4 ms·

The two sides of this argument always talk past each other. As someone who lost 100lbs I'm sure you know this but lots of people don't. * Calories in vs. cal

by mason55 12y ago

The two sides of this argument always talk past each other. As someone who lost 100lbs I'm sure you know this but lots of people don't. * Calories in vs. calories out is 100% what determines how much weight you gain or lose. * Your macronutrient ratios determine how that weight is partitioned (muscle vs fat) and have some control over hormones that contribute to hunger, like leptin. The end result is that cutting out carbs can help people get to a calorie deficit without feeling hungry like they would on a "standard" low fat diet.

ebbv 12y ago
Cutting carbs helps because carbs aren't filling/satisfying. That's true. But he wasn't making that claim. He was making the old woo-woo claim that you can eat way too many calories in fat and still lose weight. The only way to lose weight is to have a calorie deficit.
jemacniddle 12y ago
Unless your protein intake is severely lower than 50g/day the partitioning is minimal at best. Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit, 40-60g/fiber per day usually increases satiation. What exactly do you mean by 'standard low fat diet'?
- commandar 12y ago
  >Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit My personal experience is quite the opposite. When I did the whole low carb thing, I was having to intentionally supplement my calorie intake because I was eating 800-1000 calories per day otherwise which I felt was too low (my BMR at the time was ballpark 3000 calories, so figure burning around 3600/day even sedentary). The only other time in my life that I've had to make a conscious effort to eat enough was when I was on prescription adderall in high school and would sometimes forget to eat for an entire day. Outside of that, I eat, and eat too much, honestly. I quit the keto thing after about 6 months because, frankly, I missed pasta too much, but the whole appetite suppression thing with it is very real in my experience and is one of the most commonly reported side effects I've seen online.
- mason55 12y ago
  > What exactly do you mean by 'standard low fat diet'? Sorry, I was referring to what has been the standard recommendation for losing weight and being healthy - low fat, low protein, high carb. > Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit, 40-60g/fiber per day usually increases satiation I disagree a million times over. I'm a 6'1" 190lb male who frequently cuts on 1700 calories and I can feel stuffed all day by consuming lots of lean protein and vegetables. For example two pounds of chicken breast each day would leave me absolutely stuffed with room for another 750 calories for carbs and fat.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Sorry, I was referring to what has been the standard recommendation for losing weight and being healthy - low fat, low protein, high carb. I've never in my life heard anyone recommend "low fat, low protein, high carb" for losing weight and being healthy (as a maintenance diet for people without special needs like losing weight, sure, I've seen that.) Even 30ish years ago, while "low fat" was prominent, a focus on lean protein sources as a main source of calories was common. And, "low carb" to the extreme has been the common recommendation, in various forms, since the late 1990s.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Calories in vs. calories out is 100% what determines how much weight you gain or lose. No, its not. Muscle and fat don't take the same calorie surplus/deficit per pound to gain or lose, so calories in vs. calories out will not tell the whole story of how much weight you gain or lose. I believe, in fact, that it takes less of a calorie surplus to gain a pound of muscle than the calorie deficit to lose a pound of fat, so that its actually possible to gain weight over time on a net calorie deficit, within certain bounds.

by mason55 12y ago

ebbv 12y ago

Cutting carbs helps because carbs aren't filling/satisfying. That's true. But he wasn't making that claim. He was making the old woo-woo claim that you can eat way too many calories in fat and still lose weight. The only way to lose weight is to have a calorie deficit.

jemacniddle 12y ago

Unless your protein intake is severely lower than 50g/day the partitioning is minimal at best. Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit, 40-60g/fiber per day usually increases satiation. What exactly do you mean by 'standard low fat diet'?

commandar 12y ago
>Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit My personal experience is quite the opposite. When I did the whole low carb thing, I was having to intentionally supplement my calorie intake because I was eating 800-1000 calories per day otherwise which I felt was too low (my BMR at the time was ballpark 3000 calories, so figure burning around 3600/day even sedentary). The only other time in my life that I've had to make a conscious effort to eat enough was when I was on prescription adderall in high school and would sometimes forget to eat for an entire day. Outside of that, I eat, and eat too much, honestly. I quit the keto thing after about 6 months because, frankly, I missed pasta too much, but the whole appetite suppression thing with it is very real in my experience and is one of the most commonly reported side effects I've seen online.
mason55 12y ago
> What exactly do you mean by 'standard low fat diet'? Sorry, I was referring to what has been the standard recommendation for losing weight and being healthy - low fat, low protein, high carb. > Also you will never be fully satiated on any meaningful caloric deficit, 40-60g/fiber per day usually increases satiation I disagree a million times over. I'm a 6'1" 190lb male who frequently cuts on 1700 calories and I can feel stuffed all day by consuming lots of lean protein and vegetables. For example two pounds of chicken breast each day would leave me absolutely stuffed with room for another 750 calories for carbs and fat.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Sorry, I was referring to what has been the standard recommendation for losing weight and being healthy - low fat, low protein, high carb. I've never in my life heard anyone recommend "low fat, low protein, high carb" for losing weight and being healthy (as a maintenance diet for people without special needs like losing weight, sure, I've seen that.) Even 30ish years ago, while "low fat" was prominent, a focus on lean protein sources as a main source of calories was common. And, "low carb" to the extreme has been the common recommendation, in various forms, since the late 1990s.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Calories in vs. calories out is 100% what determines how much weight you gain or lose. No, its not. Muscle and fat don't take the same calorie surplus/deficit per pound to gain or lose, so calories in vs. calories out will not tell the whole story of how much weight you gain or lose. I believe, in fact, that it takes less of a calorie surplus to gain a pound of muscle than the calorie deficit to lose a pound of fat, so that its actually possible to gain weight over time on a net calorie deficit, within certain bounds.