Was having keto debate with a family member and he brought up a good point that I wanted help understanding.
I know that in keto, calorie deficits are still important, but the driver for keto seems to be the switching of the fuel source from carbs to fat. That said, people who still eat carbs, but are on a calorie deficit, still lose fat as well. Are these people also in ketosis or is there a different chemical process that allows them to pull from fat stores?
My understanding itâs the same process. The differences are that with carbs and insulin sufficiently low the process is more efficient while in ketosis and since fat stores are more readily and efficiently accessible they get utilized efficiently. The evidence is that calorie restriction in the absence of ketosis results in constant hunger and if sustained slows the metabolism. Neither happens in ketosis. Ketosis also enables mitochdrial decoupling which results in âwastefulâ energy use. That is burning more fat to produce a given amount of ATP. Iâve posted a video by Bikman that explains how this works.
No, you donât need to be in ketosis to lose fat. You donât eat all the time even on the worst woe so your body has a state when fat-loss is possible at least now and then. And if there is an energy deficit, fat-loss tends to happen. If you are an unlucky type, your body lowers your metabolism even if your deficit is small (if the deficit is huge, itâs normal to get slowed down metabolism and other signs of starving, at least if we havenât huge fat reserves) but normally you lose fat and possibly more than minimal muscles, it depends.
Losing fat at a steady pace is possible on high-carb and even on HCHF, many people do that. Calories matter a lot.
But individual factors matter very much too, just because something is possible, it doesnât mean anyone is able to do it.
I always overate on high-carb. I lost fat on low-carb, it was easy and enjoyable but it stopped at a point.
The stall continued on keto, actually 
Itâs not that simple. Off keto doesnât mean we canât lose fat while being nicely satiated and satisfied all day and keto doesnât mean we can lose fat without being hungry. Keto is usually way better but itâs only one, not even fixed thing (there are zillion types of keto) and we humans are wonderfully different. And timing and food choices matter. I could do a hungry keto while eating my energy need and I could be very satiated all day with much more carbs, eating the same amount of calories but better food.
As far as I know, the process is the same but ketosis may help a little extra, even regarding calories. It didnât happen with me based on my results but it seems, itâs normal.
I personally canât imagine ketosis is magical and you can eat a ton of food and lose. But it doesnât matter what I can imagine, I am surely not like that myself. I never lost on keto because I always ate as much as before when I lost fat then maintained my weight. Not even a tiny extra allowance. But maybe itâs only true with my current weight, who knows how my body works? I surely not but it loves this weight. Yeah, that may be another factor.
I guess itâs probably more accurate to say a calorie deficit + ketosis would help accelerate weight loss versus weight loss alone.
Everybody gets into ketosis here and there, typically for people on ânormalâ diets itâs a night to keep everything running. Many ketoârs start to believe the ONLY way to access fat stores is to get insulin so low that itâs almost at basal levels, thatâs simply not true. As you brought up, many people eating a lot of carbs still loose fat just fine if theyâve got their diet in check.
2 different things, ketosis is when our livers are making ketones for fuel due to a lack of glycogen stores, while lipolysis is when weâre burning stored fat as fuel.
Not really, if you search the forum youâll find no shortage of people constantly obsessed with tracking their ketone levels which are âgoodâ yet not loosing. While thereâs plenty of people eating a lot of carbs and loosing weight just fine. Tons of health benefits to ketosis but itâs not synonymous with fat loss either.
Is this true? By definition, I thought Ketosis was the break down of fat into ketones and eliminated from the body as wast water/air?
Again not in my case. Iâm eating a surplus and at the lowest bodyfat Iâve been at since teenage years (Iâm 44 now).
Folks lose fat on mod-high carb low fat calorie restricted diets. See Biggest Loser, etc. The issue is not simply the initial fat loss, itâs the post loss period where things go wrong. Something like 99% of folks who diet with mod-high carb low fat calorie restricted diets regain all the weight and most gain more within 2-5 years.
Why? Because restricting calories while not in ketosis leads to metabolic slowdown.
In the Biggest Loser, contestants had dropped their basal metabolic rate by 500 calories per day.
That reducing calories causes basal metabolism to plummet was already proven long ago in the 1950s by nutritional historyâs favorite whipping boy, Dr. Ancel Key. His famous Minnesota Starvation Study was not actually a study about starvation. Subjects were put on roughly 1500 calories per day diet. This represented about a 30% reduction from their previous diet. They were also forced to walk about 20 miles per week. So, this was a Biggest Loser approach â Eat Less, Move More on steroids. What happened to their basal metabolism? They ate about 30% less, and their basal metabolism dropped about 30%. They felt cold, tired, hungry. As they ate, all their weight came right back.
Why doesnât this happen on a calorie restricted ketogenic diet?
The results of this study challenge the notion that a calorie is a calorie from a metabolic perspective. During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d greater with the VLC diet compared to the LF diet. TEE differed by about 300 kcal/d between these two diets, an effect corresponding to the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity.
And we also know that in ketosis calorie restriction is not required to burn endogenous fat. Dr Bikman explains how that works:
Let me preface this by saying I lost only about 35 pounds in about 6 months when I started keto. It was not my primary motivation to go keto. Others who have lost far more no doubt have different experiences to relate. Nonetheless, hereâs mine.
Through ignorance not knowing either my basal metabolic rate or my daily energy expenditure I guessed that I should eat about 1500 calories per day. I did so for 3 months and lost 20 pounds in the process, so about 1.5+ pounds per week. I then decided to stop the loss by eating more, so upped my daily calories by 100-200 every couple of weeks. I still continued to lose but more slowly until I eventually stopped the loss at 2500 calories per day. That means I was eating a 1000 calorie per day deficit for 3 months and a gradually lessening deficit for the next 3 months.
I lost a total of 35 pounds during those 6 months of calorie deficit and I never felt hungry! I never felt any craving for any of the carb-rich fav foods I had eaten before - I dropped them all cold-turkey and did not miss them a bit. I did not feel deprived of anything. Being in ketosis makes a monumental difference. Do not kid yourself about it.
There is no way to answer your question without spending hours catching you up on the biochemistry you are unaware of. Suffice it to say that the principal disadvantage of starving yourself is that your metabolism slows down and tries to hang on to your fat reserves as long as possible, whereas a ketogenic diet can be eaten to satiety, while still allowing excess stored fat to be shed.
Since insulin is the principal fat-storage hormone, and a high-carbohydrate diet stimulates elevated insulin levels, the weight that high-carbers lose when they starve themselves is both lean tissue and fat mass. This is also true of ketonians who starve themselves, by the way, which is why we advise eating a ketogenic diet to satiety. Most people who follow that advice will actually put on lean mass, if they need it, while simultaneously shedding excess fat, if they have some. Eating to satiety provides the body with an abundance of calories to do what it needs to do, and the metabolism will actually speed up to compensate for a caloric abundance (within broad limits, of course).
This is why, after my weight stabilised on keto, I continued to lose a couple of inches, while my scale weight remained the same.
I wish people were able to lose the blinkers that point their sights towards fat loss and instead focus on metabolic health which would, once achieved or even just improved, bring fat loss with it along with masses of other health benefits.
I would blame starvation for that, not just simple calorie reduction - or serious metabolism problems. Itâs different for healthy enough people with much less to lose. Though I can imagine that very long term calorie reduction could slow down metabolism (not counting the slowing down due to smaller bodyweight)⌠In my family, there are no experience about that. It was either small deficit for short term, or small deficit with 1-2 higher-calorie day per week. All worked (until deficit was maintained) and we never noticed problems with our metabolism, it stayed quicker than average for our stats. (I donât want to discuss the âsuccessful starvationâ, it surely harmed the metabolism and muscle mass a bit albeit temporarily. But if one does it more than for some weeks? That is much more harmful. And probably a few weeks is very harmful too if the personal factors arenât that lucky.)
So I know itâs not this simple that calorie restriction without ketosis slows down metabolism as I know cases it didnât happen.
I never noticed any metabolic advantages either. I donât say I donât believe it but I donât have that for some reason, I stall on keto just the same as on low-carb, eating the same amount of calories (just barely enough to keep my weight so my big maintenance calorie range has no role in this). I wonder why. I could use a tiny help⌠Oh well, I will find a way, I have ideas.
I will try to listen to the video later. I am horribly bad with videos, I like to read instead as I have my own pace there but I like this guy, I even managed to learned something from him already, he talks in a not too scientific way. I am intelligent but my chemistry knowledge is close to zero and I canât seem to change it.
"Calorie Count"
No matter what diet you are on âCalorie Countâ.
A calorie deficit lead to weight loss.
One of the interesting examples of his wasâŚ
"The Twinkie Diet"
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-dec-06-la-he-fitness-twinkie-diet-20101206-story.html#:~:text=Twinkie%20Guy%20â%20also%20known%20as,Stop%20the%20presses.
âTwinkie Guy â also known as Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University â is the genius who lost 27 pounds in 10 weeks subsisting almost exclusively on Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos and other treats by ensuring that he consumed fewer calories than he burned,â
Even more interesting was that his Blood Lipid Panel improved.
A surplus of calories on the Ketogenic Diet leads to an increase in body weight.
After being diagnosed with a metabolic condition, I over reacted. I combined Intermittent Fasting and the Ketogenic Diet (having two meals a day). I ended up losing 17 lbs in 35 days.
I was not happy with the weight.loss and decided to gain the weight back while mainaining the Ketogenic Diet,
Since Keto limits carbohydrate intake to 50 grams per day and moderate protein intake, that meant that I needed to increase my fat intake; which I did.
I ended up gaining most of the 17 lb back.
Weight Loss On Keto
Two of the primary reasons that weight work on Keto isâŚ
a) Insulin Resistance**
Individual who are Insulin Resistant tend to gain weight/increase body fat on a high carbohydrate diet. Decreasing carbohydrate intake, ensure weight loss. That providing they are in a calorie deficit.
The Keto Diet kills hunger; ensuring low calorie intake.
Metabolic Rate
As Paul noted in his post, a decrease in calorie intake lead to a decrease in your Metabolic Rate.
The solution isâŚ
The MATADOR Weight-Loss Studyâs Recommendation
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-11-on-again-off-again-weight-loss-diet.html#:~:text=MATADOR%20is%20short%20for%20Minimizing,weeks%20off%20for%2016%20weeks.
"MATADOR is short for Minimizing Adaptive Thermogenesis And Deactivating Obesity Rebound.
After four weeks in which their caloric needs were calculated, participants followed either a continuous diet or a ârestricted intermittent dietâ of two weeks on followed by two weeks off for 16 weeks. Men who followed the restricted intermittent diet achieved [greater weight loss at the conclusion of the study. This suggests that a two-week-on, two-week-off diet plan could help you shed unwanted weight and keep it off."
This cyclical dieting method, when preformed correctly, has been shown to maintain muscle mass while decreasing primarily body fat weight.
This method has been employed by Bodybuilderâs for decades as a means of increasing muscle mass (Bulking) and then cutting fat mass.
The underlying has to do withâŚ
The General Adaptation Syndrome
This means the body (all living things) either adapt or die.
Thus, you metabolic rate drops because it believe you are starving to death. So it cuts back on your metabolism to ensure your survival.
Summary
âCalorie Countâ no matter what die you are on.
Metabolic Rate at some point it will slow down. When it does increasing your calorie intake for a few weeks will increase your Metabolic Rate. You your weight will increase a little.
However, when you then decrease you calorie intake, you will lose the weight that you gained and more.
Kenny Croxdale
Great post Kenny!
Enjoyed the read. And it fits in with what I am doing. I have mentioned elsewhere before that I am doing a mixed-up keto diet. And it is to sort of keep my metabolism guessing.
I donât count calories.
I do 5 days Omad, 2 days eat as much as I want
I do 5 days clean Keto, 2 days dirty keto.
And the 2 overlap working within my work schedule. So I do dirty keto at the weekend, but they are usually Omad days, as I usually have to work at the weekend. So eating as much as I want is usually clean keto. But not always 
Itâs been a work in progress. I donât actually know the weight I have lost do date, as I havenât been on the scales in a while. I do know I had to punch another hole in my favourite leather belt this morning. Such sweet sadnessâŚ
This is why I do Keto though:
My heart arrhythmia is gone.
My Asthma has cleared up.
My Hayfever disappeared in the summer.
My snoring has stopped (my wife says).
My sleep has improved dramatically.
My energy levels are much higher.
And the sustainability of Keto is something I never would have thought possible.
And there is something else, been pretty major. Though I will share that when I get it confirmed in 2 weeks. If it comes back all good, Keto would certainly have played itâs part in this too.
I am still stunned the medical profession scoff at the Keto woe. Such ignorance.
So I can eat with a calorie deficit? As in 500 below my BMR?
To get fat adapted fast?
To lose weight?
To maintain weight?
How to eat with a calorie deficit?
Did you read and understand what I said here? Ketosis is the relevant condition. Ketosis makes both the process and the final results different. If you have not yet read the linked materials and watched the Bikman video here, do so. You might even learn enough to answer your questions.
No. Fat adaptation depends on many factors, most of which are predetermined by the overall state of health of your cellular mitochondria. SAD damages your mitochondria - from years/decades of exposure to elevated glucose and insulin. The extent and severity of the damage determines how long it takes to fix. You wonât be fully fat adapted until the fixing is complete. This comes down to different strokes for different folks. In the meantime, you will be partially fat adapted and getting moreso as time goes on.
Maybe. As noted by several responders above, some think you must eat a caloric deficit to burn endogenous fat. The logic is that if youâre not in an energy deficit why would your metabolism bother burning onboard energy stores? Bikman addresses this to some extent in the video above. The issue is at least partly mitochondrial uncoupling and how wasteful or not that process can be. Another issue is the energy required to process input energy - so-called thermal energy. Example, oxidizing protein takes up to 10x more energy to process than fats and carbs. So in my book itâs âmaybeâ and lots more complicated than the simple CICO equation of in/out totals. Although, I think itâs obvious that if you eat a sufficient caloric/energy deficit long enough you will lose body mass. As you do so your metabolism will slow to compensate. Itâs an unsustainable process unless your goal is death.
My opinion is that you will not maintain overall weight and body comp if eating to a caloric/energy deficit for very long. In my case, for example, if I eat below my caloric maintenance window for more than 4-5 consecutive days I will start losing. I also suspect this is highly individually variable.
Measure and count. I explained what I did here.
PS: 500 calories below your BMR? I seriously doubt the survivability of that. You would definitely wreck your metabolism pulling such a stunt for very long.
Yes, yes (but I would never let a friend do that omg!!!)
No (carb level makes the most difference)
Yes
No
Make sure youâre tired and cold all the time - then youâre probably in a calorie deficit.