Low calorie/cardio vs keto/weights
Replies
-
I believed its also because keto has converted you to a more efficient fat burning body type. It used fat to produce ketones to fuel your body instead of fueling your body from glucose which is produced from crab and sugar.
My personal experience with it was great. I was losing weight more consistently, and cardio exercise did not tire me out as much. I couldn't stay on it for long though because I would need to prep for 3 different kind of dietary meal for my family and time just doesn't allow it.
I'm keto and the primary cook in my house too. I find that cooking a few dishes, and making enough for some leftovers seems to cover everyone. The other day we made a spinach lasagne that I only had a couple of bites of, but there was also leftover meat and raw veggies. The next day I made an egg and beef casserole whih the kids weren't keen on so they ate lasagne noodles, left over burger and veggies. The following day I made chicken nuggets and potatoes so I ate the leftover egg casserole. You get the drift.
Keto when no one else is can be a hassle but it is doable if the pay off is worth it for you.
I did want to add that keto does make you slightly more fat burning but the effects are generally not noticeable unless doing some sort of endurance sport - keto'ers no longer hit the wall when others would have run out of glucose. For the more sedentary there is not a great difference - about 6 lbs lost more in a year.
Peer reviewed study or meta analysis source that substantiates these claims please?
For increased fat burning in endurance athletes: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
I generally don't bookmark studies unless they pertain to my own health issues. I remembered the FASTER study because it is new and I follow Volek.
For the ~6lb weight loss being greater than higher carb among the more average, I can not remember where I read it. But this collection of studies repeats similar numbers: http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section2 Study #20 is probably the closest to what I remember. 6lbs in a year is not a big difference. Most low carb for weight loss studies that stop at 3-6 months look much more impressive.
Thank you. I will take time to review later today.1 -
The reactions of Keto proponents being called out are really very human at the end of the day. All of us want to feel as though the decisions we are making are correct and justified. Telling someone who passionately believes in something that they are essentially wasting their time is bound to be met with resentment. So I "get it", I guess is what I am saying.
That said, this does not eliminate our moral responsibility to new people to give them honest and accurate information in regards to fad diets. Fad diets cost consumers billions each year and cause people looking to lose weight a mountain of unnecessary frustration. People new to losing weight are already in a vulnerable and oftentimes desperate situation (I know I was) and they do not need to add a head full of pipe dreams and fairy tales to their list of liabilities.2 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »I think the point fjmartini is making (and it frustrates me as well) is as soon as a question pops up about keto or low-carb, the very first response is always someone pooh-poohing it.
e.g.TavistockToad wrote: »Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit. You will always drop some water weight when you start low carb.
TavistockToad didn't answer the question the OP asked, he just dismissed the idea of Keto straight away.
I don't see it as being dismissive. Reaffirming the nuts and bolts of how all diets can lead to weight loss isn't to say that any particular diet is useless.
Oh I get that, and I agree, but it wasn't a particularly helpful or detailed answer. I'm not here to argue, and fjmartini did fly off the handle, but his point and one I agree with is that is seems like a blanket response to any keto question. That's all really.
I don't think explaining that calorie deficit and keto are not two separate things, but that keto is one way of achieving a calorie deficit is dismissive toward keto or unhelpful. I like low carbing because I think it takes LESS willpower for me, but I don't think that means I don't need a calorie deficit to lose or won't gain if I eat too much, and understanding how it works is important.
I don't understand why some seem to take "keto is not inherently superior" or "keto works through a calorie deficit so is not separate from CICO" to be anti keto. (Speaking more about fjmartni's reaction than yours.)
My impression is that its well accepted and agreed-upon at MFP that low carb or keto can be helpful ways for some to achieve calorie deficits. Pushback comes when people preach it as the one best way or inherently superior (as opposed to a method that is easier or has positive effects for them).
And the assertion that people just don't have the willpower to keto seems ridiculous to me. If it takes more willpower for them, it's probably not a good choice. For me, the benefit of low carbing is that to some extent it's how I naturally like to eat (if I didn't pay attention I'd be at around 40%, probably) and generally takes less willpower to cut calories when I low carb (I don't care about or miss lots of common sources of carbs and for me a full meal of protein/veg/fat is filling). Other people feel differently, so why should they do keto?6 -
I think the point fjmartini is making (and it frustrates me as well) is as soon as a question pops up about keto or low-carb, the very first response is always someone pooh-poohing it.
e.g.TavistockToad wrote: »Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit. You will always drop some water weight when you start low carb.
TavistockToad didn't answer the question the OP asked, he just dismissed the idea of Keto straight away.
Some snowflake reported me for disagreeing with their narrative. I stand by everything I said pertaining to how people answered their own question when answering this post. Again, OP did NOT ask about anything other than if people had similar responses from their keto diet while only weight training. On queue, people regurgitated their same generic response to ANYTHING with "keto" in the title. Instead of these people not responding at all, they needed to feel important and contribute an answer that would be like if I asked "how's the weather" and someone I didn't know said "red is my favorite color."
If you read the last line of OPs question, she asks if anyone has experience with this OR any other insight on the matter. It is YOU who was just expecting everyone in the thread to go gaga over the magical properties of keto.
I would assume that anyone who does keto would be extremely happy that there are others who lose weight with moderate/high carbs as well. More options are good for everyone.3 -
Hi everyone, so when I was younger low cal & cardio ( 1hr 4-5x per week), allowed me to lose weight fairly quickly. Well fast forward 20 years, low cal & cardio didn't work ( quickly enough for me to feel it was worth the stress if it). So a co-worker, a Physical thearpist, suggested I try keto and weight lifting instead. Boom! The weight started coming off fairly quickly.
Is this because I'm old or my metabolism is changed ?
I would love to hear the experience of other
Or just any insight you may have
I'm still confused how some people read this OP, particularly the bolded, and interpret that as ONLY wanting to hear from people who have done exactly what she is doing (i.e. Keto and weight lifting) and not an open minded inquiry for a better understanding by hearing from different perspectives.
Perhaps OP, @fitjam00 can clarify, did you only want to hear from those following keto, or did you find the comments from those explaining that regardless of what diet you choose to follow or how you choose to eat, a calorie deficit is what drives the weight loss?
It also might be helpful for people to remember that there are other members reading along who may not be posting themselves who may find benefit in the open discussion from different perspectives... rather than only hearing one side to a story. I'm not sure why some are so against presenting facts for the discussion and feel so threatened that they have to insult other users...2 -
Same here. In my 20s 1500 calories a day and running got me to my goal weight. I had no problem. Now 40 and there's a problem. Keto works but eventually I want cake and quit.4
-
I believed its also because keto has converted you to a more efficient fat burning body type. It used fat to produce ketones to fuel your body instead of fueling your body from glucose which is produced from crab and sugar.
My personal experience with it was great. I was losing weight more consistently, and cardio exercise did not tire me out as much. I couldn't stay on it for long though because I would need to prep for 3 different kind of dietary meal for my family and time just doesn't allow it.
I'm keto and the primary cook in my house too. I find that cooking a few dishes, and making enough for some leftovers seems to cover everyone. The other day we made a spinach lasagne that I only had a couple of bites of, but there was also leftover meat and raw veggies. The next day I made an egg and beef casserole whih the kids weren't keen on so they ate lasagne noodles, left over burger and veggies. The following day I made chicken nuggets and potatoes so I ate the leftover egg casserole. You get the drift.
Keto when no one else is can be a hassle but it is doable if the pay off is worth it for you.
I did want to add that keto does make you slightly more fat burning but the effects are generally not noticeable unless doing some sort of endurance sport - keto'ers no longer hit the wall when others would have run out of glucose. For the more sedentary there is not a great difference - about 6 lbs lost more in a year.
Peer reviewed study or meta analysis source that substantiates these claims please?
For increased fat burning in endurance athletes: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
I generally don't bookmark studies unless they pertain to my own health issues. I remembered the FASTER study because it is new and I follow Volek.
For the ~6lb weight loss being greater than higher carb among the more average, I can not remember where I read it. But this collection of studies repeats similar numbers: http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section2 Study #20 is probably the closest to what I remember. 6lbs in a year is not a big difference. Most low carb for weight loss studies that stop at 3-6 months look much more impressive.
Thank you. I will take time to review later today.
Haven't got to the 2nd one yet but some observations on the first one. You said:]I did want to add that keto does make you slightly more fat burning but the effects are generally not noticeable unless doing some sort of endurance sport - keto'ers no longer hit the wall when others would have run out of glucose"
What you did not add but may have implied is that, based on the study you posted, this may be true during exercise. The study draws no conclusions regarding overall long term dietary fat loss. Fuel substrate during exercise is generally not relevant to determine overall fat loss over time. Low Impact Steady State cardio like walking primarily uses fat as the fuel substrate.
While it is an interesting study and the subject merits more study it was:- only 20 subjects
- short term, 2 days
- protein and calories not held constant.
Will read the other a little later.5 -
I believed its also because keto has converted you to a more efficient fat burning body type. It used fat to produce ketones to fuel your body instead of fueling your body from glucose which is produced from crab and sugar.
My personal experience with it was great. I was losing weight more consistently, and cardio exercise did not tire me out as much. I couldn't stay on it for long though because I would need to prep for 3 different kind of dietary meal for my family and time just doesn't allow it.
I'm keto and the primary cook in my house too. I find that cooking a few dishes, and making enough for some leftovers seems to cover everyone. The other day we made a spinach lasagne that I only had a couple of bites of, but there was also leftover meat and raw veggies. The next day I made an egg and beef casserole whih the kids weren't keen on so they ate lasagne noodles, left over burger and veggies. The following day I made chicken nuggets and potatoes so I ate the leftover egg casserole. You get the drift.
Keto when no one else is can be a hassle but it is doable if the pay off is worth it for you.
I did want to add that keto does make you slightly more fat burning but the effects are generally not noticeable unless doing some sort of endurance sport - keto'ers no longer hit the wall when others would have run out of glucose. For the more sedentary there is not a great difference - about 6 lbs lost more in a year.
Peer reviewed study or meta analysis source that substantiates these claims please?
For increased fat burning in endurance athletes: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
I generally don't bookmark studies unless they pertain to my own health issues. I remembered the FASTER study because it is new and I follow Volek.
For the ~6lb weight loss being greater than higher carb among the more average, I can not remember where I read it. But this collection of studies repeats similar numbers: http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section2 Study #20 is probably the closest to what I remember. 6lbs in a year is not a big difference. Most low carb for weight loss studies that stop at 3-6 months look much more impressive.
Thank you. I will take time to review later today.
Looked through the 2nd link. As stated in the lead in article; "Most of the studies are being conducted on people with health problems, including overweight/obesity, type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome."
I think it is pretty well established that low carb/ keto in beneficial to people presenting these issues. The key reason is, in almost all cases, insulin resistance. It is clearly established that LC/ Keto diets can benefit the insulin resistant (at least to me it is, some may want to argue that). However this does not demonstrate an average of 6 lbs per year of more fat loss in all subjects, or subjects without insulin resistance.
I realize that the 6lb number did not specifically appear in these studies but some said more than that. It would not surprise me for this to be the case in insulin resistant subjects. Improving insulin resistance seems to one of the most beneficial ways to utilize a ketogenic diet.4 -
I think the point fjmartini is making (and it frustrates me as well) is as soon as a question pops up about keto or low-carb, the very first response is always someone pooh-poohing it.
e.g.TavistockToad wrote: »Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit. You will always drop some water weight when you start low carb.
TavistockToad didn't answer the question the OP asked, he just dismissed the idea of Keto straight away.
To be fair though, what he said can also be true. When I first started, my body water % was between 52-53% compared with 55% prior starting. That was when I was 127kg, which means I had had more than 2kg dropped in 2 weeks just from going to bathroom.
What I don't really get is that why are some people trying to divide keto n cico. They could just co exist as well. Keto is likely to put you on cal deficit and hence loose weight. That being said, you could still gain weight even if you are on keto diet if you eat more than what you use.
People just need to take a step back and chill. Be respectful of other people's choice and tune it down a notch. Rarely anyone can stay cool when comments got too personal. At that point, whether what you have to contribute is true or not is not going to be well received.
2 -
Hi everyone, so when I was younger low cal & cardio ( 1hr 4-5x per week), allowed me to lose weight fairly quickly. Well fast forward 20 years, low cal & cardio didn't work ( quickly enough for me to feel it was worth the stress if it). So a co-worker, a Physical thearpist, suggested I try keto and weight lifting instead. Boom! The weight started coming off fairly quickly.
Is this because I'm old or my metabolism is changed ?
I would love to hear the experience of other
Or just any insight you may have
Possibly as you are older you aren't able to put the same effort into the cardio you did when you were younger.
That's a really good point
I think it was just easier for me in my 20s to tear up the treadmill and function on a lower calorie count
At this stage in my life it wasn't sustainable
It's nice to read about others who've had a similar journey in this community
Another thing to consider, is most young people are naturally more active in their daily life. Most of us now have desk job and dont get to increase activity outside a little exercise.
Especially before DVRs, Netflix, Hulu and binge-watching.
1 -
I believed its also because keto has converted you to a more efficient fat burning body type. It used fat to produce ketones to fuel your body instead of fueling your body from glucose which is produced from crab and sugar.
My personal experience with it was great. I was losing weight more consistently, and cardio exercise did not tire me out as much. I couldn't stay on it for long though because I would need to prep for 3 different kind of dietary meal for my family and time just doesn't allow it.
I'm keto and the primary cook in my house too. I find that cooking a few dishes, and making enough for some leftovers seems to cover everyone. The other day we made a spinach lasagne that I only had a couple of bites of, but there was also leftover meat and raw veggies. The next day I made an egg and beef casserole whih the kids weren't keen on so they ate lasagne noodles, left over burger and veggies. The following day I made chicken nuggets and potatoes so I ate the leftover egg casserole. You get the drift.
Keto when no one else is can be a hassle but it is doable if the pay off is worth it for you.
I did want to add that keto does make you slightly more fat burning but the effects are generally not noticeable unless doing some sort of endurance sport - keto'ers no longer hit the wall when others would have run out of glucose. For the more sedentary there is not a great difference - about 6 lbs lost more in a year.
Peer reviewed study or meta analysis source that substantiates these claims please?
For increased fat burning in endurance athletes: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
I generally don't bookmark studies unless they pertain to my own health issues. I remembered the FASTER study because it is new and I follow Volek.
For the ~6lb weight loss being greater than higher carb among the more average, I can not remember where I read it. But this collection of studies repeats similar numbers: http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section2 Study #20 is probably the closest to what I remember. 6lbs in a year is not a big difference. Most low carb for weight loss studies that stop at 3-6 months look much more impressive.
Thank you. I will take time to review later today.
These are pretty much the same studies from authoritynutritions website. And none of them held protein constant (which is my biggest issue with "lc vs lf" studies. Most are self reported studies or recalls. The primary thing that one can take away is this: if you have some kind of metabolic issue, or you are not particularly active, that cutting back on carbs and increase fat intake may be advantageous. But most importantly, it suggest that me, that those who do that, transiently add in protein which has been proven over and over to have a metabolic advantage and increases satiety, which increases compliance.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »I think the point fjmartini is making (and it frustrates me as well) is as soon as a question pops up about keto or low-carb, the very first response is always someone pooh-poohing it.
e.g.TavistockToad wrote: »Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit. You will always drop some water weight when you start low carb.
TavistockToad didn't answer the question the OP asked, he just dismissed the idea of Keto straight away.
I don't see it as being dismissive. Reaffirming the nuts and bolts of how all diets can lead to weight loss isn't to say that any particular diet is useless.
Oh I get that, and I agree, but it wasn't a particularly helpful or detailed answer. I'm not here to argue, and fjmartini did fly off the handle, but his point and one I agree with is that is seems like a blanket response to any keto question. That's all really.
I think it's also disappointing that it inevitably ends up with a bust up between keto and CICO causing the thread to be closed and the OP is still as confused as they were to begin with. I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, it just never ends up well for the OP.
What frustrates me to no end is this continued misunderstanding that people have that CICO is a diet, a way of eating, means eat nothing but junk and still lose weight, etc. CICO is an energy balance. If one is losing weight doing keto, they are still following CICO, since it is the fundamental way that everyone loses, maintains, or gains weight.
Pointing that out to OP and others does not mean bashing keto, or any other way a person is eating. The OP believes she's losing weight faster doing keto than she was with her low calorie approach. Pointing out that the calorie deficit is still required and that short term rapid results are often because of glycogen and will level off is not dismissing keto, it is helping someone who may be confused better understand the fundamentals of weight loss. Because again, just to be clear, weight loss comes down to a calorie deficit. If OP and others enjoy following a ketogenic diet, find it sustainable and get good results, more power to them. But for weight loss, there is no long term advantage to the approach, so letting people know that, especially when there is a certain amount of fanaticism from many of the keto proponents, is important. There's enough misinformation out there about weight loss. Reminding people of the fundamentals can never be stated often enough, in my opinion.
Amen to that! I still don't have any answer for the OP, but I hope she found some of this helpful, and like you said, if she finds it sustainable, then keep going!
The thing is, there are so many variables, it would be hard to tell. But to add to what I already provided, below is just a short list of variables.- NEAT/TEA difference between young and older
- Different protein levels
- Tracking differences (was food diary and/or food scale was used)
- Difference in starting weights
- Human recall is terrible, so it's easy to conflate a few days (memorable moments)
- Compliance within diet
- etc...
Let's be honest, we would love to have a straight up apples to apples comparison between what we did 10 or 20 years ago, but we can't. As we age, we continue to learn and refine methods and approaches. And those transient difference can add up. It's why I was losing more on 2300 calories than I did 1800 calories.2 -
I lost 40 lbs not too hard then I stopped losing but still did cardio. In June I joined a HIIT class & we do weights too & the trainer told us to eat every 6hrs. since then I started loosing again, not doing keto but I do feel more alert & energetic when I eat lower carbs1
-
I believed its also because keto has converted you to a more efficient fat burning body type. It used fat to produce ketones to fuel your body instead of fueling your body from glucose which is produced from crab and sugar.
My personal experience with it was great. I was losing weight more consistently, and cardio exercise did not tire me out as much. I couldn't stay on it for long though because I would need to prep for 3 different kind of dietary meal for my family and time just doesn't allow it.
I'm keto and the primary cook in my house too. I find that cooking a few dishes, and making enough for some leftovers seems to cover everyone. The other day we made a spinach lasagne that I only had a couple of bites of, but there was also leftover meat and raw veggies. The next day I made an egg and beef casserole whih the kids weren't keen on so they ate lasagne noodles, left over burger and veggies. The following day I made chicken nuggets and potatoes so I ate the leftover egg casserole. You get the drift.
Keto when no one else is can be a hassle but it is doable if the pay off is worth it for you.
I did want to add that keto does make you slightly more fat burning but the effects are generally not noticeable unless doing some sort of endurance sport - keto'ers no longer hit the wall when others would have run out of glucose. For the more sedentary there is not a great difference - about 6 lbs lost more in a year.
Peer reviewed study or meta analysis source that substantiates these claims please?
For increased fat burning in endurance athletes: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
I generally don't bookmark studies unless they pertain to my own health issues. I remembered the FASTER study because it is new and I follow Volek.
For the ~6lb weight loss being greater than higher carb among the more average, I can not remember where I read it. But this collection of studies repeats similar numbers: http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section2 Study #20 is probably the closest to what I remember. 6lbs in a year is not a big difference. Most low carb for weight loss studies that stop at 3-6 months look much more impressive.
Thank you. I will take time to review later today.
Haven't got to the 2nd one yet but some observations on the first one. You said:]I did want to add that keto does make you slightly more fat burning but the effects are generally not noticeable unless doing some sort of endurance sport - keto'ers no longer hit the wall when others would have run out of glucose"
What you did not add but may have implied is that, based on the study you posted, this may be true during exercise. The study draws no conclusions regarding overall long term dietary fat loss. Fuel substrate during exercise is generally not relevant to determine overall fat loss over time. Low Impact Steady State cardio like walking primarily uses fat as the fuel substrate.
While it is an interesting study and the subject merits more study it was:- only 20 subjects
- short term, 2 days
- protein and calories not held constant.
Will read the other a little later.
The FASTER study was more about what fuel is being used rather than fat loss, and specifically during exercise. The people tested were elite athletes. They may have a metabolic advanatge for that reason alone, but keto does not give a metabolic advantage (or very much of one) in terms of calories burned.I believed its also because keto has converted you to a more efficient fat burning body type. It used fat to produce ketones to fuel your body instead of fueling your body from glucose which is produced from crab and sugar.
My personal experience with it was great. I was losing weight more consistently, and cardio exercise did not tire me out as much. I couldn't stay on it for long though because I would need to prep for 3 different kind of dietary meal for my family and time just doesn't allow it.
I'm keto and the primary cook in my house too. I find that cooking a few dishes, and making enough for some leftovers seems to cover everyone. The other day we made a spinach lasagne that I only had a couple of bites of, but there was also leftover meat and raw veggies. The next day I made an egg and beef casserole whih the kids weren't keen on so they ate lasagne noodles, left over burger and veggies. The following day I made chicken nuggets and potatoes so I ate the leftover egg casserole. You get the drift.
Keto when no one else is can be a hassle but it is doable if the pay off is worth it for you.
I did want to add that keto does make you slightly more fat burning but the effects are generally not noticeable unless doing some sort of endurance sport - keto'ers no longer hit the wall when others would have run out of glucose. For the more sedentary there is not a great difference - about 6 lbs lost more in a year.
Peer reviewed study or meta analysis source that substantiates these claims please?
For increased fat burning in endurance athletes: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
I generally don't bookmark studies unless they pertain to my own health issues. I remembered the FASTER study because it is new and I follow Volek.
For the ~6lb weight loss being greater than higher carb among the more average, I can not remember where I read it. But this collection of studies repeats similar numbers: http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section2 Study #20 is probably the closest to what I remember. 6lbs in a year is not a big difference. Most low carb for weight loss studies that stop at 3-6 months look much more impressive.
Thank you. I will take time to review later today.
Looked through the 2nd link. As stated in the lead in article; "Most of the studies are being conducted on people with health problems, including overweight/obesity, type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome."
I think it is pretty well established that low carb/ keto in beneficial to people presenting these issues. The key reason is, in almost all cases, insulin resistance. It is clearly established that LC/ Keto diets can benefit the insulin resistant (at least to me it is, some may want to argue that). However this does not demonstrate an average of 6 lbs per year of more fat loss in all subjects, or subjects without insulin resistance.
I realize that the 6lb number did not specifically appear in these studies but some said more than that. It would not surprise me for this to be the case in insulin resistant subjects. Improving insulin resistance seems to one of the most beneficial ways to utilize a ketogenic diet.
Keto has health benefits for those who have IF/metabolic issues. If one does not have issues with that it does not provide an advantage in health or weight loss unless you count a decrease in appetite. Otherwise, improving IR issues is it's main benefit. If I lost a handful of pounds faster than I would have on a higher carb diet, it is not a huge amount. It might have been the difference between losing my weight in 5 months instead of 6. No biggie. The health benefits and feeling of well being are the main benefit for me - someone who had developed prediabetes. After losing my weight, if I eat higher carbs my BG suffers. It isn't worth it to me.
I still have no idea where I read the 6lbs... The studies were all fairly close to that though. Give or take a few pounds, keto seems to increase weight loss in the metabolically overweight by a few pounds with may or may not be statistically significant.
Keto is really more about health than a weight loss tool. Just some turned it into a fad... I'm a celiac who eats gluten free for health but that got turned into a fad too. On the plus side, finding food is easier when your diet is trendy. 5 -
What the OP actually said is that RECENTLY she tried a general 1500 calorie diet and cardio (which had worked for her in the past), but didn't get the results she liked, so she RECENTLY switched to a keto-specific 1500 calorie diet and weight training and got better results.
She specifically says that she's eating the same number of calories in both diets. So saying, "No, you're wrong, it's all CICO, you must not have been counting calories accurately" is ... not an insight. Discussing how building muscle might during weight train might cause her to burn more calories is a useful observation. Saying that she might have had a harder time getting accurate calorie counts if she were relying on nutritional data on packaged food versus using a scale to weigh protein is a decent thought. Etc. But retorting, "No, you're wrong, that's not what happened to you" is dismissive and honestly kind of obnoxious.12 -
creatureofchaos wrote: »...Discussing how building muscle might during weight train might cause her to burn more calories is a useful observation...
It's not a useful observation at all. One does not build significant amounts of muscle in a deficit (women even less so), and a pound of muscle burns ~6 calories per day vs. a pound of fat which burns ~2 calories per day. So every added pound of muscle burns somewhere around an extra 4 calories per day. For that to reach anything even remotely significant for weight loss, one would have to put on 50-60 pounds of muscle - which isn't a realistic expectation for any adult. Putting on 3-4 pounds of muscle (over the course of maybe 8-12 months, which is a more realistic expectation for an overfat beginner in a calorie deficit) would amount to a whole extra 12-16 calories per day burned to support that muscle gain.
Add to that the fact that keto is a suboptimal diet for strength training goals. You can't train with the same intensity because of the reduced glycogen and you've all but eliminated carbohydrates from your diet, which are anti-catabolic (muscle sparing). Keto is also often lower in protein (at the expense of higher fat), and protein is the most important substrate for muscle building. When training for any strength or size goals, keto would be the absolute last diet I'd utilize.
There are a lot of good, valid reasons to engage in strength training. But doing it with the goal of increasing one's metabolism through added muscle is neither a good nor valid reason.12 -
creatureofchaos wrote: »...Discussing how building muscle might during weight train might cause her to burn more calories is a useful observation...
It's not a useful observation at all. One does not build significant amounts of muscle in a deficit (women even less so), and a pound of muscle burns ~6 calories per day vs. a pound of fat which burns ~2 calories per day. So every added pound of muscle burns somewhere around an extra 4 calories per day. For that to reach anything even remotely significant for weight loss, one would have to put on 50-60 pounds of muscle - which isn't a realistic expectation for any adult. Putting on 3-4 pounds of muscle (over the course of maybe 8-12 months, which is a more realistic expectation for an overfat beginner in a calorie deficit) would amount to a whole extra 12-16 calories per day burned to support that muscle gain.
Add to that the fact that keto is a suboptimal diet for strength training goals. You can't train with the same intensity because of the reduced glycogen and you've all but eliminated carbohydrates from your diet, which are anti-catabolic (muscle sparing). Keto is also often lower in protein (at the expense of higher fat), and protein is the most important substrate for muscle building. When training for any strength or size goals, keto would be the absolute last diet I'd utilize.
There are a lot of good, valid reasons to engage in strength training. But doing it with the goal of increasing one's metabolism through added muscle is neither a good nor valid reason.
Might or might not, then! That's interesting. I neither follow a keto diet nor exercise as part of my weight loss goals, so I have no particular position to stake or defend. Either way, it's engaging with her actual situation, giving her new information, and not just dismissing her.
I frankly don't have an answer for her about why this works better for her other that hey, it does, so stick with it. I just think it's ridiculous to tell her she must be wrong and that it therefore doesn't.
3 -
creatureofchaos wrote: »creatureofchaos wrote: »...Discussing how building muscle might during weight train might cause her to burn more calories is a useful observation...
It's not a useful observation at all. One does not build significant amounts of muscle in a deficit (women even less so), and a pound of muscle burns ~6 calories per day vs. a pound of fat which burns ~2 calories per day. So every added pound of muscle burns somewhere around an extra 4 calories per day. For that to reach anything even remotely significant for weight loss, one would have to put on 50-60 pounds of muscle - which isn't a realistic expectation for any adult. Putting on 3-4 pounds of muscle (over the course of maybe 8-12 months, which is a more realistic expectation for an overfat beginner in a calorie deficit) would amount to a whole extra 12-16 calories per day burned to support that muscle gain.
Add to that the fact that keto is a suboptimal diet for strength training goals. You can't train with the same intensity because of the reduced glycogen and you've all but eliminated carbohydrates from your diet, which are anti-catabolic (muscle sparing). Keto is also often lower in protein (at the expense of higher fat), and protein is the most important substrate for muscle building. When training for any strength or size goals, keto would be the absolute last diet I'd utilize.
There are a lot of good, valid reasons to engage in strength training. But doing it with the goal of increasing one's metabolism through added muscle is neither a good nor valid reason.
Might or might not, then! That's interesting. I neither follow a keto diet nor exercise as part of my weight loss goals, so I have no particular position to stake or defend. Either way, it's engaging with her actual situation, giving her new information, and not just dismissing her.
I frankly don't have an answer for her about why this works better for her other that hey, it does, so stick with it. I just think it's ridiculous to tell her she must be wrong and that it therefore doesn't.
If you actually read back through the thread, I don't see anybody telling the OP she must be wrong. Several people offered very rational explanations as to why it may have worked for her, and some congratulated her for finding something that worked. It was just stated that regardless of whether one is using a keto diet or not, CICO is still the driver of weight loss - and that's a scientifically proven fact. There is nothing magical about keto and it offers no metabolic advantage over any other diet/macro combination. That's also a scientifically proven fact. The thread did definitely take a turn, but if you read back through you'll see that it had nothing to do with the OP.7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I think the point fjmartini is making (and it frustrates me as well) is as soon as a question pops up about keto or low-carb, the very first response is always someone pooh-poohing it.
e.g.TavistockToad wrote: »Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit. You will always drop some water weight when you start low carb.
TavistockToad didn't answer the question the OP asked, he just dismissed the idea of Keto straight away.
OP asked if anyone could explain why low cal worked for her when she was younger and not when she was older. Then she asked for opinions and experiences. Some people chose to explain that the reason you lose weight is always CICO. And that depending on how long she has been Keto, it might just be a water weight drop. If I were the OP, I would have found that helpful.
Often people give short answers because they know other, more verbose posters will follow. Minus the angry gentleman, I think OP got lots of great insight in the thread as a whole, which is kinda sorta the point, right? Why does every single poster have to give a complete and fully developed reply?
I agree! I thought your responses were among the most useful if I'm honest. I was just trying to explain why the angry man was so angry.
Why defend someone who called a lot of patient, knowledgeable, helpful veteran posters names?
I was more defending the message behind it, not the actual person, what he said, or how he went about it.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »I think the point fjmartini is making (and it frustrates me as well) is as soon as a question pops up about keto or low-carb, the very first response is always someone pooh-poohing it.
e.g.TavistockToad wrote: »Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit. You will always drop some water weight when you start low carb.
TavistockToad didn't answer the question the OP asked, he just dismissed the idea of Keto straight away.
I don't see it as being dismissive. Reaffirming the nuts and bolts of how all diets can lead to weight loss isn't to say that any particular diet is useless.
Oh I get that, and I agree, but it wasn't a particularly helpful or detailed answer. I'm not here to argue, and fjmartini did fly off the handle, but his point and one I agree with is that is seems like a blanket response to any keto question. That's all really.
I don't think explaining that calorie deficit and keto are not two separate things, but that keto is one way of achieving a calorie deficit is dismissive toward keto or unhelpful. I like low carbing because I think it takes LESS willpower for me, but I don't think that means I don't need a calorie deficit to lose or won't gain if I eat too much, and understanding how it works is important.
I don't understand why some seem to take "keto is not inherently superior" or "keto works through a calorie deficit so is not separate from CICO" to be anti keto. (Speaking more about fjmartni's reaction than yours.)
My impression is that its well accepted and agreed-upon at MFP that low carb or keto can be helpful ways for some to achieve calorie deficits. Pushback comes when people preach it as the one best way or inherently superior (as opposed to a method that is easier or has positive effects for them).
And the assertion that people just don't have the willpower to keto seems ridiculous to me. If it takes more willpower for them, it's probably not a good choice. For me, the benefit of low carbing is that to some extent it's how I naturally like to eat (if I didn't pay attention I'd be at around 40%, probably) and generally takes less willpower to cut calories when I low carb (I don't care about or miss lots of common sources of carbs and for me a full meal of protein/veg/fat is filling). Other people feel differently, so why should they do keto?
For sure! I'm more medium-to-low-carb. I keep it below 150g generally, purely because I over-eat on carbs because they don't keep me satisfied. But I can't do low-carb/keto because it doesn't fit into my life right now. (I have a fussy eater and not enough time to cater for both sides.) But if I was on my own I would quite happily survive on keto.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hi everyone, so when I was younger low cal & cardio ( 1hr 4-5x per week), allowed me to lose weight fairly quickly. Well fast forward 20 years, low cal & cardio didn't work ( quickly enough for me to feel it was worth the stress if it). So a co-worker, a Physical thearpist, suggested I try keto and weight lifting instead. Boom! The weight started coming off fairly quickly.
Is this because I'm old or my metabolism is changed ?
I would love to hear the experience of other
Or just any insight you may have
I'm still confused how some people read this OP, particularly the bolded, and interpret that as ONLY wanting to hear from people who have done exactly what she is doing (i.e. Keto and weight lifting) and not an open minded inquiry for a better understanding by hearing from different perspectives.
Perhaps OP, @fitjam00 can clarify, did you only want to hear from those following keto, or did you find the comments from those explaining that regardless of what diet you choose to follow or how you choose to eat, a calorie deficit is what drives the weight loss?
It also might be helpful for people to remember that there are other members reading along who may not be posting themselves who may find benefit in the open discussion from different perspectives... rather than only hearing one side to a story. I'm not sure why some are so against presenting facts for the discussion and feel so threatened that they have to insult other users...
I did a quick re-read to refresh my mind and came across her second postI understand water weight but I really don't get why my 1500 low cal vs 1500 keto progress
I'd like to know if anyone else experienced this or knows the science behind it?
This is a bit more of a specific question. I must have glanced over it, but it was a response to Tavistock's reply.0 -
I think that question has been answered, but my response would be that many things may have changed between the two times: overall metabolism (which does decline as we get older unless we work to keep muscle mass the same), daily activity without counting/thinking about it (I walk a lot in daily life now, since I live in a city, but for example when I was going to college I was running around all the time, more than now, and if I lived in the 'burbs and commuted by car my walking/daily activity would be less, another possibility is job changes, another possibility is being less in shape or enjoying the cardio less leads to less burned).
For me, I lost from 180 to 120 around age 30 (and kept it off until I started gaining again for various reasons in my late 30s). If you'd asked me how I lost I would have said I ate around 1600 and exercised a lot (I eventually trained for triathlons, although that was to get to goal and maintain). I lost consistently 2 lb/week until 130 -- yes, too aggressive for a lot of it -- and did not think I'd been eating especially low. I did not track calories because I wasn't interested and tracking was a pain back then. I estimated the calories I thought I'd been eating and then cut back, with the intent of cutting back 500 calories and exercising 500 calories.
This time, I did roughly the same, and lost identically (faster, in fact, but I was heavier than 180 when I started), but then about a month into it I logged my meals at MFP and discovered to my surprise that I was eating around 900-1100, not the 1500-1600 I'd assumed. I was eating in my "diet" way -- very sparing on added fat, lean meat only, serving size for meat only (4 oz before cooking), limited/small servings of side starches, no snacking, lots of vegetables. Fine, for me filling, but it probably would get boring. When I lost before I was super motivated and didn't care, and at that time I was changing my diet much more (learning to cook regularly, adding in lots more vegetables) so it was inherently exciting.
Anyway, I decided this time to go with MFP, added back in more calories, enjoyed what I was eating. But the point here is that I was so wrong about what I needed to eat to lose 2 lb per week before. Back then I was eating less than I thought (I would have thought eating 1200, let alone what I probably was, was a horrible, impossible idea).
Now I find that how much I perceive myself to be eating is greatly influenced by how easy it is to keep a deficit. And, of course, there are weekly fluctuations, and starting keto is generally accompanied by a water drop which might make you feel encouraged even if you know that's what it is. I know a number of people like keto because they don't have to count as carefully and they tend to be uninterested in eating or undereat.
So that's my stab at answering the question. No position on what OP should do, except if she likes what she's doing, and it's working, stick with it.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 426 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