New JAMA Weight Loss Study
Replies
-
elisa123gal wrote: »'the article is correct... yet those cico folks on here are brainwashed. i just lost 22 pounds in six weeks NOT counting calories.. i've been on this site bouncing up and down getting nowhere for 8 years. now i eat whole foods, lean proteins,..and whole unprocessed carbs and fruit each day six times a day. iv'e eaten myself thin. i should add i don't eat any sodium.....no sugar except for what is natural in food, and no added fats like butter or oil, and cooking sprays.
Did you miss the part where it completely and utterly misses the point of the study it's trying to talk about worse than a blind archer looking in the wrong direction with crosswinds and a broken bowstring?14 -
CICO. Every. Single. Time.8
-
I wonder if the OPs, or other posters, who come in and post about how CICO doesn't work, and every single time that I have seen they are using CICO to mean counting calories, ever come back to read these threads. I'm thinking not. I think that's truly unfortunate, because it's difficult enough dispelling all the misinformation out there without having to also try to explain that CICO does not mean counting calories.11
-
Also interesting to look at the chart showing distribution of weight loss among low-fat vs. low-carb participants. Notice how even and virtually identical the distribution patterns are:
Was thinking about this this morning.
Imagine taking one of the participants from each group on the left side of the graph (who lost weight). Interview them (before the results were announced) separately and then put them in a room together to discuss their results.
Can you imagine the argument that would ensue? One would be utterly convinced low carb is the answer while the other would be adamant that low fat is the way to go. I see fists flying at some point.
11 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I'm still trying to figure out how anyone who read the study got to "processed" vs "unprocessed" foods. It's miles away from the study itself.
BOTH groups were instructed not to eat refined grains and added sugars, so yeah.
3 -
As far as I could read into the study it's a poor designed one - as many clinical and health studies. If you have a large number of people and get a 6kg weight loss in a year with a highly restrictive diet like Low Carb then something went totally wrong.
The study used 20g of Carbohydrates for the Low Carb group which is ok for a Low Carb experiment, but they allowed the participants to change that number which can be change the experiment.
Low Carb only works if you keep the ketosis active and dropping out of ketosis is pretty easy if you get too many grams of carbohydrates on a daily basis. For example. You are part of the Low Carb Group and decide that 40g of carbohydrates is better for your diet, than you are still doing a Low Carb diet, but can, depending on your metabolism, drop out of Ketosis. What this means is that you may still lose weight depending on your calories per day but you won't get the effect of the additional fat burning from the ketosis. In the end you lose some weight, but broke the study because it's not the Low Carb the study wanted.
Studies like this can only work when you control people and their behaviour on a daily basis. People tend to cheat themselves with food while dieting and most wouldn't tell this to anyone. We don't know how many of the control groups choose to put some additional food into them when they got cravings, we don't know if some ate almost normal or some just cut calories before or after the next control.
so, it's basically another mostly worthless study.19 -
As far as I could read into the study it's a poor designed one - as many clinical and health studies. If you have a large number of people and get a 6kg weight loss in a year with a highly restrictive diet like Low Carb then something went totally wrong.
The study used 20g of Carbohydrates for the Low Carb group which is ok for a Low Carb experiment, but they allowed the participants to change that number which can be change the experiment.
Low Carb only works if you keep the ketosis active and dropping out of ketosis is pretty easy if you get too many grams of carbohydrates on a daily basis. For example. You are part of the Low Carb Group and decide that 40g of carbohydrates is better for your diet, than you are still doing a Low Carb diet, but can, depending on your metabolism, drop out of Ketosis. What this means is that you may still lose weight depending on your calories per day but you won't get the effect of the additional fat burning from the ketosis. In the end you lose some weight, but broke the study because it's not the Low Carb the study wanted.
Studies like this can only work when you control people and their behaviour on a daily basis. People tend to cheat themselves with food while dieting and most wouldn't tell this to anyone. We don't know how many of the control groups choose to put some additional food into them when they got cravings, we don't know if some ate almost normal or some just cut calories before or after the next control.
so, it's basically another mostly worthless study.
Low carbohydrates doesn't equal keto. You can successfully lose weight on a low carbohydrate plan without ever going into keto assuming one is in a deficit (the same thing that creates weight loss when one is doing keto).
Nothing in the construction of the study leads one to believe that those running it wanted or expected the low carbohydrate group to be on keto.10 -
As far as I could read into the study it's a poor designed one - as many clinical and health studies. If you have a large number of people and get a 6kg weight loss in a year with a highly restrictive diet like Low Carb then something went totally wrong.
The study used 20g of Carbohydrates for the Low Carb group which is ok for a Low Carb experiment, but they allowed the participants to change that number which can be change the experiment.
Low Carb only works if you keep the ketosis active and dropping out of ketosis is pretty easy if you get too many grams of carbohydrates on a daily basis. For example. You are part of the Low Carb Group and decide that 40g of carbohydrates is better for your diet, than you are still doing a Low Carb diet, but can, depending on your metabolism, drop out of Ketosis. What this means is that you may still lose weight depending on your calories per day but you won't get the effect of the additional fat burning from the ketosis. In the end you lose some weight, but broke the study because it's not the Low Carb the study wanted.
Studies like this can only work when you control people and their behaviour on a daily basis. People tend to cheat themselves with food while dieting and most wouldn't tell this to anyone. We don't know how many of the control groups choose to put some additional food into them when they got cravings, we don't know if some ate almost normal or some just cut calories before or after the next control.
so, it's basically another mostly worthless study.
I believe they were trying to compare based on what people do in the real world, so not controlling them was part of the study.
If you want a controlled study, that exists too, and low carb did no better.6 -
As far as I could read into the study it's a poor designed one - as many clinical and health studies. If you have a large number of people and get a 6kg weight loss in a year with a highly restrictive diet like Low Carb then something went totally wrong.
The study used 20g of Carbohydrates for the Low Carb group which is ok for a Low Carb experiment, but they allowed the participants to change that number which can be change the experiment.
Low Carb only works if you keep the ketosis active and dropping out of ketosis is pretty easy if you get too many grams of carbohydrates on a daily basis. For example. You are part of the Low Carb Group and decide that 40g of carbohydrates is better for your diet, than you are still doing a Low Carb diet, but can, depending on your metabolism, drop out of Ketosis. What this means is that you may still lose weight depending on your calories per day but you won't get the effect of the additional fat burning from the ketosis. In the end you lose some weight, but broke the study because it's not the Low Carb the study wanted.
Studies like this can only work when you control people and their behaviour on a daily basis. People tend to cheat themselves with food while dieting and most wouldn't tell this to anyone. We don't know how many of the control groups choose to put some additional food into them when they got cravings, we don't know if some ate almost normal or some just cut calories before or after the next control.
so, it's basically another mostly worthless study.
There IS no extra fat burn from keto.10 -
I just saw this article about the findings of a study recently published by the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked into the importance of diet quality, specifically eating either a low-fat or low-carb diet, to successful weight loss. Both the low-fat and low-carb groups were directed to eat whole foods with no added sugar and refined grains, but they did not count calories. Both groups were successful using this approach rather than counting calories. At any rate, I thought it was interesting and worth sharing given the emphasis on CICO in here. It can be expected that fewer calories will likely be consumed with a diet rich in whole foods, but calorie counting is not the be all end all for weight loss. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html
I think for many people with a severe obesity problem that focusing on food quality will curtail that problem and lessen it.
Do I think it will solve it?
No.
Obesity is a complex, multi-factorial issue and there is no one simple answer. I do think it is harder to pack in a super human amount of calories if you're not eating hyper palatable foods, though. But it's still quite possible to be at a weight that has you at a risk for disease while eating an ideal diet.
I know, because I lived this experience. I was my highest weight ever as a whole foods vegetarian who didn't eat refined grains or sugar, because my issues with food weren't centered around food quality.
And therein lies the rub.
There really isn't more than one way to skin a cat.
First came my desire to lose weight. Then came learning the math and means of creating a calorie deficit. Then came analyzing why I ate so much. Then came a lot of other things while I started eating less and moving more.
I've been a lower weight now for over two years, just messing around with vanity weight at this point. It's always about the calories. A lot goes into making that possible, but without that, there are no results.10 -
Show me a study that denies it and we can discuss further.
Going on "Low Carb Diet" without using the low carb intake to get into ketosis shouldn't be considered a diet. Sure, you can cut the sugar, but you will need a lot of fat and protein instead to get to your needed calories. In that case it makes more sense to go keto.
Same goes for a low fat diet. Why would you do this? Fat is the flavour carrier. If you want to cut on fat use a smart diet that lowers your calorie intake but don't go for 20g of fat per day.
I still think that's one of the most worthless studies around.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Low carbohydrates doesn't equal keto. You can successfully lose weight on a low carbohydrate plan without ever going into keto assuming one is in a deficit (the same thing that creates weight loss when one is doing keto).
Nothing in the construction of the study leads one to believe that those running it wanted or expected the low carbohydrate group to be on keto.
Sure, as long as you eat less than your body uses everything works somehow, but you don't make a study around that. As said before: There is no reason to cut on carbohydrates if you don't want to go keto.
If you want a diet with low carbs, you cut the sugar, check your basal metabolic rate and eat enough that you have a low deficit - that isn't necessarily low on carbs depending on how much vegetables and nuts you eat.
A scientific study shouldn't use a completely undefined term like "low carb diet" without even checking how many carbs every person has.
If your range from low goes from 20g of carbs per day to 45% of your daily carbohydrates intake, that's all, but not "low" carb.
13 -
Show me a study that denies it and we can discuss further.
Going on "Low Carb Diet" without using the low carb intake to get into ketosis shouldn't be considered a diet. Sure, you can cut the sugar, but you will need a lot of fat and protein instead to get to your needed calories. In that case it makes more sense to go keto.
Same goes for a low fat diet. Why would you do this? Fat is the flavour carrier. If you want to cut on fat use a smart diet that lowers your calorie intake but don't go for 20g of fat per day.
I still think that's one of the most worthless studies around.
Show one that claims it first.6 -
My N=1 low carb results are different than the comments/claims/opinions of @Fynnlagh.
In 2013, I decided to lose my excess 60+ pounds. My "method" was to adhere to restricted calories via limiting the foods I tended to over eat...sweets (carbs). My "carb" food choices included vegetables, occasional fruit and legumes and very occasional pastas/potatoes/rice/breads/sweets. I also increased my daily activity, mostly with brisk walks. 53 weeks later via Low carb (a personal choice), my personal data showed that I averaged 128 carbohydrates/day (considered by most to be low carb), lost 63 pounds and a lost a considerable amount of body fat as evidenced in photos and a much smaller clothing size (because a measuring tape is not my thing). I highly doubt I was in ongoing ketosis but I certainly lost weight and body fat.
Fast forward to 2016, still maintaining my loss, I opted to trial a medically therapeutic ketogenic diet for a reason other than weight maintenance or body composition. I rigidly adhered to this for a full 52 weeks. I ate the same amount of calories I had eaten during my previous 2 years of maintenance, altering only the macro allocations and carefully monitoring (weighing and measuring) my intake to ensure I complied with therapeutic keto macros. The end result was, unfortunately it was not helpful for my intended purpose but more important and related to the current trend of this thread: being in ketosis had no effect on weight or observable body composition. I did not lose weight simply because I was in ketosis. I also did not lose observable body fat. I remained the same weight, continued to wear the same clothing and that clothing fit the same as it did the previous couple of years.
I ended the trial in April of 2017 and have continued to eat very LCHF with no emphasis on ketosis though will guess I am sometimes in ketosis simply due to heavy carb restriction. The most significant macro change (in 2017) was to increase protein a bit via decreasing fat a bit. The value to me of remaining LCHF is that the combination is effective is suppressing my hunger and I therefore find it easier to adhere to my maintenance calories which tend to be low as an older, relatively sedentary female. Well, lower than I would like. Should I ever decide to lose more weight (should I happen to gain) or alter my body composition, my experience indicates ketosis will not be the key. Calorie restriction and increased activity/exercise will be in order for that purpose.
In regards to the article, I have no opinion other than all diets work if they involve limiting calories. The key is to find a way of eating that creates ease of long term adherence. And FWIW, I will not debate my personal experiences. I am simply stating them as personal N=1 evidence that being in ketosis did not cause weight loss or fat loss and eating a low carb diet does not have to be coupled with ketosis for weight/fat loss. My experience.14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Low carbohydrates doesn't equal keto. You can successfully lose weight on a low carbohydrate plan without ever going into keto assuming one is in a deficit (the same thing that creates weight loss when one is doing keto).
Nothing in the construction of the study leads one to believe that those running it wanted or expected the low carbohydrate group to be on keto.
Sure, as long as you eat less than your body uses everything works somehow, but you don't make a study around that. As said before: There is no reason to cut on carbohydrates if you don't want to go keto.
If you want a diet with low carbs, you cut the sugar, check your basal metabolic rate and eat enough that you have a low deficit - that isn't necessarily low on carbs depending on how much vegetables and nuts you eat.
A scientific study shouldn't use a completely undefined term like "low carb diet" without even checking how many carbs every person has.
If your range from low goes from 20g of carbs per day to 45% of your daily carbohydrates intake, that's all, but not "low" carb.
Why would your BMR come into play when you are determining how much to eat? A calorie deficit for weight loss should be taken from your TDEE, not your BMR.
People go low carb without going all the way to a ketogenic diet all the time. They find it a satiating way of eating, they cut down on some of the more calorie dense/carb heavy foods to achieve a calorie defict, they still eat a minimum of non-starchy vegetables and some fruits, etc. I'm not sure why you think there's no point in cutting carbs if you aren't going to be keto - I'm not a low carb person but I know it works for a lot of people and just like anything - finding an approach that is moderate enough to be sustainable for the long term is beneficial - many people wouldn't stick to a keto diet but can achieve good results with lowering carbs.
The point of this discussion is that the article posted doesn't accurately represent the study results, and none of it addresses the fact that the calorie reduction is what is causing the weight loss, not the low carbs or the low fat.9 -
Show me a study that denies it and we can discuss further.
Going on "Low Carb Diet" without using the low carb intake to get into ketosis shouldn't be considered a diet. Sure, you can cut the sugar, but you will need a lot of fat and protein instead to get to your needed calories. In that case it makes more sense to go keto.
Same goes for a low fat diet. Why would you do this? Fat is the flavour carrier. If you want to cut on fat use a smart diet that lowers your calorie intake but don't go for 20g of fat per day.
I still think that's one of the most worthless studies around.
Well sure you do. It doesn't confirm your bias. No surprise there.
As far as anyone else posting studies, you are unclear on how this works. You made the "fat burning" claim. No one else has to prove you wrong. You have too prove your assertion.
I'm going to give you a little hint to help you, I have yet to see a single study that held protein and calories constant that showed any metabolic (increased fat burning) advantage for low carb or keto. But hey, if you have an afternoon to kill, go see if you can find one yourself. Hint: you won't.12 -
It’s not really carbs or fats you need to worry about actually- but rather protein intake and total calories. Higher protein intake is what made these results more successful. Protein has a higher thermogenic effect than carbs or fat, and supports lean mass - and muscle burns more calories than body fat so you get a higher metabolic rate. I just focus on hitting my calories and getting adequate protein intake (which for me is about 0.8 to 0.9 grams per pound of body weight). I also try to get at least my minimum fiber intake each day and eat more or less nutrient dense foods (along with a little junk food for fun).0
-
Thermagenic effect of protein is figured into protein calorie counts. It is 15%. Also, the metabolic effect of additional muscle is about 6 calories per lb. Not significant. To think these things makes all the difference for weight loss is majoring in the minors.
There are benefits to protein like satiety, muscle and tissue preservation. But it doesn't directly cause weight loss. That all comes down to CI<CO.6 -
-
northcoastbeauty wrote: »
Atkins, especially the old atkins, is actually fairly high in protein so this isn't all wrong.
Your next sentence I think should say "eat the bacon you want" rather than all that you can eat. The beauty of Atkins for many, is that you don't want to eat as much.
1 -
I stopped counting calories a while ago. I'm also ketogenic. I stopped tracking everything in MFP as well. There was simply no need. The study is accurate based on personal experience. I also saw someone reference intermittent fasting as a calorie deficit diet... it doesn't have to be. I can tell you it's not the calories. I can eat 1800 calories spread out across 4 meals and gain weight or plateau or I can eat 3000-4000 calories in one sitting and then not eat again for 24 hours and lose weight, body fat percentage and inches. The key to IF isn't calories, it's the time between a fed state insulin response, for me that is.
Calories in calories out is sorta important based on a ton of variables, but it's not even remotely the whole game. People on plateaus think they need to cut more calories or increase their cardio or do both, biggest myth ever.
I can lose 10-15 pounds in a month on 3500 calories a day with ZERO cardio if I IF. My BMR is about 2900 too. Hilarious when it happened because the "science" or the numbers don't make a lick of sense... but, alas, it happens.24 -
GregNoblin wrote: »I stopped counting calories a while ago. I'm also ketogenic. I stopped tracking everything in MFP as well. There was simply no need. The study is accurate based on personal experience.
The study did not say that low carb worked best, if that's what you think, or that either low carb or low fat (which also worked in the study) worked independent of calories.
Nor did people in the study (low carbers included) lose all that much weight given the time period.
I do not believe you gain weight on 1800 calories if not IFing, but lose on 3000-4000 if you IF. In particular, unless you are tiny and sedentary, I don't think you could possibly gain on 1800 in that you are a guy.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I just saw this article about the findings of a study recently published by the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked into the importance of diet quality, specifically eating either a low-fat or low-carb diet, to successful weight loss. Both the low-fat and low-carb groups were directed to eat whole foods with no added sugar and refined grains, but they did not count calories. Both groups were successful using this approach rather than counting calories. At any rate, I thought it was interesting and worth sharing given the emphasis on CICO in here. It can be expected that fewer calories will likely be consumed with a diet rich in whole foods, but calorie counting is not the be all end all for weight loss. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html
I think for many people with a severe obesity problem that focusing on food quality will curtail that problem and lessen it.
Do I think it will solve it?
No.
Obesity is a complex, multi-factorial issue and there is no one simple answer. I do think it is harder to pack in a super human amount of calories if you're not eating hyper palatable foods, though. But it's still quite possible to be at a weight that has you at a risk for disease while eating an ideal diet.
I know, because I lived this experience. I was my highest weight ever as a whole foods vegetarian who didn't eat refined grains or sugar, because my issues with food weren't centered around food quality.
And therein lies the rub.
There really isn't more than one way to skin a cat.
First came my desire to lose weight. Then came learning the math and means of creating a calorie deficit. Then came analyzing why I ate so much. Then came a lot of other things while I started eating less and moving more.
I've been a lower weight now for over two years, just messing around with vanity weight at this point. It's always about the calories. A lot goes into making that possible, but without that, there are no results.
Eh, I've lost weight having a caloric surplus. I can tell you for certain I was not burning 3500 cals a day... but there it was, less body fat percentages and less weight.18 -
If you lost weight, you didn't have a calorie surplus.
What happened to the calories if you did not burn them?9 -
GregNoblin wrote: »Eh, I've lost weight having a caloric surplus. I can tell you for certain I was not burning 3500 cals a day... but there it was, less body fat percentages and less weight.
Da **kitten** ? Care to let me in on your secret?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »If you lost weight, you didn't have a calorie surplus.
What happened to the calories if you did not burn them?
That's the trick. You don't have to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. I'd recommend you checking out Jason Wittrock's 4000 calorie a day keto challenge for 21 days. He lost something like 2 pounds.
Fat storage occurs when insulin is released. Increasing the time between insulin being released increases the time fat is burned. Calories are not all the same. 1g protein is 4 calories, as it 1g of carbohydrate. A gram of fat is 9 calories. Interesting tidbit, you cannot burn body fat until you've burned through your glucose and glycogen levels. This is why people promote fasted cardio.
I was absolutely in a surplus. Like I said, a calorie is not a calorie. What if I ate 3000 cals but 500 was insoluble fiber? That's 750g of fiber, sure, but it's to make a point. The body doesn't always utilize or store every single calorie. If someone eats specific foods at specific times with a specific time in between eating, bam, you can lose weight in a surplus. Calories in calories out is such a base level, and often wrong, understanding.
And what is the "weight" loss made of? Someone going into ketosis can lose upwards of 10 pounds in a week, even in a massive surplus, all because of water loss. The body requires less water when glucose and glycogen are removed from the equation.
Another variable, how many calories, per day, does someone burn? It's something that has to be completely monitored and tracked every single day. And 30 minutes on a treadmill can see a calorie burn rate change drastically. It can also change drastically in it's body composition effects. Fasted cardio means there's no carbs to burn for fuel, so the body is forced to burn fat. Doing cardio after eating and you're simply burning what you consumed, and you'll never ever touch what's stored. So fasted cardio can burn stored fat, and when eating in a fashion that restricts fat storage hormone releases and promotes the use of fat for fuel, you have a winning combination.
Also, there's no magic daily caloric burn rate that's stable. I can listen to my body. The day after my leg day, I'm low energy unless I pile in 3000 calories. On an off day I can get away with 1500 and not be hungry. This goes back to my argument about "how many calories do you burn". I can go get a Dexa body comp a BodPod water immersion body comp test done and it will give me a baseline Basal Metabolic Rate. But when those tests are done I'm rested and not in rebuild / repair mode. So it might say my BMR is 2600 calories or whatever, but I can tell you thatthe day after my leg day I require far more than that, off days less.
So when someone says calories in calories out it's only sort of right because the BMR isn't a static number. But as keto, my personal experience has been tracking me losing 0.05% body fat percentage per day, I've been eating about 16oz beef / pork / chicken, 4oz cheese, 1 avocado, and 4 whole eggs with 5 tablespoons of butter and 1 tablespoon coconut oil and 4-6 tablespoons of heavy whipping cream every day. Sometimes I also have 4-6oz broccoli or 1.5 cups Kale. I pretty much eat the same thing every day... ALL AT ONCE around noon.
I did the math for you, it's between 2500 and 2900 cals a day. And based on my tracking and 18 months of logs, I can tell you if I split that 2500-2900 between two meals, one in the morning and one at night, I gain weight. All at once, I lose weight.25 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »I stopped counting calories a while ago. I'm also ketogenic. I stopped tracking everything in MFP as well. There was simply no need. The study is accurate based on personal experience.
The study did not say that low carb worked best, if that's what you think, or that either low carb or low fat (which also worked in the study) worked independent of calories.
Nor did people in the study (low carbers included) lose all that much weight given the time period.
I do not believe you gain weight on 1800 calories if not IFing, but lose on 3000-4000 if you IF. In particular, unless you are tiny and sedentary, I don't think you could possibly gain on 1800 in that you are a guy.
I have 18 months of notes, measurements, food and exercise logs. If I eat 100g carbohydrate, and that's all I eat that day, I will gain about 6-8 pounds of water weight. I lost more weight faster by eating more than by cutting calories.
You are correct about the study, and yes, starvation works. So does replacing a 300 calorie bagel with 300 calories of kale. Yes, I understand that's 10 cups of kale. And yes, eating real whole foods means you'll generally consume less.
I'm not saying cutting calories doesn't work, I'm saying someone won't necessarily gain or stall by eating a surplus. The key is each person is pretty unique and one thing doesn't work for everyone. And while I am a huge proponent for keto, it's not the only way.15 -
GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you lost weight, you didn't have a calorie surplus.
What happened to the calories if you did not burn them?
That's the trick. You don't have to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. I'd recommend you checking out Jason Wittrock's 4000 calorie a day keto challenge for 21 days. He lost something like 2 pounds.
Fat storage occurs when insulin is released. Increasing the time between insulin being released increases the time fat is burned. Calories are not all the same. 1g protein is 4 calories, as it 1g of carbohydrate. A gram of fat is 9 calories. Interesting tidbit, you cannot burn body fat until you've burned through your glucose and glycogen levels. This is why people promote fasted cardio.
I was absolutely in a surplus. Like I said, a calorie is not a calorie. What if I ate 3000 cals but 500 was insoluble fiber? That's 750g of fiber, sure, but it's to make a point. The body doesn't always utilize or store every single calorie. If someone eats specific foods at specific times with a specific time in between eating, bam, you can lose weight in a surplus. Calories in calories out is such a base level, and often wrong, understanding.
And what is the "weight" loss made of? Someone going into ketosis can lose upwards of 10 pounds in a week, even in a massive surplus, all because of water loss. The body requires less water when glucose and glycogen are removed from the equation.
Another variable, how many calories, per day, does someone burn? It's something that has to be completely monitored and tracked every single day. And 30 minutes on a treadmill can see a calorie burn rate change drastically. It can also change drastically in it's body composition effects. Fasted cardio means there's no carbs to burn for fuel, so the body is forced to burn fat. Doing cardio after eating and you're simply burning what you consumed, and you'll never ever touch what's stored. So fasted cardio can burn stored fat, and when eating in a fashion that restricts fat storage hormone releases and promotes the use of fat for fuel, you have a winning combination.
Also, there's no magic daily caloric burn rate that's stable. I can listen to my body. The day after my leg day, I'm low energy unless I pile in 3000 calories. On an off day I can get away with 1500 and not be hungry. This goes back to my argument about "how many calories do you burn". I can go get a Dexa body comp a BodPod water immersion body comp test done and it will give me a baseline Basal Metabolic Rate. But when those tests are done I'm rested and not in rebuild / repair mode. So it might say my BMR is 2600 calories or whatever, but I can tell you thatthe day after my leg day I require far more than that, off days less.
So when someone says calories in calories out it's only sort of right because the BMR isn't a static number. But as keto, my personal experience has been tracking me losing 0.05% body fat percentage per day, I've been eating about 16oz beef / pork / chicken, 4oz cheese, 1 avocado, and 4 whole eggs with 5 tablespoons of butter and 1 tablespoon coconut oil and 4-6 tablespoons of heavy whipping cream every day. Sometimes I also have 4-6oz broccoli or 1.5 cups Kale. I pretty much eat the same thing every day... ALL AT ONCE around noon.
I did the math for you, it's between 2500 and 2900 cals a day.
Congrats, you have won the internet! This is the most amount of nope I have ever seen in a single post. Epic!!!16 -
GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you lost weight, you didn't have a calorie surplus.
What happened to the calories if you did not burn them?
That's the trick. You don't have to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. I'd recommend you checking out Jason Wittrock's 4000 calorie a day keto challenge for 21 days. He lost something like 2 pounds.
Fat storage occurs when insulin is released. Increasing the time between insulin being released increases the time fat is burned. Calories are not all the same. 1g protein is 4 calories, as it 1g of carbohydrate. A gram of fat is 9 calories. Interesting tidbit, you cannot burn body fat until you've burned through your glucose and glycogen levels. This is why people promote fasted cardio.
I was absolutely in a surplus. Like I said, a calorie is not a calorie. What if I ate 3000 cals but 500 was insoluble fiber? That's 750g of fiber, sure, but it's to make a point. The body doesn't always utilize or store every single calorie. If someone eats specific foods at specific times with a specific time in between eating, bam, you can lose weight in a surplus. Calories in calories out is such a base level, and often wrong, understanding.
And what is the "weight" loss made of? Someone going into ketosis can lose upwards of 10 pounds in a week, even in a massive surplus, all because of water loss. The body requires less water when glucose and glycogen are removed from the equation.
Another variable, how many calories, per day, does someone burn? It's something that has to be completely monitored and tracked every single day. And 30 minutes on a treadmill can see a calorie burn rate change drastically. It can also change drastically in it's body composition effects. Fasted cardio means there's no carbs to burn for fuel, so the body is forced to burn fat. Doing cardio after eating and you're simply burning what you consumed, and you'll never ever touch what's stored. So fasted cardio can burn stored fat, and when eating in a fashion that restricts fat storage hormone releases and promotes the use of fat for fuel, you have a winning combination.
Also, there's no magic daily caloric burn rate that's stable. I can listen to my body. The day after my leg day, I'm low energy unless I pile in 3000 calories. On an off day I can get away with 1500 and not be hungry. This goes back to my argument about "how many calories do you burn". I can go get a Dexa body comp a BodPod water immersion body comp test done and it will give me a baseline Basal Metabolic Rate. But when those tests are done I'm rested and not in rebuild / repair mode. So it might say my BMR is 2600 calories or whatever, but I can tell you thatthe day after my leg day I require far more than that, off days less.
So when someone says calories in calories out it's only sort of right because the BMR isn't a static number. But as keto, my personal experience has been tracking me losing 0.05% body fat percentage per day, I've been eating about 16oz beef / pork / chicken, 4oz cheese, 1 avocado, and 4 whole eggs with 5 tablespoons of butter and 1 tablespoon coconut oil and 4-6 tablespoons of heavy whipping cream every day. Sometimes I also have 4-6oz broccoli or 1.5 cups Kale. I pretty much eat the same thing every day... ALL AT ONCE around noon.
I did the math for you, it's between 2500 and 2900 cals a day.
Congrats, you have won the internet! This is the most amount of nope I have ever seen in a single post. Epic!!!
Cool. I'm down 36 pounds fat, 11% bodyfat, and up 22 pounds of muscle in 12 months. But whatever works for you, do that.12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions