Keto vs calorie counting
Replies
-
I'm engaged in a lively Facebook discussion about the importance of hitting your calorie targets. Many people these days seem to view this approach to weight loss as archaic (i dont). They claim you can eat much more food on a keto (high fat) diet and still lose weight. I think these people are fooling themselves and probably havent done the math around their daily caloric intake and burn.
Is there any truth to the claim that you can overeat on keto and lose weight because it's all healthy fats/low carb?
Not so much fooling themselves as unaware, I agree. I lost 42 pounds over a period of 6 months before I began eating a low carb diet so I had a really good before and after to compare it to. And it's absolutely true that I eat more - hello 16oz ribeyes and sauteed vegetables - but what's not being accounted for is I usually only eat twice a day now or twice a day and a small snack. My meals range from about 800 - 1,500 calories (which is a lot on paper from a calorie counting perspective) but still very easy to spontaneously create a deficit eating only twice a day.
It'd also be just as easy to overeat if I wasn't aware that my eating patterns (that my low carb diet supports) are what's keeping my calories in check. I frequently see people advised to lower their carbs even more if they stall which might be exactly what they needed or it might push their diet from enjoyable to unsustainable for no good reason. Everyone should have a firm grasp of calories even if it's not necessary to count them to manage your weight.5 -
I am able to eat a small amount more while keto without it affecting my weight, which has been born out in Hall and Lustig's studies which showed up to a 100 or 300 (I believe) kcal metabolic advantage. It isn't much, and it hasn't been proven to happen for all (those with hyperinsulinemia seem to benefit), but it isn't nothing.
For instance, I set my MFP weight loss goal for 1420 to lose about 1.5 lbs a week when I weighed 190lbs at 5'8" while inactive. Instead I averaged 1500 kcal over 3 months and lost 2-3 lbs a week. Once I got close to goal, below 160 lbs, then my weight loss slowed to the predicted rate of 1-1.5 lbs a week.
Eating certain foods can also affect how much you can eat. Nuts have quite a thermogenic effect. Proteins (like meat) does too.
Keto will cause water loss from glycogen depletion early on, and also from lower insulin levels (insulin causes water retention), but that is just in the first week or two. After that, unless you had extreme water retention, weight loss is largely fat. Glycogen stores do get refilled too so some of that water comes back on.
Calories do matter. You can't lose if you are eating excess calories, but diet can have a small effect on how many calories you can eat and still be in a deficit.
To be fair, the "metabolic advantage" or increase in EE, was over the first few days and continuously tapered. As Kevin Hall mentioned, it was due to the fact that increase is from initial ketone production. It was also noted that during that period, there was no fat loss and that overall fat loss was greater in the low fat group, since the storage of carbs as body fat is not very efficient.
For those with IR, it seems logical to lose more on low carb. Prolonged periods of lipogenesis caused by over production of insulin would inhibit the abilty to burn fat since HSL would be suppressed.
Adding:
https://youtu.be/qxmVsT_ZeNs 2 -
Is there a transcript?!?!?! grrrr: videos!
4 -
I am able to eat a small amount more while keto without it affecting my weight, which has been born out in Hall and Lustig's studies which showed up to a 100 or 300 (I believe) kcal metabolic advantage. It isn't much, and it hasn't been proven to happen for all (those with hyperinsulinemia seem to benefit), but it isn't nothing.
For instance, I set my MFP weight loss goal for 1420 to lose about 1.5 lbs a week when I weighed 190lbs at 5'8" while inactive. Instead I averaged 1500 kcal over 3 months and lost 2-3 lbs a week. Once I got close to goal, below 160 lbs, then my weight loss slowed to the predicted rate of 1-1.5 lbs a week.
Eating certain foods can also affect how much you can eat. Nuts have quite a thermogenic effect. Proteins (like meat) does too.
Keto will cause water loss from glycogen depletion early on, and also from lower insulin levels (insulin causes water retention), but that is just in the first week or two. After that, unless you had extreme water retention, weight loss is largely fat. Glycogen stores do get refilled too so some of that water comes back on.
Calories do matter. You can't lose if you are eating excess calories, but diet can have a small effect on how many calories you can eat and still be in a deficit.
To be fair, the "metabolic advantage" or increase in EE, was over the first few days and continuously tapered. As Kevin Hall mentioned, it was due to the fact that increase is from initial ketone production. It was also noted that during that period, there was no fat loss and that overall fat loss was greater in the low fat group, since the storage of carbs as body fat is not very efficient.
For those with IR, it seems logical to lose more on low carb. Prolonged periods of lipogenesis caused by over production of insulin would inhibit the abilty to burn fat since HSL would be suppressed.
True, the metabolic advantage was tapering. It's a real shame it was not a longer term study so he could have seen if the taper continued or not, and so that subjects were fully fat adapted, which appears to take 1-3 months.
Have you seen his new study proposal? It looks interesting, but I was hoping he would start it from a higher carb background AND a higher fat background. Instead he says he will start from "normal" which is presumedly high carb.0 -
I am able to eat a small amount more while keto without it affecting my weight, which has been born out in Hall and Lustig's studies which showed up to a 100 or 300 (I believe) kcal metabolic advantage. It isn't much, and it hasn't been proven to happen for all (those with hyperinsulinemia seem to benefit), but it isn't nothing.
For instance, I set my MFP weight loss goal for 1420 to lose about 1.5 lbs a week when I weighed 190lbs at 5'8" while inactive. Instead I averaged 1500 kcal over 3 months and lost 2-3 lbs a week. Once I got close to goal, below 160 lbs, then my weight loss slowed to the predicted rate of 1-1.5 lbs a week.
Eating certain foods can also affect how much you can eat. Nuts have quite a thermogenic effect. Proteins (like meat) does too.
Keto will cause water loss from glycogen depletion early on, and also from lower insulin levels (insulin causes water retention), but that is just in the first week or two. After that, unless you had extreme water retention, weight loss is largely fat. Glycogen stores do get refilled too so some of that water comes back on.
Calories do matter. You can't lose if you are eating excess calories, but diet can have a small effect on how many calories you can eat and still be in a deficit.
To be fair, the "metabolic advantage" or increase in EE, was over the first few days and continuously tapered. As Kevin Hall mentioned, it was due to the fact that increase is from initial ketone production. It was also noted that during that period, there was no fat loss and that overall fat loss was greater in the low fat group, since the storage of carbs as body fat is not very efficient.
For those with IR, it seems logical to lose more on low carb. Prolonged periods of lipogenesis caused by over production of insulin would inhibit the abilty to burn fat since HSL would be suppressed.
True, the metabolic advantage was tapering. It's a real shame it was not a longer term study so he could have seen if the taper continued or not, and so that subjects were fully fat adapted, which appears to take 1-3 months.
Have you seen his new study proposal? It looks interesting, but I was hoping he would start it from a higher carb background AND a higher fat background. Instead he says he will start from "normal" which is presumedly high carb.
I haven't seen the new study but if you watch the video from Jeff Nippard, he notes a few studies that demonstrate no difference. I suspect that the increase in EE would disappear once you hit a basal level of ketones.2 -
I am able to eat a small amount more while keto without it affecting my weight, which has been born out in Hall and Lustig's studies which showed up to a 100 or 300 (I believe) kcal metabolic advantage. It isn't much, and it hasn't been proven to happen for all (those with hyperinsulinemia seem to benefit), but it isn't nothing.
For instance, I set my MFP weight loss goal for 1420 to lose about 1.5 lbs a week when I weighed 190lbs at 5'8" while inactive. Instead I averaged 1500 kcal over 3 months and lost 2-3 lbs a week. Once I got close to goal, below 160 lbs, then my weight loss slowed to the predicted rate of 1-1.5 lbs a week.
Eating certain foods can also affect how much you can eat. Nuts have quite a thermogenic effect. Proteins (like meat) does too.
Keto will cause water loss from glycogen depletion early on, and also from lower insulin levels (insulin causes water retention), but that is just in the first week or two. After that, unless you had extreme water retention, weight loss is largely fat. Glycogen stores do get refilled too so some of that water comes back on.
Calories do matter. You can't lose if you are eating excess calories, but diet can have a small effect on how many calories you can eat and still be in a deficit.
To be fair, the "metabolic advantage" or increase in EE, was over the first few days and continuously tapered. As Kevin Hall mentioned, it was due to the fact that increase is from initial ketone production. It was also noted that during that period, there was no fat loss and that overall fat loss was greater in the low fat group, since the storage of carbs as body fat is not very efficient.
For those with IR, it seems logical to lose more on low carb. Prolonged periods of lipogenesis caused by over production of insulin would inhibit the abilty to burn fat since HSL would be suppressed.
True, the metabolic advantage was tapering. It's a real shame it was not a longer term study so he could have seen if the taper continued or not, and so that subjects were fully fat adapted, which appears to take 1-3 months.
Have you seen his new study proposal? It looks interesting, but I was hoping he would start it from a higher carb background AND a higher fat background. Instead he says he will start from "normal" which is presumedly high carb.
I haven't seen the new study but if you watch the video from Jeff Nippard, he notes a few studies that demonstrate no difference. I suspect that the increase in EE would disappear once you hit a basal level of ketones.
It may. Or not. I'm losing about 0.5-1 lb a week on about 2000 kcal right now. That's 4 years in, with the last year as basically a carnivore and eating to satiety. I am at about goal weight and inactive, and trying to eat more to slow my losses.0 -
If you switch from a standard American diet to eating mostly vegetables and meat, then yeah you probably can eat "more food" and still lose weight. However, calorie-wise, of course we all know that to lose weight you must eat less than you burn. Anyone that says otherwise is just wrong.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions