Why people say fat adapted

[Wotters]

well you show the study where a keto diet beats the calorie deficit diet and ill show it to him ?

[JohnH]

why is being fat adapated any more better than someone who eats at at a callorie defficet but still loses the same amount of weight as someone on keto ?

I don’t know if it is better or not. I was able to lose weight using various methods in the past, including eating a calorie-reduced, low fat diet, combined with exercise. Worked fine. I just didn’t stick with it. The same approach may have worked this time, too.

The main difference I see is the appetite suppression / control that I get when eating a low carb diet. I am pretty sure I am eating at a calorie deficit. It’s just that I don’t really have to force it. The food choices take care of that for me.

If there are 3 diets that are all equally effective, and one of them is easy for me to stick to, then that’s the best one for me. Your brother can do what he wants, I’ll do what I want.

I am not a salesman for this, just someone for whom it works well. If someone else is effectively maintaining their weight by eating donuts, just in limited quantities, fine by me.

I will keep eating salads, vegetables, chicken, eggs, fish, pork, beef, because that’s what works for me. If something else works for you, do that.

[SomeGuy]

but my argument is people lose weight ( my brother forv example ) has lost loads of weight by cutting his calorie intake , hes done nothing but cut calories he weighs everything , … hes still burnt fat at a rate , that equals that being in ketosis , the same as every scientific study show , if you eat at a calorific deficency you will lose weight its indesputaqble , so my question is why is being fat adapated any more better than someone who eats at at a callorie defficet but still loses the same amount of weight as someone on keto ?

@Wotters Thank you for raising a provocative and reasonable question. I think the answer is lurking in how you’ve framed things…

Okay then, if there’s no meaningful difference between cutting out one kind of calorie vs cutting out some other kind of calorie then, in effect, you’re embracing the “a calorie is a calorie is a calorie…” argument.

Are you suggesting that eating a caloric deficient diet of 1000 kcal of 100% table sugar is the same metabolically as eating a 1000 kcal of mostly saturated fat? Probably not. Well, why not?

Because what goes on inside one’s body - given the different macronutrient source of calories - matters a great deal in terms of one’s near-term and long-term health, hormones (think insulin), blood glucose, metabolic rate, etc. No doubt you know all this and more.

If you focus solely on losing weight (i.e., gravitational pull on your total gross body mass), you are getting trapped in the misapplication of the conservation of matter and conservation of energy framework, which is correct to a limited extent, but it omits all of the other key elements of what’s going on inside our (highly dynamic) bodies. It’s not simply a matter of calories in = weight outcome. That’s too simplistic a model to explain much of anything that really matters to our long-term well-being.

Does any of this help?

[Wotters]

so it still comes down to callories in callories out at thevend of the day

[Momof5]

That is really a very succinct and terrific post, Paul. Thank you for explaining that to all of us.

[Wotters]

Are you suggesting that eating a caloric deficient diet of 1000 kcal of 100% table sugar is the same metabolically as eating a 1000 kcal of mostly saturated fat?

yes

[Wotters]

so please explain how you lost weight without this scientific explenation then ?

[CrackerJax]

Watch this, show it to your brother, and come back and show us the science that says CICO works in the long term.

[SomeGuy]

Are you suggesting that eating a caloric deficient diet of 1000 kcal of 100% table sugar is the same metabolically as eating a 1000 kcal of mostly saturated fat?

yes

Ah, then we’re having a different conversation than the one I imagined

I won’t try to straighten out the “calorie is a calorie is a calorie…” confusion here given space and time limitations. Instead, I’ll simply ask you to ponder why you’ve spent the past 5+ years on keto? Isn’t table sugar cheaper than all those meats and vegetables you’ve been eating? Think of the potential savings, my friend!

[Wotters]

it doesnt explain how people lost weight just eating at a callorie defficet

[RobC]

well you show the study where a keto diet beats the calorie deficit diet and ill show it to him ?

I do not think there is one (I don’t know of one).

In fact, “calorie deficit” will “beat” Keto generally speaking.
2 months of fat adaptation - where sometimes very little or no weight is lost - is easy to “beat”.
Just about any multi-day / multi-week study of male athletes at some university could show calorie deficit “beats” Keto.

But, reversing diabetes in a 400-pound person that makes it to 200 pounds and no longer needs insulin.

The same person that tried calorie restriction diets year-after-year with associated weight gain year-after-year.

Always worsening blood markers move to good levels while eating to satiety on Keto.

So, I guess it depends on what you consider “beats”. Pure fat loss - calorie deficit wins for a while. Health and long term fat loss - calorie deficit provides proof - all around us here in the USA - every day - that it does not work.

[David_Stilley]

You are just seriously wrong about the sugar or fat being the same thing. One stimulates fat storage, one does not. It’s about hormones and not calories. If you believe that a calculator can give you a daily caloric amount you are seriously misguided. That amount is determined by calculus level mathematics going on every second of the day and your daily needs are highly variable. If your eating is hormone driven your appetite will adjust accordingly. Those 1800 calories a day figured are estimates and can be way off from one person to another. Eating carbs requires a steady supply and hormones tell you to keep eating more and more. Eating fat your body is in fat burning mode and you will easily use body fat when your metabolism requires it without stimulating hunger signals for more glucose. Your whole thing is just about weight loss, what’s more relevant is getting a leash around your hormones and recovering normal hormonal functions. Then you loose weight in a healthy way, not by starving yourself. If you can’t see that I don’t know what to say except. why are you eating this way if it doesn’t matter?

[Momof5]

Then you loose weight in a healthy way, not by starving yourself.

This is an excellent post, David, and this is what I am doing now, as you know =).

[CrackerJax]

it doesnt explain how people lost weight just eating at a callorie defficet

It explains very well why people who lose weight on a low fat, high carbohydrate low calorie diet have such difficulty keeping it off. Dr Fung gives plenty of examples of studies and science that prove that CICO does not work IN THE LONG TERM.
When I was young I used to lose weight on Slimming World, Weight Watchers and any other diet. What I didn’t do was keep it off, what I did do was wreck my metabolism.

[RobC]

You can lose weight at a calorie deficit.
But, if you lose weight at a calorie deficit you will slow your metabolism and therefore hinder the ability to further lose weight - in fact most likely regaining.
This story is played out a lot in people that start at 400 pounds - restrict and get down to 350 but, in a short while, are up to 425.

Keep insulin low (don’t eat carbs) and eat enough calories to maintain your metabolism and you’ll lose weight without the bounce.

Calorie restriction - win the battle - lose the war.
Keto - lose the battle - win the war.

[Wotters]

Ummmm I’m not sure mate I’ve lost many arguments when calories in Vs out lost have you any new studied ?

[Momof5]

low fat, high carbohydrate low calorie diet have such difficulty keeping it off.

I am an example of this, I lost over 100 pounds in 8 months from 2002-2003 with Susan Powter, and then it destroyed my gallbladder (which I had removed in December 2003) and gained back that and more soon afterwards!

Now I am losing the weight at a much slower rate; but doing it properly this time and making life changes, and as a lifestyle, not as a diet. I still have 130 pounds to lose, and it will take a long time, but slow and steady wins the race and I will not be going back to any SAD eating.

[RobC]

If you present the details of what has been supplied to you on this thread (i.e. hormones determine fat storage) and they still want to debate the issue - then you are dealing with people that either have a vested interest in not changing or a need to be “right” (i.e. the physics version of calories in and calories out is always correct - just a useless fact when it comes to humans, fat storage and blood numbers).

Pick better people to debate with.

[David_Stilley]

Wotters you are asking the wrong questions because you don’t seem to understand the mechanism at work. We are not just a car where your put this in and you get this out. We are dynamic biological life. To get an understanding for your questions in scientific terms I highly recommend this lecture by a professor of pediatrics and endocrinology from The University of San Francisco. Robert Lustig MD. This is the science.

[DKElisaga]

You asked why we say fat adapted. What does less calories have to do with it? Fat adapted is when your body prefers to burn fat (ketones) over carbs (glucose) physiologically. As a process. Prefers to.
That is why.