Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Keto diet= good or bad



  • bryant1969bryant1969 Member Posts: 12 Member Member Posts: 12 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    kkacieL wrote: »
    I work in a gym and am fortunate enough to have access to a very accurate body composition scale that also gives an estimated basal metabolic rate based on your lean body mass. I weigh 120lbs and have an average amount of lean body mass for my weight and my BMR is 1300 calories which is the lower end and I’ve weighed 100s of people on the in body scale. If I factor in my 3-4X a week workout my weight loss calorie goal is 1520. 1200 calories is the internet standard but the reason you weren’t losing any weight is because you are under eating. I see this all the time and it is absolutely real. Most women need to eat about 1600-1800 to lose 1lb a week. Any less and your body goes into conservation mode. If you want to go back to a less restrictive diet and just track your food try this and trust me the scale won’t be stuck! We see this all the time and though it seems counter-intuitive increasing food always works and is actually sustainable :-)

    Conservation mode or starvation mode is a fitness industry myth. There are two true things that when misunderstood and conflated makes the myth seem true.
    1. Adaptive thermogenesis is the real "starvation mode" where your metabolism slows to adapt to not enough food. However this happens slowly over the long term of consistent undereating. We are talking months and years of restriction. And even so, it won't stop someone from losing weight, just slow it down, otherwise people wouldn't become emaciated.
    2. When someone undereats in the short term, it makes them fatigued and possibly a little moody or unfocused. This makes them subtley move around less - less fidgety, less effort put into workouts, slower walking pace, etc. Nothing they would necessarily notice, but enough to reduce their NEAT/TDEE to possibly slow down weight loss.

    It's certainly better to fuel yourself properly, and not doing so can make weight loss more difficult in a number of ways. But it's not conservation mode. And I'd bet far more women aren't losing weight while eating 1200 calories because their logging is off and they're not really eating 1200 cals.

    We also see a lot of posters who are under-eating and not losing weight, but what eventually comes out is the under-eating leads to binges they fail to initially report. These binges basically cancel out their deficit from the low cal days, especially when added to the fatigue effects.

    Also you can't generalize those calorie needs. While some women would lose weight on 1600-1800 calories, lots of shorter women with smaller amounts to lose would maintain on those figures. I'm 5'4 125lbs and lightly active and I maintain on 1800 calories. I've never lost weight quickly and I'm very sensitive to hunger so I've never undereaten either.

    You really sound like you know what you're talking about, is there any chance you could private message me if you get a chance, would really like someones help as I seem to have flatlined with the weight loss
This discussion has been closed.