affect on the body, and what happens after you end the diet. I love learning about the body and want my goal is become a doctor.
I've been reading many things on Lyle McDonald's site. It all sounds very interesting. Have any of you read his book? And what do you think about his research?

I had some of his old books which he recommends drugs for weight loss, when I reached that part I stopped reading.

Some years ago around 2007 there was a craze here about some people who did his diet, I think its a period of very very low fat and low calories, followed by a feeding (binging) on everything, then same cycle again.

[JustSofi]

Hmm ya I definitely am against anything as drastic as weightloss drugs.
I'm just interested in the research about ketogenic diets and how they affect the body. Have you read his keto diet book?

[JEY100]

I have read parts of Keto book and summaries of others. Any of Lyle McDonald's books would be the absolutely worst plan for you, and detrimental to your overall health. He is about low fat, cutting calories and unhealthy tricks to help body builders rip down to ridiculously low body fat. Ketogenic Diets are designed mainly for epilepsy and weight loss, not weight gain, and therefore nothing you should be considering. You need to follow your doctor's plan until you regain sufficient weight and improve your digestive health. Is the FODmap or SCD food list helping? Have the weight gain shakes worked? The extra dietary fats?

[Trillex]

I had some of his old books which he recommends drugs for weight loss, when I reached that part I stopped reading.

Some years ago around 2007 there was a craze here about some people who did his diet, I think its a period of very very low fat and low calories, followed by a feeding (binging) on everything, then same cycle again.

McDonald is a bodybuilding consultant so his books presume that many, if not most, readers are bodybuilders. In fact, the book prefaces generally make it clear that he's writing for bodybuilders by specifically referring to how the different approaches fit into pre-contest prep. Both of my brothers are competitive, amateur, natural bodybuilders -- but there is still a *certain* amount of drug use at all competitive levels of the sport, even for "naturals." It's just that different people and different governing bodies have different *interpretations* of what actually constitutes a "drug."

So I don't think it's fair to say that McDonald "recommends drugs" for weight loss. I think it's more accurate to say that he includes drug protocols in most of his programs because those drug protocols are part of the culture that he's primarily writing for. I'm not defending drug use. I just want to clarify that McDonald isn't suggesting that the average Jane Doe on a diet should use drugs.

Also, the low-fat/low-cal program you're referring to is the "Rapid Fat Loss" protocol that is McDonald's whole foods interpretation of a "protein sparing modified fast," which is a draconian, last-minute pre-contest prep technique for desperate situations. The preface of that book specifically says things like, no one should ever have to use this diet because there are much better ways to cut bodyfat. It's kind of an old school pre-contest diet that McDonald didn't actually invent. It used to be called "the fish and water diet" and bodybuilders have been using the protocol in desperate situations since at least the 1950s. It's what bodybuilders turn to when they have bad coaches that haven't gotten their bodyfat low enough immediately before contests.

McDonald's "The Ketogenic Diet" is a completely different book from "Rapid Fat Loss." It's an overview of different approaches to (mostly) bodybuilding ketogenic diets, including "cyclical ketogenic diets" (CKD) and "targeted ketogenic diets" (TKD). It explains the mechanisms behind the diet principles, starting with an explanation of what we know about the physiology of ketogenic processes from studies of total starvation and moving into the application of "cyclical" and "targeted" re-feeds as used in the 1980s and 1990s.

The trainers who primarily developed CKDs in the 1980s -- Dan Duchaine, Michael Zumpano, and Mauro di Pasquale -- revolutionized bodybuilding "cutting" diets but none of those guys ever comprehensively explained how and why the programs worked -- and Duchaine died so he couldn't write a follow-up book to "BodyOpus" and go into more detail. "The Ketogenic Diet" filled in a lot of the missing information and McDonald kind of took over Duchaine's role, after Duchaine died, as bodybuilding's nerdy, detail guy.

