Lower Cals, Lower Carbs, Both?

I too endorse low carb, high fat, moderate protein.
Tons of water.
Lots of working out (with at least half being low intensity)

To lose weight it's not either lower carbs or lower calories. For fat loss a calorie deficit is the only thing that is absolutely "required". Whether you choose to lower your carb intake isn't going to matter as long as you are in a calorie deficit.

Both protein and carbs are 4cals per gram. So I would say the only reason that would work is satiety, likelihood to retain LBM while in a deficit, and water weight.

What's been working for me is low carb and high fat. I've shed almost 30 lbs and my body looks so much better. PLUS I'm now in single digit sized pants!

all you did was create a calorie deficit by not eating carbs or low carb..

you could of achieved the same eating 25-30% carbs and eating in a calorie deficit..

Actually, before keto, I was not losing anything for months and my measurements were not changing whatsoever. I was eating 1500 calories a day. I eat about the same amount now, sometimes more if I work out more, but I'm actually losing weight AND inches. So no, I could not have achieved the same thing.

so you can eat 4000 calories a day on Keto and still lose weight? Because what you are saying is that calories in vs calories out does not work ...

For me, I do way better when I'm low-carb, high fat. Regarding your 4000 calorie keto comment, I would challenge you to try to eat that much with no carbs.

Here are my thoughts:

1 - I agree that calories do matter, however, it's a lot easier to eat fewer calories on low carb. Carbs are not nearly as filling as fat or protein.

2 - Eating the same amount of calories, I lose noticeably quicker on low carb. I'm not sure how this works but it does. Studies seem to indicate that it may be caloric output that is accelerated when eating a lower carb, higher fat diet (one study estimated it at about 300 calories per day).

3 - There are also exaggerated weight-loss claims by early low-carb adopters that skew this. A lot of early weight is lost since this is water weight. Since water binds to carbs, you will lose a lot of weight quickly by going low-carb. As soon as you're off, the water wight comes back on.

Actually, before keto, I was not losing anything for months and my measurements were not changing whatsoever. I was eating 1500 calories a day. I eat about the same amount now, sometimes more if I work out more, but I'm actually losing weight AND inches. So no, I could not have achieved the same thing.

Then there are mistakes in your logging.

Not really, but thanks for the assumption that I don't know how to log food. :grumble:

:smokin:

I don't think anyone here is trying to convince OP about the magical properties of keto and how it defies science, we're just giving anecdotal evidence of what works for us. We've encouraged them to do the same (find what works for them).

I know people seem to think ketoers are just making life hard for themselves but weight loss is so individualized that to say calories in vs calories out would have the EXACT same rate of loss is just naive. Aside from the way each body handles different macros there is a definite benefit in terms of satiety and more stable insulin levels, therefore more adherence = weight loss.

Calories definitely matter but anecdotely I've noticed that they seem to matter less to my results when I eat keto.

What's been working for me is low carb and high fat. I've shed almost 30 lbs and my body looks so much better. PLUS I'm now in single digit sized pants!

all you did was create a calorie deficit by not eating carbs or low carb..

you could of achieved the same eating 25-30% carbs and eating in a calorie deficit..

Actually, before keto, I was not losing anything for months and my measurements were not changing whatsoever. I was eating 1500 calories a day. I eat about the same amount now, sometimes more if I work out more, but I'm actually losing weight AND inches. So no, I could not have achieved the same thing.

so you can eat 4000 calories a day on Keto and still lose weight? Because what you are saying is that calories in vs calories out does not work ...

no. She's saying that eating the same calories on low carb vs normal carbs gave her results. I have experienced the same results. 2300-2400 calories a day with 200+ carbs- didn't lose anything- just the same 4 lbs over and over. Dropped to 50 carbs with the same caloric intake- the scale and tape measure started to move again, about 3-4lbs a month loss now. Logging is the same- whether it's totally accurate, or partially inaccurate, my logging methods have not changed. I try to be as accurate as possible but sometimes you can't be 100% on point every day, but overall, I'm doing the same due diligence with my logging now that I was before.

It just works for some people. I find it easy to eat this way, where some people can't do it.

ohhh ok I get it now ..so you two just happen to defy the basic laws of math and thermodynamics with your keto diet..?

My guess is that you were not logging accurately ...

I don't see how eating 2400 cals a day of normal carbs and 2400 cals a day of low carb would make any difference in weight loss

There are a few areas where this could happen.. 1. as you noted, they have become more meticulous in their tracking, which can be a possibility, 2. they have a medical condition (insulin resistance or intolerance to a specific food) or 3. reducing carbs cause a reduction in binges which would affect the deficit overall. Without looking at a few months of day that would be tough to see.

I can tell you from personal experience, until my wife cut out gluten, she was gaining weight steadily but it turns out her heart condition comes with a gluten intolerance.

What's been working for me is low carb and high fat. I've shed almost 30 lbs and my body looks so much better. PLUS I'm now in single digit sized pants!

all you did was create a calorie deficit by not eating carbs or low carb..

you could of achieved the same eating 25-30% carbs and eating in a calorie deficit..

Actually, before keto, I was not losing anything for months and my measurements were not changing whatsoever. I was eating 1500 calories a day. I eat about the same amount now, sometimes more if I work out more, but I'm actually losing weight AND inches. So no, I could not have achieved the same thing.

so you can eat 4000 calories a day on Keto and still lose weight? Because what you are saying is that calories in vs calories out does not work ...

Did I say that? I don't think I did, so don't put words in my mouth. The way I was eating before didn't work, so I tried a new way and it does. And I feel much better eating this way. What is with the keto hate-on? Am I forcing you to eat my way? Don't think so.

you just said that you ate 1500 hundred and lost nothing, and then switched to 1500 on keto and lost weight...therefore, calories in vs calories out must not impact you ...

