Keto Diet Question

2

Replies

  • HellYeahItsKriss
    HellYeahItsKriss Posts: 906 Member
    edited December 2017
    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?

    Yes. I did those a few times per year before and after... and still do them a few times per year.

    Could you please summarize the food you consumed in a day to hit that calorie goal?

    Cause I have binge eating disorder and I have eaten myself to exploding and still continued to eat and usually hovered around 6000.. maybe..
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    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?

    Yes. I did those a few times per year before and after... and still do them a few times per year.

    Could you please summarize the food you consumed in a day to hit that calorie goal?

    Cause I have binge eating disorder and I have eaten myself to exploding and still continued to eat and usually hovered around 6000.. maybe..

    Yes, lots of "unique" counts there.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    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.


    I know. I did not say it did.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    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.


    I know. I did not say it did.

    Where's that "proven fat burning advantage" then?
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    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?

    Yes. I did those a few times per year before and after... and still do them a few times per year.

    Could you please summarize the food you consumed in a day to hit that calorie goal?

    Cause I have binge eating disorder and I have eaten myself to exploding and still continued to eat and usually hovered around 6000.. maybe..

    I'll answer your question and then suggest we get back to the main topic of the thread.

    The answer is: Donuts, pizzas, cakes, spaghetti, cookies, brownies, ice cream... maybe some muffins or pancakes. The key is quantity. There were times early on that I tried to cook it all myself and I basically would be maxing out my capacity both in time and oven/stove space. It's a lot faster to eat 2 cakes than it takes to bake and frost 2 cakes. But then when do I have time to eat? So what I would do is cook a lb. or 2 of spaghetti on a burner while cooking sausage and sauce on another burner, meanwhile mixing the cake (and if I'm eating at all during that time, it is just munching on donuts quickly in between). Eventually, spaghetti would be ready and I would start eating that just as I put the cakes in the oven. The cakes would finish around the time I was done eating spaghetti, so they would come out to cool before frosting (frosting a still hot cake is difficult). Meanwhile, I'm not eating... so would have to crack open a box of cookies. So even on those days I cooked, I would often buy a dozen or 2 donuts and cookies, and often order pizza. So I started having to go to buffets and such.

    When I switched to low carb, some cheat days included carbs and were special cheat days on those occasions (basically, for my birthday). But on other cheat days where I didn't eat carbs, I would often make chili. It included browning some hamburger and some sausage (a few lbs. of each) while cooking a few lbs. of bacon in the oven in a baking pan - that way the grease and all can go right into the chili, as did the grease from browned hamburger and sausage. Of course, I would add chili powder and some other spices. Usually there were no tomatoes in it, and never beans (too many carbs). I have a stock pot, so the end result could potentially be as much as 15 - 20 lbs. of what basically ends up as a meat salad that I called chili.

    You say you don't understand it, but consider from my perspective... I can't understand how it is possible to only eat 6K calories in a day and have surpassed the feeling of exploding. It just doesn't make any sense to me how one could possibly be satisfied on so little. Unfortunately, I can't eat without consequences. So I have opted for better health and to have a healthy body fat level over feeling satisfied with food and being very heavy.

    And you didn't compete in food competitions, why?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    fdhunt1 wrote: »
    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.


    So most those benefits are the same proposed for every diet out there. Its kind of like the soup de jour. If people go from a horrible diet or even just begin a new diet they will believe those things will occur. And its possible some will occur if they start getting more nutrient dense foods or addressing medical issues that they have (i.e., IR, Diabetes, etc...).

    All diets work off of CICO, but some diets allow individuals to increase tbe CO side or control the CI more easily. I respond to carbs much better. Fata dont satiate me. They dont give me energy and generally more grumpy from lack of food volume.

    At worst, you try this diet out for a month and go from there.
  • delgrand
    delgrand Posts: 108 Member
    so you don't use your internal body fat stores for energy and thus faster weight loss while being on Keto ? I always read this information on keto blogs and sites but I was not sure if it is correct or not.
  • Unknown
    edited December 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    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.


    I know. I did not say it did.

    Where's that "proven fat burning advantage" then?

    Keto adapted endurance athletes will burn more fat during endurance exercise that a (as someone name Matt was quoted above) 'nasty ol’ “sugar burner”' would during a long endurance event. If they pause to eat something partway through, there would be not real benefit, but if not the fat burner does not need to worry about hitting the wall like the other athletes might.

    ETA because my computer crashed in the middle of responding

    Again showing your lack of knowledge of endurance events.
    It's getting more than a little silly in your desperation to create an advantage for keto where none exists. Your keto myopia is blinding you to any evidence which refutes your beliefs and you are grasping at straws in an arena you clearly know nothing about.

    Most typical event, the marathon, there's no need to stop at all - you have seen a marathon on the telly haven't you?
    Longer events you fuel as you go. Example a 24hr cycle event I supported a guy who did 441 miles. He stopped every couple of hours to change water bottles which contained carbs and water. He had to stop just like your mythical elite keto athlete to avoid dehydration not to eat. If moving bottle transfers were permitted he would only have stopped for toilet breaks - just like everyone else would.
    For a non-elite endurance rider like myself I'm consuming 90g of carbs an hour as I ride. At my all day pace I'm using an approximate 50/50 ratio of carbs to fat (tested by RER) and the 240 cals of carbs an hour means I'm in no danger of bonking/hitting the wall (glycogen depletion).

    If keto was a performance advantage all elite endurance athletes would be doing it - but they aren't. Doesn't that simple fact even make you doubt your beliefs?

    This is exactly right. In that you have to consume water during endurance events, it's no added difficulty to fuel some. Also, we seem to be talking about ultra marathons and more only (which are at less intensity -- a 100 mile run is incredibly difficult, I can't imagine doing it, but the winners are not running at the same intensity as marathoners).

    The idea that no matter the intensity, if you are just fat adapted you don't have to fuel isn't true, from anything I've read, not if you want to retain the capacity for intense activity. Also, it's possible to get fat adapted without being keto (training to be more fat adapted is popular now).

    That said, if keto was helpful at, say, the marathon level, you'd see world class marathoners training that way, and you don't. (For ultra, ultra, people eat a huge variety of ways and fueling during a race often means chowing down lots of kinds of foods.)
  • This content has been removed.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    I don't even know how we came to be having a discussion about elite endurance athletes in relation to an OP asking if calories behave the same way in any way of eating. And the answer to that is yes. Everything else noise and preference.
This discussion has been closed.