You will lose weight if you eat fewer calories than you burn each day regardless of the type of food you're eating.
Maybe it's easier to eat fewer calories with a high protein low carb diet, because that diet makes you feel full more than a high carb diet of similar calories, but the type of food isn't why you're losing weight.
Can't help but notice you're hiding a lot of work in the "burn" part. As if there wasn't 10 semesters worth of biochem involved in that "burning" process, each intensely interested in what form the calories come.
People aren't stoves you shove wood or coal into, and get BTUs out. Yes, your body will come out different if you eat 10,000 calories of meat versus drink 10,000 calories of beer.
You completely disregarded the entire biochemical process behind weight loss.
And you people wonder why so many people fail to lose weight simply by "eating less, moving more". It is not a lack of will power or discipline. It is a lack of understanding of the physiological implications behind different foods.
Wrong. Eating different foods determine how easy it is to lose weight on a deficit.
You are more than welcome to prove us wrong by eating at a caloric deficit exclusively eating high fructose foods.
You people will never bother of course. People like me have experimented and can tell you that eating properly makes it easy to fast for up to 48 hours. It would be impossible to smoothly maintain a 48 hour fast if you eat junk food of the same caloric amount.
Bro I literally said that certain foods make you feel more full and therefore it's easier to stick to a calorie deficit.
But a calorie is a calorie and when it comes to LONG TERM weight loss, it doesn't matter what type of calories you're ingesting. You people can't fucking read apparently jesus christ
I'll take your word that it might make a difference over a short period of a few days, but if you eat 1,800 calories of meat per day vs 1,800 calories of cotton candy per day, over the long run the results will be the same.
The latter is a whole lot worse for you from a health perspective obviously, but strictly talking weight loss it's all just calories.
Try eating 1,800 calories a day of cellulose and see what happens.
Sarcasm aside, your body is not 100% efficient. Food type does matter. Just not in the fatlogic, "I ate 10,000 calories of fruit, that's healthy," way.
Breaking down proteins requires more energy than sugar. There's overhead. So... no. 1800 calories of meat vs 1800 calories of cotton candy will not yield the same results. The first part of "Calories-in, calories-out" isn't based on the value of the food when it enters your mouth. It's based on the energy actually being input into the system.
You aren't taking into consideration the glycogen depletion effect keto has on your body.
What you eat reallly does effect how you both lose the weight and keep it off. It will make a difference how your body looks after losing weight one way over the other.
Addicted, or all they can really afford. Funny how the most processed, shelf stable stuff is the cheapest. I cant even bring myself to eat mac and cheese for example because I know its just full of shit with zero nutrition in it. Watching that tik tok dietician influencer claiming that mac and cheese cups in a plastic bowl heated up at your gas station is a relatively healthy snack.
People getting paid some big money to spread misinformation around.
This is a commonly repeated canard, but it doesn't actually wash. Cheap, processed, packaged food is only cheaper if comparing single-servings.
Buying things like rice, flour, corn in minor bulk (not talking much, maybe a pound or more) and fresh vegetables, and combining them into actual meals, costs less per serving than this fake-wheat-palm-oil-assembled-into-food-shapes bullshit.
It doesn't keep nearly as well, because microbes and microflora also consider these meals to be food, unlike that other shit. But cost is not the prevailing issue here--it's knowledge, effort, and will.
That is an interesting point you made, because the price difference is a misconception.
Eating the cheap junk food only drives hunger even more, causing people to eat even more.
The paradox of healthy eating is that, despite it being more expensive, the food will fill you up to such an absurd degree that you will intuitively eat significantly less, resulting in a smaller food bill. The irony is that cheaply priced junk food is significantly more expensive.
From personal experience, I can comfortably subsist on a 48 hour fast if I eat ~6 dollars worth of meat. I would barely last 4 hours if I ate ~6 dollars worth of ultra processed garbage.
I actually found when I did this I didn't lose weight but gained weight because I found cooking meat (and cleaning) so much easier than cooking carbs and I loved meat. I ended up eating more while only eating meat than when I wasn't eating meat.
At the end of the day, you lose weight by eating less and it doesn't matter how you do it. A big thing about the carnivore diet that's probably overlooked is for some men, it might lead to better testosterone production and estrogen ratios relative to T levels which if the levels were imbalanced often leads to water retention which makes people look fat so the diet seems to help with "losing weight" to some more than others.
At the end of the day, you lose weight by eating less AND by keeping your insulin levels below threshold for as long as possible.
Most people who fail to lose weight by eating less and moving more often unknowingly keep their insulin levels chronically elevated, forcing the body to preferentially force people to eat by worsening hunger and cravings or by forcing the body to preferentially lower metabolic rate.
In essence, a deficit coupled with low insulin yields continuous long-term weight loss without the turbulence of discomfort. It is the missing piece of the puzzle for people who can't find the ability to reliably eat less.
Sure, thats what you guys kept saying about the pop.
Even though ive said before that when I quit drinking pop the dozen times before, ive never lost weight. I could eat 1200 calories a day and still not lose weight.
I have to actively exercise and keep calories under 800 if I want to see a difference, which is hard to stay motivated when your no longer looking for a mate, and say suffering from a metabolic disease like hyperparathyroidism.
Ive drank maybe 4, 2 liters of pop in the last 6 months. I havent lost a fucking pound.
Blood sugars feel alot better though, i dont wake up in the morning feeling like my stomach is going to eat itself.
You do a keto high protein low carb regimen you will lose weight.
Guaranteed. It's like magic it works so well.
But people are even too lazy to try it, or too addicted to cheap carbs.
You will lose weight if you eat fewer calories than you burn each day regardless of the type of food you're eating.
Maybe it's easier to eat fewer calories with a high protein low carb diet, because that diet makes you feel full more than a high carb diet of similar calories, but the type of food isn't why you're losing weight.
You just explained how the type of food is, in fact, why they're losing weight. That's what a diet is. People aren't machines.
The why is burning more calories than they eat.
The how is eating foods that allow them to stick to the calorie deficit.
Can't help but notice you're hiding a lot of work in the "burn" part. As if there wasn't 10 semesters worth of biochem involved in that "burning" process, each intensely interested in what form the calories come.
People aren't stoves you shove wood or coal into, and get BTUs out. Yes, your body will come out different if you eat 10,000 calories of meat versus drink 10,000 calories of beer.
You completely disregarded the entire biochemical process behind weight loss.
And you people wonder why so many people fail to lose weight simply by "eating less, moving more". It is not a lack of will power or discipline. It is a lack of understanding of the physiological implications behind different foods.
I also think it is in part becoming mindful of what you're eating.
This is most of it. Also, very few people overeat vegetables.
Wrong. Eating different foods determine how easy it is to lose weight on a deficit.
You are more than welcome to prove us wrong by eating at a caloric deficit exclusively eating high fructose foods.
You people will never bother of course. People like me have experimented and can tell you that eating properly makes it easy to fast for up to 48 hours. It would be impossible to smoothly maintain a 48 hour fast if you eat junk food of the same caloric amount.
Bro I literally said that certain foods make you feel more full and therefore it's easier to stick to a calorie deficit.
But a calorie is a calorie and when it comes to LONG TERM weight loss, it doesn't matter what type of calories you're ingesting. You people can't fucking read apparently jesus christ
This isn't a reading issue, you're simply massively incorrect, which several people have pointed out to you, and explained why.
Hey, can I have your pancreas? Since apparently you're not doing anything important with it.
Keto forces your body to burn stored carbs. The type of food does make a difference.
Eat a high carb diet of similar calories to a keto diet, see how much stored fat you lose.
I'll take your word that it might make a difference over a short period of a few days, but if you eat 1,800 calories of meat per day vs 1,800 calories of cotton candy per day, over the long run the results will be the same.
The latter is a whole lot worse for you from a health perspective obviously, but strictly talking weight loss it's all just calories.
Try eating 1,800 calories a day of cellulose and see what happens.
Sarcasm aside, your body is not 100% efficient. Food type does matter. Just not in the fatlogic, "I ate 10,000 calories of fruit, that's healthy," way.
Breaking down proteins requires more energy than sugar. There's overhead. So... no. 1800 calories of meat vs 1800 calories of cotton candy will not yield the same results. The first part of "Calories-in, calories-out" isn't based on the value of the food when it enters your mouth. It's based on the energy actually being input into the system.
You aren't taking into consideration the glycogen depletion effect keto has on your body.
What you eat reallly does effect how you both lose the weight and keep it off. It will make a difference how your body looks after losing weight one way over the other.
The majority of people against keto or carnivore are in this camp.
Addicted, or all they can really afford. Funny how the most processed, shelf stable stuff is the cheapest. I cant even bring myself to eat mac and cheese for example because I know its just full of shit with zero nutrition in it. Watching that tik tok dietician influencer claiming that mac and cheese cups in a plastic bowl heated up at your gas station is a relatively healthy snack.
People getting paid some big money to spread misinformation around.
This is a commonly repeated canard, but it doesn't actually wash. Cheap, processed, packaged food is only cheaper if comparing single-servings.
Buying things like rice, flour, corn in minor bulk (not talking much, maybe a pound or more) and fresh vegetables, and combining them into actual meals, costs less per serving than this fake-wheat-palm-oil-assembled-into-food-shapes bullshit.
It doesn't keep nearly as well, because microbes and microflora also consider these meals to be food, unlike that other shit. But cost is not the prevailing issue here--it's knowledge, effort, and will.
That is an interesting point you made, because the price difference is a misconception.
Eating the cheap junk food only drives hunger even more, causing people to eat even more.
The paradox of healthy eating is that, despite it being more expensive, the food will fill you up to such an absurd degree that you will intuitively eat significantly less, resulting in a smaller food bill. The irony is that cheaply priced junk food is significantly more expensive.
From personal experience, I can comfortably subsist on a 48 hour fast if I eat ~6 dollars worth of meat. I would barely last 4 hours if I ate ~6 dollars worth of ultra processed garbage.
I actually found when I did this I didn't lose weight but gained weight because I found cooking meat (and cleaning) so much easier than cooking carbs and I loved meat. I ended up eating more while only eating meat than when I wasn't eating meat.
At the end of the day, you lose weight by eating less and it doesn't matter how you do it. A big thing about the carnivore diet that's probably overlooked is for some men, it might lead to better testosterone production and estrogen ratios relative to T levels which if the levels were imbalanced often leads to water retention which makes people look fat so the diet seems to help with "losing weight" to some more than others.
At the end of the day, you lose weight by eating less AND by keeping your insulin levels below threshold for as long as possible.
Most people who fail to lose weight by eating less and moving more often unknowingly keep their insulin levels chronically elevated, forcing the body to preferentially force people to eat by worsening hunger and cravings or by forcing the body to preferentially lower metabolic rate.
In essence, a deficit coupled with low insulin yields continuous long-term weight loss without the turbulence of discomfort. It is the missing piece of the puzzle for people who can't find the ability to reliably eat less.
How do you keep insulting below threshold?
Sure, thats what you guys kept saying about the pop.
Even though ive said before that when I quit drinking pop the dozen times before, ive never lost weight. I could eat 1200 calories a day and still not lose weight.
I have to actively exercise and keep calories under 800 if I want to see a difference, which is hard to stay motivated when your no longer looking for a mate, and say suffering from a metabolic disease like hyperparathyroidism.
Ive drank maybe 4, 2 liters of pop in the last 6 months. I havent lost a fucking pound.
Blood sugars feel alot better though, i dont wake up in the morning feeling like my stomach is going to eat itself.