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.
Eating less is all you need to do. No exercise required although it can help a little, but it takes around 30 minutes of running to burn off 2 Oreo cookies. Much easier to just not eat those cookies.
The reason so many people fail is because they have zero discipline and don't properly count calories. Not because they aren't eating specific 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.
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.
Eating less is all you need to do. No exercise required although it can help a little, but it takes around 30 minutes of running to burn off 2 Oreo cookies. Much easier to just not eat those cookies.
The reason so many people fail is because they have zero discipline and don't properly count calories. Not because they aren't eating specific 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.
Clearly it's a reading comprehension issue because you're talking about health outcomes, which have fuck-all to do with my original point.
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.