To Keto or not to Keto
Replies
-
joeydahatt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance
https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/flitabout38 wrote: »Going keto and using it to intermittent fast works because it lowers insulin. Insulin is the fat storage hormone. I like food way too much to cut my calories. This is the only way I get to eat real food that doesn't taste like cardboard in child size portions and after torturing myself for months only to gain it all back still eating the same cardboard kiddie portions. If that makes me dumb so be it I eat 2100-2200 calories a day and I am losing weight. My tummy is happy and tiny!
Insulin isn't this big scary thing...your body needs insulin to transport energy to every cell in your body. Saying that it's a fat storage hormone is overly simplistic.
That is a bit of an overly simplistic explanation of insulin but I believe we're talking about insulin resistance at non diabetic levels and it's relationship to fat storage. See Wilcox, G: Insulin and Insulin Resistance, Clin Biochem Rev 2005 May. Particularly the section on Insulin Secretion in Response to Stimuli.
CICO works fine for overweight persons in general. Nutrient partitioning and controlling insulin response really begin to show their effects on competitive athletes and very fit individuals. I personally don't adhere to a ketogenic diet but I don't consume wheat, unless it's heirloom, or refined sugars. That tends to keep my carb intake in the 75 to 150 gram per day levels. If i go above that for any extended amount of time it gets difficult to keep my BF% in the 10% range. So if we're measuring BF and not weight than the idea that low carb only drops water weight is untrue. My run, swim, and bicycle times in training also seem to suffer. And that's with no change in total caloric intake. So CICO also doesn't hold true as the only basis of weight gain, loss, or maintenance. I realize that that's anecdotal, but it seems to hold true with those I train and compete with.
CICO is universally true; its foundationally a simplification of energy balance. Where it becomes an issue is that people believe that their TDEE is always the same on all diets. But what really happens, is that certain diets can cause an increase in NEAT, TEA or TEF (high protein), which may increase EE. It's no different than how I have always responded better eating 2300 to 2500 calories, than I even did on a 1800 calorie diet. If I low carb, and I have tried, I always fail. I am always starving and lethargic. For me, since I am volume eater, I have always performed based with 150 to 170g of protein with 250 to 350g of carbs.
You may very well be right that different diets effect NEAT, TEA or TEF. But that also goes to show that a kcal is not a kcal, is not a kcal. Humor me and follow my reasoning. I am generally always on a high protein diet because of the nature of my training. I lift heavy 4 days a week because after trying different rep/set schemes I've found I achieve hypertrophy and strength best when I'm at a rep range more suited to power than hypertrophy. I also run, bike, or swim a minimum of 4 days a week. Yet if I increase total calorie intake I gain BF. If I keep protein levels high I tend not to increase BF but also maintain and at times increase muscle mass. (Ex: I gained 5 lbs and lost 2" waist size in the last 6 months.) So in my particular situation a gram of protein is different than a gram of carbohydrates for my needs. The issue with the large majority of studies is that they are biased, being funded by the very industries that their results promote and they are almost always done in groups of either overweight and obese individuals or those suffering from diabetes or other ailments. It's rare that they are done in groups of trained or elite athletes. Now that's not to say they should be dismissed out of hand but their results should be examined against competing studies with differing results.6 -
CICO is asserted as true by many - and there's also lots of evidence that is not the total story. There is nothing in the CICO model that accounts for why someones metabolism can speed up or slow down (well-accepted and well-documented). CICO suggests that you are playing a board game with regular forward and back movement like Monopoly. A hormonal theory of weight loss that includes insulin (and other hormones) suggests that there are other mechanisms - that weight loss is more like playing Chutes and Ladders (e.g., that you can both move forward and backward in a regular way (CICO) AND that there are also other hormonal factors- the chutes and ladders - that affect your metabolism and energy processing).
The one thing that is clear to me is that there is no clear and universal scientific truth on this issue yet. I personally believe that both calories and hormones matter - which is more important in a given individual is probably also affected by their genetics.9 -
joeydahatt wrote: »joeydahatt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance
https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/flitabout38 wrote: »Going keto and using it to intermittent fast works because it lowers insulin. Insulin is the fat storage hormone. I like food way too much to cut my calories. This is the only way I get to eat real food that doesn't taste like cardboard in child size portions and after torturing myself for months only to gain it all back still eating the same cardboard kiddie portions. If that makes me dumb so be it I eat 2100-2200 calories a day and I am losing weight. My tummy is happy and tiny!
Insulin isn't this big scary thing...your body needs insulin to transport energy to every cell in your body. Saying that it's a fat storage hormone is overly simplistic.
That is a bit of an overly simplistic explanation of insulin but I believe we're talking about insulin resistance at non diabetic levels and it's relationship to fat storage. See Wilcox, G: Insulin and Insulin Resistance, Clin Biochem Rev 2005 May. Particularly the section on Insulin Secretion in Response to Stimuli.
CICO works fine for overweight persons in general. Nutrient partitioning and controlling insulin response really begin to show their effects on competitive athletes and very fit individuals. I personally don't adhere to a ketogenic diet but I don't consume wheat, unless it's heirloom, or refined sugars. That tends to keep my carb intake in the 75 to 150 gram per day levels. If i go above that for any extended amount of time it gets difficult to keep my BF% in the 10% range. So if we're measuring BF and not weight than the idea that low carb only drops water weight is untrue. My run, swim, and bicycle times in training also seem to suffer. And that's with no change in total caloric intake. So CICO also doesn't hold true as the only basis of weight gain, loss, or maintenance. I realize that that's anecdotal, but it seems to hold true with those I train and compete with.
CICO is universally true; its foundationally a simplification of energy balance. Where it becomes an issue is that people believe that their TDEE is always the same on all diets. But what really happens, is that certain diets can cause an increase in NEAT, TEA or TEF (high protein), which may increase EE. It's no different than how I have always responded better eating 2300 to 2500 calories, than I even did on a 1800 calorie diet. If I low carb, and I have tried, I always fail. I am always starving and lethargic. For me, since I am volume eater, I have always performed based with 150 to 170g of protein with 250 to 350g of carbs.
You may very well be right that different diets effect NEAT, TEA or TEF. But that also goes to show that a kcal is not a kcal, is not a kcal. Humor me and follow my reasoning. I am generally always on a high protein diet because of the nature of my training. I lift heavy 4 days a week because after trying different rep/set schemes I've found I achieve hypertrophy and strength best when I'm at a rep range more suited to power than hypertrophy. I also run, bike, or swim a minimum of 4 days a week. Yet if I increase total calorie intake I gain BF. If I keep protein levels high I tend not to increase BF but also maintain and at times increase muscle mass. (Ex: I gained 5 lbs and lost 2" waist size in the last 6 months.) So in my particular situation a gram of protein is different than a gram of carbohydrates for my needs. The issue with the large majority of studies is that they are biased, being funded by the very industries that their results promote and they are almost always done in groups of either overweight and obese individuals or those suffering from diabetes or other ailments. It's rare that they are done in groups of trained or elite athletes. Now that's not to say they should be dismissed out of hand but their results should be examined against competing studies with differing results.
Well it doesn't say that a calorie isn't a calories, because it certainly is, but different macronutrients are metabolized differently and can have differing results on an individual level. For some, fats provide them more energy, for me it's carbs. Since I train, I maintain high levels of protein and carbs to maximize recovery and muscle growth; no only do carbs inhibit lipolysis, they are prevent protein breakdown. This will, theoretically, allow for greater protein turnover; thence the recommendation of timing nutrients around your workout routine.
It seems like you are eating around maintenance, so I wouldn't be surprised that if you increase calories that you are going to gain body fat, since you would be in a surplus. Also, even if you maintain calories and replaced some protein with carbs, you would see an increase in body fat % because glycogen and water. Its why if you want to cheat on body fat races, just go keto for a few weeks. Since lean body mass consists of everything but FM.
The only issue with doing studies on highly trained athletes, is that it's not representative of the population, and that they are going to be the lowest responders since they have been training for years. So if you are going to conduct a study, you want to address the majority of the population.8 -
CICO is asserted as true by many - and there's also lots of evidence that is not the total story. There is nothing in the CICO model that accounts for why someones metabolism can speed up or slow down (well-accepted and well-documented). CICO suggests that you are playing a board game with regular forward and back movement like Monopoly. A hormonal theory of weight loss that includes insulin (and other hormones) suggests that there are other mechanisms - that weight loss is more like playing Chutes and Ladders (e.g., that you can both move forward and backward in a regular way (CICO) AND that there are also other hormonal factors- the chutes and ladders - that affect your metabolism and energy processing).
The one thing that is clear to me is that there is no clear and universal scientific truth on this issue yet. I personally believe that both calories and hormones matter - which is more important in a given individual is probably also affected by their genetics.
CICO does include adaptive thermogenesis and other impacts due to hormones because they can impact basal metabolic functions. There are certainly individual variations and things that impact energy balance, but that doesn't mean that isn't a part of the equation.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/9897 -
I would like some help with my Keto Diet, I too am trying it. I have been on this 2 weeks now. I cannot say that I am completely strict with my diet, as I do cheat on the weekends. For the most part I tried staying within 1200 calories, but cut out all processed foods, pasta, potatoes, starches, and bread. I log my food, and it seems like everything has carbs!!!! In my two meals, breakfast and lunch with snacks at 10 and 3, I take in close to all my calories and have anywhere from 60-80 carbs already in!! this leaves me no room most of the time for any kind of dinner/supper. What am I doing wrong?? I'll have mozzarella stick wrapped with turkey or salami for breakfast; snack on nuts or pork skins or both around 10; Salad with chicken at lunch; nuts & cheese or pork skins around 3, and log all this food, at that time I usually already have about 1000-1100 calories in and 50-65 carbs and all this before anytype of dinner. I have tried really hard if I do eat at night to keep it at about an added 2-300 calories so I don't go for sure past 1500 calories in a day. Anyone have any help for me? It would really be appreciated as I don't feel like I am losing very much. FYI- I just started HotWorx (infrared exercising, such as cycling, rowing, core, buns, etc.)3
-
justrenee2000 wrote: »I would like some help with my Keto Diet, I too am trying it. I have been on this 2 weeks now. I cannot say that I am completely strict with my diet, as I do cheat on the weekends. For the most part I tried staying within 1200 calories, but cut out all processed foods, pasta, potatoes, starches, and bread. I log my food, and it seems like everything has carbs!!!! In my two meals, breakfast and lunch with snacks at 10 and 3, I take in close to all my calories and have anywhere from 60-80 carbs already in!! this leaves me no room most of the time for any kind of dinner/supper. What am I doing wrong?? I'll have mozzarella stick wrapped with turkey or salami for breakfast; snack on nuts or pork skins or both around 10; Salad with chicken at lunch; nuts & cheese or pork skins around 3, and log all this food, at that time I usually already have about 1000-1100 calories in and 50-65 carbs and all this before anytype of dinner. I have tried really hard if I do eat at night to keep it at about an added 2-300 calories so I don't go for sure past 1500 calories in a day. Anyone have any help for me? It would really be appreciated as I don't feel like I am losing very much. FYI- I just started HotWorx (infrared exercising, such as cycling, rowing, core, buns, etc.)
Why do you feel the keto diet is something you need to do? Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit and many of the things you’ve described are a bit more calorie dense (nuts and fats in general) and the advantage some people find with using keto to achieve weight loss is that they are satiated by the food choices and so they eat less of them. If that’s not applicable to you then you may want to reconsider the LCHF keto approach and focus just on calorie deficit with more moderate carbs. You can still cut back on processed foods and refined sugars and follow a moderate macro balance.6 -
justrenee2000 wrote: »I would like some help with my Keto Diet, I too am trying it. I have been on this 2 weeks now. I cannot say that I am completely strict with my diet, as I do cheat on the weekends. For the most part I tried staying within 1200 calories, but cut out all processed foods, pasta, potatoes, starches, and bread. I log my food, and it seems like everything has carbs!!!! In my two meals, breakfast and lunch with snacks at 10 and 3, I take in close to all my calories and have anywhere from 60-80 carbs already in!! this leaves me no room most of the time for any kind of dinner/supper. What am I doing wrong?? I'll have mozzarella stick wrapped with turkey or salami for breakfast; snack on nuts or pork skins or both around 10; Salad with chicken at lunch; nuts & cheese or pork skins around 3, and log all this food, at that time I usually already have about 1000-1100 calories in and 50-65 carbs and all this before anytype of dinner. I have tried really hard if I do eat at night to keep it at about an added 2-300 calories so I don't go for sure past 1500 calories in a day. Anyone have any help for me? It would really be appreciated as I don't feel like I am losing very much. FYI- I just started HotWorx (infrared exercising, such as cycling, rowing, core, buns, etc.)
What you are doing wrong is struggling and that comes from trying to follow a specific plan that is probably not well suited for you. This is likely why you are not able to stick with it over the weekends.
My advice is to make your own rules and keep them simple. As @WinoGelato aptly pointed out all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit.
5 -
CICO is asserted as true by many - and there's also lots of evidence that is not the total story. There is nothing in the CICO model that accounts for why someones metabolism can speed up or slow down (well-accepted and well-documented). CICO suggests that you are playing a board game with regular forward and back movement like Monopoly. A hormonal theory of weight loss that includes insulin (and other hormones) suggests that there are other mechanisms - that weight loss is more like playing Chutes and Ladders (e.g., that you can both move forward and backward in a regular way (CICO) AND that there are also other hormonal factors- the chutes and ladders - that affect your metabolism and energy processing).
The one thing that is clear to me is that there is no clear and universal scientific truth on this issue yet. I personally believe that both calories and hormones matter - which is more important in a given individual is probably also affected by their genetics.
No there is not a lot of evidence to that effect, because it's a physical impossibility. The law of conservation of energy (i.e. energy balance) is universal.
What you are talking about are things that vary primarily the CO side of the balance. When you say people's metabolism speeds up or slows down, you are talking about varying the CO. Whatever the variable it is, if it uses energy, whether in physical activity, biological processes or whatever, it is accounted for in CICO. It has to be. The issue here is not whether the energy balance works - it's how people try to use exact numbers.
It's not CICO that doesn't account for all the processes - it's the fact that we cannot accurately measure every process that is going on. We have to depend on estimates because we don't know. We can only guess. It's the CO part that is affected in our calculations.
But in terms of actual energy, the CICO balance is all there is. I say this to nit pick on purpose. Is there to the story? It really depends on how you use the terms. The fact of the matter is that we have no way to capture and measure the dynamic, constantly changing processes (in both magnitude and frequency) that happen in our body every day. But because we want things to be simple, we tend to focus on NEAT and TDEE estimates, pick the mean value at the top of the bell curve and assume that's true for us all the time. It's not.
But CICO is not an assertion. It is an absolute fact. You either burn more or burn less energy than you consume. What you do not burn is stored as fat. If you burn more than you take in , then your body has no choice but to burn energy from something other than its fuel source (food), such as fat, muscle or other lean tissue. You have no say in the matter. CICO is a simple estimate when commonly used. In reality, it's really hard to have the estimates match.4 -
justrenee2000 wrote: »I would like some help with my Keto Diet, I too am trying it. I have been on this 2 weeks now. I cannot say that I am completely strict with my diet, as I do cheat on the weekends. For the most part I tried staying within 1200 calories, but cut out all processed foods, pasta, potatoes, starches, and bread. I log my food, and it seems like everything has carbs!!!! In my two meals, breakfast and lunch with snacks at 10 and 3, I take in close to all my calories and have anywhere from 60-80 carbs already in!! this leaves me no room most of the time for any kind of dinner/supper. What am I doing wrong?? I'll have mozzarella stick wrapped with turkey or salami for breakfast; snack on nuts or pork skins or both around 10; Salad with chicken at lunch; nuts & cheese or pork skins around 3, and log all this food, at that time I usually already have about 1000-1100 calories in and 50-65 carbs and all this before anytype of dinner. I have tried really hard if I do eat at night to keep it at about an added 2-300 calories so I don't go for sure past 1500 calories in a day. Anyone have any help for me? It would really be appreciated as I don't feel like I am losing very much. FYI- I just started HotWorx (infrared exercising, such as cycling, rowing, core, buns, etc.)
you are eating too many carbs for keto. keto is high fat,low carb(less than 50g net or most do less than 25g ) and moderate protein. the main veggies/fruits in keto diets are berries and leafy green vegetables. the whatever is in the salad or the dressing may be adding too many carbs. and cheats on the weekend can wipe out any deficit you have if not weighing/logging properly. but for weight loss all you need is a deficit. keto is nothing special when it comes to weight loss0 -
CICO is asserted as true by many - and there's also lots of evidence that is not the total story. There is nothing in the CICO model that accounts for why someones metabolism can speed up or slow down (well-accepted and well-documented). CICO suggests that you are playing a board game with regular forward and back movement like Monopoly. A hormonal theory of weight loss that includes insulin (and other hormones) suggests that there are other mechanisms - that weight loss is more like playing Chutes and Ladders (e.g., that you can both move forward and backward in a regular way (CICO) AND that there are also other hormonal factors- the chutes and ladders - that affect your metabolism and energy processing).
The one thing that is clear to me is that there is no clear and universal scientific truth on this issue yet. I personally believe that both calories and hormones matter - which is more important in a given individual is probably also affected by their genetics.
If you don't count the drivel from quacks like Fung, et al, the scientific truth is both very clear and very universal. Whether you choose to believe it or not.
Denying the law of energy balance is just like denying the law of gravity. You can choose to believe it or not, but if you jump out of a tree, you're still going to hit the ground.7 -
I did Keto for a few weeks but I had to quit. I was feeling light headed and dizzy ALL THE TIME, I barely had energy to exercise, I am already deficient in iron and I have to take supplements and Keto made me feel worse. Keto is not for me.2
-
These are the facts: you can lose a lot of weight at first. I fully believe all the people that say they've lost weight on keto--I'm not denying that at all.
But you will gain weight back when you stop, and then you may find it harder to lose that weight again. It's a form of starvation mode and it completely destroys your endocrine system's ability to affect homeostasis when used over the long term. It likely has negative long-term effects on your brain/nervous system and your cardiovascular system as well. It's not a long-term diet. Period. End of story. That is what the science of physiology says.
It's a tool that was designed for professional athletes who are trying to cut weight in the short term for specific competitions. If you are morbidly obese, it can be used (UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION) to shed some pounds, but only because the alternative is chronic disease and because your endocrine/cardiovascular/nervous systems are likely already damaged, so it's the lesser of the evils there.
Please, above all else, talk to your doctor!!!!!!!!! before going on any sort of extreme plan like keto, and listen to what your doctor says (even if it's different from what I just wrote).11 -
The fact that you used the term 'starvation mode' discredits the rest of the post. Moving on...7
-
The fact that you used the term 'starvation mode' discredits the rest of the post. Moving on...
I get that "starvation mode" is a layman's term and isn't -completely- accurate, but without going into textbook detail about the way glucose interacts with the brain and the endocrine system, it's a helpful way of expressing a biological reality4 -
carolsoules wrote: »The fact that you used the term 'starvation mode' discredits the rest of the post. Moving on...
I get that "starvation mode" is a layman's term and isn't -completely- accurate, but without going into textbook detail about the way glucose interacts with the brain and the endocrine system, it's a helpful way of expressing a biological reality
So, you're loving this sentence, I saw it on another thread. Can you link me up with where you got this from?4 -
carolsoules wrote: »The fact that you used the term 'starvation mode' discredits the rest of the post. Moving on...
I get that "starvation mode" is a layman's term and isn't -completely- accurate, but without going into textbook detail about the way glucose interacts with the brain and the endocrine system, it's a helpful way of expressing a biological reality
So, you're loving this sentence, I saw it on another thread. Can you link me up with where you got this from?
4 years of studying biology as well as studying for my NASM-CPT
But you can just google leptin, cortisol, and insulin and read all about how blood glucose affects/is affected by those hormones. The information's widely available--it's textbook stuff, basic physiology.
6 -
carolsoules wrote: »carolsoules wrote: »The fact that you used the term 'starvation mode' discredits the rest of the post. Moving on...
I get that "starvation mode" is a layman's term and isn't -completely- accurate, but without going into textbook detail about the way glucose interacts with the brain and the endocrine system, it's a helpful way of expressing a biological reality
So, you're loving this sentence, I saw it on another thread. Can you link me up with where you got this from?
4 years of studying biology as well as studying for my NASM-CPT
But you can just google leptin, cortisol, and insulin and read all about how blood glucose affects/is affected by those hormones. The information's widely available--it's textbook stuff, basic physiology.
Ok, I just wanted to read into it. Not sure I have 4 years spare, so I was hope for a link to credible information (There is a lot of woo out there) Google can be your best friend and worst enemy.5 -
Or a text book? 'Basic physiology' is very vague, it could be basic to someone who has a degree in it. Basic to me is high school, and it sounds a bit more involved than high school.3
-
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »VERY VERY simple science here people. Some of you posting here just don't understand it and or are just brainwashed into believing you HAVE to be in a caloric deficit to lose FAT. NO YOU DON'T. Try to read and understand what a TRULY KETO ADAPTED METABOLISM IS!!! YOU burn fat all day long even if you are NOT in a deficit!!!!
AND VERY VERY simple science how guys like me are gaining lean muscle mass WHILE losing FAT... Your muscles grow by being in sense "injured" while working out. Injured isn't a great term but in fact the muscles get tons of tiny tears in them and they require protein "amino acids" to repair those areas. As the muscles repair they grow and gain size and weight. All you need to do is find the right number of grams of protein to eat per lb of your body weight for your body to keep those muscles fed as you continue to lose body fat. Usually between .4 to 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight. This Is not a new thing lol. Friends of mine have been doing this for quite awhile now. Just because you are losing FAT DOESN'T mean the muscles won't grow if you feed them and work them out. Your body will NOT go CATOTONIC IF IT IS IN A FULL KETO ADAPTED STATE AND YOU FEED YOURSELF ENOUGH PROTEIN!!!
No, I'm afraid you do have to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. Your calories consumed (in)must be less than your calories out CI<CO. I'm a huge fan of keto, and have been doing it for a few years, but you still need to eat at a caloric deficit to lose weight.
That being said, some keto'ers, especially those with insulin resistance, find that a ketogenic diet allows them to eat more than they normally could while losing weight. For example, I had a deficit set to lose 1-1.5 lbs a week but lost 2-3 lbs on most weeks. I firmly believe that keto can affect some people's CO. The appetite suppressing benefits can also affect CI.
People can gain weight while ketogenic... it just doesn't happen often.
No I'm afraid you are very very wrong and there are tons of us doing keto combined with intermittent fasting and losing fat very rapidly with no caloric deficit. You and others can doubt it all you want and type it out that you can't but that doesn't change the fact that lots of us are doing it. And note I said "combined with keto" Only takes a few minutes for you yourself to do a search of peoples stories on line, pictures, videos etc of folks doing exactly that. I am living proof of it and have a nutritionist and doctor watching my weight loss, documenting it, and taking pictures of all the progress. As I have mentioned earlier I also do body composition imaging scans (Dexa) to track my fat loss and lean muscle mass gain. Also another rampant myth that people like to put out there is that you will lose muscle mass while losing fat and that you can't gain lean muscle mass while losing fat. A very very untrue statement as well. I suggest to you and others instead of believing reports and studies you read then trying to tell other people it's the gospel and only way that you yourself actually try to combine intermittent fasting with keto and just watch what happens. And also, once again I will repeat that I do a 23 to 23.5 hr fast between my meals. And my calories in vs calories out are almost always neutral even including exercise. As mentioned earlier every gram I eat is documented and weighed. Every calorie I burn is documented and measured. Also as I have previously mentioned not everyone is the same when it comes to intermittent fasting and a fully keto adapted metabolism. A lot of people doing keto find that they are lower in ketones in their waking hours and can fall out of ketosis at times even when getting the carbs very very low. Which in turns doesn't allow their metabolism to become truly Keto Adapted. They are in fact in ketosis some of the day where they are burning fat but one of the largest factors noted by my doctor and my nutritionist is that with the combination of intermittent fasting and keto eating is that I have been in ketosis from 1.3 to 2.4 ish every single day 24 hrs a day. No readings ever dipping under the Keto Adapted numbers. This is relatively new info to some out there but if you search around you will find a lot of us combining a high ratio intermittent fasting with keto are in 24 hr full Keto Adaptation. This may be some of the science going on with the very rapid fat loss while not having to have a caloric deficit. We all lose fat at different rates. My doctor is on record on my health file writing that he, in his medical career has not seen fat loss (not weight loss remember...this is all body comp scanned scientific results cause I am also gaining lean muscle mass) this fast other than by patients whom have had surgery. So not only the doctor is closely following the progress but a nutritionist and the body comp imaging tech is closely documenting it. Further to note is that when I started this 78 days ago I was pre diabetic with blood sugar from 110 to 120 regularly after a fast. I am currently always in my low to mid 80's now, no longer pre diabetic, and my blood pressure has gone from averages or around 145/90 to 118/72 currently. Proof is in the pudding as we say right? It is also closely documented that I was at times in caloric surplus over a two week test period and still dropped 3 lbs per week each of those weeks and that was after my water weight loss period had passed. So post all the studies you want and research you want. Live it, learn it, and see it for yourself if you truly want to know what's possible and is fact. There are tons of us doing this out there. Search and see for yourself. Furthermore if you read all I have posted you will see that I have stated there is a difference between just keto and keto combined with intermittent fasting. And all kinds of variables come into play with that.
So how many calories do you consume in those 40 minutes you eat in a day?? I have to eat around 2600-3000 depending on my activity level that day in order to maintain. Any thing below that and I am in a caloric deficit. Are you eating over 3000 calories in that one meal?4 -
If you don't count the drivel from quacks like Fung, et al, the scientific truth is both very clear and very universal. Whether you choose to believe it or not.
Denying the law of energy balance is just like denying the law of gravity. You can choose to believe it or not, but if you jump out of a tree, you're still going to hit the ground.
Yes the law of gravity is universal - and if you jump out of a tree you will hit the ground - but you can jump out of the tree holding an anvil or wearing a parachute and your experience hitting the ground will be very different. When people talk about CICO they talk about simply counting calories and treating a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. We know that your body reacts to proteins and carbs and fats differently and those differences have down stream effects on hormones and metabolism.
I still think the evidence supports that CICO is too simplistic a model to explain what actually happens in the human body.10 -
If you don't count the drivel from quacks like Fung, et al, the scientific truth is both very clear and very universal. Whether you choose to believe it or not.
Denying the law of energy balance is just like denying the law of gravity. You can choose to believe it or not, but if you jump out of a tree, you're still going to hit the ground.
Yes the law of gravity is universal - and if you jump out of a tree you will hit the ground - but you can jump out of the tree holding an anvil or wearing a parachute and your experience hitting the ground will be very different. When people talk about CICO they talk about simply counting calories and treating a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. We know that your body reacts to proteins and carbs and fats differently and those differences have down stream effects on hormones and metabolism.
I still think the evidence supports that CICO is too simplistic a model to explain what actually happens in the human body.
Effective calorie counting requires understanding that no formula can predict your exact TDEE, and that it will require some trial and error to get you from the starting point of your predicted TDEE to your actual TDEE.
CICO is simplistic, and for the vast majority of people, the complex stuff that falls under either CI or CO is not worth the time and effort it would take to suss out each individual factor.
If you are holding a proverbial anvil or parachute, that will become evident as you log accurately and consistently, and monitor your results. If you are willing to be a little patient and do some grade school level math, you will find your calorie level over time. Regardless of TEF or individual metabolic differences or whatever. You will find out that let's say the calculator said my TDEE is 1800 but I now know my actual TDEE is 1875. I don't know why, but I don't need to know. If your TDEE is WAY off the predicted number, you can go to a medical professional and see if there is an underlying health issue, but for most people, that's not going to be an issue once they learn how to log accurately and start working with good data.
I have worked with plenty of women who insisted they were eating 1200 cals, not losing weight, and probably were in "starvation mode". Once they got a food scale, learned how to choose accurate entries in the database, and really committed to heroically-accurate levels of logging for 8 weeks, they saw they were eating much more than they thought and their numbers were actually just a little off the norm.
None of which changes the fact that keto will work like any other diet if it helps you get into a deficit and you can eat that way for the long term - just wanted to throw that in there to stay on thread 9 -
joeydahatt wrote: »joeydahatt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance
https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/flitabout38 wrote: »Going keto and using it to intermittent fast works because it lowers insulin. Insulin is the fat storage hormone. I like food way too much to cut my calories. This is the only way I get to eat real food that doesn't taste like cardboard in child size portions and after torturing myself for months only to gain it all back still eating the same cardboard kiddie portions. If that makes me dumb so be it I eat 2100-2200 calories a day and I am losing weight. My tummy is happy and tiny!
Insulin isn't this big scary thing...your body needs insulin to transport energy to every cell in your body. Saying that it's a fat storage hormone is overly simplistic.
That is a bit of an overly simplistic explanation of insulin but I believe we're talking about insulin resistance at non diabetic levels and it's relationship to fat storage. See Wilcox, G: Insulin and Insulin Resistance, Clin Biochem Rev 2005 May. Particularly the section on Insulin Secretion in Response to Stimuli.
CICO works fine for overweight persons in general. Nutrient partitioning and controlling insulin response really begin to show their effects on competitive athletes and very fit individuals. I personally don't adhere to a ketogenic diet but I don't consume wheat, unless it's heirloom, or refined sugars. That tends to keep my carb intake in the 75 to 150 gram per day levels. If i go above that for any extended amount of time it gets difficult to keep my BF% in the 10% range. So if we're measuring BF and not weight than the idea that low carb only drops water weight is untrue. My run, swim, and bicycle times in training also seem to suffer. And that's with no change in total caloric intake. So CICO also doesn't hold true as the only basis of weight gain, loss, or maintenance. I realize that that's anecdotal, but it seems to hold true with those I train and compete with.
CICO is universally true; its foundationally a simplification of energy balance. Where it becomes an issue is that people believe that their TDEE is always the same on all diets. But what really happens, is that certain diets can cause an increase in NEAT, TEA or TEF (high protein), which may increase EE. It's no different than how I have always responded better eating 2300 to 2500 calories, than I even did on a 1800 calorie diet. If I low carb, and I have tried, I always fail. I am always starving and lethargic. For me, since I am volume eater, I have always performed based with 150 to 170g of protein with 250 to 350g of carbs.
You may very well be right that different diets effect NEAT, TEA or TEF. But that also goes to show that a kcal is not a kcal, is not a kcal. Humor me and follow my reasoning. I am generally always on a high protein diet because of the nature of my training. I lift heavy 4 days a week because after trying different rep/set schemes I've found I achieve hypertrophy and strength best when I'm at a rep range more suited to power than hypertrophy. I also run, bike, or swim a minimum of 4 days a week. Yet if I increase total calorie intake I gain BF. If I keep protein levels high I tend not to increase BF but also maintain and at times increase muscle mass. (Ex: I gained 5 lbs and lost 2" waist size in the last 6 months.) So in my particular situation a gram of protein is different than a gram of carbohydrates for my needs. The issue with the large majority of studies is that they are biased, being funded by the very industries that their results promote and they are almost always done in groups of either overweight and obese individuals or those suffering from diabetes or other ailments. It's rare that they are done in groups of trained or elite athletes. Now that's not to say they should be dismissed out of hand but their results should be examined against competing studies with differing results.
You've got everything right here in your post. Guys and gals can post all they want all over the forum that cico is the only way all they want. It really doesn't matter or have any impact on people like us doing what we do and being successful at it. 10's of thousands of people are. Tweeking metabolisms and hormone manipulation is newer science and people that are set in tunnel vision with closed minds just can't grasp it. And garaunteed they haven't lived it and tried it to know what's possible.
I do keto and intermittent fasting; eating only once a day in a 30 to 45 min window. I also lift heavy 3 to 5 days/week and mountain bike ride a few times a week. I track every thing I consume and every thing I burn. But I do that as part of a program with my doctor and with a nutritionist to study what's going on with this kind of living and how it impacts my body. Not cause I'm counting calories. But because we all want to see how the keto combined with long hour intervals of intermittent fasting affects fat loss and muscle gain. I don't ever try to eat a specific amount of calories a day. I am more concerned about my macro %'s. I focus on eating around 70% fat, 20 to 25% protein and 5 to 10% carbs. Some days I eat a surplus of calories and most days I am at neutral calories (in cico terms lol). Barely ever am I in a calorie deficit. Every gram of food is weighed. And every calorie of energy burned is documented. And I've dropped 50 lbs of fat in 82 days and am gaining muscle mass and physical strength. I just got another set of blood/urine lab results back and absolutely every item on the screening as improved; along with no longer being pre diabetic and also no longer having high blood pressure. Only thing that was on the margin on the test was Potassium level was on the edge of being high and that's cause I take electrolytes a few times a day. So the only thing the doctor had to say was back off a little on the electrolytes but he said keep doing what I'm doing. He has never seen fat drop at such a fast rate before in a natural process without surgery. Another great thing to note on the test results is that even my testosterone has gone up a lot. I'm 44 years old and have great testosterone levels that have gone up over the past 4 years (they dropped when I gained a bunch of weight and now have gone way up over the past 3 months of living this way). Old school science says it will go down over time as we age. Hmmm...Just another part of our body that can be manipulated by how we eat, live, exercise.
People can go on and speel about "it must be your not calculating right", and "you must be in a deficit" "you must be figuring out something wrong" Lol nope it's just that people can't grasp that metabolisms, the rate of fat burn a person can achieve by manipulating things going on in their bodies 100% has an effect at the rate of fat loss and muscle gain. The thing to do is to do it yourself and see if it's true or not or how you can dial in your body and your metabolism to do what it is you want your goal to be. Why do we all have different metabolisms? Because we all have different rates of things going on in our bodies with our organs etc. These things are manipulable. I am living proof of it and so are 10's of thousands of other people.11 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »...And I've dropped 50 lbs of fat in 82 days and am gaining muscle mass...
We've gone over this already. No, you're not. And you have yet to offer even a shred of proof to back up your claims.
You're gaining strength as a result of neuromuscular adaptation. Nothing in the least unusual about that. You are not putting on muscle mass while simultaneously losing 50 pounds of weight.
Neither keto nor intermittent fasting are magic. They're very trendy and it's quite the cute fad right now to combine them, but they do not defy the laws of physics.9 -
If you don't count the drivel from quacks like Fung, et al, the scientific truth is both very clear and very universal. Whether you choose to believe it or not.
Denying the law of energy balance is just like denying the law of gravity. You can choose to believe it or not, but if you jump out of a tree, you're still going to hit the ground.
Yes the law of gravity is universal - and if you jump out of a tree you will hit the ground - but you can jump out of the tree holding an anvil or wearing a parachute
This is a great analogy for TEF.
Each scenario is obviously different. Until you realize that the mass of the anvil will have negligible effect on gravitational acceleration, and the parachute will not have time to open fully before hitting the ground.
Exactly like the TEF
4 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »joeydahatt wrote: »joeydahatt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/what-is-diabetes/prediabetes-insulin-resistance
https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/flitabout38 wrote: »Going keto and using it to intermittent fast works because it lowers insulin. Insulin is the fat storage hormone. I like food way too much to cut my calories. This is the only way I get to eat real food that doesn't taste like cardboard in child size portions and after torturing myself for months only to gain it all back still eating the same cardboard kiddie portions. If that makes me dumb so be it I eat 2100-2200 calories a day and I am losing weight. My tummy is happy and tiny!
Insulin isn't this big scary thing...your body needs insulin to transport energy to every cell in your body. Saying that it's a fat storage hormone is overly simplistic.
That is a bit of an overly simplistic explanation of insulin but I believe we're talking about insulin resistance at non diabetic levels and it's relationship to fat storage. See Wilcox, G: Insulin and Insulin Resistance, Clin Biochem Rev 2005 May. Particularly the section on Insulin Secretion in Response to Stimuli.
CICO works fine for overweight persons in general. Nutrient partitioning and controlling insulin response really begin to show their effects on competitive athletes and very fit individuals. I personally don't adhere to a ketogenic diet but I don't consume wheat, unless it's heirloom, or refined sugars. That tends to keep my carb intake in the 75 to 150 gram per day levels. If i go above that for any extended amount of time it gets difficult to keep my BF% in the 10% range. So if we're measuring BF and not weight than the idea that low carb only drops water weight is untrue. My run, swim, and bicycle times in training also seem to suffer. And that's with no change in total caloric intake. So CICO also doesn't hold true as the only basis of weight gain, loss, or maintenance. I realize that that's anecdotal, but it seems to hold true with those I train and compete with.
CICO is universally true; its foundationally a simplification of energy balance. Where it becomes an issue is that people believe that their TDEE is always the same on all diets. But what really happens, is that certain diets can cause an increase in NEAT, TEA or TEF (high protein), which may increase EE. It's no different than how I have always responded better eating 2300 to 2500 calories, than I even did on a 1800 calorie diet. If I low carb, and I have tried, I always fail. I am always starving and lethargic. For me, since I am volume eater, I have always performed based with 150 to 170g of protein with 250 to 350g of carbs.
You may very well be right that different diets effect NEAT, TEA or TEF. But that also goes to show that a kcal is not a kcal, is not a kcal. Humor me and follow my reasoning. I am generally always on a high protein diet because of the nature of my training. I lift heavy 4 days a week because after trying different rep/set schemes I've found I achieve hypertrophy and strength best when I'm at a rep range more suited to power than hypertrophy. I also run, bike, or swim a minimum of 4 days a week. Yet if I increase total calorie intake I gain BF. If I keep protein levels high I tend not to increase BF but also maintain and at times increase muscle mass. (Ex: I gained 5 lbs and lost 2" waist size in the last 6 months.) So in my particular situation a gram of protein is different than a gram of carbohydrates for my needs. The issue with the large majority of studies is that they are biased, being funded by the very industries that their results promote and they are almost always done in groups of either overweight and obese individuals or those suffering from diabetes or other ailments. It's rare that they are done in groups of trained or elite athletes. Now that's not to say they should be dismissed out of hand but their results should be examined against competing studies with differing results.
You've got everything right here in your post. Guys and gals can post all they want all over the forum that cico is the only way all they want. It really doesn't matter or have any impact on people like us doing what we do and being successful at it. 10's of thousands of people are. Tweeking metabolisms and hormone manipulation is newer science and people that are set in tunnel vision with closed minds just can't grasp it. And garaunteed they haven't lived it and tried it to know what's possible.
I do keto and intermittent fasting; eating only once a day in a 30 to 45 min window. I also lift heavy 3 to 5 days/week and mountain bike ride a few times a week. I track every thing I consume and every thing I burn. But I do that as part of a program with my doctor and with a nutritionist to study what's going on with this kind of living and how it impacts my body. Not cause I'm counting calories. But because we all want to see how the keto combined with long hour intervals of intermittent fasting affects fat loss and muscle gain. I don't ever try to eat a specific amount of calories a day. I am more concerned about my macro %'s. I focus on eating around 70% fat, 20 to 25% protein and 5 to 10% carbs. Some days I eat a surplus of calories and most days I am at neutral calories (in cico terms lol). Barely ever am I in a calorie deficit. Every gram of food is weighed. And every calorie of energy burned is documented. And I've dropped 50 lbs of fat in 82 days and am gaining muscle mass and physical strength. I just got another set of blood/urine lab results back and absolutely every item on the screening as improved; along with no longer being pre diabetic and also no longer having high blood pressure. Only thing that was on the margin on the test was Potassium level was on the edge of being high and that's cause I take electrolytes a few times a day. So the only thing the doctor had to say was back off a little on the electrolytes but he said keep doing what I'm doing. He has never seen fat drop at such a fast rate before in a natural process without surgery. Another great thing to note on the test results is that even my testosterone has gone up a lot. I'm 44 years old and have great testosterone levels that have gone up over the past 4 years. Old school science says it will go down over time as we age. Hmmm...Just another part of our body that can be manipulated by how we eat, live, exercise.
People can go on and speel about "it must be your not calculating right", and "you must be in a deficit" "you must be figuring out something wrong" Lol nope it's just that people can't grasp that metabolisms, the rate of fat burn a person can achieve by manipulating things going on in their bodies 100% has an effect at the rate of fat loss and muscle gain. The thing to do is to do it yourself and see if it's true or not or how you can dial in your body and your metabolism to do what it is you want your goal to be. Why do we all have different metabolisms? Because we all have different rates of things going on in our bodies with our organs etc. These things are manipulable. I am living proof of it and so are 10's of thousands of other people.
The bigger issue, is that you have been doing this for very little time, and you claims are not supported by evidence. There are thousands of studies done on energy balance. And you can't show one single metabolic ward studies to suggest what you are suggesting. The mere definition of being in an energy deficit is that you would use your fat reserves to burn as fuel. If your calories in are equal to your calories out, then you would be maintaining (basic definition) and a surplus is gaining; again basic definitions. Believing otherwise is a disservice to you and your knowledge base.10 -
If you don't count the drivel from quacks like Fung, et al, the scientific truth is both very clear and very universal. Whether you choose to believe it or not.
Denying the law of energy balance is just like denying the law of gravity. You can choose to believe it or not, but if you jump out of a tree, you're still going to hit the ground.
Yes the law of gravity is universal - and if you jump out of a tree you will hit the ground - but you can jump out of the tree holding an anvil or wearing a parachute and your experience hitting the ground will be very different. When people talk about CICO they talk about simply counting calories and treating a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. We know that your body reacts to proteins and carbs and fats differently and those differences have down stream effects on hormones and metabolism.
I still think the evidence supports that CICO is too simplistic a model to explain what actually happens in the human body.
If I drop ten pounds of feathers and a ten pound anvil, which will hit the ground first?4 -
bisonpitcher wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »VERY VERY simple science here people. Some of you posting here just don't understand it and or are just brainwashed into believing you HAVE to be in a caloric deficit to lose FAT. NO YOU DON'T. Try to read and understand what a TRULY KETO ADAPTED METABOLISM IS!!! YOU burn fat all day long even if you are NOT in a deficit!!!!
AND VERY VERY simple science how guys like me are gaining lean muscle mass WHILE losing FAT... Your muscles grow by being in sense "injured" while working out. Injured isn't a great term but in fact the muscles get tons of tiny tears in them and they require protein "amino acids" to repair those areas. As the muscles repair they grow and gain size and weight. All you need to do is find the right number of grams of protein to eat per lb of your body weight for your body to keep those muscles fed as you continue to lose body fat. Usually between .4 to 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight. This Is not a new thing lol. Friends of mine have been doing this for quite awhile now. Just because you are losing FAT DOESN'T mean the muscles won't grow if you feed them and work them out. Your body will NOT go CATOTONIC IF IT IS IN A FULL KETO ADAPTED STATE AND YOU FEED YOURSELF ENOUGH PROTEIN!!!
No, I'm afraid you do have to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. Your calories consumed (in)must be less than your calories out CI<CO. I'm a huge fan of keto, and have been doing it for a few years, but you still need to eat at a caloric deficit to lose weight.
That being said, some keto'ers, especially those with insulin resistance, find that a ketogenic diet allows them to eat more than they normally could while losing weight. For example, I had a deficit set to lose 1-1.5 lbs a week but lost 2-3 lbs on most weeks. I firmly believe that keto can affect some people's CO. The appetite suppressing benefits can also affect CI.
People can gain weight while ketogenic... it just doesn't happen often.
No I'm afraid you are very very wrong and there are tons of us doing keto combined with intermittent fasting and losing fat very rapidly with no caloric deficit. You and others can doubt it all you want and type it out that you can't but that doesn't change the fact that lots of us are doing it. And note I said "combined with keto" Only takes a few minutes for you yourself to do a search of peoples stories on line, pictures, videos etc of folks doing exactly that. I am living proof of it and have a nutritionist and doctor watching my weight loss, documenting it, and taking pictures of all the progress. As I have mentioned earlier I also do body composition imaging scans (Dexa) to track my fat loss and lean muscle mass gain. Also another rampant myth that people like to put out there is that you will lose muscle mass while losing fat and that you can't gain lean muscle mass while losing fat. A very very untrue statement as well. I suggest to you and others instead of believing reports and studies you read then trying to tell other people it's the gospel and only way that you yourself actually try to combine intermittent fasting with keto and just watch what happens. And also, once again I will repeat that I do a 23 to 23.5 hr fast between my meals. And my calories in vs calories out are almost always neutral even including exercise. As mentioned earlier every gram I eat is documented and weighed. Every calorie I burn is documented and measured. Also as I have previously mentioned not everyone is the same when it comes to intermittent fasting and a fully keto adapted metabolism. A lot of people doing keto find that they are lower in ketones in their waking hours and can fall out of ketosis at times even when getting the carbs very very low. Which in turns doesn't allow their metabolism to become truly Keto Adapted. They are in fact in ketosis some of the day where they are burning fat but one of the largest factors noted by my doctor and my nutritionist is that with the combination of intermittent fasting and keto eating is that I have been in ketosis from 1.3 to 2.4 ish every single day 24 hrs a day. No readings ever dipping under the Keto Adapted numbers. This is relatively new info to some out there but if you search around you will find a lot of us combining a high ratio intermittent fasting with keto are in 24 hr full Keto Adaptation. This may be some of the science going on with the very rapid fat loss while not having to have a caloric deficit. We all lose fat at different rates. My doctor is on record on my health file writing that he, in his medical career has not seen fat loss (not weight loss remember...this is all body comp scanned scientific results cause I am also gaining lean muscle mass) this fast other than by patients whom have had surgery. So not only the doctor is closely following the progress but a nutritionist and the body comp imaging tech is closely documenting it. Further to note is that when I started this 78 days ago I was pre diabetic with blood sugar from 110 to 120 regularly after a fast. I am currently always in my low to mid 80's now, no longer pre diabetic, and my blood pressure has gone from averages or around 145/90 to 118/72 currently. Proof is in the pudding as we say right? It is also closely documented that I was at times in caloric surplus over a two week test period and still dropped 3 lbs per week each of those weeks and that was after my water weight loss period had passed. So post all the studies you want and research you want. Live it, learn it, and see it for yourself if you truly want to know what's possible and is fact. There are tons of us doing this out there. Search and see for yourself. Furthermore if you read all I have posted you will see that I have stated there is a difference between just keto and keto combined with intermittent fasting. And all kinds of variables come into play with that.
So how many calories do you consume in those 40 minutes you eat in a day?? I have to eat around 2600-3000 depending on my activity level that day in order to maintain. Any thing below that and I am in a caloric deficit. Are you eating over 3000 calories in that one meal?
Yes right around that. But as mentioned above it fluctuates but I am almost never in a deficit but the odd day or so I am. And to note on that as well, the more weight I am losing the tougher it is to eat all that fuel in one meal so lately I have been eating half, then waiting 30 minutes or so then eating the other half. My appetite is tuned in now that I have been doing this for awhile in a way that I only just start to feel like I need fuel around my 20th hr of fast. Having the body so used to living off it's own fat for energy has very much so made me feel like I don't need any fuel till the ends of my fasting hours. Even this past week my total cico numbers were in a surplus again cause I was doing construction on our home and couldn't get away for my biking for three days I normally would have. And did less lifting than normal and I still dropped another 3 lbs. Eating lot's of fat rich foods in the macro's gets the fuel numbers up quickly and I barely eat much carbs at all at 5 to 10% of those calories. For protein I eat lot's of seafood. And also pork, beef, and poultry. I live on the west coast and most of my spare time is spend fishing off shore so we have an abundance of fish, prawns, and crab. I eat a lot of sushi/sashimi when I have time to make it. But I omit the rice and just use the seaweed nori to make my rolls with. And if I can't get as much protein as I want from the food I supplement with whey protein isolate. I use a non sweetened one so I can alter it if I want with cocoa powder, stevia, etc.. or just have it plain. I actually love it's natural flavor with just almond milk. A lot of the ones that are pre flavored and sweetened are just way to sweet or flavored for my liking.9 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »bisonpitcher wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »VERY VERY simple science here people. Some of you posting here just don't understand it and or are just brainwashed into believing you HAVE to be in a caloric deficit to lose FAT. NO YOU DON'T. Try to read and understand what a TRULY KETO ADAPTED METABOLISM IS!!! YOU burn fat all day long even if you are NOT in a deficit!!!!
AND VERY VERY simple science how guys like me are gaining lean muscle mass WHILE losing FAT... Your muscles grow by being in sense "injured" while working out. Injured isn't a great term but in fact the muscles get tons of tiny tears in them and they require protein "amino acids" to repair those areas. As the muscles repair they grow and gain size and weight. All you need to do is find the right number of grams of protein to eat per lb of your body weight for your body to keep those muscles fed as you continue to lose body fat. Usually between .4 to 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight. This Is not a new thing lol. Friends of mine have been doing this for quite awhile now. Just because you are losing FAT DOESN'T mean the muscles won't grow if you feed them and work them out. Your body will NOT go CATOTONIC IF IT IS IN A FULL KETO ADAPTED STATE AND YOU FEED YOURSELF ENOUGH PROTEIN!!!
No, I'm afraid you do have to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. Your calories consumed (in)must be less than your calories out CI<CO. I'm a huge fan of keto, and have been doing it for a few years, but you still need to eat at a caloric deficit to lose weight.
That being said, some keto'ers, especially those with insulin resistance, find that a ketogenic diet allows them to eat more than they normally could while losing weight. For example, I had a deficit set to lose 1-1.5 lbs a week but lost 2-3 lbs on most weeks. I firmly believe that keto can affect some people's CO. The appetite suppressing benefits can also affect CI.
People can gain weight while ketogenic... it just doesn't happen often.
No I'm afraid you are very very wrong and there are tons of us doing keto combined with intermittent fasting and losing fat very rapidly with no caloric deficit. You and others can doubt it all you want and type it out that you can't but that doesn't change the fact that lots of us are doing it. And note I said "combined with keto" Only takes a few minutes for you yourself to do a search of peoples stories on line, pictures, videos etc of folks doing exactly that. I am living proof of it and have a nutritionist and doctor watching my weight loss, documenting it, and taking pictures of all the progress. As I have mentioned earlier I also do body composition imaging scans (Dexa) to track my fat loss and lean muscle mass gain. Also another rampant myth that people like to put out there is that you will lose muscle mass while losing fat and that you can't gain lean muscle mass while losing fat. A very very untrue statement as well. I suggest to you and others instead of believing reports and studies you read then trying to tell other people it's the gospel and only way that you yourself actually try to combine intermittent fasting with keto and just watch what happens. And also, once again I will repeat that I do a 23 to 23.5 hr fast between my meals. And my calories in vs calories out are almost always neutral even including exercise. As mentioned earlier every gram I eat is documented and weighed. Every calorie I burn is documented and measured. Also as I have previously mentioned not everyone is the same when it comes to intermittent fasting and a fully keto adapted metabolism. A lot of people doing keto find that they are lower in ketones in their waking hours and can fall out of ketosis at times even when getting the carbs very very low. Which in turns doesn't allow their metabolism to become truly Keto Adapted. They are in fact in ketosis some of the day where they are burning fat but one of the largest factors noted by my doctor and my nutritionist is that with the combination of intermittent fasting and keto eating is that I have been in ketosis from 1.3 to 2.4 ish every single day 24 hrs a day. No readings ever dipping under the Keto Adapted numbers. This is relatively new info to some out there but if you search around you will find a lot of us combining a high ratio intermittent fasting with keto are in 24 hr full Keto Adaptation. This may be some of the science going on with the very rapid fat loss while not having to have a caloric deficit. We all lose fat at different rates. My doctor is on record on my health file writing that he, in his medical career has not seen fat loss (not weight loss remember...this is all body comp scanned scientific results cause I am also gaining lean muscle mass) this fast other than by patients whom have had surgery. So not only the doctor is closely following the progress but a nutritionist and the body comp imaging tech is closely documenting it. Further to note is that when I started this 78 days ago I was pre diabetic with blood sugar from 110 to 120 regularly after a fast. I am currently always in my low to mid 80's now, no longer pre diabetic, and my blood pressure has gone from averages or around 145/90 to 118/72 currently. Proof is in the pudding as we say right? It is also closely documented that I was at times in caloric surplus over a two week test period and still dropped 3 lbs per week each of those weeks and that was after my water weight loss period had passed. So post all the studies you want and research you want. Live it, learn it, and see it for yourself if you truly want to know what's possible and is fact. There are tons of us doing this out there. Search and see for yourself. Furthermore if you read all I have posted you will see that I have stated there is a difference between just keto and keto combined with intermittent fasting. And all kinds of variables come into play with that.
So how many calories do you consume in those 40 minutes you eat in a day?? I have to eat around 2600-3000 depending on my activity level that day in order to maintain. Any thing below that and I am in a caloric deficit. Are you eating over 3000 calories in that one meal?
Yes right around that. But as mentioned above it fluctuates but I am almost never in a deficit but the odd day or so I am. Even this past week my total cico numbers were in a surplus again cause I was doing construction on our home and couldn't get away for my biking for three days I normally would have. And did less lifting than normal and I still dropped another 3 lbs. Eating lot's of fat rich foods in the macro's gets the fuel numbers up quickly and I barely eat much carbs at all at 5 to 10% of those calories. For protein I eat lot's of seafood. And also pork, beef, and poultry. I live on the west coast and most of my spare time is spend fishing off shore so we have an abundance of fish, prawns, and crab. I eat a lot of sushi/sashimi when I have time to make it. But I omit the rice and just use the seaweed nori to make my rolls with. And if I can't get as much protein as I want from the food I supplement with whey protein isolate. I use a non sweetened one so I can alter it if I want with cocoa powder, stevia, etc.. or just have it plain. I actually love it's natural flavor with just almond milk. A lot of the ones that are pre flavored and sweetened are just way to sweet or flavored for my liking.
How are you determining you are in a surplus? Are you confusing online calculators with actual results?8 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »...And I've dropped 50 lbs of fat in 82 days and am gaining muscle mass...
We've gone over this already. No, you're not. And you have yet to offer even a shred of proof to back up your claims.
He has an eyewitness.
Morgan Fairchild.
Who he slept with.
Naked.
7 -
If I drop ten pounds of feathers and a ten pound anvil, which will hit the ground first?
The anvil will hit the ground first because you did not specify that they are both in a vacuum or that the ten pounds of feathers are bound together in some package and not simply a pile of feathers that are free to float down gently because of their greater surface area. Details matter.
Similarly, to ignore the literature, like the Biggest Loser study showing persistent reductions in RMR that are not fully explained by reductions in body mass and the gastric bypass literature that shows a rebound in RMR is also to ignore the fact that the scientific literature does not yet contain models and mechanisms to explain what happens in real life weight loss - because the details matter.
6
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