Can we please stop repeating the “You have to eat at a deficit to lose weight on KETO” lie?

(Full Metal KETO AF) #1

KETO eating is a learning process like anything else in life. I came here a year ago with little knowledge and found lots of ideas and concepts here on the forum. The big one that keeps coming up and I bought into it for a while is that while ketosis is driven by carb restriction weight loss is driven by eating at a deficit. People qualify this often by adding that keto makes calorie restriction easier. I believed some of the over 100lbs lost crowd who perpetuate this lie here. I ate at a 20% deficit for a long time on their advice. Guess what…it stalled me and slowed weight loss down instead of accelerating it. I wasn’t hungry as is expected keto kept hunger signals manageable. Just wasn’t working well. I knew it wasn’t right on some instinctual level but I kept it up for months with little progress. It finally clicked that I was just given ignorant advice that was left over from all the calorie restriction schemes that have failed people for decades. It is not only unnecessary but it’s harmful to your metabolism. A calorie is not a calorie and restricting them is ignorant and harmful. I want all these old timer over 100lbs lost people to stop spreading this myth to newbies who don’t have a clue yet how keto works. This lie is all over the internet, built into macro calculators and tracking apps and perpetuated by all the people who were not losers eating Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, and the countless other weight loss schemes that people have bought into for years and made to feel like personal failures by their inability to lose weight believing this evil lie. Counting calories and eating at a deficit is stupid and ignorant and we need to quit perpetuating this lie, I don’t GAF if it worked for you. It isn’t healthy and slows results. Since I abandoned this philosophy and started eating closer to 1800-2000 kcals instead of 1500 about two months ago I broke a two month stall and have dropped another 12 lbs and that’s some of those hard to lose last few pounds people talk about. Eating well and in a time restricted window is the key that opened up weight loss again for me. I see weight loss weekly now on the scale everyone hates and calls a liar to comfort themselves because it quit moving. I can see it in how my clothes keep getting baggier, even pants I bought 6 weeks ago. It’s moving fast forward for me again, like when I started keto. It’s all about hormones, not calories. So let’s all quit feeding people lies we believe and get down with the facts instead! Like special products eating at a deficit is not helpful on a ketogenic diet.

There’s a start for you nonbelievers.

I want to offer my whole hearted apologies to anyone who followed any advice I have given on this matter in the past. I feel I owe that to the community. It’s a learning process for me too, and if I mislead anyone by repeating lies I bought into know I did it unintentionally because I was a follower instead of doing my own research and learning the truth first hand. I wish all of you success going forward with ketogenic eating and living the healthy life.

:cowboy_hat_face:

How does a ketogenic diet actually work, ie how does 'eating fat burn fat'?
How does a ketogenic diet actually work, ie how does 'eating fat burn fat'?
For the love of Richard Morris look here first if you can’t or won’t use the search feature
Good description of CICO and its complexity
Fatigue and bad sleep
(squirrel-kissing paper tamer) #2

I think Susan can attest that when she brought her calories up she started seeing weekly losses again. I’d love to hear from her!

(Susan) #3

This is so true; as you know it was what was happening to me as well!

I was not eating enough calories, and I was stalled for over 2 months, will no cheating whatsoever.

When I upped my fats and proteins and made sure I was getting about 1500ish or more some days of calories, all of a sudden, the scale has started to move again!

I always have kept to the 20 grams or less of carbs a day – but upped proteins and fats =).

It was @David_Stilley that figured out this is why I stalled btw, so thanks again to David for that!!

(Bob M) #4

The “3,500 calories = 1 pound” has never been proven, and I’ve seen so many studies indicating this is not true. I’ve seen people eat 800+ calories more per day of protein, with no increase at all in weight. None. So, while calories may matter somehow, it’s not clear exactly how they matter.

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #5

Overall a pretty good rant, David. Surely, however, no one here who understands metabolism at even a rudimentary level contends that a ‘calorie’ is a ‘calorie’ end of story. Or denies that diet plans that count calories as the sole mechanism ultimately fail. One of the first facts I’ve learned, and I’m others here as well, is that the three macros are metabolized differently by both complementary and antagonistic hormones and enzymes. Aside from oversimplification, I think the main problem with CICO is the failure to appreciate the different metabolic paths of the various nutrients.

(Full Metal KETO AF) #6

Actually the calorie as a unit of measure concerning the human body is not remotely applicable. A calorie is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1g. of water 1F. at sea level. It is purely a heat unit. Yes, you can burn food in a device and measure the caloric content but it doesn’t apply to what happens when you eat that food in any way. It’s about what we eat and has zero to do with calories. Your body doesn’t even “burn” calories as we like to say. There are three distinct body processes involved in utilising carbohydrates, protein and fats. Each is utilised by those processes a completely different way through differs biological pathways. That’s why carbohydrates build body fat but easier than protein or dietary fat. It’s because of the insulin of course. :cowboy_hat_face:

(Full Metal KETO AF) #7

@amwassil Yeah, typing simultaneously so ditto Michael, but it’s surprising how many people on keto are carrying this worthless concept around like the supreme being of the universe carved it in stone. :cowboy_hat_face:

(Bob M) #8

But at some point, something happens that overall means your system uses fewer calories. This could be your BMR increasing for instance. As we know, it’s all quite complex (actually we likely don’t know, it’s so complex), but calories still matter. (And I HATE CICO. But they still matter.)

Even the example I gave where people ate 800 calories, all protein, each day and did not gain weight. Something happened that they were able to do this. What is was is unknown. But those calories went somewhere.

(Full Metal KETO AF) #9

Actually the opposite is true, a raised BMR means more fuel is being burned.

I am not proposing that gluttony is without consequences, I am talking about physical hormonal regulations of appetite because your body is better at figuring that out than a calculator. Again the concept of calories in food is just an erroneous model, where those nutrients come from is much more relevant than a simple physics unit and trying to apply that to a biological system.

(John) #10

I agree that a constant, daily deficit of food intake (I won’t use the “c” word) will ramp down your metabolism to meet the intake. What I find is that periods of lower food intake followed by periods of higher intake are the trick.

I have a tendency now to undereat, just because I can easily skip meals. But I can now feel when that is happening and so I have a few good big-eating days to counter it. Not huge, but enough to let my body know that there is not a persistent famine going on.

There have been some studies showing that people who ate less food for 2 weeks, then returned to normal eating for 2 weeks (not extra, but full maintenance intake for their weight) and alternated that pattern, lost significantly more weight over 6 months than people who maintained a constant deficit the whole time.

Also explains why intermittent fasting doesn’t kill the metabolism. The body is not getting a constant signal of low food.

So yeah, I agree that you should not shoot for a 500 calorie per day deficit every day. Your body will figure that out pretty quick and adjust. My eating habits are all over the place, but I probably eat less food in a given week than is required to maintain my weight, since I am definitely still losing weight.

(bulkbiker) #11

Its always pretty simple

A calorie is a unit of measurement. We do not eat them we eat food.
Hopefully freshly cooked from raw with no industrial additions.

#12

I have no important knowledge to add except to say “Thank You!” for this valuable contribution.

I, like many, have been trained to believe a deficit is how weight loss happens. Minutes before I read your post I was logging my food for the day and I know there was some subconscious calorie-related messaging going on. It’s hard to shake. I have to retrain my mind. Snapping a rubber band may help. Or just reading this post over and over maybe. :slight_smile:

(Full Metal KETO AF) #13

@TimeForMe Watch those videos, listen to some respected experts and don’t just take my word for it. They all understand and articulate it 1000X better than I do. I’m glad I brought it to your attention.

:cowboy_hat_face:

#14

Deficit is part of losing weight, not all of it, but without it u wont lose weight. You eat more than u need u gain weight, u eat less than u need u lose it.

(Katie) #15

Just not true.

This is totally debunked nonsense.

Have you taken any effort to find out all the science behind the lawsuit of those contestants on Biggest Loser? Eat less, and your metabolism slows down to make up the difference…so the. You try to eat even less, only to have your metabolism slow down even more. Do that long enough and you damage the metabolic system to the point where only drastic measures can get you back.

The biggest loser producers did the study on their contestants…did blood panel work ups on all of them…they all saw their metabolism drop. The minute they start to eat anything like a normal meal it all…every bit of it…went to fat storage.

Eat less and you burn less. You are not going to win that tug o war.

(Full Metal KETO AF) #16

Again, calories aren’t part of that model (I know you didn’t mention them but they are implied by the word deficit), what you suggest did not work for me over time. Eating more I lose more. The deficit model is flawed as you would understand if you gave those links a view. You are passing on bad information with statements like this. I am not writing a license for gluttony. The answer is not eating at a deficit but eating well when eating and having more hours of not eating in an IF framework. If you do EF then deficit is definitely part of the equation but that is a totally different scenario than calculating an imaginary number that has nothing to do with the content of the foods individually and focusing on eating less than your metabolic needs isn’t the answer. I am not saying restriction of food intake won’t make you loose weight. It will… for a time and then as everyone understands your metabolism slows to match food intake, your body hangs on to fat for fear of a food shortage and you know the rest, it’s a downward metabolic spiral. It’s flawed and not the best way to loose fat. :cowboy_hat_face:

#17

No where did i mention calories and for a reason. Ur saying a deficit model is flawed yet u link Fung who advocates deficit (fasting). Ive seen all of those videos and its true systematic deficit slows metabolism, but deficit is needed to lose weight, the videos point is how u apply the deficit, its a very complex system as some already mentioned.

What matters most in successful weight loss is the motivation to do it, then ammount of the food (deficit) and 3rdly quality of the food, end of story. If u dont have motivation or reason to lose weight, its not gonna happen by conscious choice. You cannot lose weight when ur body has excess ammount of food/energy coming in, it will be stored like ur body was designed to do. These are 2 main pillars to losing weight, keto is a tool to make both of them much easier.

(Full Metal KETO AF) #18

This is exactly why I included the Fung link. Fasting and eating is different than what people are talking about when they say eating at a deficit. Fasting and eating cycles are different as I said and when you are doing IF you don’t need to try to “eat at a deficit”. Keeping insulin low for longer is why that works not because you aren’t eating enough. Then you burn fat. I acknowledged you did not mention calories but it’s implied none the less when people say deficit they are talking about a caloric deficit. When you set up a tracking app and set it to a deficit it reduces the number of your calories, not the gram amounts in your macros. It just tells you that you’ve exceeded your caloric intake model. When you suggest eating at a deficit it sounds like you’re just applying that word to fasting and not to daily intake. Completely different things. Does Dr. Fung tell people “Eat at a deficit.”? Because I have never heard him refer to things that way. He talks about hormones not deficits.

(Katie) #19

No, you misunderstand…

Deficit eating is eating every day…but eating less at each meal. That is totally not the same as fasting.

When you are on a diet of deficit eating you still eat every day but your drop the calories your are eating, When you are fasting you eat nothing…but, when you break your fast you are deliberately eating high density food and fat to bring those calories up…

I fast everyday for 23 hours. (Some days I just don’t eat at all) but when I break the fast I shoot for 2500 to 3000 calories. Sometimes I have to use fat bombs to keep those calories up.

#20

I don’t consider it a lie.

I know that I lose weight on the months I track my food and usually gain weight on the months I don’t. And the difference is in the amount of food I eat. Because when I’m tracking, I find I have to scale back on how much food I put on my plate.

Keto is not an “all the protein and fat you can eat” diet. I’d regain all my weight if I did that. And, for me, the problem with carbs was that I would have a compulsive need to eat more and more.

Anyone’s weight will change if they continue to eat 0 calories per day or 15000 calories per day. And they’ll die sooner rather than later with either. But that doesn’t mean it’s a straight line function in between. Less is not always better. More is not always better.

I haven’t watched the videos yet, but I refuse to watch anything by Berry.