Re-feeds are commonly interpreted as "bingeing" but that's not actually what re-feeds are. Re-feeds replace "glycogen" -- the starchy substance that is stored in the liver and muscle tissue to feed periods of anaerobic activity, such as weight lifting -- and bodybuilding re-feeds are carefully calibrated to specifically re-feed dietary carbohydrates in a way that re-fills glycogen stores while still allowing the body to primarily burn fat as its fuel source.

This study, from 1995, heavily influenced the contemporary bodybuilding practice of re-feeding:

Low-carbohydrate diet alters intracellular glucose metabolism but not overall glucose disposal in exercise-trained subjects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7476282

This study shows that once ketogenic feeding converts the liver, dietary carbohydrates can be re-fed in a way that diverts the converted glucose into storage rather than utilizing it as energy.

We compared glucose metabolism after a standard diet ([STD] 35% fat, 51% carbohydrate, and 14% protein) with the effects of a 3-week adaptation to a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet ([LCD] 75% fat, 8% carbohydrate, and 17% protein). Ten healthy men were studied using the euglycemic clamp technique, indirect calorimetry, and percutaneous vastus lateralis muscle biopsies for analysis of glycogen synthase (GS) and pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) activities in the basal and insulin-stimulated states. Insulin-stimulated glucose disposal was unchanged (STD 46.1 +/- 4.3 v LCD 46.0 +/- 4.3 mumol/kg.min, P = NS), but marked alterations in the routes of glucose disposal were noted. Insulin-stimulated glucose oxidation (Gox) was markedly reduced following LCD (STD 18.6 +/- 1.9 v LCD 8.23 +/- 1.9 mumol/kg.min, P = .0001), and nonoxidative glucose metabolism (Gnox) was enhanced by LCD (STD 24.9 +/- 0.9 v LCD 38.9 +/- 4.3 mumol/kg.min, P = .03). Following LCD, both the total and active forms of PDH (PDHt and PDHa) were significantly depressed. After LCD, GS activates (FV0.1, %I, and A0.5) were unaffected in the basal state, but were greater than for STD (P = .004) after insulin stimulation.

As noted in the excerpt above, a sustained period of low-carbohydrate feeding changes the pathways of "glucose disposal" (the body's use of glucose) in a way that produces "nonoxidative glucose metabolism" (metabolic processes that don't burn glucose as fuel) when dietary carbohydrates are re-fed. "Glycogen synthase" (the conversion of glucose to glycogen) is enhanced and "glucose oxidation" (the burning of glucose as fuel) is "markedly reduced."

This means that bodybuilding re-feeds on ketogenic diets are carefully timed procedures and the nutrient balance is carefully calibrated to support glycogen re-composition while allowing the body to continue primarily burn fat as fuel. The reason glycogen is re-fed during bodybuilding ketogenic diets is because bodybuilders need the anaerobic energy source -- or at least *believe* they need the anaerobic energy source -- to fuel weight training. So re-feeds aren't binges, they're a strategy.

Some bodybuilders -- especially "IIFYM" ("If It Fits Your Macros") followers -- will re-feed using almost any random carb source. But most bodybuilders are extremely careful about what they eat during re-feeds. Dan Duchaine's "BodyOpus" CKD has a super specific formula of starting with liquid glucose balanced with water, which then moves on to starches and water during the later hours of the re-feed period. Fructose is often re-fed last because fructose preferentially re-feeds liver glycogen and most bodybuilders want to re-compensate muscle glycogen before the liver is re-fed.

My point is that many dieters who are not bodybuilders have read these books and interpreted the information in ways that either misunderstand or completely ignore the mechanisms and reasons for the protocols. So what people have done with these programs shouldn't be thought of in a way that suggests that what these people are doing is actually in keeping with the original instructions and/or purpose of these approaches.

[JustSofi]

Hi Janet,

I'm definitely not trying to lose weight. I just find ketogenic diets interesting.

I'm doing scd diet along with fodmaps diet but find I can't have any fruit, and most veggies still. I slowly and little bit by little eating more of them. I'm mostly getting calories from fatty fish, oils, egg yolks, and butter. I'm also drinking a protein shake after every meal.

I don't mean to worry you :)

[JustSofi]

Hi trillex,

Omg thank you so much for your in depth reply! It's exactly what i was looking for, as you mentioned, the keto diet book explains the science of the keto diet and that's all I'm interested in. Not the weightloss. I'm guessing you've read the book?

[Trillex]

Hi trillex,

Omg thank you so much for your in depth reply! It's exactly what i was looking for, as you mentioned, the keto diet book explains the science of the keto diet and that's all I'm interested in. Not the weightloss. I'm guessing you've read the book?

Yes, I have read The Ketogenic Diet. It's fairly comprehensive and goes into a lot of technical detail. I've read a wide variety of books and studies of ketogenic dieting and even some studies of the ketogenic adaptations during starvation, I think it's all super interesting stuff. I found The Ketogenic Diet to be a solid, broad overview of a lot of different aspects of ketogenic dieting. It was written 15 years ago but the information is still valid and useful, in my opinion, because McDonald focuses on what has been clearly established about the physiology without speculating or assuming too much.

And McDonald does a better job of citing his sources in this book than in most of his others. I've read a lot of his books, just because I'm close to a lot of bodybuilders, but I feel like McDonald is at his best in The Ketogenic Diet and The Protein Book. A lot of his books are, basically, practical manuals but these two books are more like reference texts and I prefer that approach.

[rightnow]

Thanks Trillex that was all very interesting.

PJ

[TigerLily1]

McDonald is a bodybuilding consultant so his books presume that many, if not most, readers are bodybuilders. In fact, the book prefaces generally make it clear that he's writing for bodybuilders by specifically referring to how the different approaches fit into pre-contest prep. Both of my brothers are competitive, amateur, natural bodybuilders -- but there is still a *certain* amount of drug use at all competitive levels of the sport, even for "naturals." It's just that different people and different governing bodies have different *interpretations* of what actually constitutes a "drug."

So I don't think it's fair to say that McDonald "recommends drugs" for weight loss. I think it's more accurate to say that he includes drug protocols in most of his programs because those drug protocols are part of the culture that he's primarily writing for. I'm not defending drug use. I just want to clarify that McDonald isn't suggesting that the average Jane Doe on a diet should use drugs.

Also, the low-fat/low-cal program you're referring to is the "Rapid Fat Loss" protocol that is McDonald's whole foods interpretation of a "protein sparing modified fast," which is a draconian, last-minute pre-contest prep technique for desperate situations. The preface of that book specifically says things like, no one should ever have to use this diet because there are much better ways to cut bodyfat. It's kind of an old school pre-contest diet that McDonald didn't actually invent. It used to be called "the fish and water diet" and bodybuilders have been using the protocol in desperate situations since at least the 1950s. It's what bodybuilders turn to when they have bad coaches that haven't gotten their bodyfat low enough immediately before contests.

McDonald's "The Ketogenic Diet" is a completely different book from "Rapid Fat Loss." It's an overview of different approaches to (mostly) bodybuilding ketogenic diets, including "cyclical ketogenic diets" (CKD) and "targeted ketogenic diets" (TKD). It explains the mechanisms behind the diet principles, starting with an explanation of what we know about the physiology of ketogenic processes from studies of total starvation and moving into the application of "cyclical" and "targeted" re-feeds as used in the 1980s and 1990s.

The trainers who primarily developed CKDs in the 1980s -- Dan Duchaine, Michael Zumpano, and Mauro di Pasquale -- revolutionized bodybuilding "cutting" diets but none of those guys ever comprehensively explained how and why the programs worked -- and Duchaine died so he couldn't write a follow-up book to "BodyOpus" and go into more detail. "The Ketogenic Diet" filled in a lot of the missing information and McDonald kind of took over Duchaine's role, after Duchaine died, as bodybuilding's nerdy, detail guy.

Re-feeds are commonly interpreted as "bingeing" but that's not actually what re-feeds are. Re-feeds replace "glycogen" -- the starchy substance that is stored in the liver and muscle tissue to feed periods of anaerobic activity, such as weight lifting -- and bodybuilding re-feeds are carefully calibrated to specifically re-feed dietary carbohydrates in a way that re-fills glycogen stores while still allowing the body to primarily burn fat as its fuel source.

This study, from 1995, heavily influenced the contemporary bodybuilding practice of re-feeding:

Low-carbohydrate diet alters intracellular glucose metabolism but not overall glucose disposal in exercise-trained subjects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7476282

This study shows that once ketogenic feeding converts the liver, dietary carbohydrates can be re-fed in a way that diverts the converted glucose into storage rather than utilizing it as energy.

We compared glucose metabolism after a standard diet ([STD] 35% fat, 51% carbohydrate, and 14% protein) with the effects of a 3-week adaptation to a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet ([LCD] 75% fat, 8% carbohydrate, and 17% protein). Ten healthy men were studied using the euglycemic clamp technique, indirect calorimetry, and percutaneous vastus lateralis muscle biopsies for analysis of glycogen synthase (GS) and pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH) activities in the basal and insulin-stimulated states. Insulin-stimulated glucose disposal was unchanged (STD 46.1 +/- 4.3 v LCD 46.0 +/- 4.3 mumol/kg.min, P = NS), but marked alterations in the routes of glucose disposal were noted. Insulin-stimulated glucose oxidation (Gox) was markedly reduced following LCD (STD 18.6 +/- 1.9 v LCD 8.23 +/- 1.9 mumol/kg.min, P = .0001), and nonoxidative glucose metabolism (Gnox) was enhanced by LCD (STD 24.9 +/- 0.9 v LCD 38.9 +/- 4.3 mumol/kg.min, P = .03). Following LCD, both the total and active forms of PDH (PDHt and PDHa) were significantly depressed. After LCD, GS activates (FV0.1, %I, and A0.5) were unaffected in the basal state, but were greater than for STD (P = .004) after insulin stimulation.

As noted in the excerpt above, a sustained period of low-carbohydrate feeding changes the pathways of "glucose disposal" (the body's use of glucose) in a way that produces "nonoxidative glucose metabolism" (metabolic processes that don't burn glucose as fuel) when dietary carbohydrates are re-fed. "Glycogen synthase" (the conversion of glucose to glycogen) is enhanced and "glucose oxidation" (the burning of glucose as fuel) is "markedly reduced."

This means that bodybuilding re-feeds on ketogenic diets are carefully timed procedures and the nutrient balance is carefully calibrated to support glycogen re-composition while allowing the body to continue primarily burn fat as fuel. The reason glycogen is re-fed during bodybuilding ketogenic diets is because bodybuilders need the anaerobic energy source -- or at least *believe* they need the anaerobic energy source -- to fuel weight training. So re-feeds aren't binges, they're a strategy.

Some bodybuilders -- especially "IIFYM" ("If It Fits Your Macros") followers -- will re-feed using almost any random carb source. But most bodybuilders are extremely careful about what they eat during re-feeds. Dan Duchaine's "BodyOpus" CKD has a super specific formula of starting with liquid glucose balanced with water, which then moves on to starches and water during the later hours of the re-feed period. Fructose is often re-fed last because fructose preferentially re-feeds liver glycogen and most bodybuilders want to re-compensate muscle glycogen before the liver is re-fed.

My point is that many dieters who are not bodybuilders have read these books and interpreted the information in ways that either misunderstand or completely ignore the mechanisms and reasons for the protocols. So what people have done with these programs shouldn't be thought of in a way that suggests that what these people are doing is actually in keeping with the original instructions and/or purpose of these approaches.

Recommending drugs for weight loss is in my own opinion not acceptable for anyone, even if they are body builders, I lost respect for him the minute I got to that chapter.

As for his various protocols not involving drugs, my long experience on here and on LC/VLC/ ZC etc taught me one must open their horizon, what works for some people may not work for others, and every person must do what is best for them.

[rightnow]

If my primary focus in life were something, and not generally harmful drugs could aid that, I'd probably consider it. I mean, there are even drugs the body itself makes merely in response to certain events, such as paramedics and ski rescue and firemen with adrenalin -- adrenalin's a serious drug, ask any combat soldier or parachutist who's only half alive without it, after forcibly adapting to having it chronically.

The B Vitamins are all nootropics with no upper limit, and there are many other drugs like the racetams which are legal, not harmful (quite a lot of testing on some of them), and do improve the human experience -- fairly common for people to be living on Noots for passing the bar exam and recitals and other super brainiac, memory and focus intense experiences.

The reality is that people who are utterly serious about something often will want to become anything they can for it any way they can including drugs -- so one might as well give them good advice for it, since bad advice about that, which is more than plenty I'm sure, is surely as bad or worse than bad advice about food.

And speaking of food, it is also a drug. It's a chemical composite you put in your body that has significant effects on the entire biochemistry including the brain. People eat ice cream and chocolate often and without shame in admitting that it's because they're mad or upset or simply it's that time of the month. People have a glass of wine or champagne on a date or anniversary or it's not merely that it looks pretty in a glass that makes people interested in imbibing even mildly. Much of "fun food" on festive occasions isn't merely because it is tasty or we'd have beef stew for them -- it's because it tends to have enough carbs/sugar/fats to be a "feel good" food. Peps people up, makes them cheery for awhile. Coffee in the morning, ice tea on a hot day, we are drugging ourselves all the time with food, and few people seem to mind that so much.

It doesn't even have to be ingested. Watching sports you're super into, watching the news, romance novels and pxrn (which are often indistinguishable in my experience) and even gossip, all those generate biochemicals that are sheer drugs, albeit internally produced.

Many (not all) illegal drugs are well avoided because they are damaging and addictive. But our bodies essentially make the entire human experience into a drug. So I don't think I can be that black and white about the topic myself. Though I see where you're coming from on it.

PJ

[WereBear]

Many (not all) illegal drugs are well avoided because they are damaging and addictive. But our bodies essentially make the entire human experience into a drug. So I don't think I can be that black and white about the topic myself. Though I see where you're coming from on it.

PJ

Well put. Heck, there are activities, like shopping and running and gambling and mountain climbing, that people use "as drugs." Because doing this activities signals their bodies to release substances that act like them.

[TigerLily1]

Yes agree, but I'd advise anyone to first do check the kind of drugs he was recommending in his earlier books before defending him.

But as I said previously different people have different views and I respect that.

[Trillex]

Recommending drugs for weight loss is in my own opinion not acceptable for anyone, even if they are body builders, I lost respect for him the minute I got to that chapter.

As for his various protocols not involving drugs, my long experience on here and on LC/VLC/ ZC etc taught me one must open their horizon, what works for some people may not work for others, and every person must do what is best for them.

Human beings can't "cut" bodyfat to 3% without some sort of chemical intervention. It is just not physically possible. That's one of the reasons that "cyclical ketogenic diets" (CKD) revolutionized bodybuilding in the 1980s. CKDs cause important chemical and hormonal changes in the body that allow the body to "cut" bodyfat well below the levels at which the body typically shuts down fat release in humans to a dramatically low rate. The dramatic slow down of fat release as energy causes the body to catabolize muscle tissue for fuel, which is one of the reasons people eventually die of starvation when they are deprived of food, despite having (relatively) ample remaining stores of fat.

The periods of very low carb eating on a CKD suppress insulin release and raise the systemic levels of the "catecholamines" (the "fight or flight" hormones, including epinephrine and norepinephrine). Part of the "fight or flight" response of epinephrine and norepinephrine is the production of additional energy in crisis situations, part of which includes stimulating fat release. So the "ketogenic" part of a CKD, in the extremely low bodyfat environment of bodybuilders, is necessary because bodybuilders who are at 7-8% bodyfat would not be able to cut as quickly or effectively or for sustained periods without elevated catecholamine levels.

The re-feed periods on a CKD stimulate leptin release, up-regulate neurotransmitters like dopamine, and also stimulates up-regulation of thyroid function and related sympathetic nervous system metabolic activity. Pre-contest bodybuilders are a *strange* metabolic environment because their bodyfat is so far below "normal" human levels. As a result, pre-contest bodybuilders have leptin levels that are so low that physical tests can't detect ANY level of leptin in bodybuilders in the period immediately before contests, at all. This is why the relatively small up-regulation of leptin during a re-feed stimulates continued fat loss so effectively. The virtual "shut down" of leptin makes their leptin receptors extremely sensitive, which signals multiple metabolic engines to up-regulate.

Before the work of Dan Duchaine, Michael Zumpano, and Mauro di Pasquale who developed CKDs in the 1980s, only "metabolically gifted" individuals could be champion bodybuilders. No one else could "cut" bodyfat to champion levels -- even with the use of very intense and dangerous drugs like anabolic steroids. Bodybuilding drugs typically address one, or maybe two, specific issues. CKDs affect the regulation of an array of chemicals so CKDs operated more effectively than anything the bodybuilding world had previously seen. This chemical intervention allows "average" bodybuilders to cut to champion levels, which was unachievable prior to CKDs. This new level of achievement is based on the strategic manipulation of "drugs" in the human body.

Because these substances are "drugs" -- many are recognized drugs, like epinephrine and norepinephrine (also called "adrenaline" and "noradrenaline") -- even "natural" bodybuilders use some sort of "drug" intervention to cut bodyfat for competition. You don't have to "respect" that -- I'm not sure how many people actually "respect" bodybuilders, anyway, I'm close to a lot of bodybuilders and they kind of get treated like freaks by *normal* people. But in critiquing a Lyle McDonald book, I think that focusing on the fact that he includes drug protocols in books that are designed to help bodybuilders prep for competition doesn't acknowledge the context in which he is writing. He wouldn't be a high level bodybuilding consultant if he didn't address drug protocols and know how to effectively use them because that is (for better or worse) part of the job.

McDonald's books aren't mass market diet books -- they've never been marketed or sold as solutions for the general public. The fact that so many desperate dieters have tried to leverage bodybuilding *tricks* to lose weight, in my opinion, reflects more negatively on the emotional pain of obesity than on McDonald as an author or consultant.

With regard to some things working for some people and not for others, I'm sure that's true. To be honest, before I started Atkins last May I didn't really have a lot of experience with dieting or dieters -- except for the bodybuilding diets of my friends and relatives -- so I've learned a lot in the past year about how difficult it is for overweight and obese individuals to lose excess bodyfat. I started Atkins with 100 pounds to lose and I feel like it's been more difficult for me, in many ways, to cut "excess" bodyfat than it's been for my brothers and for boyfriends I've lived with to cut "essential" bodyfat before competitions. With bodybuilders, the formulas and protocols are so mathematical and precise that they actually have phone and tablet apps that record performance and nutrition data and then employ algorithms that predict, often quite precisely, the eventual outcomes of fat loss and lean mass development. Talented bodybuilding coaches and trainers have gotten the *art* of bodybuilding down to a *science*, but I don't think anyone has done that with regard to obesity, yet.

[WereBear]

I think it's important to remember that these books (thanks, Trillex!) are aimed at bodybuilders, and that the advice was actually motivated by being helpful, knowing the audience.

I agree that an attitude of "I'll just take a drug!" is highly detrimental, whether it is to expose our abs for a competition or to mask the effects of not taking care of ourselves... to mention far too many of the borderline diabetics I know.

Still, I would probably not be enjoying the success I have so far without the wonderful commenters here recommending nutritional supplements. Without Vitamin D3, a period of chromium picolinate, the chelated magnesium, and the large doses of Vitamin C, I wouldn't be feeling as good as I am now.

By the criteria rightnow and I were discussing, those are drugs, too!

[Happy_Mom]

Actually I haven't gotten around to it yet. Can you guys send me a link to it?

Thanks in advance!