Keto vs calorie counting
Options
Replies
-
You lose weight when you consistently eat fewer calories than you burn. Any way of eating that puts you in a calorie deficit will lead to weight loss. There is no characteristic of keto, or any other diet, that will lead to weight loss without a calorie deficit.
However, I generally don't find it fruitful to argue with people who are convinced about unscientific ideas on how weight loss works. If they make an intentional and sustained effort to lose weight, they'll ultimately figure it out for themselves, and in my experience that's the only way that many naysayers will be persuaded. Confirmation bias about weight loss is very strong.
I agree with this in general.
However, when it comes to online-forums, I would probably argue for the benefit of other who may be reading and don't have their minds already made up.3 -
Our perceptions on food intake can easily be clouded by how full or how hungry we are. In addition, if a person has experiences in previous diet attempts where they were too aggressive (unnecessarily ate too little) it might seem that eating a healthy amount of calories seems like much more by comparison. Keto is not the first diet in which some participants claimed to eat seemingly excessive amounts of food.
The only way to make a claim that you can eat more than maintenance on Keto is to establish what that is and then accurately log your food and activity for a couple of months. Otherwise it is just perception which does not make it true.7 -
sklarbodds wrote: »Keto works because it cuts out super high calorie dense foods like bread and sugar.
Cheese and nuts are much more calorie dense by volume than bread and sugar, not to mention oil and butter.
But then few people eat sugar alone, of course -- most commonly it's in larger amounts in foods that are very high cal due to also having sugar.
I think the point amusedmonkey made is right on -- if you switch from a bad diet that contains lots of high fat and high carb and low nutrient foods and few vegetables, then keto often will increase volume, protein, and satiety.
For me, volume was somewhat less on keto, although that wasn't a problem. It was no more satiating than my normal diet and I was eating (IMO) less healthfully than my current default diet, although it did make it easier to resist mindless eating since many things available for mindless eating would not fit in the diet (I already avoided snacking and mindless eating so that wasn't an issue but I can see it being helpful for some just starting out).
I do think one reason why people do dramatic diet shifts and then lose without counting calories (whether it's W30 or keto or 100% plant based or "clean" (whatever that means to them)) is that often they are coming from a basically poor and not satiating diet and often they are putting off limits their main trigger foods.7 -
Repeat this with me everyone..."Keto is not magic." Anyone telling you it is a full of scheet.15
-
Our perceptions on food intake can easily be clouded by how full or how hungry we are. In addition, if a person has experiences in previous diet attempts where they were too aggressive (unnecessarily ate too little) it might seem that eating a healthy amount of calories seems like much more by comparison. Keto is not the first diet in which some participants claimed to eat seemingly excessive amounts of food.
The only way to make a claim that you can eat more than maintenance on Keto is to establish what that is and then accurately log your food and activity for a couple of months. Otherwise it is just perception which does not make it true.
This is a really good point. I will add that I've seen people claim they eat "more" on a diet that is radically different from keto -- for example, a plant-based, high carbohydrate diet. When you find a way of eating that personally "clicks" for your satiety and satisfaction, it often feels like you're eating "more" than you did in the past. For some people, keto will do this. For others, it may be a high carbohydrate diet. I've seen people in all seriousness and sincerity claim that it's impossible to be obese on a WFPB diet because that is their personal experience.7 -
sklarbodds wrote: »Keto works because it cuts out super high calorie dense foods like bread and sugar.
Bread, french fries, candy...all stuff with a TON of calories that don't keep you full. Not to mention sugar is just generally not good for metabolism, but that's secondary.
They get full on less calories is ultimately why it works.
What does the bolded even mean? (That's not intended as a cheap shot; it's a serious question.)
I agree that sugar to excess - to the point where it either drives out needed nutrition, or puts a person over a sensible calorie level - is not a healthy way to construct a diet. (Those two things, lowered nutrition or excess calories, seem to be what maintream organizations like USDA and WHO cite as problems with too much added sugar.)
I can't think of anything I'd describe as "sugar being not good for metabolism", so I'm wondering what you mean - if I've missed some relevant research, for example.
14 -
jessicamaehunter wrote: »I eat less when doing keto (hence less or the perfect caloric amount). The fats fill me up. I count calories too, but I'm not near as hungry on Keto as I am on anything else. My blood sugar doesn't spike. I have LOADS of energy also. It works for me, but might not work for others.
Which seems perfectly sensible and logical, in the eyes of this carb-eating "CICO person". We're all different, and it's great when someone finds a happy path to successful weight management and good nutrition/health. I do appreciate it when people who eat differently from me share their perspectives in a clear, open-minded and science-aware ways on threads here. Honest pros & cons from all of us can help new people find their personal happy path.
:flowerforyou:9 -
There is this silly idea that if you're not doing keto, it means you're living at the very extreme of calorie dense and nutrient poor, nothing but soda and packaged snack food. Like there is no way you could be eating carbs without swinging that way, and that the only way to control that is by cutting out an entire macro.17
-
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.11 -
7 -
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
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions