Keto vs calorie counting
Replies
-
'many people say' lots of things without any facts to back it up. You're on the right track to question what you hear, and to seek the information that is correct and will help you to make informed decisions.
Calorie deficit is the only way anyone loses weight. It doens't matter what fancy schmancy program gets wrapped around a meal plan or way of eating, in the end you have to eat fewer calories that your body needs.
Read the sticky posts at the top of the GEtting Started column. but first, throw away all that you think you know, and allow your mind to consider all the information without your current opinions in the way.
good luck.5 -
19 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
tears of laughter are running down my leg - thanks so much for the best graphic i've seen in, possibly, years.6 -
How can you say that? Dragons are lumped under "people" when they aren't even humanoid!
3 -
The study that put it around 31 calories / pound has generally been discounted. In particular, I think it limits itself to fat oxidation from non-exercise activity.39flavours wrote: »That's interesting, so at some point your body says 'no, that's about all the body fat % I'm willing to spare today, time to start consuming muscles' I wonder what the evolutionary logic is behind that.
Without actual biology/physiology expertise in any way ( ), I suspect it's more about the chemistry - that your physical system is only capable of biologically converting X amount of fat per pound of fat per day into energy, so when it exceeds that, it goes shopping for other energy sources in the body.
As far as "evolutionary logic" . . . at some level of intake, humans starve, and natural selection seems perfectly willing to let them. Physics won't let you keep running on empty, so how your body adapts is shaped by natural selection, not logic.
Pure speculation, though.39flavours wrote: »Just curious, if we as humans are only able to metabolize a certain amount of fat per day, as stated above, then how come obese people can lose fat at a higher rate than those with less body fat?
Edited to change the word weight to fat
Good question. Maybe the limit the limit is based on the amount of fat in the body (Just guessing). I'd be interested in seeing studies about this.
I can't find a cite quickly right now, but IMU the estimate is that we can burn roughly X amount of calories per pound of fat per day, and that that value (X) was inferred (by experts) via calculation, not experimentation. If memory serves (something mine rarely does ), the value of X is argued about, but is estimated to be in the 20s or at most 30s of calories per pound of fat.
The "maximum loss of 1% of body weight a week" is on the conservative side, because (1) it's a rule of thumb and one size doesn't actually fit all, and (2) losing too slowly is frustrating, but losing too fast is dangerous and unhealthy.
At least part of what happens in the biology is that the body will need to preserve a certain amounts of fats and proteins for particular metabolic activities that only they can do - certain hormones need a fatty acid as their base, cell walls require lipids, and a lot of structure can only be made out of specific amino acid sequences. Animals that balanced those levels better than others via feedback systems during times of starvation would probably have tended to die less from starvation.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
The study that put it around 31 calories / pound has generally been discounted. In particular, I think it limits itself to fat oxidation from non-exercise activity.39flavours wrote: »That's interesting, so at some point your body says 'no, that's about all the body fat % I'm willing to spare today, time to start consuming muscles' I wonder what the evolutionary logic is behind that.
Without actual biology/physiology expertise in any way ( ), I suspect it's more about the chemistry - that your physical system is only capable of biologically converting X amount of fat per pound of fat per day into energy, so when it exceeds that, it goes shopping for other energy sources in the body.
As far as "evolutionary logic" . . . at some level of intake, humans starve, and natural selection seems perfectly willing to let them. Physics won't let you keep running on empty, so how your body adapts is shaped by natural selection, not logic.
Pure speculation, though.39flavours wrote: »Just curious, if we as humans are only able to metabolize a certain amount of fat per day, as stated above, then how come obese people can lose fat at a higher rate than those with less body fat?
Edited to change the word weight to fat
Good question. Maybe the limit the limit is based on the amount of fat in the body (Just guessing). I'd be interested in seeing studies about this.
I can't find a cite quickly right now, but IMU the estimate is that we can burn roughly X amount of calories per pound of fat per day, and that that value (X) was inferred (by experts) via calculation, not experimentation. If memory serves (something mine rarely does ), the value of X is argued about, but is estimated to be in the 20s or at most 30s of calories per pound of fat.
The "maximum loss of 1% of body weight a week" is on the conservative side, because (1) it's a rule of thumb and one size doesn't actually fit all, and (2) losing too slowly is frustrating, but losing too fast is dangerous and unhealthy.
At least part of what happens in the biology is that the body will need to preserve a certain amounts of fats and proteins for particular metabolic activities that only they can do - certain hormones need a fatty acid as their base, cell walls require lipids, and a lot of structure can only be made out of specific amino acid sequences. Animals that balanced those levels better than others via feedback systems during times of starvation would probably have tended to die less from starvation.
That's interesting! I never would have thought of that, but it makes sense :drinker:0 -
Keto is unnatural. Don't chase the newest fad diet thinking it is a shortcut. There are long term consequences to keto and it doesn't teach you how to eat in the long run for maintenance. Keto is for today 1200 calories is for life.14
-
I know many say both keto and calorie counting are one in the same, as someone will lose weight due to having a calorie deficit. The first month on keto people lose a large amout of water weight, but I'm seeing people each month lose 10-20 pounds a month vs calorie counting people are barely loosing 4-8 pounds a month. So wouldn't keto be a better weight loss option?
I am doing Keto. I am also counting calories. I'm losing about 2lbs a month. If I didn't count calories, I might not be losing that, even. I might even gain.
10-20lbs a month is a good clip for somebody who is morbidly to super morbidly obese. That's the rate that Dr. Now recommends on My 600lb Life. It's achievable because your TDEE at that weight is pretty crazy high. We're talking about 4000 calories a day for maintenance. I would need to strap 250lbs of weights to my body and go about my day like that for that kind of TDEE.
I'm using rounded numbers for this to make it simple.
You can eat 2000 cal/day and be in a 2000cal/day deficit, when you're TDEE is 4000cal. That's 17lbs a month loss by eating 2000 calories a day. 2000 cal/day is my maintenance.5 -
Keto is unnatural. Don't chase the newest fad diet thinking it is a shortcut. There are long term consequences to keto and it doesn't teach you how to eat in the long run for maintenance. Keto is for today 1200 calories is for life.
That's depressing. And false.
P.S. Not doing keto either, but I'm closing today on 1605 calories, and within 10lbs of goal weight.
6 -
People who are fat-adapted, and wish to engage in athletic endeavors, can.
The whole advantage to properly fat-adapted athletes is that one does not hit the wall in North America nor bonk in the UK. The limit, therefore, of their body's ability to metabolize fat is defined as their daily need to do so.6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Best. Venn. Diagram. EVER.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Best. Venn. Diagram. EVER.
I'm sorry but that Venn diagram implies that people losing weight by counting carbs represent a subset of people losing limbs. That's a terrible Venn diagram.4 -
I know many say both keto and calorie counting are one in the same, as someone will lose weight due to having a calorie deficit. The first month on keto people lose a large amout of water weight, but I'm seeing people each month lose 10-20 pounds a month vs calorie counting people are barely loosing 4-8 pounds a month. So wouldn't keto be a better weight loss option?
I actually have never heard a single person say keto and calorie counting are one and the same. That's because calorie counting and calorie deficit are not synonymous.
You can lose weight on keto without counting calories.
You can lose weight on any diet without counting calories.
You cannot lose weight on keto without being in a calorie deficit.
You cannot lose weight on any diet without being in a calorie deficit.
As others have said, losing 10-20 lbs/ month is not appropriate or desirable for most people.
Even losing 8 lbs in a month is not appropriate for everyone.
If you have less than 50 lbs to lose - a rate of loss of 1 lb/week is what you should be aiming for.
2 -
Well, technically, if you are losing fat, your limbs should be losing fat too, just not all of the limb.WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Best. Venn. Diagram. EVER.
I'm sorry but that Venn diagram implies that people losing weight by counting carbs represent a subset of people losing limbs. That's a terrible Venn diagram.
Yes, an ellipse around limbs would clarify, but there's also the label "People losing weight" crossing both boundaries that is supposed to be the label for the largest circle.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well, technically, if you are losing fat, your limbs should be losing fat too, just not all of the limb.WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Best. Venn. Diagram. EVER.
I'm sorry but that Venn diagram implies that people losing weight by counting carbs represent a subset of people losing limbs. That's a terrible Venn diagram.
Yes, an ellipse around limbs would clarify, but there's also the label "People losing weight" crossing both boundaries that is supposed to be the label for the largest circle.
No, the circle of people losing weight by counting calorie is entirely inside the circle for people losing limbs. That means that the only people losing weight by counting calories are people losing limbs.
Or is that not applied to any circle? It's just words hanging in the air?
In that case, circle around "people losing limbs" wouldn't clarify, it is the only way to make this a functional Venn diagram. But you still need that circle to overlap the carb and calorie counting because that happens. Some amputees count carbs, I'm sure of it.
As it is, as a Venn diagram, this thing is a HOT MESS.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well, technically, if you are losing fat, your limbs should be losing fat too, just not all of the limb.WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Best. Venn. Diagram. EVER.
I'm sorry but that Venn diagram implies that people losing weight by counting carbs represent a subset of people losing limbs. That's a terrible Venn diagram.
Yes, an ellipse around limbs would clarify, but there's also the label "People losing weight" crossing both boundaries that is supposed to be the label for the largest circle.
No, the circle of people losing weight by counting calorie is entirely inside the circle for people losing limbs. That means that the only people losing weight by counting calories are people losing limbs.
Or is that not applied to any circle? It's just words hanging in the air?
In that case, circle around "people losing limbs" wouldn't clarify, it is the only way to make this a functional Venn diagram. But you still need that circle to overlap the carb and calorie counting because that happens. Some amputees count carbs, I'm sure of it.
As it is, as a Venn diagram, this thing is a HOT MESS.
Amputees aren't losing limbs, they're people who have lost limbs. I'm not sure how interesting the small intersection of people undergoing amputation (amputators?) in a calorie deficit is.
Though I suppose now that I brought up the losing fat from limbs, amputators are people losing body fat without a recomp or calorie deficit since their limb is bound to have fat in it. Or should amputation be looked at as a calorie deficit activity - the most extreme calorie burning activity?
Does this help?
7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well, technically, if you are losing fat, your limbs should be losing fat too, just not all of the limb.WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Best. Venn. Diagram. EVER.
I'm sorry but that Venn diagram implies that people losing weight by counting carbs represent a subset of people losing limbs. That's a terrible Venn diagram.
Yes, an ellipse around limbs would clarify, but there's also the label "People losing weight" crossing both boundaries that is supposed to be the label for the largest circle.
No, the circle of people losing weight by counting calorie is entirely inside the circle for people losing limbs. That means that the only people losing weight by counting calories are people losing limbs.
Or is that not applied to any circle? It's just words hanging in the air?
In that case, circle around "people losing limbs" wouldn't clarify, it is the only way to make this a functional Venn diagram. But you still need that circle to overlap the carb and calorie counting because that happens. Some amputees count carbs, I'm sure of it.
As it is, as a Venn diagram, this thing is a HOT MESS.
Thank you! I can see enough of the intention to appreciate the joke, but someone doesn't understand how Venn diagrams work.
1) presumably all people losing limbs lose weight whether or not they eat at a deficit
2) it's possible to lose weight without losing a limb
3) some people who count calories and carbs fail to lose weight or to be in a deficit1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well, technically, if you are losing fat, your limbs should be losing fat too, just not all of the limb.WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Best. Venn. Diagram. EVER.
I'm sorry but that Venn diagram implies that people losing weight by counting carbs represent a subset of people losing limbs. That's a terrible Venn diagram.
Yes, an ellipse around limbs would clarify, but there's also the label "People losing weight" crossing both boundaries that is supposed to be the label for the largest circle.
No, the circle of people losing weight by counting calorie is entirely inside the circle for people losing limbs. That means that the only people losing weight by counting calories are people losing limbs.
Or is that not applied to any circle? It's just words hanging in the air?
In that case, circle around "people losing limbs" wouldn't clarify, it is the only way to make this a functional Venn diagram. But you still need that circle to overlap the carb and calorie counting because that happens. Some amputees count carbs, I'm sure of it.
As it is, as a Venn diagram, this thing is a HOT MESS.
Think of this as a funny Venn diagram, not a functional Venn diagram7 -
kshama2001 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Well, technically, if you are losing fat, your limbs should be losing fat too, just not all of the limb.WinoGelato wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »
Best. Venn. Diagram. EVER.
I'm sorry but that Venn diagram implies that people losing weight by counting carbs represent a subset of people losing limbs. That's a terrible Venn diagram.
Yes, an ellipse around limbs would clarify, but there's also the label "People losing weight" crossing both boundaries that is supposed to be the label for the largest circle.
No, the circle of people losing weight by counting calorie is entirely inside the circle for people losing limbs. That means that the only people losing weight by counting calories are people losing limbs.
Or is that not applied to any circle? It's just words hanging in the air?
In that case, circle around "people losing limbs" wouldn't clarify, it is the only way to make this a functional Venn diagram. But you still need that circle to overlap the carb and calorie counting because that happens. Some amputees count carbs, I'm sure of it.
As it is, as a Venn diagram, this thing is a HOT MESS.
Think of this as a funny Venn diagram, not a functional Venn diagram
They make non-funny Venn Diagrams?7 -
I didn't know people took up keto to deliberately reduce their libido!JeromeBarry1 wrote: »People who are fat-adapted, and wish to engage in athletic endeavors, can.
The whole advantage to properly fat-adapted athletes is that one does not hit the wall in North America nor bonk in the UK. The limit, therefore, of their body's ability to metabolize fat is defined as their daily need to do so.
8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions