5 ms·
From the article you're writing a comment to: > A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients li
by zacwest 11y ago
From the article you're writing a comment to:
> A given person, in 2006, eating the same amount of calories, taking in the same quantities of macronutrients like protein and fat, and exercising the same amount as a person of the same age did in 1988 would have a BMI that was about 2.3 points higher.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoIts strange really. I'm on a ketogenic diet, and hear people preach the caloric balance constantly, that it doesn't matter what my macros are as long as I consume less calories than I burn daily. Yet, I consume close to my previous garbage diet calories and I lose about 2-3lbs/week due to my high fat/moderate protein/very low carb (<15g/day of carbs) diet. Go figure, it appears that caloric energy balance isn't the only factor.
- jfoutz 11y agoIt's an absolute limit. Perhaps there are specific modes that are a a few percent more or less efficient. Nonetheless, you eat less than you burn, you lose weight.
- im3w1l 11y agoHim burning it is not the only possibility. Maybe he is shitting it out? Maybe bacteria in his body are burning it for him?
- toomuchtodo 11y agoGut flora is a big possibility as to the discrepancy. I imagine there are some gut flora that are more adapt at breaking down carbohydrates than others, saturating the body in unnecessary energy to absorb.
- com2kid 11y agoFrom someone who's been doing keto for several years now. A: Pre-Keto, odds are you we underestimating how many calories you were eating. Unless you were tracking every single thing you ate, there is a high probability you just didn't realize how many calories you were consuming. B: It is super hard to over eat on Keto. It is possible, take lots of liquid calories in (heavy cream can do this easily!), and there are some other real screw ups, but eating 3000 calories of steak is pretty damn hard. C: What you are reporting is common for people who have a lot of weight to lose. At some point it becomes a lot harder, at first you just have to sort of watch things, then you eventually do have to count calories. (Especially if you want a six pack, holy crap do you have to count calories!)
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThanks for that info! Did you ever experience symptoms similar to eye fatigue? I think I might be not consuming enough sodium and/or potassium; I'm going to up my doses of both to test my theory.
- MichaelGG 11y agoEveryone seems to warn about sodium and potassium while on keto - magnesium too. Apparently the suggested intakes are quite high and supplementing is the only way to get there. It might have just been placebo or drinking a hot cup of broth (with potassium salt in) but it made me feel better some days. I'd also second that it's really hard to eat a massive amount of calories on keto. Water loss and perhaps some changes might make you leaner but most likely, over time, you're simply getting a lot less than, I dunno 3000 that isn't hard to do on a sugary diet.
- com2kid 11y agoMagnesium is good. Potassium, I eat leafy greens or Ostrim (http://www.protos-inc.com/ http://www.protos-inc.com/), which is low fat but has no carbs and lots of potassium. They also taste good, they are one of my after gym gotos. Gaining muscle on keto /is/ hard. You can do it (/r/ketogains can help!) but wow you have to stuff yourself, which is sort of odd for Keto!
- tdylan 11y agoFrom your comment it appears you weren't tracking avurately before, "close to". If you track energy expenditure as well as precise caloric intake you'll lose the same quantity of mass, give or take a few percent.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tdylan 11y agoThey didn't control the energy expenditure to any meaningful degree. Essentially worthless.
- _delirium 11y agoThe point of the study, from what I can tell, was to show that calories+macronutrients+exercise, the three main current targets of anti-obesity intervention, fail to account for a large portion of observed population-scale changes. They aren't arguing generally against total energy balance being involved, only that those three quantities don't constitute a sufficient measure of total energy balance. The implication would be that there are likely other sources of variation, e.g. changes in digestion, metabolism, etc. (the study doesn't really go out on a limb and speculate on that part).
- tomp 11y agoThat doesn't mean much... Maybe people who eat the same now ate more in the past, which is why they're still fatter.