OR maybe carbs effect me. Ever think of that? I was eating too many carbs and not enough fat pre-keto. I chalk it up to over consumption of carbs. Maybe I'm wrong, but all I know is that NOW I'm getting results and am 12 lbs from my goal weight. Also, I feel better eating this way. So go take your hate-on for keto elsewhere please.

I am not hating on Keto ..I am disputing the fact that if you eat 30% carbs at 1500 cals a day and this is a 500 calorie deficit that you will not lose weight BUT if you consume 1500 cals a day with the same 500 calorie deficit and all you is replace carbs with fat that you are going to somehow lose more weight...both methods are a 500 calorie deficit...does not matter how you create said deficit, jut as long as you do...

And you assume that what you eat does not impact caloric output whatsoever? I'm not saying it does, but research seems to indicate it might. Recent research has shown that you could be outputting up to 300 calories a day extra by eating a high-fat diet (2100 calories/week).

Don't get me wrong - I think/know caloric intake matters. What I'm not convinced of is that our bodies are so simple that it's the be-all end-all when it comes to calculating weight loss.

That's besides the point though. All nutritional studies have flaws - the human body is too complex - and you can only take what comes from them with a grain a salt.

What matters is that it has worked for many of us. We used to eat low-fat and tracked calories. Now we eat low-carb and track calories. It's clear to me which one I lose weight with more easily. We're sharing our experience.

I am not hating on Keto ..I am disputing the fact that if you eat 30% carbs at 1500 cals a day and this is a 500 calorie deficit that you will not lose weight BUT if you consume 1500 cals a day with the same 500 calorie deficit and all you is replace carbs with fat that you are going to somehow lose more weight...both methods are a 500 calorie deficit...does not matter how you create said deficit, jut as long as you do...

And you assume that what you eat does not impact caloric output whatsoever? I'm not saying it does, but research seems to indicate it might. Recent research has shown that you could be outputting up to 300 calories a day extra by eating a high-fat diet (2100 calories/week).

Don't get me wrong - I think/know caloric intake matters. What I'm not convinced of is that our bodies are so simple that it's the be-all end-all when it comes to calculating weight loss.

That's besides the point though. All nutritional studies have flaws - the human body is too complex - and you can only take what comes from them with a grain a salt.

What matters is that it has worked for many of us. We used to eat low-fat and tracked calories. Now we eat low-carb and track calories. It's clear to me which one I lose weight with more easily. We're sharing our experience.

I am disputing the fact that you can eat 1500 calories on a 500 cal deficit and lose nothing and then just simply change your macro composition and eat the same 1500 calories with the same 500 calorie deficit and then magically start losing weight...

And others disagree. Not sure where this "debate" could go from here.

I am disputing the fact that you can eat 1500 calories on a 500 cal deficit and lose nothing and then just simply change your macro composition and eat the same 1500 calories with the same 500 calorie deficit and then magically start losing weight...

If that did happen, I would suggest it's because the body adjusted the 'calories out' side of the equation.

It doesn't impossible to me that by adjusting what you eat, the body may adjust how the body is working.
An obvious one is stimulants - a bit of drug (caffeine, etc) and generally I would expect the body starts burning more.
For other factors which don't have such a direct think, it doesn't seem unreasonable this may also happen.

I am not hating on Keto ..I am disputing the fact that if you eat 30% carbs at 1500 cals a day and this is a 500 calorie deficit that you will not lose weight BUT if you consume 1500 cals a day with the same 500 calorie deficit and all you is replace carbs with fat that you are going to somehow lose more weight...both methods are a 500 calorie deficit...does not matter how you create said deficit, jut as long as you do...

And you assume that what you eat does not impact caloric output whatsoever? I'm not saying it does, but research seems to indicate it might. Recent research has shown that you could be outputting up to 300 calories a day extra by eating a high-fat diet (2100 calories/week).

Don't get me wrong - I think/know caloric intake matters. What I'm not convinced of is that our bodies are so simple that it's the be-all end-all when it comes to calculating weight loss.

That's besides the point though. All nutritional studies have flaws - the human body is too complex - and you can only take what comes from them with a grain a salt.

What matters is that it has worked for many of us. We used to eat low-fat and tracked calories. Now we eat low-carb and track calories. It's clear to me which one I lose weight with more easily. We're sharing our experience.

I am disputing the fact that you can eat 1500 calories on a 500 cal deficit and lose nothing and then just simply change your macro composition and eat the same 1500 calories with the same 500 calorie deficit and then magically start losing weight...

Just out of curiosity (because I don't have a dog in this fight), then what is the point of 'hitting your macros'? There seems to be a large group of people on here who constantly say they eat whatever they want, as long as it hits their macros. So, if macros aren't important, then what is the point? Because just like body shapes are different, calorie burns are different, and genetics are different, wouldn't it stand to reason that macro needs for each person could be different? And why would that be bad? I know lots of folks who do different things and do what works for them, can't it be the same with this? They are not saying they aren't following the 'rules' of calories in vs. calories out, just the lay of the macros. So, I'm confused by why this couldn't be true? If body builders want to really bulk up, they change their macros to up protein with overall calorie intake being up. Couldn't it be the same for someone wanting to lose to up their protein but with overall lower calorie intake? Because if you need to up it to build muscle, seems to be true that you would need to up it when losing if you already have a lower amount of muscle.... I'm not arguing either way. I truly don't know and just at this point feel like you should do what works for you, your life, and your body and let others figure out their own macro sets.