Keto?

Well yes a calorie deficit will cause weight loss. But say having 2500 calories a day, one diet can induce weightloss and one gain weight.

Not to hand but ill try and see if i can find it.

Its also far easier to have a calorie reduction on such a restrictive diet. As you strup out refined carbs which play havoc, as well as introducing naturalm appetite suppression as part of ketosis.
 
Last edited:
The restrictive kcals have only been recently. I choose to do keto as it prevents cravings. If I eat sugar, I just want more and more. If I stick with this, I don't get those cravings :)
 
Everything in moderation. I eat very well - good carbs, lots of fats, lots of proteins, a huge amount of veg. And at the weekends or from time to time during the week I'll enjoy a naughty treat (something baked, or with poor quality ingredients). It's about balancing everything. I'm eating around 2700-2800 calories a day, and yet still maintain around 13% bodyfat which is pretty low.

You have to experiment with how your body reacts - I know that carb cycling and so on actually helps me, but I can be happy without carbs at all. However, I still enjoy them from time to time.

You have to work out what works for you, record, understand and measure. If you have no structure for your goals, you'll just end up getting nowhere. If you don't measure or know what you're eating / expending then again you're on a highway to nowhere.
 
My issue is, everyone is so obsessed with losing weight they forget the fact you must have a balanced diet with all the requisite nutrients and minerals in order to remain healthy.

Eat less carbs and more protein is great for the sedentary lifestyle, but if you're not eating any fruit or vegetables on top of it you're not doing yourself any favours.
 
Not to be negative as losing weight can be a tricky business especially to start off with.

... but of course eliminating an entire macro nutrient from your diet will make it 'reasonably' easy to lose weight. You'd be much better off maintaining a regular macro profile and just calorie counting to ensure you're below your maintenance level of cals.

Add in some weight lifting and some cardio and easy comfortable weight loss with no drop in energy or need for ketosis.

I would never recommend ketosis unless you had some medical condition which happened to be controlled through keto.
 
I follow a similar diet but give in to my cravings at the weekend....

CKD Diet

Coupled with training during the week = Win.

Looked into CKD, but giving in and having cheat meals/days don't go well for me... I give in for a meal.. Then a day... Then 'Oh, just this week'.. A month later and I'm fighting to get back on it. I go cold turkey or fail :(

My issue is, everyone is so obsessed with losing weight they forget the fact you must have a balanced diet with all the requisite nutrients and minerals in order to remain healthy.

Eat less carbs and more protein is great for the sedentary lifestyle, but if you're not eating any fruit or vegetables on top of it you're not doing yourself any favours.

What do you mean by balanced diet though? The typical food pyramid that has been hammered into our brains over the last few decades, based on a base of carbs, isn't the way to eat.

Fat doesn't make people fat, as my diet proves.. Carbs, and the excessive eating due to erratic blood sugar and cravings (amongst other things) is more of a suspect, and Sweden have just decided how true this is! Let's hope more sense comes out soon.

Recent article on the front page of the Daily Express
 
Oh and as for someone saying having 2,500 calories a day one diet can induce weight loss and one make you gain weight that's rubbish I'm afraid.

In terms of weight loss and gain the energy effects are the same. In terms of 'how you look' when you gain/lose weight the effects are different. But no change of food will make you change from gaining to losing or vice versa if the same calorific expenditure and intake as before.
 
Looked into CKD, but giving in and having cheat meals/days don't go well for me... I give in for a meal.. Then a day... Then 'Oh, just this week'.. A month later and I'm fighting to get back on it. I go cold turkey or fail :(



What do you mean by balanced diet though? The typical food pyramid that has been hammered into our brains over the last few decades, based on a base of carbs, isn't the way to eat.

Fat doesn't make people fat, as my diet proves.. Carbs, and the excessive eating due to erratic blood sugar and cravings (amongst other things) is more of a suspect, and Sweden have just decided how true this is! Let's hope more sense comes out soon.

Recent article on the front page of the Daily Express

Except carbs don't make you fat either...

Carbs don't make you fat.
Fat doesn't make you fat.
Protein doesn't make you fat.

Eat an excess of calories above your total energy expenditure (the total amount of calories your body requires to maintain the same weight taking into account all activity, brain function, etc.) and you gain weight.

There is no magic nutrient that does any of this.

Eat lower than your TEE and you lose weight, regardless of what the makeup of your macro nutrient profile in your daily diet is.

As for eliminating an entire macro... it's not the most sensible way to diet. A balanced diet, and lower in all area's is much more beneficial.
 
Just noticed someone else talking about TEE/TDEE and I'm glad I wasn't the only one! haha.

People over think weight loss so much.

Less calories than your body burns daily = lose weight
More calories than your body burns daily = gain weight

Couldn't be simpler.
 
Oh and as for someone saying having 2,500 calories a day one diet can induce weight loss and one make you gain weight that's rubbish I'm afraid.

In terms of weight loss and gain the energy effects are the same. In terms of 'how you look' when you gain/lose weight the effects are different. But no change of food will make you change from gaining to losing or vice versa if the same calorific expenditure and intake as before.

Glad you're better than clincial studies.
For a start and this is minute and unlikely the real cause, different things cost fiffferent energy to break down and extract.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

A decrease in the energy you burn with low fat high carb diet. Compared to both high fat low carb and low gi diet.
Wasn't the paper I've read before but it'll do.
The biggest thing I've learnt in the last 12 months, is diet is a pretty big unknown with very few proper trials and conventional advice is dumed down and often just plain wrong. If i was ever to become a multi millionaire, i would fund proper controlled clinical trials as they are few to begin with and most are poorly executed.

Just noticed someone else talking about TEE/TDEE and I'm glad I wasn't the only one! haha.

People over think weight loss so much.

Less calories than your body burns daily = lose weight
More calories than your body burns daily = gain weight

Couldn't be simpler.

Its far from that easy. Due to bioliigical process. You spike and crash your sugar levels, not eat staited foods, and see how easy it is to stick to this simple principal. It isnt that simple at all, and people regurgetating this nonsesnse does not help anyone at all.
 
Last edited:
Except carbs don't make you fat either...

Carbs don't make you fat.
Fat doesn't make you fat.
Protein doesn't make you fat.

Eat an excess of calories above your total energy expenditure (the total amount of calories your body requires to maintain the same weight taking into account all activity, brain function, etc.) and you gain weight.

There is no magic nutrient that does any of this.

Eat lower than your TEE and you lose weight, regardless of what the makeup of your macro nutrient profile in your daily diet is.

As for eliminating an entire macro... it's not the most sensible way to diet. A balanced diet, and lower in all area's is much more beneficial.

I don't dispute that at all, but it's proven that body fat (as opposed to muscle, etc) is lost faster when on a ketogenic diet than a regular calorie restricted diet.

I have no doubt it's down to keto AND a calorie deficit, but either way, there's no denying a 63lb loss ;)
 
What the majority are saying here is essentially correct, keto isn't some magic voodoo fat cure. It essentially is the same as a normal diet, in order to lose on keto you need a calorie deficit. However it is important to understand where keto does have advantages.

Namely glucose and blood sugar level spikes that lead to cravings. Under carb loaded dietary conditions blood sugar levels spike all over the place, leading to sugar or carb cravings. However when the body is made to use fats instead of carbs to produce glucose the spikes are completely smoothed out, this leads to a massively improved dieting experience where you feel much more in control of your cravings.

I used keto to lose about 4 stone over the past year or so, it's a powerful tool so long as you understand it isn't some kind of miracle diet. The first 2 weeks are rough as your body addapts however after that it basically becomes a habit and it's surprising how easy it is to turn down sugary treats when offered.

This guy from reddit better explains the key benefits:
Unfortunately, biochemistry is not the kind of topic that can be easily researched online without formal training. There are a number of points you make that are incorrect. I keto myself, so don't think I am trying to attack your general position here.
Starvation and the keto diet are actually nearly identical from a biochemical perspective. The key pathway is fat mobilization, where fatty acid chains are broken down two carbons at a time to produce energy. When this process starts to happen faster than your body can manage it, some of the chemical constituents of the process actually break down to become the ketones that can be detected in the urine and breath. In other words, ketones are a side effect, rather than a major player.
The idea that a calorie deficit, ie starvation, is somehow bad, is incorrect. Anybody who is using diet and exercise to become more lean is doing the same thing. There is no magic method to lose weight without some form of starvation. The reason why the keto diet does not cause significant lean tissue loss is that the starvation involved is not sufficiently severe.
An important point that you bring up is the idea that the keto diet stabilizes insulin levels. This is basically correct. Insulin signals cells to take up glucose from the blood, and also tells the liver to begin glycogenesis - the process of packing glucose into glycogen. High blood sugar triggers this. These effects are basically reversed by adrenaline, which tells the liver to start breaking glycogen down to make glucose.
Part of the difficulty with this is that with a normal diet, blood sugar spikes after meals. This leads to cyclic variance in levels of glucose, insulin and adrenaline. As the cycle progresses toward the adrenaline end, you start to get cravings for foods that will once again spike your blood glucose.
However, when you are relying on fat mobilization to make glucose, these spikes are greatly reduced. Fat mobilization is not efficient, and is not able to provide sudden bursts of glucose. It is more constant. This makes athletic activity much more difficult aswell.
But this is the real reason why the keto diet works - it mitigates the cycle of spiking and lowering blood sugar, providing a more level and constant supply. This reduces the propensity for craving food.
In essence, the keto diet is not unique in terms of the basic biochemistry of metabolism. It simply makes 'starvation' more tolerable, and easier to manage. For many of us, that is exactly what we need.
 
Glad you're better than clincial studies.
For a start and this is minute and unlikely the real cause, different things cost fiffferent energy to break down and extract.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

A decrease in the energy you burn with low fat high carb diet. Compared to both high fat low carb and low gi diet.
Wasn't the paper I've read before but it'll do.
The biggest thing I've learnt in the last 12 months, is diet is a pretty big unknown with very few proper trials and conventional advice is dumed down and often just plain wrong. If i was ever to become a multi millionaire, i would fund proper controlled clinical trials as they are few to begin with and most are poorly executed.



Its far from that easy. Due to bioliigical process. You spike and crash your sugar levels, not eat staited foods, and see how easy it is to stick to this simple principal. It isnt that simple at all, and people regurgetating this nonsesnse does not help anyone at all.

Except it kinda does work that way.

I do IIFYM and eat ice cream, and other simple carbs/sugar every day. Still got shredded. I'm sorry but people really do over think things. Eat 2,500 calories every day from whatever food sources you want. If you stay the same weight, eat 100 cals less every day for a week. Repeat until you find the calorie level at which you kick off weight loss. From there you can re-asses each week taking away small amounts of calories.

Really you'll have much better results with a reasonable but steady level of protein, and slowly lowering carbs and fat equally. However keep carbs higher for energy etc.

Too many people over think this when losing weight really is very simple.

Edit: Knowing what to do is easy. It's sticking to it that is harder.

Edit 2: Hang on if what you're saying is it's hard to STICK to these principles. Now we're talking. I'm sorry however I will still disagree about the fat loss on low carb vs high carb diets. You also come in flatter etc on low carb diets and usually have far less energy (even if you're in full on ketosis using ketones for energy). As for sticking to a diet, yes eating sugar only all day will not keep you as full. But who's diet consists of sugar only?

Restriction of calories will make you lose weight period. If you guys want to make it harder for yourself by using Keto, or if you genuinely find it easier (not surprising since you've eliminated an entire macro) then by all means enjoy it and follow it. But it is not better by any noticeable proportion, and in terms of physique it's definitely not recommendable. If you want to be shredded and look like a cover model, it's definitely NOT the way to diet.
 
Last edited:
By the way, sorry if I'm coming off like an arse it's not my intention.

I just find that people build such unhealthy relationships with food such as the cheat day reward (why reward yourself with food, you're not a dog?) and eliminating an entire macro nutrient from your diet etc.

When it's well established that a balanced diet lower in calories than your body burns WILL make you burn fat. And assuming you're not an idiot who looks at IIFYM and thinks they can get all their protein from shakes and carbs from granulated sugar (which would make you very hungry indeed) then you'll be very satisfied and full throughout the day and find it much easier to stick to as a lifestyle change rather than a diet.

I can't imagine anyone doing KETO for life... and if you're just going to go back to your old habits of eating at the end, then what's the point? You'll just put the weight back as your calorie intake will be higher than your TDEE at the end of your KETO diet.

And as for the person saying the lost 63 pounds on KETO, I've not denied it works. But it doesn't work because it has no carbs, it works because you're eating lower calories than your body burns. If you eat 5,000 calories worth of fat and protein you definitely wouldn't be losing weight lol.
 
Who said anything about eating sugar all day long.

Simple fact is there are many reasons why low carb works better than high carb. From REE remaining higher, therefore burning more cals for doing nothing extra, to reducing cravings.
as for lack of energy, far more energy thanks, as insulin response is levelled out.

And no i really wouldn't do better lowering fat and increasing carbs (more paleo esq, not keto cant be dealing with the smell for long periods) Compare that to high whole grain diet with low fat, where I sleep 14+ hours a day and cant exercise. Thats the one with no energy for me. I increase carbs whilst training, 8+hr walks. Even this would be seen as rather low for some though.

We haven't been saying that you are wrong that lower calories means weight loss. But you are ignoring everything else, from cravings, insulin response, TREE response amongst other things.

Theres far more to low carb high fat than just keto. Theres a huge number of competing macro breakdowns.
 
Last edited:
Ok! Before.. The thought of kcals didn't... Affect my consumption. I saw it, and I knew how awful it was, but it wasn't enough to stop me eating it. There wasn't really a limit previously..

Now: keto doesn't require a limit really.. Eating lots of fat fills you up quickly, so I don't need to eat lots. Still, I try to stick to under 1800kcal/day. Macros breakdown to roughly <5% carbs, 65% fat and 30% protein.

Those photos about look amazing... Thanks!

So as usual someone has gone from eating a bunch of **** to going on "keto" which just happens to be a lower calorie controlled diet and then it's keto that gets sung the praises of.

Brilliant.
 
So as usual someone has gone from eating a bunch of **** to going on "keto" which just happens to be a lower calorie controlled diet and then it's keto that gets sung the praises of.

Brilliant.

Well no. that is not the only reason.
Most people will have tried other diets. Guess what low carbs you feel full and don't sit there all day feeling starved, yet you're getting the same calories. This is why its so liked. People realise the calorie count. But what people like you don't realise is the other changes it has which makes it possible for many.
Let alone if you start looking into the clinical trials of the pros and cons.
 
Except if you actually read the clinical trial analysis by people who don't cherry-pick like Alan Aragon or Lyle McDonald, you see that it low carbing has no particular benefit and in the case of athletes will be detrimental to their performance.

There’s nothing inherently special about keto in terms of fat-loss benefits. This has been shown repeatedly in long-term research that’s reasonably controlled (as opposed to the ad-libitum or free-living research) . It’s important to realize that the current research is not sufficient grounds to be dogmatic about low-carbing in the first place. Studies often do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (ie, LBM support, satiety, thermic effect), and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it’s not lower carb intake per se that imparts any advantage, it’s the higher protein intake.

Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage. In any case, there’s a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by folks who believe in a ‘metabolic advantage’ of keto/low-carb. It’s always either-or for them, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely depending upon personal tolerance & preference, not to mention individual goals. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn’t. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for keto absolutists.

P.S. potato is super satiating, has good volume in terms of grams/carbs and won't 'leave you feeling starved'. Eating a handful of M&M's might though.
 
Last edited:
Just keep away from refined and processed foods, and away from sugar (sugar is the spawn of satan) and you'll be a lot better. Plus do exercise, eat your veggies, and just eat a decent balanced diet.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom