In a closed system yes deficit = loss. In the body there are many confounders that are difficult to precisely measure and account for like waste, body temperature and changing metabolism. When this debate starts (CICO) it always is about the calories consumed vs RMR + exercise being calories out. In theory a deficit on the in side or a increase on the out side would surely equal weight loss on paper anyway. When we throw in the confounders that effect the equation it doesn’t add up with simple math. This is when the envelope of the equation must be opened to include all inputs and outputs regardless of our knowledge of where they are or how they work. In this globally inclusive context yes a deficit in caloric input will eventually result in weight loss assuming the body’s resistance to the weight loss is accounted for and the deficit amount is adjusted “on the fly” to maintain the set reduction. This is all perfect and absolute but to the poor guy trying to loss weight it makes as much sense as “eat less and move more”. We can as Carl and Richard say use “dietary Hacking” to accelerate weight loss even if our intake of calories is not calculated as a deficit by a smartphone app. I fall back again to the man who lost weight eating an excess of 47000 calories over a period of three weeks. This is just not possible until the confounders are included and then it happens…both sides of the equation now account for the deficit and it wasn’t due to a simple caloric reduction but in the end a deficit must have happened. So, don’t focus on caloric deficit, allow your body to do it for you. Your body is better at math than you are anyway.
Can we please stop repeating the “You have to eat at a deficit to lose weight on KETO” lie?
Thank you so much for this! This is one of the most common arguments I fight in r/keto on reddit. Some of it is semantic, I think. “Calories don’t matter” is totally true in the sense that there is no need to count or track them. No target or maximum either total or any macro component.
But, when some hear “calories don’t matter” they think it means that counting calories and making a calorie deficit cannot work (in the short or long term) or that the person making the statement denies the reality of thermodynamics.
For me, the reasons in this thread are the reasons “calories don’t matter”.
- Lab measurements of calories consumed or expended don’t necessarily equate to real world calories.
- The focus on calories ignores the importance of satiety signals in the hormonal feedback system. It’s as if the past 30 years of advances in understanding or hunger/satiety hormones never happened, including the discoveries of leptin, ghrelin , etc.
- The focus on calories causes us to look at “food products” rather than whole foods. Remember the studies that “fed” subjects shakes with seed oils, whey protein isolates and dextrose to be able to measure calories accurately? This ignores the health and weight loss benefits of less processed whole foods which are more difficult to measure.
that is so cool (to me) that your mind tries to tell you aren’t hungry
and I think it’s important to note in this discussion that this does not happen this way for everyone.
For me it has been the opposite. I was totally disconnected from physical/body hunger.
My mind has near infinite hunger, my thinking frequently says I can eat more, even if I am eating only only fatty meat!!! And if i am eating a low-carb veggie like cauliflower with fat, my mind will try to prod me to eat beyond uncomfortable fullness of body.
This is part of my journey. Learning to hear my body and ignore my thoughts about food. For some people once they switch to keto/LC eating they suddenly ‘hear’ their physical hunger well but if one is a big emotional eater or habitual over-eater that may not happen.
It took a few long fasts for me to realize just how disconnected I was from my physical hunger. How virtually all my hunger cues were mental… time of day or social or habit or wanting to celebrate something or wanting to self-soothe…
just a few of my thoughts, ymmv and thanks for this civil thoughtful discussion
Hunger and satiety are actually physiological states. The stomach secretes ghrelin to stimulate appetite when energy storage drops, and the adipose tissue secretes leptin to signal to the brain that there is enough energy stored to last us a while, so we can stop eating. The brain then shuts off ghrelin secretion, (by way of the vagus nerve to the stomach), and we stop wanting to eat. There are more hormones involved, but these two are the main ones.
One of the reasons people on a high-carb diet are constantly hungry is that their elevated insulin is occupying the leptin sensors in their hypothalamus that are supposed to register the presence of adequate energy (this makes sense, when you consider that it probably has to do with storing up fat for the winter). Leptin signaling can be ignored up to a point, but one of the overfeeding studies in the 1960’s reported that, at one point during the study, one of the participants broke down in tears at the prospect of having to eat yet another pork chop.
I see why you consider these signals to be psychological, since they can to some extent be overridden by conscious choice. But the questions later in your post are answered by the fact that the body does not necessarily match intake to expenditure on the same day. One fascinating study I read recently showed that the daily mismatch is obvious, but that over about a week’s time, energy intake and energy expenditure match surpisingly precisely.
Dr. Fung does a far better job of explaining how these mechanisms work than I do. As I understand him to be saying, feasting when we eat allows the body to keep the metabolism revved, and fasting merely substitutes energy from the fat tissue for the energy not coming from food at the moment. Inadequate food intake, however, is interpreted as a signal that there is a famine going on, so the body conserves its fat stores and matches metabolism to intake, so as to get through the famine. My whole point is simply to show how to eat to avoid sending this famine signal to the body.
I must admit that I also have a fairly strong prejudice against the standard Western assumption that the mind always knows better than the body, and that we will die unless we eat to some pre-determined plan, rather than letting our instincts guide us. It seems to me that we’ve gotten so much wrong about nutrition so far, that we should trust two million years of evolution to have gotten it right. Otherwise, how did our ancestors manage to survive, without knowing how many calories they were eating and without any supplement pills or MCT oil?
LOL I don’t think the mind ever knows better than your body when it comes to hunger which I agree is a physical thing.
Where I think the confusion comes is for people who are so disconnected from their bodies that they cannot hear them… so the mind or a plan is used as a fallback.
Oh and I think there is also confusion between the people who are connected with their physical hunger and those who aren’t not quite realizing how different the experience can be for the two groups. This could explain why telling people to ‘eat fat to satiety’ is a very useful thing for some (if they know their physical/body signals) while for other people it does not help at all.
I think you are correct with this statement, the strange thing is that I never felt hungry eating 1400-1600 most days. I had higher days too. I didn’t fret about going over. And I was loosing weight until, yes I think my metabolism eventually slowed to meet intake. I still am looking critically at the balance of my fat, most of the increases now are there. I am still adding cream cheese and stuff to keep it higher because I don’t think I crave as much fat as I need yet and have less to access now. I dropped below 150 for the first time today. I’m in a period rapidly approaching maintenance although I plan to arrive there with no specific weight in my head.
Was this study specifically looking at fat satiety? Because pork chops are a lot more than just fat obviously. From what I have gathered reading is that all the macro nutrients have their own satiety signal pathways. Even carbs but the signal wears off when blood sugar starts dropping and we need more.
Protein has the PYY enzyme pathway that suppresses hunger for an extended time. You can even buy the enzyme as a supplement for hunger suppression. Don’t you think the strongest satiety level comes from a combination of the protein and fat mechanisms? We sense a need for protein and know when we’ve had plenty for a while as well, correct? And protein in your stomach creates a fullness that physically tells you you have eaten immediately as your stomach is getting full. I find it difficult to over eat meat. But I don’t eat lean meat without adding some fat either.
It’s hard to find an article that’s unbiased talking about all three satiety mechanisms. I read one that was linked on the forum here, maybe it was even a secondary link found in the article that was posted. I can’t find it now after much looking. Usually the focus is on one or two of them and which is superior, maybe carbs and fat, maybe just protein or fat analysis on their own. But I even found articles about “carbohydrate satiety”. I know that the high protein diet model has been a strong weight loss tool, Dr Eade started his nutritional weight loss clinics using a high protein lower fat and carb model. I believe it was very successful and he sold the business. While taking time off he became interested in ketogenic eating if I have that right.
Well, the word satiety also carries with it the sense of being satisfied. It’s not just about fullness, which I would agree is a physical feeling. Satisfaction is mental. I am satisfied with my work. I am satisfied with the results. I am done with dinner; I am satisfied; I have eaten to satiety. It is totally possible to be full, but not satisfied. I think people started using the word “satiety” instead of “full” because people heard “full” and thought they should be stuffed. I think all that the Drs. Eades and Atkins and other meant was “You don’t have to be shy about food on this diet. Eat until you’ve had enough, but don’t stuff yourself.” We’ve really gotten carried away with this idea that it means something magical.
Assuming you are using satiety to mean full, it still doesn’t make a difference as to whether one is eating at a deficit, if you’ve taken in the exact same type and quantity of food.
great point. I was using satiety purely in the physical sense.
and as I said above it’s currently rare for my mind to be satisfied with my food either intake amount or type right now. at least not for more than an hour or two. I am in such a big food relationship transition right now my brain is very cranky. LOL
I know it will calm down again eventually.
This corresponds better with my own experience than simply ‘eat to satiety’. I am never particularly hungry nor particularly ‘satisfied’. I can always skip eating and frequently just forget to do so. I can always eat to the point of being so full nothing more would fit in my stomach. I also know from experience that if I eat 100-200 calories more/less than my daily target for 2-3 days I will gain/lose. This with no change to the composition or ratios of what I eat, just the difference in total calories.
I’m 74 years old, 6’0" height, weigh 144 pounds total with 13-14% body fat. I eat 2800 calories per day to maintain. I hit that target every day because I do not want to lose nor gain weight. It’s not an issue of ‘mind over body’ or ignoring 2 million years of evolution with some arbitrary number. That’s the number required to maintain my overall weight at my current level of activity.
I think it depends on ur goals, lot of boxers for example crash diet to meet certain weight for a fight and dont mind weight rebound afterwards. If the goal is to try to keep metabolism as stable and healthy as possible and have more longterm plan, i agree one should eat clean keto till satiety and let ur body guide the ammounts you eat.
I dont know if my post was badly written or you just didnt understand, but this is what i think/ment:
If eating to satiety makes the whole metabolic needs met, then there would be no weight loss if all the energy comes from the food u eat. If some of the energy do come from fat storages and not from the food, theres a caloric/energy deficit in food intake side, but its okay cause ur body is comfortable with losing it, hence not triggering famine effect. This is what i ment with having “optimal deficit model that suits persons individualistic needs”, as a random (often app or calc generated) deficit in energy intake can easily trigger famine effect if it cuts calories/energy intake in food too much.
In my opinion thats only true to certain point. If i knew for sure my daily energy need was 3000kcal worth of food and i ate same food intentionally at 100 kcal deficit. I would more than likely be sated/full either way, but would that extra 100kcal come from fat storages or would my metabolic rate drop by 100kcal and score me no weight loss? In my opinion that easily falls in the range of where my body is comfortable taking 100 kcal worth of fat from storages and yet being in intentional intake deficit.
So what i believe is that there is unknown range of deficit for everybody, that will yeld them weight loss if found and used properly without triggering famine effect or otherwise drastically dropping bmr.
This WOE isn’t a recent change for you, why do you think your relationship with unhealthy eating quantities is so ongoing? I was eating mindlessly a year ago and carb addicted since childhood. I believe there absolutely is a second level to conquer after getting off carbs and it’s pleasure based eating. I’m not talking spices here, but keto foods that imitate carb heavy foods. You can make anything fit into a keto diet but lots of foods while they may be okay as far as staying in ketosis given portions, get in the way of breaking eating for pleasure habits.
I think I speak to this somewhat in my accountability thread but as this is a keto forum so I may not mention it much I guess. I don’t want to derail discussions, just because I have habits of mind fueled eating doesn’t mean it’s interesting to others.
No it’s not recent, LC since 2002… I wouldn’t say the relationship is ongoing but it cycles due to STRESS or life events or certain holidays or anniversaries of deaths of loved ones.
I think there are two reason why I am still deal with it. One it is learned childhood behavior. Most of us certainly me were rewarded and comforted with food. They are old habits and when tired or stressed and not aware I can fall back into them so easily. My dad’s unspoken motto was ‘food is love’ and my mom’s was ‘food is freedom from pain’.
Also I have a lot of identity wrapped up in being a foodie, a good cook… this is part of my transition. tweaking these parts of my identity towards some none food stuff. (food – so quick, so easy, so everywhere in our lives/culture)
Although I use very few keto substitutes and only occasionally (just because that is what serves me best) I don’t have an issue with eating for pleasure, as long as I am physically hungry. For me that is the key. I remind myself that it will taste even better if I am truly body hungry. (oh and stopping when I am physically full is what I am working on the most right now) I have very little carb cravings even mentally.
This takes awareness and energy on my part and I do it imperfectly for sure. However as I do it more and more it will become my new habit. (my urge jar post from some previous thread) My brain will rewire. (reading neuroscience is one of my favorite hobbies)
I think many people don’t need to get to a ‘second level’ as you say. Some people especially if they are younger or not foodies or don’t have that much weight to lose or … can simply change what and when they eat and have success. Even long term. Perhaps they never liked sweets or many carbs to begin with or don’t need to lose that much… I on the other hand started out at 300-ish pounds, lost 120, (which was awesome but still a good 50 too heavy for me) let 40# or so come back due to healthy carb creep, but kept of 80-ish off for 10+ years. However grad school + work -> business -> distraction -> lack of awareness on my part effected my weight in a gaining way.
So last year I recommitted to doing what works for me (vlc=keto) and ever since then it’s been a journey of learning (less veg, dairy ok, more fasting etc.) and increasing awareness of what is going on in my head. Kind of combining my meditating practice with my eating habits that I want/need to change…
It’s pretty specific to me, much like my eating plan. I think many who are stuck need to figure out what works for them and trust themselves. But that doesn’t mean it is an easy thing to do.
Hmm, I don’t mean to say I am the only emotional or habitual eater here, it’s just not the real focus of this forum…
LOL, you may now get why I don’t go into it that much.
This is what I need to work on. I do feel I’m getting closer though with every slip and recovery. I’m starting to really actually believe that it’s not worth it rather than just mouthing those words.
Mark, IMP experience, the “I worked out so I can eat more” thing is not cr@p, but total truth !
11 years ago, I lost about 130 lbs of fat, mostly with diet alone, in about 8 months, and that was before I started working out.
At that point I was eating around 2000 cals a day. For me, being skinny felt good for about 1 day.
So then I started working out… And after 6 months, like a freaking madman. Within 1-2 years, I was eating 4500 cals a day just to break even ! That was expensive 
But the worst thing about that period of my life, was that it didn’t matter how much I ate, I was always freaking starving !
Still, after 5 years of that, I felt like freaking Superman.
What all of this taught me is, diet is easy. Working out 6 or 7 days a week, both resistance and cardio, is very hard, but ultimately, extremely rewarding.
Now, if I could only get myself to take that first step again… Only this time on the Keto diet, instead of a modified Paleo…
Think I will at least stay more satiated, plus maybe finally be able to go below 10% BF. Best I did was 229lbs @ 11%BF
sets you up for having to keep working out this way to keep the benefits.
Just as dropping 500 to 1000 calories a day keeps you having to stay to low (on the nutrients actually coming in) to keep metabolism at a reasonable level.
Follow the hormones, not the calories.
Sorry, this was @FishChris response within @OldDoug reply.
Well maybe, kinda, sorta…
I do believe it takes less working out to maintain strength and muscle mass, than it does to develop it in the first place. Only thing is, I wasn’t trying to just maintain it. I always wanted more, and if it were not for my back injury, I’d have probably gained a bit more by now (5 years later)
BTW, when I say I was working out 6-7 days a week, for one, my weightlifting was only 5 days, and always alternating muscle groups, and I also spent even more time climbing mountains with 40 lb pack. I considered my hikes to be workouts too. Many days I lifted weights, then went and stormed up and down a 1000 ft hill near my home afterwards. Or, I’d do a 5 to 8 hrs hike on the weekends.
I do believe that calorie deficit is a factor and no you wont change my mind because of my own n=1. That said I also agree that for some just eating to satiety works for them just not me. When I go deficit i lose weight. when i dont then i dont. that simple. So I do have the question that if you always eat to satiety and it is all the fat that your body needs. Why would it ever need to burn fat from your body? Im sorry but to me it means even though you supposedly ate to satiety it wasnt enough and your body burns from within. to the op i can tell you that if i only ate 1500 cal i would probly go in starvation mode. even 1800-2000 cal is low for me. i seem to do good between 2000 and 2500 depending on the day at work. I guess all that i am saying is that maybe we can both be right. your way works for you and mine works for me so I dont think anybody should say for sure not to count calories. After all we are suposed to be tracking everything else right.