Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Calorie in calorie out method is outdated
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think I've ever seen anyone in any of these threads directly support on a point by point basis the logic of how a person could gain weight eating in a deficit. It's always about how eating oreos in a deficit will cause you not to lose weight. Never about how eating a "healthy" diet will prevent weight gain, unless its presented as a "you can't eat enough salad to gain weight".
I always wonder about this too.
It's kind of like how people keep going in the '70s thread and saying that people weren't fat because no GMOs. There's a strong desire to believe that they aren't really overweight because of overeating, but that food makes them get fat despite them having a dainty appetite and not really enjoying eating. (Indeed, I think for some the idea that they overeat feels like a stigma, so they want to cling to other explanations.)
I think there's also this idea that one must suffer to lose weight. If you can eat Oreos, it must not be sufficient suffering, so it just can't work -- I think it's a form of magical thinking.
Perfect! I was trying to formulate a coherent thought around these ideas and I completely agree.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »One last thought however, let's say it's 1500 calories of cookies vs. 1500 calories of kale. Saying the person survived a year, and all other things being equal, I think the net weight exchange would not be the same. Damn the studies!!! (that's a joke)
Actually it would be. And both would likely be malnourished. Though, TBH, I think the one eating cookies would likely be in better shape, since they'd be getting some fat and likely some protein (thinking that cookies often contain eggs, dairy, nuts, flour, etc.)
9.5 lb of kale actually has a good amount of protein: 125 g. Also 64 g of fat, and 190 g of carbs. Not terrible macros. The whopping 176 g of fiber would be something of a problem, among other things (not least 9.5 lb of kale -- LOL!). Other issues include no B12, no D, no EPA/DHA, perhaps an inadequate amino acid profile (didn't check that), etc.
Monodiets are bad news, and you are right, of course, that the cookie diet is less of a monodiet.
Right off, I don't know what "TBH" means....to be helpful?....to be healthy?..to be happy?...to be hangry? Yesterday was a fast day so I wasn't at my best thought wise. Also, I under estimated how personally people would take my thoughts. There is a reason people don't have the ability to read minds.
That's true, the cookies are a complex food, so it really isn't a fair comparison. My wood example has already be disallowed. So how about this: 1500 calories of vodka vs. 1500 calories of kale? I think if we made it a 1 month challenge and offered compensation we could probably actually get some volunteers to try it. I still think there would be a difference in weight loss or gain, all other things being equal.
You don't think the impact of having around 23 and a half ounces of vodka per day (assuming you're using 80 proof vodka) would completely confound whatever it is you think you're proving about calories?
Exactly! The type of calories matter.....
All you're demonstrating there is that if you drink 1500 calories worth of poison (which is what alcohol is in that dosage), you will not lose weight. Because you'll die. Very quickly. Possibly that very day.
The kale might kill you fairly quickly too (vitamin K?), but the alcohol would kill you quicker. Not a great weight loss experiment.
How about we compare 1400 calories of a well balanced diet (but no kale) every day plus 100 calories of pure cane sugar, to 1400 calories of a well balanced diet (but no sugar) plus 100 calories of kale? There will not be a material difference in the body weight effect. Or, if you want to stick to pretty-pure macronutrients, 100 calories of olive oil ("healthy", right?) vs. 100 calories of sugar? I'd put money on no material difference in either body weight or health.
I just wanted to quote this and compliment you on the bolded... I truly hope @BayouMoon comes back and addresses that question.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »To wrap up my thoughts on this debate, I do still believe that the types of calories matter and that the CICO equation is outdated. I know, I know..."It's math!! It can't be outdated!!". If that is your rebuttal to the debate, then I don't think your understood the question. She wasn't asking a math question, she was asking about the effects of what you eat long term. The majority of the rebuttals to the initial ascertion seem to be along the lines of "that's included in the calculation". So if some calories burn faster, that's in the calculation, if some calories don't get metabolized, that's in the calculation, if the way your body metabolizes calories changes over time, that's included in the calculation. If certain foods trigger hormones and other reactions, that's in the calculation. Even if all these things are included in the calculation, they matter and updating and expanding the equation to include them will help in the long term.
That is because it is included in the calculation. The recommended daily calorie intakes and the calculators that predict your calorie requirements and suggest how much you should eat take that into account because they are statistical models based on large studies of actual people eating actual food. Therefore they take into account what people derive from that food. Your examples of well what if someone eats nothing but kale or nothing but sugar or they eat wood are just irrelevant because that isn't a thing...no one does that. For people who eat normal food the calorie values are very close approximations and if you track your calories in terms of your intake and use the calculators to predict your calorie requirements you will find it is a fairly close approximation. It will be off, it will not be exact...but you can find that out only if you measure the calories and track them over time and then adjust accordingly.
Crossing your arms and saying I don't believe it I think its inaccurate offers no alternative or no improvement to a model. Saying it is "outdated" suggests we should throw it out or change it. Okay, so you don't believe tracking calories is useful for weight management....what is your suggested alternative?
Oh, quite the contrary, I count calories. I just think it matters if it's a 100 cal oreo or a 100 cal salad.
One I can digest (oreo)and one will send me to the ER in excruciating pain (salad).
IBS? I'm the opposite, Oreos would spike my blood glucose and salad would be fine. But good post, pointing out that diet depends on individual needs. For another example, simple, quick digesting sugars such as candies increase my blood sugar quickly, which is why I carry a roll of smarties to eat on my long runs. Almost every food, except maybe trans fats, has a time and place when it's beneficial and when it's harmful. People die from drinking too much water at a time.
@rheddmobile Crohn's and gastroparesis2 -
I've seen some articles about how calories in and calories out isn't efficient in the long run. Some studies have shown that certain foods do metabolize faster and turn into energy faster than other. Any thoughts?
Meh, calorie tracking worked for me (down 103lbs since my pic.) More important than anything, IMO, is to take simple sugars out of your diet, and that also helps keep calories down. And yes, simple sugars metabolize super fast, even to the point of storing directly as fat (hence soda and fruit juice will make you fat, even though it's all liquid.) Counting calories also helps you reduce portions and/or stick to low calorie density stuff, and it is proven to work provided you don't have too big of a calorie deficit. But sugar has a very strong flavor that people tend to crave, so they often just want to eat more sugar, regardless of whether they are hungry, and therefore find it hard to resist larger portions, and the more simple sugars there is in a given food, the faster it will metabolize.
And because I hear this a lot from people who insist "natural" sugar is just fine to eat: No matter what anybody says, natural is NOT better, a fact well supported by science, so the sugar in fruit counts, as do other "natural" sugars. Simple sugars are simple sugars. Even if you believe "natural is better", there's very high odds that you have never eaten the REAL natural food, especially natural fruit. Most fruit doesn't want to be eaten, so they evolved to be dark colored to avoid attracting animals, and bitter and toxic to pests. Usually mildly toxic, but sometimes very toxic, i.e. producing their own hydrogen cyanide, which will kill insects, animals, and humans alike. Fruit also evolved for just enough sugar to nourish seeds. More sugar needs more energy, so more than needed is harder to survive. Fruit you're used to is bred to be obese: Very sugary, very big, and the bitter stuff (mostly) bred out, though some (including carcinogens) remain. Ditto for vegetables. Example: Sweet corn was bred from wheat, wheat was bred from a type of grass similar to the foxtails that grow in your back yard and stick to your dog.
Sugars rarely convert into body fat, regardless if it's simple or complex. More often than not, your body will utilize those sugars as immediate needs or store them as glycogen. And in fact, based on de novo lipogenesis studies, only about 10 or 15% of carbs will store as fat. Largely what will happen is carbs will suppress fat oxidation, which will drive fats to be stored for later use, while carbs will be used immediately. The biggest difference is rate of absorption and in the case of fructose where it's metabolize; fructose is metabolized in the liver.
There isn't a difference between fructose in soda vs fruit (it's still fructose) but there is a significant difference between the nutrient composition between a piece of fruit and soda. There is also a huge difference between pork rinds (fried fat) and extra virgin olive oil.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.28 -
Sillies. It's outdated because we all know by now that calories don't really exist, and energy is a fake thing that can not affect us in any way whatsoever. We have a "friend" of "elite physicists" who has been kind enough to educate and frequently remind us of this "fact".10
-
Meh, calorie tracking worked for me (down 103lbs since my pic.) More important than anything, IMO, is to take simple sugars out of your diet, and that also helps keep calories down. And yes, simple sugars metabolize super fast, even to the point of storing directly as fat (hence soda and fruit juice will make you fat, even though it's all liquid.)
Really? Even in calorie deficit?
2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.
Which is I guess why those same people ignore science because in the end science is "pretend" in the exact same way....models based off of samples of observable data from studies. The only thing in this world that is exact is mathematics itself and abstract concepts from it like perfect geometric shapes, everything else is a statistical approximation. Pointing out something is a statistical approximation doesn't somehow invalidate its usefulness or efficacy.16 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.
And yet it's literally the only way to lose weight. Whether you focus on it or not, eating less than you expend is what takes place during weight loss, no exceptions. It may not be possible to exactly calculate what you eat or what you expend, but those pieces of information aren't "pretend" - they are very, very real, regardless of how exact your observations of them are.13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.
Yet the weight that many, many people have lost by creating a caloric deficit is not "pretend" at all. Funny how a "pretend" thing can have such real, tangible, verifiable results.
If we want to discuss "pretend" things, let's discuss the insulin theory of obesity/sugar makes you fat. Because that is truly "pretend" and has no legitimate scientific backing whatsoever.19 -
rheddmobile wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.
And yet it's literally the only way to lose weight. Whether you focus on it or not, eating less than you expend is what takes place during weight loss, no exceptions. It may not be possible to exactly calculate what you eat or what you expend, but those pieces of information aren't "pretend" - they are very, very real, regardless of how exact your observations of them are.
Pretend and estimated are very different things. Pretend means it doesn't exist, and therefore is pointless to count. CICO isn't pretend. It may not be exactly the same person to person, and require some estimating and trial and error, but that doesn't mean it's not real, just that it's not exact.10 -
rheddmobile wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.
And yet it's literally the only way to lose weight. Whether you focus on it or not, eating less than you expend is what takes place during weight loss, no exceptions. It may not be possible to exactly calculate what you eat or what you expend, but those pieces of information aren't "pretend" - they are very, very real, regardless of how exact your observations of them are.
Pretend and estimated are very different things. Pretend means it doesn't exist, and therefore is pointless to count. CICO isn't pretend. It may not be exactly the same person to person, and require some estimating and trial and error, but that doesn't mean it's not real, just that it's not exact.
@Momepro you are doing a great job of working your way forward on this subject. We all have come a long way from when the subject was A Calorie Is A Calorie that also turned out to be inexact as well in that it varied from person to person.
29 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Are you saying that you believe someone will lose weight doing intermittent fasting *even if they consume more calories than their body is using*?
Or are you saying that someone doing intermittent fasting will be losing weight faster than the amount of calories consumed/used would lead one to believe?
It would help if you would specify exactly what you're claiming IF is doing that isn't accounted for in CICO.
Given your disdain for studies, I'm assuming that the claims you're making for IF are based on something other than studies and facts that can be tested via the scientific method. Are we talking personal observations? Intuition? What is the basis of your beliefs about IF?
If you would like to learn more about this, I suggest to do some reading on fasting and it's effects on naturally increasing HGH production. Everyone here is an adult so I'm sure we can all do our own research. There are a lot of studies and research available about it at the tip of your fingers.
When you're done researching that, do some reading on how HGH affects weight loss, metabolism increase, and muscle growth.
Then when you're done with researching that, look up how many athletes around the world (and the millions of body builders/weight lifters) are supplementing HGH along with other things like T3 to artificially boost metabolism/weight loss. Then maybe, just maybe you may be able to put the equation together and find out why, just why 10's of thousands of people like me are combining intermittent fasting with keto to quicken our metabolisms and quicken weight loss.
Open your minds and spend some time reading and researching. And not just that. Try to get to know some of the people living this way and if you think the information is incorrect and the people are not being honest then ask yourself why would that be? Do you think people are trying to sell something? No. There are thousands of people out there that would offer to help and show proof of this if you just asked and spent time with them to see for yourself. Not doctors, or book authors, and not schemers trying to get a subscriber... Just people like me that were overweight and asked others who are living like this to help them learn too.
There are several people I know and spend time with living with intermittent fasting in their lives while dropping fat and all of them are doing extremely well without having to be in caloric deficits. There are of course a lot of people also doing it and trying to be in deficits to make the weight loss even quicker while combining it with intermittent fasting etc. But a lot of us out there don't need to be if we are consistent with our fasting hrs and being keto adjusted.
I have not been weight lifting now for a week due to pulling my lower right back. Still got on the bike a couple times this week though but pretty much no exercise other than that. I have still lost 3 lbs this past week and have not been in a deficit. My average weekly weight loss is at 4 lbs per week since starting my weight loss. 57 lbs lost in 100 days so far. I'm not looking for props. I'm not looking for "likes" or a pat on the back. I could care less about any of that. It's just so sad and concerning that there are a group of people here that will say anything they can to not listen, learn and open their minds up to realize there is a lot more to our bodies than a calorie in and a calorie out. Our bodies and metabolisms are very manipulable. Yes of course CICO is the stand by method used by a lot of people and there's no denying that and that it works. But in the same way I don't deny that because I have also lost weight that way in the past; at the same time I know there is more than just that way to lose weight.
For myself keto isn't a single lone answer to any of it. The keto part of the equation for me is a solution for myself to get away from being a carb over eater. And not the good carbs. All the bad ones. Yes of course, everything in moderation is better but I needed to get away from those kinds of foods. The intermittent fasting part of the equation is something I added to it because I saw people I know doing this and losing tremendous amounts of weight while being sedentary and not concentrating on their calories. At the beginning I was adding up my friends calories cause he didn't care and I thought he had to be in a deficit most of the time. Cause that's how I lost weight years ago when I did a stint of Adkins while also doing CICO. Well he was not in a deficit for the majority of the time I was watching him live this way. I thought there had to be an error in what he was telling me he was eating. He weighed his food for a couple weeks so we could see if these were the facts; and they were. So I started researching it and contacting more people that were living this way. There are literally 10's of thousands of people around the world doing it. You just have to want to learn and search out those people and the info and experiance they have living that way.
I wanted to try it and to be sure of everything I ate, and my health numbers, etc so I got my doctor involved and a dietitian to track everything with me. It's funny even the body scan guy is confused how I can be losing so much weight while telling him I'm not in a deficit the majority of time. He sits there and tries to convince me that "over the long run" I must be in a deficit. No, every calorie is tracked. Every calorie burned is tracked. The majority of the time I am not in any deficit and several weeks I was in surplus of calories and yes I still lost between 3 to 5 lbs each week those weeks.
It's just a physical fact that combining intermittent fasting with keto creates a very fast fat burning metabolism. I think a very important thing to note that myself along with the others I know living like this are doing a long window of fasting between meals when compared to some of the other hour windows some people do while intermittent fasting. The people I know and myself are all in the 20 hr plus fasting times before eating. Myself I am now doing 23 hrs between meals. I was doing 23.5 hrs before but was finding it hard to get in all my calories in just 30 minutes. Fasting like this naturally increases HGH by hundreds and even 1000's of percentage points. Yes, please research that. You will find all the info/studies/research to enlighten yourself all about those aspects of intermittent fasting.
27 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Are you saying that you believe someone will lose weight doing intermittent fasting *even if they consume more calories than their body is using*?
Or are you saying that someone doing intermittent fasting will be losing weight faster than the amount of calories consumed/used would lead one to believe?
It would help if you would specify exactly what you're claiming IF is doing that isn't accounted for in CICO.
Given your disdain for studies, I'm assuming that the claims you're making for IF are based on something other than studies and facts that can be tested via the scientific method. Are we talking personal observations? Intuition? What is the basis of your beliefs about IF?
If you would like to learn more about this, I suggest to do some reading on fasting and it's effects on naturally increasing HGH production. Everyone here is an adult so I'm sure we can all do our own research. There are a lot of studies and research available about it at the tip of your fingers.
When you're done researching that, do some reading on how HGH affects weight loss, metabolism increase, and muscle growth.
Then when you're done with researching that, look up how many athletes around the world (and the millions of body builders/weight lifters) are supplementing HGH along with other things like T3 to artificially boost metabolism/weight loss. Then maybe, just maybe you may be able to put the equation together and find out why, just why 10's of thousands of people like me are combining intermittent fasting with keto to quicken our metabolisms and quicken weight loss.
Open your minds and spend some time reading and researching. And not just that. Try to get to know some of the people living this way and if you think the information is incorrect and the people are not being honest then ask yourself why would that be? Do you think people are trying to sell something? No. There are thousands of people out there that would offer to help and show proof of this if you just asked and spent time with them to see for yourself. Not doctors, or book authors, and not schemers trying to get a subscriber... Just people like me that were overweight and asked others who are living like this to help them learn too.
There are several people I know and spend time with living with intermittent fasting in their lives while dropping fat and all of them are doing extremely well without having to be in caloric deficits. There are of course a lot of people also doing it and trying to be in deficits to make the weight loss even quicker while combining it with intermittent fasting etc. But a lot of us out there don't need to be if we are consistent with our fasting hrs and being keto adjusted.
I have not been weight lifting now for a week due to pulling my lower right back. Still got on the bike a couple times this week though but pretty much no exercise other than that. I have still lost 3 lbs this past week and have not been in a deficit. My average weekly weight loss is at 4 lbs per week since starting my weight loss. 57 lbs lost in 100 days so far. I'm not looking for props. I'm not looking for "likes" or a pat on the back. I could care less about any of that. It's just so sad and concerning that there are a group of people here that will say anything they can to not listen, learn and open their minds up to realize there is a lot more to our bodies than a calorie in and a calorie out. Our bodies and metabolisms are very manipulable. Yes of course CICO is the stand by method used by a lot of people and there's no denying that and that it works. But in the same way I don't deny that because I have also lost weight that way in the past; at the same time I know there is more than just that way to lose weight.
For myself keto isn't a single lone answer to any of it. The keto part of the equation for me is a solution for myself to get away from being a carb over eater. And not the good carbs. All the bad ones. Yes of course, everything in moderation is better but I needed to get away from those kinds of foods. The intermittent fasting part of the equation is something I added to it because I saw people I know doing this and losing tremendous amounts of weight while being sedentary and not concentrating on their calories. At the beginning I was adding up my friends calories cause he didn't care and I thought he had to be in a deficit most of the time. Cause that's how I lost weight years ago when I did a stint of Adkins while also doing CICO. Well he was not in a deficit for the majority of the time I was watching him live this way. I thought there had to be an error in what he was telling me he was eating. He weighed his food for a couple weeks so we could see if these were the facts; and they were. So I started researching it and contacting more people that were living this way. There are literally 10's of thousands of people around the world doing it. You just have to want to learn and search out those people and the info and experiance they have living that way.
I wanted to try it and to be sure of everything I ate, and my health numbers, etc so I got my doctor involved and a dietitian to track everything with me. It's funny even the body scan guy is confused how I can be losing so much weight while telling him I'm not in a deficit the majority of time. He sits there and tries to convince me that "over the long run" I must be in a deficit. No, every calorie is tracked. Every calorie burned is tracked. The majority of the time I am not in any deficit and several weeks I was in surplus of calories and yes I still lost between 3 to 5 lbs each week those weeks.
It's just a physical fact that combining intermittent fasting with keto creates a very fast fat burning metabolism. I think a very important thing to note that myself along with the others I know living like this are doing a long window of fasting between meals when compared to some of the other hour windows some people do while intermittent fasting. The people I know and myself are all in the 20 hr plus fasting times before eating. Myself I am now doing 23 hrs between meals. I was doing 23.5 hrs before but was finding it hard to get in all my calories in just 30 minutes. Fasting like this naturally increases HGH by hundreds and even 1000's of percentage points. Yes, please research that. You will find all the info/studies/research to enlighten yourself all about those aspects of intermittent fasting.
First, you were in a deficit.. That is just scientific fact. Denying it, like you always do, demonstrates a lack of knowledge; just in case you want to see actual science here is something from one of leading researchers in metabolism: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989
Second, fasting does increase HGH, but it doesn't increase protein turnover (the creation of new cells). So at best, it's a protective mechanism from starvation. It actually doesn't help you gain muscle.
Also, there are multiple studies to suggest that keto doesn't increase metabolism. And we already know you don't have any studies to suggest that fasting and keto increase metabolism.
ETA: BTW, I always keep an open mind. I have read many of Fungs articles from his website and from diet doctor and he never provides evidence to support his claims. I also follow Thomas DeLauer since he seems to be a fairly predominant person in the field, but even he recognizes that calories matter.20 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Are you saying that you believe someone will lose weight doing intermittent fasting *even if they consume more calories than their body is using*?
Or are you saying that someone doing intermittent fasting will be losing weight faster than the amount of calories consumed/used would lead one to believe?
It would help if you would specify exactly what you're claiming IF is doing that isn't accounted for in CICO.
Given your disdain for studies, I'm assuming that the claims you're making for IF are based on something other than studies and facts that can be tested via the scientific method. Are we talking personal observations? Intuition? What is the basis of your beliefs about IF?
If you would like to learn more about this, I suggest to do some reading on fasting and it's effects on naturally increasing HGH production. Everyone here is an adult so I'm sure we can all do our own research. There are a lot of studies and research available about it at the tip of your fingers.
When you're done researching that, do some reading on how HGH affects weight loss, metabolism increase, and muscle growth.
Then when you're done with researching that, look up how many athletes around the world (and the millions of body builders/weight lifters) are supplementing HGH along with other things like T3 to artificially boost metabolism/weight loss. Then maybe, just maybe you may be able to put the equation together and find out why, just why 10's of thousands of people like me are combining intermittent fasting with keto to quicken our metabolisms and quicken weight loss.
Open your minds and spend some time reading and researching. And not just that. Try to get to know some of the people living this way and if you think the information is incorrect and the people are not being honest then ask yourself why would that be? Do you think people are trying to sell something? No. There are thousands of people out there that would offer to help and show proof of this if you just asked and spent time with them to see for yourself. Not doctors, or book authors, and not schemers trying to get a subscriber... Just people like me that were overweight and asked others who are living like this to help them learn too.
There are several people I know and spend time with living with intermittent fasting in their lives while dropping fat and all of them are doing extremely well without having to be in caloric deficits. There are of course a lot of people also doing it and trying to be in deficits to make the weight loss even quicker while combining it with intermittent fasting etc. But a lot of us out there don't need to be if we are consistent with our fasting hrs and being keto adjusted.
I have not been weight lifting now for a week due to pulling my lower right back. Still got on the bike a couple times this week though but pretty much no exercise other than that. I have still lost 3 lbs this past week and have not been in a deficit. My average weekly weight loss is at 4 lbs per week since starting my weight loss. 57 lbs lost in 100 days so far. I'm not looking for props. I'm not looking for "likes" or a pat on the back. I could care less about any of that. It's just so sad and concerning that there are a group of people here that will say anything they can to not listen, learn and open their minds up to realize there is a lot more to our bodies than a calorie in and a calorie out. Our bodies and metabolisms are very manipulable. Yes of course CICO is the stand by method used by a lot of people and there's no denying that and that it works. But in the same way I don't deny that because I have also lost weight that way in the past; at the same time I know there is more than just that way to lose weight.
For myself keto isn't a single lone answer to any of it. The keto part of the equation for me is a solution for myself to get away from being a carb over eater. And not the good carbs. All the bad ones. Yes of course, everything in moderation is better but I needed to get away from those kinds of foods. The intermittent fasting part of the equation is something I added to it because I saw people I know doing this and losing tremendous amounts of weight while being sedentary and not concentrating on their calories. At the beginning I was adding up my friends calories cause he didn't care and I thought he had to be in a deficit most of the time. Cause that's how I lost weight years ago when I did a stint of Adkins while also doing CICO. Well he was not in a deficit for the majority of the time I was watching him live this way. I thought there had to be an error in what he was telling me he was eating. He weighed his food for a couple weeks so we could see if these were the facts; and they were. So I started researching it and contacting more people that were living this way. There are literally 10's of thousands of people around the world doing it. You just have to want to learn and search out those people and the info and experiance they have living that way.
I wanted to try it and to be sure of everything I ate, and my health numbers, etc so I got my doctor involved and a dietitian to track everything with me. It's funny even the body scan guy is confused how I can be losing so much weight while telling him I'm not in a deficit the majority of time. He sits there and tries to convince me that "over the long run" I must be in a deficit. No, every calorie is tracked. Every calorie burned is tracked. The majority of the time I am not in any deficit and several weeks I was in surplus of calories and yes I still lost between 3 to 5 lbs each week those weeks.
It's just a physical fact that combining intermittent fasting with keto creates a very fast fat burning metabolism. I think a very important thing to note that myself along with the others I know living like this are doing a long window of fasting between meals when compared to some of the other hour windows some people do while intermittent fasting. The people I know and myself are all in the 20 hr plus fasting times before eating. Myself I am now doing 23 hrs between meals. I was doing 23.5 hrs before but was finding it hard to get in all my calories in just 30 minutes. Fasting like this naturally increases HGH by hundreds and even 1000's of percentage points. Yes, please research that. You will find all the info/studies/research to enlighten yourself all about those aspects of intermittent fasting.
"Do your own research" = "I'm talking out of my *kitten* and don't have an iota of actual evidence to back it up"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've provided none.
13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »@BayouMoon Pretend for a second that we had some way of determining exactly how much energy you got from food (not how much energy is in the food but how much you actually get from it) and pretend we had some way of determining exactly how much energy your body used (not an estimate, exact value).
What do you think would happen if you ended up taking in less energy than you body used?
I think this post makes clear to most why some do not focus on CICO because it is mainly "pretend" at the end of the day.
And yet it's literally the only way to lose weight. Whether you focus on it or not, eating less than you expend is what takes place during weight loss, no exceptions. It may not be possible to exactly calculate what you eat or what you expend, but those pieces of information aren't "pretend" - they are very, very real, regardless of how exact your observations of them are.
Pretend and estimated are very different things. Pretend means it doesn't exist, and therefore is pointless to count. CICO isn't pretend. It may not be exactly the same person to person, and require some estimating and trial and error, but that doesn't mean it's not real, just that it's not exact.
@Momepro you are doing a great job of working your way forward on this subject. We all have come a long way from when the subject was A Calorie Is A Calorie that also turned out to be inexact as well in that it varied from person to person.
What a condescending, and yet totally off the mark response.
The point that @Momepro and so many others have made time and again in this thread, and yet still keeps flying over the head of many, is that the fact that CICO varies from person to person does not invalidate the concept, or the efficacy of using the basic principles of energy balance to impact ones own weight. The elegance is in the simplicity and the fact that it can vary from person to person what an individual’s TDEE is due to a number of factors - but because the equation is so simple it accommodates for those variables without becoming overly complex and prescribed.
Perhaps this will help you work your way forward on your misinterpretation of the concept.20 -
Except that it's not a "physical fact" at all. It's nothing but more woo and unsubstantiated propaganda. Multiple studies have shown no "metabolic advantage" to a ketogenic diet. Nor is there any evidence from any reputable source to substantiate your wild claims about the miracles of intermittent fasting.PaulChasinDreams wrote: »....It's just a physical fact that combining intermittent fasting with keto creates a very fast fat burning metabolism...
But you already know all that - because if there was any reliable evidence, you would have posted it by now in an effort to give yourself at least a shred of credibility. Because despite being repeatedly asked to post some kind of evidence, all you can come up with are unsubstantiated personal anecdotes of physically impossible accomplishments and supernatural claims, all delivered with religious/cult-ish fanaticism.
So again - if there is compelling, factual research/evidence to back all these claims you've repeatedly made, post it. Post the links to the sources and their studies. There are plenty of intelligent, educated, well-read people here who would gladly examine/analyze them to see if there is any rational evidence to change their positions that every one of your claims are physically impossible and supernatural. I'm always open to learning new things, but I'm not at all open to blindly believing things which have been thus far proven by scientific method to not be physically possible in any way.15 -
johnslater461 wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »isaacsdaddytiger wrote: »It's incredibly out dated.
Thank you Isaac. Now duck....
So you do not believe that if someone needs to eat 2800 calories per day to maintain their weight that they won't maintain their weight or that if they eat less than that they will lose weight and if they eat more than that they will gain weight?
CICO is just the math equation which apparently is something you don't understand in the least. It doesn't address nutrition...it's just the math...this really isn't that hard to understand unless you're just being willfully ignorant.
The laws of thermodynamics are pretty well proven.
Yes, I do believe that calories matter, but I don't believe it's a simple math equation. When you say "it doesn't address nutrition" is where we part ways. I believe intermittent fasting works for more than just it's cutting over all calories. I believe hormones play a role.
Are you saying that you believe someone will lose weight doing intermittent fasting *even if they consume more calories than their body is using*?
Or are you saying that someone doing intermittent fasting will be losing weight faster than the amount of calories consumed/used would lead one to believe?
It would help if you would specify exactly what you're claiming IF is doing that isn't accounted for in CICO.
Given your disdain for studies, I'm assuming that the claims you're making for IF are based on something other than studies and facts that can be tested via the scientific method. Are we talking personal observations? Intuition? What is the basis of your beliefs about IF?
If you would like to learn more about this, I suggest to do some reading on fasting and it's effects on naturally increasing HGH production. Everyone here is an adult so I'm sure we can all do our own research. There are a lot of studies and research available about it at the tip of your fingers.
When you're done researching that, do some reading on how HGH affects weight loss, metabolism increase, and muscle growth.
Then when you're done with researching that, look up how many athletes around the world (and the millions of body builders/weight lifters) are supplementing HGH along with other things like T3 to artificially boost metabolism/weight loss. Then maybe, just maybe you may be able to put the equation together and find out why, just why 10's of thousands of people like me are combining intermittent fasting with keto to quicken our metabolisms and quicken weight loss.
Open your minds and spend some time reading and researching. And not just that. Try to get to know some of the people living this way and if you think the information is incorrect and the people are not being honest then ask yourself why would that be? Do you think people are trying to sell something? No. There are thousands of people out there that would offer to help and show proof of this if you just asked and spent time with them to see for yourself. Not doctors, or book authors, and not schemers trying to get a subscriber... Just people like me that were overweight and asked others who are living like this to help them learn too.
There are several people I know and spend time with living with intermittent fasting in their lives while dropping fat and all of them are doing extremely well without having to be in caloric deficits. There are of course a lot of people also doing it and trying to be in deficits to make the weight loss even quicker while combining it with intermittent fasting etc. But a lot of us out there don't need to be if we are consistent with our fasting hrs and being keto adjusted.
I have not been weight lifting now for a week due to pulling my lower right back. Still got on the bike a couple times this week though but pretty much no exercise other than that. I have still lost 3 lbs this past week and have not been in a deficit. My average weekly weight loss is at 4 lbs per week since starting my weight loss. 57 lbs lost in 100 days so far. I'm not looking for props. I'm not looking for "likes" or a pat on the back. I could care less about any of that. It's just so sad and concerning that there are a group of people here that will say anything they can to not listen, learn and open their minds up to realize there is a lot more to our bodies than a calorie in and a calorie out. Our bodies and metabolisms are very manipulable. Yes of course CICO is the stand by method used by a lot of people and there's no denying that and that it works. But in the same way I don't deny that because I have also lost weight that way in the past; at the same time I know there is more than just that way to lose weight.
For myself keto isn't a single lone answer to any of it. The keto part of the equation for me is a solution for myself to get away from being a carb over eater. And not the good carbs. All the bad ones. Yes of course, everything in moderation is better but I needed to get away from those kinds of foods. The intermittent fasting part of the equation is something I added to it because I saw people I know doing this and losing tremendous amounts of weight while being sedentary and not concentrating on their calories. At the beginning I was adding up my friends calories cause he didn't care and I thought he had to be in a deficit most of the time. Cause that's how I lost weight years ago when I did a stint of Adkins while also doing CICO. Well he was not in a deficit for the majority of the time I was watching him live this way. I thought there had to be an error in what he was telling me he was eating. He weighed his food for a couple weeks so we could see if these were the facts; and they were. So I started researching it and contacting more people that were living this way. There are literally 10's of thousands of people around the world doing it. You just have to want to learn and search out those people and the info and experiance they have living that way.
I wanted to try it and to be sure of everything I ate, and my health numbers, etc so I got my doctor involved and a dietitian to track everything with me. It's funny even the body scan guy is confused how I can be losing so much weight while telling him I'm not in a deficit the majority of time. He sits there and tries to convince me that "over the long run" I must be in a deficit. No, every calorie is tracked. Every calorie burned is tracked. The majority of the time I am not in any deficit and several weeks I was in surplus of calories and yes I still lost between 3 to 5 lbs each week those weeks.
It's just a physical fact that combining intermittent fasting with keto creates a very fast fat burning metabolism. I think a very important thing to note that myself along with the others I know living like this are doing a long window of fasting between meals when compared to some of the other hour windows some people do while intermittent fasting. The people I know and myself are all in the 20 hr plus fasting times before eating. Myself I am now doing 23 hrs between meals. I was doing 23.5 hrs before but was finding it hard to get in all my calories in just 30 minutes. Fasting like this naturally increases HGH by hundreds and even 1000's of percentage points. Yes, please research that. You will find all the info/studies/research to enlighten yourself all about those aspects of intermittent fasting.
"Do your own research" = "I'm talking out of my *kitten* and don't have an iota of actual evidence to back it up"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've provided none.
Indeed...9 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »...When you're done researching that, do some reading on how HGH affects weight loss, metabolism increase, and muscle growth.
Then when you're done with researching that, look up how many athletes around the world (and the millions of body builders/weight lifters) are supplementing HGH along with other things like T3 to artificially boost metabolism/weight loss. Then maybe, just maybe you may be able to put the equation together and find out why, just why 10's of thousands of people like me are combining intermittent fasting with keto to quicken our metabolisms and quicken weight loss.
^ Which again, demonstrates a complete and utter lack of factual knowledge.
Increasing endogenous HGH, at the levels at which it's physically possible, does diddly squat for anything. Why do you think athletes/bodybuilders inject supraphysical levels of HGH? Hint: because they've learned that endogenous HGH increases don't have any significant effect upon anything and they have to rely upon exogenous supplementation for any kind of results.
If endogenous HGH increases did what you claim, bodybuilders/athletes wouldn't be wasting their money (and risking the potential legal repercussions) of sourcing/buying exogenous HGH. And I'm sure they'd also be happy to avoid the potential medical side effects that come with supraphysical supplementation. Every one of them would simply be doing keto and IF. But in case you haven't noticed, they're not doing that.
So even if we're going to ignore/put aside the body of scientific evidence, we can at least examine the anecdotal/empirical evidence in the bodybuilding world. Which tells us the exact same thing that the scientific evidence does - that your claims are incorrect and have absolutely no basis in fact.10 -
https://www.myoleanfitness.com/intermittent-fasting-vs-traditional-dieting/
^ Research review of a 12-month long study comparing 5:2 IF vs. continuous energy restriction (i.e., maintaining a daily calorie deficit). 112 subjects (56 male, 56 female), all with obesity and metabolic disease. Assigned randomly to either IF or CER, with equivalent calories on both diets. Six month weight loss period, followed by a six month maintenance period (Actual study itself is linked within the research review).
Overall, the differences in weight lost (and all other anthropomorphic measurements, health markers and metabolic functions) was statistically insignificant between the two groups.
Conclusion by the research reviewers:Conclusions and the big picture
So what are the conclusions and the practical implications of this year-long randomized controlled trial comparing 5:2 intermittent fasting vs traditional dieting?
Well, based on the results, we can conclude that 5:2 intermittent fasting is as effective, but not more effective than daily caloric restriction for weight loss and weight maintenance as well as for improving cardiometabolic risk factors in free-living middle-aged men and women with obesity and metabolic syndrome.
However, 5:2 intermittent fasting can result in increased feelings of hunger relative to traditional dieting (although research suggests that this isn’t always the case) and may potentially create more adverse events, including dizziness, mild headache, mild nausea, and temporary sleep disturbance.
A couple of things that are worth paying special attention to are:
1. the personalized approach taken with regards to the caloric intake of the subjects in the intermittent fasting group on fasting days, where subjects got to choose if they preferred to have their caloric allowance in one, two or three meals.
2. the frequent follow-ups that took place and cognitive behavioral therapy that the subjects received during the weight loss phase.
Both the above likely contributed significantly to the low dropout rates and successful weight loss and maintenance in both groups.8 -
Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.26 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.
Post your research.
Anecdotes from agenda-driven zealots are not reliable information. Science says you're 100% wrong. You know that, and choose to ignore it. And your conspiracy theories do nothing to establish your credibility either.
A small group of people loudly and repeatedly claiming that the Earth is flat doesn't make it the truth. No matter how loudly or how many times they say it, and no matter how much they proclaim that the mountains of evidence to the contrary are paid for and sponsored by "Big Round Earth".
[ETA:] If this supposed "research" is so easy to find, then why haven't many of us here who spend plenty of time keeping up on nutrition/health/fitness research stumbled across it? And why do you get nothing but pushback and refutation from every single person here? I read a lot of research on a daily basic, across multiple platforms and from multiple sources, and have never seen anything that even begins to corroborate any of your claims.11 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.
I have done keto. It is all kitten. Get back to us in a year and maybe we can talk. Right now, it’s called the honeymoon phase for you.
ETA spelling10 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.
I have done keto. It is all kitten. Get back to us in a year and maybe we can talk. Right now, it’s called the honeymoon phase for you.
ETA spelling
I've done keto in the past also - long before that particular poster ever even knew it existed. I've also done 16:8 IF (or close to it) for a number of years, simply because it fits my normal eating pattern. And have seen none of these miraculous, supernatural, divinely inspired results he claims.
If I didn't maintain a caloric deficit on keto, I gained weight. If I don't maintain a caloric deficit while IF'ing, I gain weight. I've been maintaining my weight for nearly a year now, doing 16:8 IF (or close to it) the entire time. Why? Because I'm eating right around maintenance calories. If his claims were true, I should be continuously and uncontrollably dropping 2-3 pounds of weight per week while simultaneously putting on slabs of muscle, just because I eat my meals at a certain time of the day. Which of course isn't happening, because CICO.7 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.
I would love to read some of your research because I haven't found anything to support your claims. In fact, what you say it completely contrary to the thousands of metabolic ward studies and information coming from the NIH, but also information also coming from the most prominent researchers in the field for intermittent fasting and ketogenic diets.
And I know your will ignore this, like my previous posts, but the information I have posted is coming from the NIH, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (KDH).10 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.
I have done keto. It is all kitten. Get back to us in a year and maybe we can talk. Right now, it’s called the honeymoon phase for you.
ETA spelling
As I said. You have not done both keto combined with high ratio window of fasting ie 20 to 23 hrs between every meal. That is where the metabolism/rate of fat burn changes. Not keto alone. If you read my post in full you would have seen that. So you saying "I have done keto. It is all kitten" is irrelevant to my points and my results.
20 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.
I have done keto. It is all kitten. Get back to us in a year and maybe we can talk. Right now, it’s called the honeymoon phase for you.
ETA spelling
As I said. You have not done both keto combined with high ratio window of fasting ie 20 to 23 hrs between every meal. That is where the metabolism/rate of fat burn changes. Not keto alone. If you read my post in full you would have seen that. So you saying "I have done keto. It is all kitten" is irrelevant to my points and my results.
Post the research.5 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.
I have done keto. It is all kitten. Get back to us in a year and maybe we can talk. Right now, it’s called the honeymoon phase for you.
ETA spelling
As I said. You have not done both keto combined with high ratio window of fasting ie 20 to 23 hrs between every meal. That is where the metabolism/rate of fat burn changes. Not keto alone. If you read my post in full you would have seen that. So you saying "I have done keto. It is all kitten" is irrelevant to my points and my results.
So the key is starving yourself all day and then getting a few calories... And that is all I need to get jacked and gain tons of muscle?8 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.
I have done keto. It is all kitten. Get back to us in a year and maybe we can talk. Right now, it’s called the honeymoon phase for you.
ETA spelling
As I said. You have not done both keto combined with high ratio window of fasting ie 20 to 23 hrs between every meal. That is where the metabolism/rate of fat burn changes. Not keto alone. If you read my post in full you would have seen that. So you saying "I have done keto. It is all kitten" is irrelevant to my points and my results.
Put up or shut up.
4 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »Same small group of people here on the forum who are in denial and obviously always will be. They have not ever done this and have no first hand knowledge of it. They read articles/studies paid for and sponsored by groups hired or instructed by the food and drug lobby. Research that too. Tons of info on that too.
Hopefully people looking to lose weight will do their own research (easy to find all the info I posted). Like I said; contact actual people doing it as a a way of living. They are first hand real time information gateways. Not ink on a pad.
I have done keto. It is all kitten. Get back to us in a year and maybe we can talk. Right now, it’s called the honeymoon phase for you.
ETA spelling
As I said. You have not done both keto combined with high ratio window of fasting ie 20 to 23 hrs between every meal. That is where the metabolism/rate of fat burn changes. Not keto alone. If you read my post in full you would have seen that. So you saying "I have done keto. It is all kitten" is irrelevant to my points and my results.
So the key is starving yourself all day and then getting a few calories... And that is all I need to get jacked and gain tons of muscle?
Sounds highly anabolic.
To quote Alan Aragon, "There is nothing anabolic about not eating".8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions