Curious About Keto

to lose weight, you need to eat at a calorie deficit. simple as that.


Keto is great for those who fine fat filling and don't mind reducing carbs (quite a bit). because they find it filling, it's easier to eat at a calorie deficit. but it is jsut away of eating, many maintain or can even gain eating keto. there are some added benefits to a small number of health issues but weight loss is not one.

If you don't think keto is a way of eating you could do forever i'd not recommend, best to learn good habits with a way of eating you're likely to martian for life.

Rea20021989 wrote: »

EVERYONE finds fat filling; it's how keto works. Once you reduce your carbs, your body starts burning fat rather than carbs (glycogen) for fuel, and it eats into the fat reserves in your body. There's a period of about a week or two, while your body transitions, where you can be tired, crabby, headachey etc. but after that you experience amazing mental clarity, energy, lack of appetite etc.

When i ate carbs i was a monster. a 24 stone monster with no off switch - i was constantly eating, constantly craving sugar, always tired, hangry (angry through hunger) and a hormonal mess. Simply 'eating at a calorie deficit' didn't work for me because I was always hungry, craving, constantly thinking about food, and miserable.

I've been keto for 1 year in April, and I've lost half my body weight. I went from being 20 stone to being 11.5 stone (where i've plateaued and evened out for the last 4 months or so) since April last year. I'm no longer hungry, I eat one meal a day and I'm satiated, I still eat out, I still drink alcohol, and I now go to the gym 5 times a week for 1-2 hours and work out hard completely fasted. My mental health is much better, the amount of sleep i require is less and i feel more rested for it, and I'm generally much happy. It's not limiting, it's different. It's a way of life, not a diet, and once you experience it and get used to it, I doubt you'd WANT to go back

Good luck (and feel free to message me or whatnot if you want any more info)

Keto is amazing.

No, SOME people find fat filling, not everyone does.

OP - suggest checking out Lyle McDonald as a good source of information about the ketogenic diet.

As it's become one of the current diet fashions there are some seriously awful sources of information that seem to have zero knowledge of human physiology but very good at convincing sales pitches.

I think the key is that you say dietary 'choices', which is the key phrase here. If you choose to eat low carb and adapt to that, you will find fat satiating after a period of time. If you choose to eat fats and carbbs at the same time, you don't find them satiating in the same way; I did it for years and was the exact same, bottomless pit.

Starchy carbs are a man made genetic mutation to 'feed' the masses; they're not natural. I'm not a fanatic about this - i LIKE carbs as much as the next person, i just can't eat them - but when you actually think about the fact that keto is how our ancestors ate, for thousands of years, before the masses of increase in certain disease (read mutations like cancer etc) from the highly processed foods we now shovel into ourselves like bread and pasta, and it makes a lot of sense that it is a more healthy and natural way of eating. Aside from that is the sugars/carbs' negative impact upon the immune system, too.

A high carb eater burns sugars before they burn fat; it's the fast energy release. it's what the body is programmed to do. When the carb fuel (sugars) run out, you will then burn fat. But it does take your body time to burn through the carbs you're eating and then convert, rather than sticking with the same source. Otherwise people wouldn't have 'sugar highs' and energy crashes etc. With keeping to fats as main fuel, there's no switching back and forth.

I understand there's no one size fits all. But I would imagine if you gave your body time to transition to burning fats rather than sugars you would feel just as satiated. My personal choice is not to have to feel hunger to eat at a calorie deficit, to never need to 'carb up' before a workout and have the energy to burn through 700-1100 calories or feel tired after it (bar muscle aches until i replenish electrolytes) etc.

I dieted for years 'at a calorie deficit', ensuring that i did at least a 5k walk each day (as a power walk, not 'over the day') and only managed to lose about 4 stone over a year. I was always tired, always miserably hungry, and it was horrible. I do get that it doesn't fit everyone, but I can't recommend it enough after it's reversed being pre-diabetic, pre-hypertension, and half my body weight. I've always struggled with weight - at age 10 i went into adult size clothing at a size 12. I'm now a size 10 for the first time in my life at 30. I'm just saying there's alternatives out there for people who miserably struggled like I did, you just have to give them a chance. You might not find it's your preferred way, but it might certainly be life changing for others.

I'd recommend watching the documentary 'The Magic Pill'; it's fairly dull but enlightening (and yes, I know that's quite an oxymoron!) at the same time. Not looking to pick a fight or say that my way is the only way here, just saying what you're saying isn't necessarily true for everyone either.

Rea20021989 wrote: »

I think the key is that you say dietary 'choices', which is the key phrase here. If you choose to eat low carb and adapt to that, you will find fat satiating after a period of time. If you choose to eat fats and carbbs at the same time, you don't find them satiating in the same way; I did it for years and was the exact same, bottomless pit.

Starchy carbs are a man made genetic mutation to 'feed' the masses; they're not natural. I'm not a fanatic about this - i LIKE carbs as much as the next person, i just can't eat them - but when you actually think about the fact that keto is how our ancestors ate, for thousands of years, before the masses of increase in certain disease (read mutations like cancer etc) from the highly processed foods we now shovel into ourselves like bread and pasta, and it makes a lot of sense that it is a more healthy and natural way of eating. Aside from that is the sugars/carbs' negative impact upon the immune system, too.

A high carb eater burns sugars before they burn fat; it's the fast energy release. it's what the body is programmed to do. When the carb fuel (sugars) run out, you will then burn fat. But it does take your body time to burn through the carbs you're eating and then convert, rather than sticking with the same source. Otherwise people wouldn't have 'sugar highs' and energy crashes etc. With keeping to fats as main fuel, there's no switching back and forth.

I understand there's no one size fits all. But I would imagine if you gave your body time to transition to burning fats rather than sugars you would feel just as satiated. My personal choice is not to have to feel hunger to eat at a calorie deficit, to never need to 'carb up' before a workout and have the energy to burn through 700-1100 calories or feel tired after it (bar muscle aches until i replenish electrolytes) etc.

I dieted for years 'at a calorie deficit', ensuring that i did at least a 5k walk each day (as a power walk, not 'over the day') and only managed to lose about 4 stone over a year. I was always tired, always miserably hungry, and it was horrible. I do get that it doesn't fit everyone, but I can't recommend it enough after it's reversed being pre-diabetic, pre-hypertension, and half my body weight. I've always struggled with weight - at age 10 i went into adult size clothing at a size 12. I'm now a size 10 for the first time in my life at 30. I'm just saying there's alternatives out there for people who miserably struggled like I did, you just have to give them a chance. You might not find it's your preferred way, but it might certainly be life changing for others.

I'd recommend watching the documentary 'The Magic Pill'; it's fairly dull but enlightening (and yes, I know that's quite an oxymoron!) at the same time. Not looking to pick a fight or say that my way is the only way here, just saying what you're saying isn't necessarily true for everyone either.

You clearly don't actually understand what starchy carbs are if you think they are all man made.

You also don't have a working grasp of human physiology, no carbs and fat are not used sequentially. That is easily proven and well known. When you are hooked up to a gas analyser it shows very clearly what proportion of fat and carbs are being used at any one time.

If you do actually manage to burn through all your glycogen reserves you will be barely able to function - ever seen a marathon runner "hitting the wall" or a cyclist "bonking"? Even on a ketogenic diet you will still preserve some glycogen.

I've never had a sugar high or an energy crash through types of food eaten - another generalisation.

I don't need to "carb up" before exercise, I frequently cycle 2hrs without eating and only drinking water.

You don't need to transition to burning fat - it's what you have been doing since you were born.

The Magic Pill isn't a documentary.



PS - I'm not anti-keto at all, it's a perfectly valid choice for some and I'm happy we both found different paths to success. I am anti-misinformation though.

sijomial wrote: »

Rea20021989 wrote: »

I think the key is that you say dietary 'choices', which is the key phrase here. If you choose to eat low carb and adapt to that, you will find fat satiating after a period of time. If you choose to eat fats and carbbs at the same time, you don't find them satiating in the same way; I did it for years and was the exact same, bottomless pit.

Starchy carbs are a man made genetic mutation to 'feed' the masses; they're not natural. I'm not a fanatic about this - i LIKE carbs as much as the next person, i just can't eat them - but when you actually think about the fact that keto is how our ancestors ate, for thousands of years, before the masses of increase in certain disease (read mutations like cancer etc) from the highly processed foods we now shovel into ourselves like bread and pasta, and it makes a lot of sense that it is a more healthy and natural way of eating. Aside from that is the sugars/carbs' negative impact upon the immune system, too.

A high carb eater burns sugars before they burn fat; it's the fast energy release. it's what the body is programmed to do. When the carb fuel (sugars) run out, you will then burn fat. But it does take your body time to burn through the carbs you're eating and then convert, rather than sticking with the same source. Otherwise people wouldn't have 'sugar highs' and energy crashes etc. With keeping to fats as main fuel, there's no switching back and forth.

I understand there's no one size fits all. But I would imagine if you gave your body time to transition to burning fats rather than sugars you would feel just as satiated. My personal choice is not to have to feel hunger to eat at a calorie deficit, to never need to 'carb up' before a workout and have the energy to burn through 700-1100 calories or feel tired after it (bar muscle aches until i replenish electrolytes) etc.

I dieted for years 'at a calorie deficit', ensuring that i did at least a 5k walk each day (as a power walk, not 'over the day') and only managed to lose about 4 stone over a year. I was always tired, always miserably hungry, and it was horrible. I do get that it doesn't fit everyone, but I can't recommend it enough after it's reversed being pre-diabetic, pre-hypertension, and half my body weight. I've always struggled with weight - at age 10 i went into adult size clothing at a size 12. I'm now a size 10 for the first time in my life at 30. I'm just saying there's alternatives out there for people who miserably struggled like I did, you just have to give them a chance. You might not find it's your preferred way, but it might certainly be life changing for others.

I'd recommend watching the documentary 'The Magic Pill'; it's fairly dull but enlightening (and yes, I know that's quite an oxymoron!) at the same time. Not looking to pick a fight or say that my way is the only way here, just saying what you're saying isn't necessarily true for everyone either.

You clearly don't actually understand what starchy carbs are if you think they are all man made.

You also don't have a working grasp of human physiology, no carbs and fat are not used sequentially. That is easily proven and well known. When you are hooked up to a gas analyser it shows very clearly what proportion of fat and carbs are being used at any one time.

If you do actually manage to burn through all your glycogen reserves you will be barely able to function - ever seen a marathon runner "hitting the wall" or a cyclist "bonking"? Even on a ketogenic diet you will still preserve some glycogen.

I've never had a sugar high or an energy crash through types of food eaten - another generalisation.

I don't need to "carb up" before exercise, I frequently cycle 2hrs without eating and only drinking water.

You don't need to transition to burning fat - it's what you have been doing since you were born.

The Magic Pill isn't a documentary.



PS - I'm not anti-keto at all, it's a perfectly valid choice for some and I'm happy we both found different paths to success. I am anti-misinformation though.

This 1000%.

Rea20021989 wrote: »

I think the key is that you say dietary 'choices', which is the key phrase here. If you choose to eat low carb and adapt to that, you will find fat satiating after a period of time. If you choose to eat fats and carbbs at the same time, you don't find them satiating in the same way; I did it for years and was the exact same, bottomless pit.

Starchy carbs are a man made genetic mutation to 'feed' the masses; they're not natural. I'm not a fanatic about this - i LIKE carbs as much as the next person, i just can't eat them - but when you actually think about the fact that keto is how our ancestors ate, for thousands of years, before the masses of increase in certain disease (read mutations like cancer etc) from the highly processed foods we now shovel into ourselves like bread and pasta, and it makes a lot of sense that it is a more healthy and natural way of eating. Aside from that is the sugars/carbs' negative impact upon the immune system, too.

A high carb eater burns sugars before they burn fat; it's the fast energy release. it's what the body is programmed to do. When the carb fuel (sugars) run out, you will then burn fat. But it does take your body time to burn through the carbs you're eating and then convert, rather than sticking with the same source. Otherwise people wouldn't have 'sugar highs' and energy crashes etc. With keeping to fats as main fuel, there's no switching back and forth.

I understand there's no one size fits all. But I would imagine if you gave your body time to transition to burning fats rather than sugars you would feel just as satiated. My personal choice is not to have to feel hunger to eat at a calorie deficit, to never need to 'carb up' before a workout and have the energy to burn through 700-1100 calories or feel tired after it (bar muscle aches until i replenish electrolytes) etc.

I dieted for years 'at a calorie deficit', ensuring that i did at least a 5k walk each day (as a power walk, not 'over the day') and only managed to lose about 4 stone over a year. I was always tired, always miserably hungry, and it was horrible. I do get that it doesn't fit everyone, but I can't recommend it enough after it's reversed being pre-diabetic, pre-hypertension, and half my body weight. I've always struggled with weight - at age 10 i went into adult size clothing at a size 12. I'm now a size 10 for the first time in my life at 30. I'm just saying there's alternatives out there for people who miserably struggled like I did, you just have to give them a chance. You might not find it's your preferred way, but it might certainly be life changing for others.

I'd recommend watching the documentary 'The Magic Pill'; it's fairly dull but enlightening (and yes, I know that's quite an oxymoron!) at the same time. Not looking to pick a fight or say that my way is the only way here, just saying what you're saying isn't necessarily true for everyone either.

I lost a lot of weight, reversed the progression of prediabetes and improved all my other health markers as well-all while eating a high carb diet. Now, 6 years into maintenance I wear a size 4 jeans and have a BMI of 21.5-I'm also 40 years old and have had 3 full term pregnancies. In a family full of type two diabetics and overweight/obese people, I'm the only one who's successfully maintaining and the only one who's normalized glucose numbers. And I've done all of this while eating 200+ carbs a day.

It's great that you've found a method that makes it easier for you to keep your calorie intake where it needs to be for your weight management goals. But, when you make universal claims like you have, it completely negates your credibility.

eta edit

You can give it a try and see if you enjoy it and find it easy. I personally didn't enjoy it, was always hungry (starchy carbs are filling to me so I felt hungry without it), and ended up gaining weight because I was overeating. Some people have the opposite experience and feel less hungry, and some people don't experience any difference in hunger. Try it and see if it's a good fit.

When I found a good fit for me (a higher carb diet, 200-300 grams of carbs per day) I was able to lose more than 100 pounds. I wouldn't have lost them if I stubbornly tried to stick to keto because it's not sustainable for me. The best weight loss diet is the diet that helps you achieve a calory deficit long enough and consistently enough to lose weight. The type of diet is personal preference, so see what feels easiest to you and stick with it.

Rea20021989 wrote: »

I think the key is that you say dietary 'choices', which is the key phrase here. If you choose to eat low carb and adapt to that, you will find fat satiating after a period of time. If you choose to eat fats and carbbs at the same time, you don't find them satiating in the same way; I did it for years and was the exact same, bottomless pit.

<snipped by replier because I just don't have time to take on everything that was said>

I low carbed for ten years. I can say with assurance that was enough time to adapt.

I did lose weight, but the diet wasn't sufficiently satiating to get me lower than 150 pounds. That is still 20 pounds overweight for me.

After a point, I actually started gaining weight back, because no, fat was not filling for me at all.

It still isn't. I am satiated by a mix of fiber, protein, and starch. I eat just enough fat for hormone and digestive health.

Satiety is something that really, really varies on an individual basis.

To the original poster, because satiety is individual, keto may or may not be a good fit for you. It still works like any other diet works, by limiting calories. Some people find it easier to stick to that calorie limit when eating keto because they are so satiated by fat.