Keto Diet Question
fdhunt1
Posts: 222 Member
Currently doing Keto, primarily for weight loss, but also enjoying the other benefits (feeling of well being, mental clarity, satisfaction). Regarding weight loss, it is true that you still have to run a calorie deficit to lose weight regardless of your particular diet. So it got me thinking (mental clarity???) if you still have to run a deficit, what exactly is the benefit of Keto? In my mind, if your protein intake is adequate, you would still be burning fat either way, Keto or not. Would love to hear thoughts from others, Ketoers and non-Ketoers.
5
Replies
-
Some people find eating higher fat, low carb keeps them feeling more satisfied than when they eat more carbs, so sticking to their calorie deficit is easier.10
-
You're right, in terms of weight loss the calorie is king and if in a deficit your body will use stored body fat regardless of macro breakdown.
Some people find keto to be satiating and help with cravings making compliance with a deficit easier. Would never work for me as I need my starchy carbs for both satiation and fuelling my fairly intense workouts.
It's all entirely personal preference as long as dietary needs (micros) are being met.7 -
Yes you need a caloric deficit to lose weight. Some find with keto that there is a very slight metabolic advantage, often less than 100 kcal a day, but that is not everyone's experience.
Keto 's advantages are usually the health benefits (mental clarity, steadier or better energy, better skin and hair, balanced hormonal issues, possible complimentary cancer, CVD or epilepsy treatment, better BG control for those with insulin resistance like T2D or PCOS, lower inflammation) and from hunger and cravings control. These are the typical benefits, but not everyone will experience them, like young, metabolically healthy athletes will probably not see any immediate health benefits.
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)15 -
Yes, you have to run a calorie deficit to lose weight on any diet. It's impossible to eat more calories than you burn and lose weight, that would defy the laws of physics.
All other things being the same, keto will not make you lose weight any faster or slower than any other diet. If you eat at a 20% calorie deficit every day, it doesn't matter whether you're following keto or a low-carb diet or a low-fat diet or whatever, what matters is the calorie deficit - a 20% deficit with any diet will result in approximately the same rate of weight loss. So keto has no distinctive advantage when it comes to just losing weight.
That said, if you find that keto is a sustainable diet for you because you find eating higher-fat foods to be satiating and enjoyable, there is no reason to not do it, as long as you also understand that you need a calorie deficit to lose weight. As long as you expend more than you eat, eating a diet that's higher in fat like keto is totally fine.3 -
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
15 -
As others have said, yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose fat. As far as what the benefits of keto are, that depends on your situation. Are you insulin resistant? Do you struggle with cravings? If so, keto may have benefits for you.
Personally, the feelings of mental clarity, satisfaction and well being seem to very subjective and individual preference. Some that try keto don't experience them, some do. But there is no proven metabolic advantage for fat loss in doing keto. It is really a matter of preference.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Currently doing Keto, primarily for weight loss, but also enjoying the other benefits (feeling of well being, mental clarity, satisfaction). Regarding weight loss, it is true that you still have to run a calorie deficit to lose weight regardless of your particular diet. So it got me thinking (mental clarity???) if you still have to run a deficit, what exactly is the benefit of Keto? In my mind, if your protein intake is adequate, you would still be burning fat either way, Keto or not. Would love to hear thoughts from others, Ketoers and non-Ketoers.
Some people find it easier or more pleasant to keep a calorie deficit (or to eat at maintenance, for that matter) on keto. Period. That's pretty much the only real benefit. It's an important one if you are one of those people.6 -
In addition to the other benefits:
When your liver breaks the fat cells into ketones and you are in the healthy parameter of ketone bodies, you also expels ketones in your urine and even your breath can carry ketones, so not only your body uses fat to burn for energy and thermogenesis, it also expels the quantity in excess, since fat is the precursor of ketone bodies. is this a kind of fuel waste? yes but it complies with the objective of fat loss.
Of course this mostly applies in a keto adapted organism.18 -
Look up Jimmy Moore for the "benefits". As far as "mental clarity", your brain is starving so it has to be on high alert to find food(cortisol high, have to find food, primal response to starvation). All the money people waste on keto books and accessories would have been better spent taking a physiology class, but hey who wants facts when we have magic amirite
13 -
CICO rules every way of eating. I eat keto because I like it and like the food. And so far my brain is fine. Although I will admit the hubby questions it often ;. And cortisol levels are good according to my Doc. YMMV of course.7
-
dimaslopes wrote: »In addition to the other benefits:
When your liver breaks the fat cells into ketones and you are in the healthy parameter of ketone bodies, you also expels ketones in your urine and even your breath can carry ketones, so not only your body uses fat to burn for energy and thermogenesis, it also expels the quantity in excess, since fat is the precursor of ketone bodies. is this a kind of fuel waste? yes but it complies with the objective of fat loss.
Of course this mostly applies in a keto adapted organism.
No.
If you overeat (as in eat above maintenance calories) on a 70% fat diet, you gain weight, period, regardless of whether you are in ketosis. It's super easy to convert fat into body fat, and given that your body goes into ketosis when starving, it would make exactly 0 sense (evolutionarily or otherwise) for the body to waste calories like that when in ketosis.\6 -
Read the Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung for the truth about keto....it is NOT thermogenic as in CICO, it is hormonal as in controlling insulin in the body.27
-
What do you think that means?1
-
Let's argue about it for hours! What fun!
Anyway, we can all agree that calories metabolized from food have to go somewhere. Maybe if you eat a ton of fat, it can't all be metabolized, but you will also feel pretty sick. But, in most cases, you are metabolizing nearly all the calories you eat, thus you must eat in deficit to lose weight.
Now, there is a known diuretic effect of eating Very Low Carb. I noticed that I lost several pounds in the first two weeks when I ate VLC, but then it tapered. Also, my flab was noticeably less flabby. My understanding is that bodybuilders and bikini models go VLC before competitions.
But, I didn't feel very well after several VLC months, and had to stop. I like to do regular cardio, and I found that I couldn't perform at the level I wanted unless I ate some carbs. Now I just watch the calories and balance the macros and everything is just ducky.8 -
Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.10 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, you still need a deficit.
FIFY7 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?14 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
I totally believe you since I had a similar experience-- but only at first. Going ULC took several pounds off me and they stayed off as long as I stayed ULC. Did you see "unexplained weight loss" after the first two weeks? (I didn't.)2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.6 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
That's still significant. 0.25lb = 125 calories per day, so you are saying keto created an additional 375 calories per day deficit from somewhere.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
Then you weren't in a 500 calorie deficit. The error(s) were somehow in your measuring and tracking. Going to keto caused you to focus more accurately. These claims of you being exempt to physics are ridiculous really. Interesting that your "exceptional" results have never been duplicated in any reliable study.14 -
The only diet that has been consistently proven to cause someone to both lose weight and keep it off is one that (1) creates a calorie deficit, and (2) the individual can comply with long-term. That's all. Some people find restrictive diets such as keto to be easier to comply with because they simplify food choices - don't eat X,Y,Z, do eat A,B,C. Generally they are even more restrictive than necessary to counter people's difficulty judging portions, or else rely on the fact that many people find carbs easy to eat a lot of so focusing on cutting them is often effective. So person A tries calorie counting with little success. They then try keto and lose weight. Chances are pretty good they were underestimating their portions when calorie counting or otherwise not accurately counting. Keto is a shortcut, that's all. Any metabolic benefits that hypothetically exist would be so minor as to be irrelevant if the person can't comply with the restrictions to maintain a deficit.8
-
@midwesterner85: Yeah, keto can be very effective, no question, and I have no doubt of your results. But, it's not magic (except for the diuretic part, which is pretty dramatic). Somewhere in there, the CICO argument applies. But, who cares if it worked?2
-
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »@midwesterner85: Yeah, keto can be very effective, no question, and I have no doubt of your results. But, it's not magic (except for the diuretic part, which is pretty dramatic). Somewhere in there, the CICO argument applies. But, who cares if it worked?
I'm not suggesting that the same results will work for others. I'm just sharing my observations after years of calorie tracking vs. years of low carb.1 -
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.5 -
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.
Burning more fat because someone eats more fat - not an advantage at all then, just a difference. An indicator of how adaptable we are to different diets.
And completely irrelevant for weight loss - you do agree that fuel substrate used during exercise makes no difference for loss of body fat I assume?
You are also aware I hope that the fat burned during exercise isn't subcutaneous fat? Burning (mostly) your intra muscular fat isn't really what people are trying to achieve.
Why do you think it's wrong when you very clearly have no special knowledge around endurance sports, sports nutrition and fuelling? Odd assumption to think something is wrong because you haven't heard about something outside your experience. It's very clear you don't from your posting history that endurance sports aren't your speciality!
Here's a couple of articles-
http://www.bodyforwife.com/keto-and-low-carb-diets-kill-performance/
Alan Aragon "“The amount of energy the body can extract from carbs is much greater per unit of time than the energy it can extract from fat,” nutrition expert Alan Aragon, co-author of The Lean Muscle Diet, told me. “When carbs are oxidized, they yield two-to-five times more ATP (energy) than fat.”
Aragon explained that when using fat for fuel, “You can’t access that energy as quickly. With fat, you have a bigger pool of energy, but you can only drain it with a straw. With carbs, the pool is smaller but you can drain it with a firehose.”
And....
"Aragon went on to explain that just because your body becomes better at burning fat doesn’t mean this enhances performance. “You decrease your ability to burn carbs,” he said. “You become ‘carb impaired’ because pyruvate dehydrogenase, the enzyme that allows your body to break down glycogen and access to glucose to extract ATP, decreases. This is exactly why people who keto adapt have repeatedly had impaired sprinting performance.”
It’s also worth noting that Aragon says, “You’re not burning more body fat, per se. The increase in fat oxidation is a direct result of an increased ingestion of dietary fat. Eat more fat, burn more fat. But your love handles are not decreasing. No difference in body fat reduction has been seen, as long as you equate protein and total calories.”
The article also mentions how the so called elite keto or low carb athletes actually use carbs strategically for their events. Again this is something well known but strangely omitted by keto evangelists.
Another article (better written IMHO and with links to studies) which puts numbers on the increased oxygen need and effort required....
http://www.eatsleep.fit/endurance-sports/fat-burning-why-its-overrated-for-the-competitive-endurance-athlete/
Abstract summary from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP273230/full
Abstract
Key points
Three weeks of intensified training and mild energy deficit in elite race walkers increases peak aerobic capacity independent of dietary support.
Adaptation to a ketogenic low carbohydrate, high fat (LCHF) diet markedly increases rates of whole-body fat oxidation during exercise in race walkers over a range of exercise intensities.
The increased rates of fat oxidation result in reduced economy (increased oxygen demand for a given speed) at velocities that translate to real-life race performance in elite race walkers.
In contrast to training with diets providing chronic or periodised high carbohydrate availability, adaptation to an LCHF diet impairs performance in elite endurance athletes despite a significant improvement in peak aerobic capacity.
12 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, theoretically you still need a deficit.
Having said that, I started low carb in order to improve blood glucose management (I have type 1 diabetes), and found significantly faster weight loss despite the same calorie deficit. It was nearly 5 times faster over the course of the first year eating low carb. I don't know why, but that is what happened. I meticulously tracked every bite and every step before and after switching; used the same food scale and the same personal scale; so I can say with certainty that my deficit did not increase 5-fold during that time and yet results would indicate it did.
So, putting this into some theoretical numbers. Aiming for 1lb per week loss loss = 500 calories per day deficit. To hit 5x that you would need to have a daily deficit of 2500 calories. And keto was the magic that facilitated that? Someone needs to study you because there's has been no study that has found any significant metabolic advantage and certainly not one that huge. Surely you'd have dropped dead from starvation by now?
You might think so if you use the numbers you just presented, but those are your numbers and not what I said. What I said was that weight loss was nearly 5 times faster after switching to low carb. Here is some more detail: the BEFORE low carb diet with a 500 calorie per day deficit yielded less than 1/4 lb. loss per week. Low carb significantly increased losses compared to before low carb; and it also finally allowed for results to match what one would expect if using the 3,500 calories = 1 lb. loss equation.
Was that before, during or after your occasional 20000 calorie binges?7 -
For the elite endurance athletes, during long exercise you will burn more fat than those who use carbs as their primary energy source. That is where more fat burning occurs. (Volek's FASTER study)
What they may gain in theoretical endurance they lose in performance - you have to work harder for the same power output due to the inherent inefficiency in processing fat for fuel as compared to glucose.
It may be useful if completing a long event (where only water is available as that's the primary limiting factor) but anyone with performance aspirations will be better fuelled primarily on carbs.
Which is why 99% of elite endurance athletes are carb monsters.
I didn't say there was a theoretical gain in endurance. I said that the elite endurance runners burned more fat. They used more fat for fuel than the elite endurance runners who rely on carbs as their primary fuel. Basically, the only real proven fat burning advantage is for endurance athletes.
And no, I have never read anywhere that fat adapted athletes have to work harder for the same power output as a glucose reliant athlete. I think that is wrong. Most fat adapted athletes (meaning keto for a few months) seem to report greater available energy for athletic events, mainly those requiring some endurance (not short bursts like power lifting). Where did you see this? Do you have a link? Thanks.
Substrate utilization does not affect net fat loss or gain.0 -
20 thousand? Holy poop.. even if you picked the most dense macro (fat) at 9 calories per gram.. you would still have to consume 2,200+ grams of just pure fat to achieve a calorie surplus that big..0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions