Persistent views on weight loss

(Cathy) #1

I love this forum because it is progressive. However, I do come across an persistent view point that if a person can’t lose weight on keto, they are eating too much. That translates into the old view that if we don’t understand a problem, we blame the patient.
Not very progressive.
If a person isn’t losing weight and eating a keto (in ketosis), it is fair to assume that other issues are at play aside from the whole ‘too many calories’ fallback. This is particularly true with women who have a big challenge with hormones.
Just wanted to put this out there as a reminder - weight loss is not as simple as the amount of food one consumes.

(Bob M) #2

I think that weight loss or weight gain is a lot more complex than how much you’re eating.

#3

I’ve been both reading about this and for the most part following keto for 25 years. My understanding is that usually the amount of carbs matters much more than calories. And it depends on where those calories are coming from. Fat is good for weight loss.

But some carnivore guys are eating protein like in an eating competition,still losing weight. So it seems to work,too.

I lost lots of weight eating huge amounts of meaty fatty food when I was younger and much more active. Carbs were low. Now at 62 with a failed heart, I still need very low carbs (10 g) and lots of fat (+75 %) to be in good ketosis (blood ketones 1,5 to 4). And to feel good in the first place. But I’m eating much less now compared to the old times. Hardly any excercise now, not until summer activities start.

But low enough carbs and high fat work for many, calories don’t matter that much. Undereating is not good and can happen in very low carbs.

Oh and time. It may take several months to become fat adapted and actually use our own body fat (ketones) as fuel. Patience is needed.

I find many success stories “I lost 50 lbs in two weeks!” harmful for many. They feed unrealistic, unhealthy expectations.

Here I am yesterday, BMI 25, with a 98 cm waist. Two inches still must go from waist -four have gone since November.

(Edith) #4

I think the problem is that calories do play a part especially where our metabolisms are concerned. I do believe it’s true that if one doesn’t eat enough, then their metabolism slows down and adapts to the new caloric level resulting in cessation of weight loss.

I also think this is particularly problematic for women because most of us have already been eating very low calorie for years and so to drop calories even lower is difficult and most likely unhealthy.

When most of us switch to a ketogenic diet, we feel full longer. We naturally cut down on calories. I’m not saying that metabolic healing and hormonal regulation don’t occur (I have a lot of non scale victories) , but I think most people do end up eating less calories.

I don’t think there is any denying that the body doesn’t adapt to lower calorie levels over time. If you look on the forum here, there are many people whose weight drops off precipitously and then eventually stops over time even though they have more weight to lose. Most have been using fasting days and intermittent fasting. If you add up their calories over the course of a week, I bet their overall caloric intake is fairly low.

I am 59 years old and finally got into menopause. I started getting into strength training. As a result, I realized I was only eating about 1100-1200 calories a day with my daily intermittent fasting. My hair had stopped growing. Along with the strength training, I went on a reverse diet and gradually added about 500 calories a day. I am eating about 120 g of protein daily. I did put on a few pounds, but most of that was muscle. Now I am actually eating more and my body is stronger. My hair is thick and growing.

The body needs calories to grow new muscle, repair, and heal. It needs certain vitamins and minerals to make hormones. Too low of a caloric intake can hinder all those processes, which probably also makes the body less likely to want to lose fat.

Like @ctviggen said, it is very complicated.

#5

Yep I agree. But all calories are not equal. Looks like adding fat often helps with weight loss.

(FRANK) #6

@Carburetor hit the nail on the head - IT TAKES TIME. I’m 68, extremely insulin resistant, and have been mostly carnivore for 6 months. Only lost 27lbs so far, but my focus is to keep my blood sugar level low. I also learned my protein intake needs to be moderate (approx 30g per meal) and fat intake about 80% of daily calories. At this formula I produce ketones higher than .5. My progress is extremely slow, but being retired, I have nothing but time.

#7

It’s surely complex and not even the same for all people. I find it fascinating that some poor souls have a weird body that responds to a cute deficit with starving and metabolism slowing… Eating very little works wonders for some (okay, probably with a price) and doesn’t work for others. I don’t condone it for anyone, of course though I understand why some people just starve the fat off… It’s still not right but well, they (the successful ones, at least) are the slim ones, not me :slight_smile:

I am the one who believes if I don’t lose fat, I eat too much and typically it’s too much fat (despite my efforts to minimize my fat intake. well, not actually minimize it in the last years when I learned to enjoy lean meats to some extent). There may be other factors, sure but it’s usually my overeating. Or eating at maintenance, I don’t actually consider that overeating but it keeps me at my heaviest.

Some of us must focus on calories because we naturally eat way too much so that is our problem. But we can see from others that there are SO MANY other interfering factors. And anyway, it was never helpful to me to know how little I should eat for fat-loss. HOW? That was the question. I do keto primarily to be able to eat less. It didn’t happen for many years as I love fatty food and that was overeating for me.

It’s not a bad pace if you ask me especially if it doesn’t take huge efforts. I was very pleased with a similar result on low-carb as I did nothing special. I did dropped carbs but it was the easiest thing ever and felt better and I did eat as little as I comfortably could (2000 kcal. it’s very little food especially compared to my old intake) but it was still enough… So I lost fat every week just fine without sacrificing a thing! I loved that. Keto was a tad more difficult.

I should keep fat as low as I can, basically BUT it’s still a huge difference between adding carbs and fat/protein :slight_smile: Even carbs aren’t the same.

Very, very true. And if patience doesn’t work, one should tweak things. We may need a diet change anyway, what worked for me 10 years ago isn’t good anymore but what I do know was impossible back then… It’s just the diet for me but other people may solve some other problems…

(KM) #8

I’ve always reminded myself of some very obvious logic that seems overlooked in the calorie reduction theory.

When I was younger, I remembered reading all sorts of advice on how to lose weight easily that basically boiled down to, “since there are 3500 calories in a pound (of fat), if you will cut out x number of calories per day but otherwise eat the exact same food, you can lose x number of pounds per week / month / year.”

So if you started out weighing 220 pounds and cut out a 150 calorie soda per day, you would lose a pound every 24 days. We do the math and in 10 years you would weigh, drum roll please, 68 pounds. :skull:

It is glaringly obvious that there are other factors in play than simple calorie count.

#9

No, I don’t see the logic. Maybe they would overeat without the soda too. They may add something then. But even if they are super simple beings so calories work simply, they would lose a tiny fat (if the soda is their calorie deficit) and then stop when their energy need meets their new intake. It happened to me. I figured out my energy need (I was very simple, apparently, it’s often not the case at all) and ate 300 kcal less. I lost fat accordingly but my energy need went down too so I eventually stopped. If one uses a much, much lower energy need, they still would stop eventually. If it’s SUPER low, the stop would be death though… Some people manage with almost no food (I don’t understand HOW) but there is a limit for everyone. (Mine is 1500-1600 kcal but I would be lose my mind or at least patience and some unnecessary morals before losing my extra fat…)

But it’s WAY more complex, of course. We even move somewhat and that is total chaos… :slight_smile: One can’t calculate it, not like our energy need can be calculated, I had to experiment and as I wrote, I was apparently very simple.
And who knows what the body would think about the new order, it’s not a big deal to cancel the effect of that tiny difference… But some people responds to simply less food very quickly and smoothly, they just start to lose fat and slim down completely.

I just know that if I cut 200 kcal but add a bunch of carbs so I get out of keto, I lose fat faster. Well I did in the past. Who knows how my body works at this age? Not me. It definitely doesn’t lose fat on a 2000 kcal low-carb diet (with more exercise) like it did in the past… Pity.

Now I can’t even measure 200 kcal differences as I eat fat and that has a mystery fat content. But back then I didn’t eat meat every month.
I always am amazed when people act like one CAN tell how many calories they eat. In some cases, sure. But in very many cases, we can merely guess vaguely… It may be enough but we can’t just remove 100 or 200 kcal, it’s not that accurate.

(E P) #10

Me too. Reverse diets need more publicity!

I gained 15 lb in a year of mostly carnivore, including 3 months of OMADs to try to slim down. Including resistance training. When I told him I was gaining on 1400 kcal, my husband said to stop the madness and do a reverse diet, which I had never heard of! He was right as usual. At 1800 kcal, I can finally sleep, relax, and hit PRs in the gym. More muscle growth in a month than all last year.

Also, menstrual cycles got real weird so I got bloodwork, which showed high T3 uptake and low ferritin, which chatGPT said may point to recent caloric restriction and stress.

More caloric restriction isn’t always the answer.

(Edith) #11

A good part of that is when you cut out that 150 calories every day, your body adapts and over time it needs 150 less calories a day to maintain. So, you have to drop another 150 calories a day. Eventually your body adapts to that 150 calorie deficit and then that becomes your new maintenance value. So now, you are eating 300 calories less per day and just maintaining.

I’m not saying this is the total answer, but your body adjusts to what you do or don’t give to it. If you don’t give it enough calories, it will adjust to make sure it can live off of what little calories you are giving it.

#12

Adjusting obviously has its limits. Everyone slims down when starving, after all (or die before it). But I don’t just mean that. I believe there is a reason my body uses as much energy to maintain itself as it does because it needs it. It won’t just cut out some without a good reason. Starvation is a fine reason but having a tiny deficit isn’t. That’s why eating at a small deficit tends to be successful (while it lasts, at least). SOME people still adapt despite having plenty of extra fat, that’s a quite unfortunate overreaction… But most people aren’t like that. Eventually it may happen though, I don’t actually know… I never ate at a deficit for a long time (like, for a week… quite impossible from me :slight_smile: well except when I was truly starving as I had no food or money for it. it was fine, didn’t last long and I ate well before and after). It sounds pretty good to me to have higher-cal days now and then… So my body sees it’s not a true lack of food. And my sanity likes it too. It may help with avoiding metabolism slowing, makes sense to me.

But some people can just starve for weeks while losing fat just fine. Their metabolism still slows down (maybe there are exceptions, who knows, not me) and it can be quite stubborn. I just say eating little may not result in not slimming down even though it has a bad effect on the speed of metabolism. Even if one uses 1800 kcal instead of the original 2500, 1000 kcal should result in a quick fat-loss… If one can’t make such a big deficit and their original is tiny like 2000 kcal… Yeah, that’s more of a problem but losing muscles and slowing down metabolism (and being hungry) is a pretty bad deal in my eyes already.

What about the other direction? If I eat 1000 kcal more, will I maintain just the same? I could pull it off in the past (for a month so maybe my old usual 1kg gain per year would have happened there… still better than what many others have) , it’s not uncommon to have such a behaviour but it’s not the majority. And maybe I have lost it to this big effect due to aging and/or who knows what.
I suppose few people are super sensitive, our bodyweight would change a lot otherwise… The body adapts to some extent. Be it different amount of food or exercise. I very much don’t believe in extreme exercise adaption but it’s very well-known that it happens to some extent.

#13

No, it doesn’t. There’s no “blame” because people won’t ignore what’s happening. There is no “fallback”. Changing our fuel source doesn’t change the math of how a metabolic rate works. There’s a lot that goes into the human metabolism, and it all matters, but some things are constant.

It’s very easy to argue that the calories / amount of food matter even more on keto since keto stabilizes many of the hormones that are capable of playing with our metabolic rates which makes them less of an issue than they normally would be.

This is particularly true with women who have a big challenge with hormones.

Men are just as hormonally screwed up as woman. Half the guys in their 20’s are walking around with testosterone levels of senior citizens and that’s only been getting worse for decades now.

Just wanted to put this out there as a reminder - weight loss is not as simple as the amount of food one consumes.

It’s not simple no, but whether hormones are playing with it or not the constant is if you consume more than your metabolism can deal with, you gain. Most people have zero clue how much they actually consume, think they’re barely eating, or eating a lot less, but if tracked they’re eating the cals of a competitive swimmier or linebacker. Which is very easy to accomplish without ever feeling it when your main fuel source is fat which is over twice as calorie dense as proteins or carbs.

At my worst, unable to lose for over a year, most TDEE calcs estimated I should be eating almost 3000 cals for a person my size, and I ate decently below that, never lost, only time I lost was during extended fasting. Finally gave up and went in and actually had my metabolic rate measures, it came back at 1700! I was eating almost 1000 cals over my rate, and wondering why I wouldn’t lose. I had a phsyical job, worked out lifting weights and cardio, active at home with a young kid, no way in hell I would ever think my metabolism was that trashed, thyroid function was lowered noticable, but I never checked that prior. I started eating below that which wsa complete hell, and guess what happened? The scale started moving down.

I’ve rebuilt from there with reverse dieting and now eating a lot more, but the math didn’t lie, I just had no clue how little I could eat, so I always ate more than that.

(Bean) #14

As someone who was stalled for what? 6 months? Year? My intake did matter, but mostly because after years of antihistamine meds I had no sense of satiety. I was always, always hungry. Carnivore helped, but things got so much easier after tapering off of multiple daily antihistamines (do not cold turkey those btw).

Hormones matter.
Medications matter.
Building muscle helps.
Macros matter.

For me, relearning how much is enough food does require tracking intake. I’m as likely to under eat as over eat if I don’t and in some ways, that’s worse.

(Bean) #15

I’ve lost (umm fought off) 10 pounds in that time and am very happy with it!

(KM) #16

That’s another paradox. l don’t believe the response of the body to eating more calories than it can burn is the opposite of the response to eating fewer calories than it can burn. At least it’s certainly not some straightforward CICO equation. So much happens when you tweak that calorie and macro count.

Ordinarily you won’t hear me dissing algebra, but when it comes to bodies, the “equation” looks more like astrophysics than fourth grade math.

#17

My main reason for doing Keto is to fix my insulin resistance. To get metabolically healthy.

When IR gets repaired, weight loss comes as a by-product and many other problems (like sleep) get slowly repaired,too. IR is the reason for my belly fat,not the other way round.

Being overweight is a symptom, not the disease.

Calories don’t seem to matter much in my case unless I get them from carbs / protein. Which I don’t.

We can’t even define “the amount of food” well enough because we are using our body fat as a big energy source,too.

(Priya Dogra) #18

I really appreciated you all suggesting the above; thanks. I live in a town in north India where it’s difficult to find low-carb and sugar-free food. My Indian keto diet plan includes dairy in the form of cheese and paneer and stevia as the natural sweetener. Coming back to planning an effective keto diet plan for weight loss, it doesn’t necessarily have to be overly complicated. The whole purpose of an Indian keto diet plan is to simplify the meal prep process and save your time.

(Priya Dogra) #19

I have sharing with you a recipe source here @ low-carb

#20

Oh and then there is HOW we eat.

If we eat often, even tiny amounts, insulin is at work almost all the time. Any snacking can kill weight loss. Luckily there is no need for snacks in a proper high fat keto. There should be no hunger.

Those BMR metabolism measurements do not take ketosis into account,by the way. We are getting energy from our body fat.

If I’m losing one pound of fat per week, I’m getting 4500 kcal from my body, in addition to energy from what I’m eating. 650 kcal /day.