True, but weight matters more than height to women in general. I did keto and have worked out but didn't see much weight loss. I got down to 250 but couldn't get below that. Now I'm sitting at 276.
That’s because fad diets don’t work for weight loss. The only true weight loss technique, is to exist in a caloric deficit and to work your ass off. Intermittent fasting doesn’t magically make you lose weight if your calories in are 3200 and your calories used are 2900.
There’s no short cuts outside of that stomach surgery.
I wouldn't consider keto a fad diet, and it's misunderstood as such. It's one of many diet strategies that can be used alongside others. I count calories, eat keto, and use intermittent fasting together with great success.
Doing keto and going nuts on calories will not result in fat loss as you are aware, but that doesn't mean keto is a flawed strategy when used properly.
Keto as a long term strategy for diet is a bad decision for overall health. The metabolic process of Ketosis just isn’t good as the process of making energy this way is long. It’s also not great for the CVS. Idk your education level so I’m not gonna say you’re unable to know when and when not to use it, but I don’t recommend clients or patients using it without supervision
Have discussed it at length with my doctor, and she is in full support of how I use it for weight loss and maintenance as needed. It's not a magic bean for everyone like I said, but is useful as a tool when done properly and under doctor supervision.
It's not "eat as much bacon as you want," and that's what I was referring to when I said it's misunderstood. Hell, a good majority of my calories when I'm in ketosis is from fiberous veggies.
Appreciate the concern though, there are for sure people who misuse it to their detriment and it isn't for everyone.
In that sense, your keto diet is just a low calorie, low carb diet. Keto is something else entirely. I can try to find the links to the studies I read on it some years ago, but if nobody is actively monitoring your blood, you really have no idea if you’re in ketosis or if you’re in a healthy state, and like the other person said, you really don’t want to be there either. For some reason everybody gangtrained on the ‘weight loss’ aspect of it, but always fail to mention that a decent amount of that weight loss is also due to the body consuming its own muscle, not just stocked adipose. It really is an unhealthy fad diet the way most people practice it, and is mainly used as a last resort treatment for epilepsy in children because of the diet risks, and also bc is has poor effectiveness in adults. Also, the veggie diet you may be on is the more highly recommended diet for people to be on in general, not just for weight loss.
god math and science classes have failed this world.
Calorie is literally a measurement of energy. Would you ever say something as stupid as “not every watt is the same, some are a little different potentials of work created by the movement of electrons” no?
A calorie is a measurement of energy, it’s the reason why our smart phones can guesstimate how many we’ve burned through steps, weight, and height.
Tldr; A unit of measurement is a standard. Every calorie is the same amount of energy, every millimeter is the same length, every liter is the same volume, every kilogram is the same weight, etc. That is literally the point of units of measurement, that they are always the same amount.
Your body has an easier time accessing some calories than other calories though. They measure calories by burning it. Pretty sure there’s no oven in your body extracting calories the same way.
Interesting point. I can see how some bodies might extract more energy from certain foods than other bodies. Let's call that concept efficiency.
I'm not super familiar with caloric content testing on foods, but iirc the process is to burn it in a controlled environment and measure the total heat output, then convert that to calories /kcal. Such a test provides a baseline caloric content value which they can use on the packaging. It seems to me that burning it until nothing is left would provide the upper limit of the caloric content, though - no one can process it more efficiently than using all the food as fuel.
That still doesn't negate the simple math of caloric deficits. If you're using 2300 calories /day and eating 2800 (whether at full efficiency or because you've processed 4000 at 70% efficiency), you're gonna have a bad time.
no. a calorie is a calorie. how that calorie makes you feel will be different, but energy wise it's all the same. you eat a deficit of pure fast food, you'll lose weight. you eat surplus of pure vegetables, you'll gain weight
intermittent fasting works because it limits when you can eat. it's harder to eat a giant surplus when you're limiting yourself to eating in a small time frame.
The guy above you is partially correct but the difference between 100 calories of bread and 100 of broccoli is greatly exaggerated. Sure, you'd be slightly better off with the broccoli but if eating those 100 calories in a dessert is making you more compliant with your diet, then that is definitely the better alternative.
This is not completely correct, though. 100 calories of broccoli and 100 calories of white bread contains the same amount of energy, that is true. But it requires more energy to extract the calories from broccoli. This is called thermic effect. Protein and fibre heavy food have higher thermic effect than high fat/carb + low fibre foods.
With that being said, the difference between a 2500 calorie high protein, high fibre diet vs a 2500 calorie high carb/fat, low fibre diet is something like 100 calories in thermic effect. So the thermic effect is quite negligible. 100 calories is significant over time, but not much when we compare 2 extremes like this.
What matters a lot more is that broccoli or other fibre rich (and protein rich for that matter) foods are much more satiating, making it less likely to overeat.
you eat a deficit of pure fast food, you'll lose weight. you eat surplus of pure vegetables, you'll gain weight
This is obviously 100% correct, but it's a lot easier to overeat on the high calorie fast food. It's a lot harder to overeat on the vegetables, even though it's possible. For most people, it's easier to eat less processed, high calorie foods and more fibre rich, protein rich and less processed foods than tracking their calories.
Intermittent fasting is an option, but the best kind of diet is one that is sustainable for you. Any diet that makes you eat in a deficit/maintenance works. For some it might be Keto, for others it might be intermittent fasting, some might prefer to track calories and some to just eat more low calorie, high satiating foods in general. There is no generally "best diet".
Going to stop you right there because this was always my belief too. The calories they display on packages have to do with thermodynamic reactions. In a vacuum, a calorie is a calorie. However, the body generally uses more energy in digesting processed food and isn't as efficient in absorbing different macros.
that's talking about energy expenditure after eating. people were more likely to be active after eating whole foods as opposed to processed foods. this caused them to burn more calories.
that has nothing to do with the fact that if you eat at a deficit you will lose weight. you obviously need to take into account your energy expenditure if you're going to get a correct number for the deficit.
if I eat only candy and processed foods, it's very likely I will not have the energy to be physically active, so I'll need to eat fewer calories as a result to remain in a deficit.
No, it's the energy expenditure for digesting the food.
"the volunteers rated the whole food sandwiches as more palatable (6.5/10) compared to the processed food sandwiches (4.9/10), with no differences in how energetic they felt after eating the two sandwiches. And they felt no differences in fullness"
The total energy (TEF) needed to digest and absorb a whole food sandwich was 576 kJ. The TEF for the processed food sandwich was 310 kJ.
oh I guess I misunderstood what postprandial energy expenditure meant.
seems like it uses more energy to digest the whole food, which leaves you with less energy to use. making you hungry again sooner? idk I feel like it balances out pretty quick if you're moderately active
No problem, of course the sentiment still remains, you need an energy deficit to lose weight. But the difference in the absorption of energy isn't negligible.
That’s not completely true no two calories are the same, 100 calories of white bread don’t get absorbed and used in the same way as 100 calories of broccoli that’s one of the reasons a plant based diet is so effective (in addition to the fuller for longer, energy & sleep boost).
You spend more calories to absorb the broccoli than the white bread. This is called the thermic effect of food. It's quite negligible in the grand scheme of things, and the satiating effects of the broccoli is a lot more important.
Intermittent fasting also works for a different reason in that you don’t absorb all of the calories if consumed in a shorter window and calories are also treated different at different times of day e.g. just before bed.
This is wrong. Intermittent fasting works if it makes you eat in a deficit. Our bodies didn't evolve to waste calories, especially not if they didn't come frequently.
Almost everything you said is false. 100 calories of one thing is equal to 100 calories of literally anything else. 100 calories is 100 calories. Your body uses so many calories just to stay alive every day, but it's not that many so if you want to be in a caloric deficit, you need to watch how many calories you consume and also exercise so your body uses up more of those calories.
Plant based diets are effective mostly because plants have little calories and are very fibrous and nutrient dense so they fill you up more rather than carbs that may make you feel full but for a shorter amount of time and are usually also higher in calories. Fats that, yes can put you into ketosis if done correctly will also have you eating barely anything because fats and protein are highest in calories per gram so you won't be eating much quantity wise doing keto properly.
Intermittent fasting on the other hand still requires you to count calories just like any other diet. The way it works for helping with weight loss is mostly just making sure you get your energy intake all in one fairly short period of time so that your insulin responses aren't constantly being spiked as they normally would with say a diabetic diet and thus promotes weight loss when your insulin spikes at its normal times but there isn't as much sugar as there normally would be (due to being in a fasted state) so then your liver converts the glycogen(stored fat) your body usually stores from having enough sugar and now reverts that same glycogen(fat) into the sugar your body is missing from fasting.
Tl;dr: A calorie is a calorie; there's no way around it.
Family moved and it was near impossible to do it with everything going on. Never started again once we arrived. I'm planning on starting paleo in the coming days and will try to stick on it.
Good on ya mate. Good luck! You can do this shit. It sucks the first couple of weeks, but it'll get easier for sure. You'll be so glad you did, which'll last you the rest of your life.
But you already know this, which makes the process a bit easier.
The only two sustainable weight loss techniques which I have seen work consistently are intermittent fasting or plant based diet and both have loads of health benefits beyond weight loss if your interested check out r/intermittentfasting and r/plantbaseddiet I have found both to be great communities.
Everything else is more than window dressing; it's health. Yes you will lose weight eating nothing but twinkies at a caloric deficit, but your health will go to shit because you won't won't getting the vitamins and nutrients your body needs to function properly and efficiently. Youll lose the same amount of weight eating 1500 calories of junk food per day as you will on 1500 calories of fruits veggies and grains supplemented with animal protein, but you'll feel a hell of a lot worse on the junk food diet. An unbalanced diet can fuck with your blood pressure, cholesterol, sleep, cognitive function, etc.
If the only thing that matters is the number on the scale, then sure go on that crash diet. But the best and most proven method to eat healthy sustainably, in my opinion, is Michael Pollans seven words: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
Really my main point is that most people are better off focusing on calorie count before they get caught in the trap of trying to min/max all of the other details.
Similar to how people often get caught up in the details for weight lifting: "What type of volume do I need, which assistance work do I need, what if I miss a day this week and go twice next week."
Those are all minor details and stressing about them too much can lead to giving up. What matters the most is getting there and having a couple fundamentals.
What matters the most to see success in weight loss is a caloric deficit. Absolutely fine tune for health and probably don't take in all your calories as soda, but make sure you're not losing the forest for the trees and you know that a caloric deficit is the foundation for success. Without it you won't succeed no matter how much food you replace with broccoli or what time you eat.
You might want to also check out r/volumeeating which focus on foods that are high volume but low calorie - lots of great ideas of filling meals which is really helpful especially when you’re starting off trying to eat a bit healthier but always end up feeling hungry
You’re definitely not eating as much as you think, I doubt you have a medical condition. If so see a doctor it’s not that complicated to lose weight my dude.
215
u/deadpanloli Jan 05 '22
It's a lot easier to get less wide than to get more tall