PDA

View Full Version : Calories vs Keto, vs Low Fat vs Low Carb



Genesis_
02-29-2008, 01:33 PM
I've read a lot of diets lately trying to find the best one. I think at the end of the day all you have to do is cut calories. I've found like a thousand different diets that claim to promote fat loss, etc. Let's take the Keto diet for example. The Keto diet, basically another form of the Atkins diet, is said to promote fat loss. Well, the science behind the diet sounds pretty legit, but what diet doesn't promote fat loss. I think you can take any diet that cuts calories enough that will also promote fat loss. Do you need to get under 20g a carbs a day to lose weight? No. Do you need to buy keto-stix, to piss on and see if you're in a weight loss state? No. I think the Keto diet is a pretty good diet, but reality is all you have to do is cut calories to lose weight and promote fat loss.

I lost 32 lbs in two months just by eating low calories. Was this the healthiest way to lose weight? Probably not. I'm sure all these 40-40-20 and whatever percentages wouldn't agree. I didn't do any percentages at all. I just ate whatever I wanted in moderation and made sure I counted my calories. I lost a lot of fat, probably a little lean muscle, but the point is I lost weight and fat.

One thing people will say is that you will plateau, well that is true. But, if you plateu all you have to do is eat a maintenance amount of calories for a few days, then switch back to a deficit.

So, all these diets might be healthier or not compared to just eating whatever but counting your calories. But, the point is, if you want to lose weight/fat, all you have to do is cut calories.

But, now I'm trying to eat 1 gram of protein a day with my diet and eat fewer carbs just for health reasons, not to increase my fat loss production.

I ate 1800 calories a day my first month. Then my second month I ate 1700-1600. I also didn't really exercise during the entire time. So, I guess I could of lost even more weight if I wanted to. Also, if you plateau just move up about 300-500 cals a day to give your metabolism a boost, then cut back down to a 500 cal deficit for slow and steady weight loss, which is best.

I now work out 4 times a week and run 7 times a week.

I'm not a body-builder so, you probably wouldn't want to do as much cardio as I do, and you might want to take some supplements, like whey, creatine.

Oh and now I take whey, and a multi-vitamin.

androyd
02-29-2008, 01:43 PM
Your height, weight, and approx BF% would help a lot to get a better idea of where you're coming from, thx.

Captain Sagara
02-29-2008, 01:52 PM
I've done "very low carbs" and I've done zero carbs. Low carbs is far more difficult...
you feel like ****, you shrink, and your strength goes south.
Zero carbs on the ohter hand is a piece of cake if you do it 100%.
You obviously have to create a caloric deficit when you diet.
You're not gonna drop your protein so you can either cut carbs or cut fats,
It makes more sense to cut carbs because:
1. No insulin spikes = growth hormone is high = fat burning is in
2. No fluctuations in muscloe glycogen levels means you look, feel, weigh consistent.
The last thing you need when dieting is anything to **** with your head.
It sucks to look good at 2:00p.m. and like **** by 7:00pm. That's a real mind screw.
3. On a low carb diet it is a given that you WILL run out of carbs.
That means your brain will be searching for them...that's when you feel like crap.
With zero carbs you force your brain to use ketone bodies which means you always feel clear, focused, and ready to go.
And if you run out of dietary fat then you have a limitless supply of bodyfat that your metabolism can resort to.

I could go on but just trust me, go zero or don't bother.

Genesis_
02-29-2008, 01:58 PM
I was at like 202-206 fluctuated between those ranges.

body fat was over 20%

now I'm at - 170

body fat: under 15%

height is 5 10

I'm pretty close to my goal weight of 166. I'm not trying to put on a lot of muscle. No offense but it kinda looks cheesy. I lift to get really toned and do ab workouts. I also run 7 days a week as mentioned.


I think I'll keep dropping until I get to 150, but I'll have to see how my body looks when I get down to 166.

BlueFenix13S
02-29-2008, 02:06 PM
Carbless FTW

Irezumi
02-29-2008, 02:10 PM
I've done "very low carbs" and I've done zero carbs. Low carbs is far more difficult...
you feel like ****, you shrink, and your strength goes south.
Zero carbs on the ohter hand is a piece of cake if you do it 100%.
You obviously have to create a caloric deficit when you diet.
You're not gonna drop your protein so you can either cut carbs or cut fats,
It makes more sense to cut carbs because:
1. No insulin spikes = growth hormone is high = fat burning is in
2. No fluctuations in muscloe glycogen levels means you look, feel, weigh consistent.
The last thing you need when dieting is anything to **** with your head.
It sucks to look good at 2:00p.m. and like **** by 7:00pm. That's a real mind screw.
3. On a low carb diet it is a given that you WILL run out of carbs.
That means your brain will be searching for them...that's when you feel like crap.
With zero carbs you force your brain to use ketone bodies which means you always feel clear, focused, and ready to go.
And if you run out of dietary fat then you have a limitless supply of bodyfat that your metabolism can resort to.

I could go on but just trust me, go zero or don't bother.

QFT.

OP, do some research on the CHA diet. Its been working great for me.

dirtyeggroll
02-29-2008, 02:22 PM
you may be able to lose weight by just going low cal, but this is a bodybuilding forum, so most of are us are looking to burn optimum fat while losing minimal muscle. or looking to put on optimum muscle with minimum fat. if this was just a weight loss forum you wouldn't see the ratios and percentages

honest-abe
02-29-2008, 02:32 PM
your missing the point here. yes, by itself, cutting calories does work, but depending on the individual it may not be the best approach. cutting carbs while also cutting cals for fat loss it universally known to be a faster way to lose weight than merely cutting cals while eating carbs. also ketosis provides much more energy and satiety while traditional dieting leaves you dragging your feet. dont forget that many people are also carb sensitive and it becomes an uphill battle to lose weight on a 40/40/20 type diet.

most importantly though, if you are obese, anything that you do will work. if you walk around the block you'll lose weight. if you switch to diet soda, you'll lose weight. dropping a quick 50 does not require much knowledge and effort. it is the last 5 that people come to forums like this for ideas on how to break that barrier.

Genesis_
02-29-2008, 02:43 PM
dirtyeggroll- Yes, basically that is the point I was making, that cutting only calories will cause weight loss, but not might be as healthy as doing some of the things that some of these other diets say do. Which probably could result in loss of some lean muscle mass, but like I said I eat 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight now.

honest-abe- Same thing as I said above.

You both make some good, valid points, about cutting carbs, etc. Like I've stated cutting calories is all that is needed to lose weight/fat. But, as I said it may not be the healthiest, possibly even fastest way.

If you go on two roads that lead to the same path, you'll eventually get to your destination, that is the point of this thread. If someone only wants to lose weight/fat loss then all you have to do is cut calories. It may not be the fastest diet plan, it may not be the healthiest, but it works. It's proven.

honest-abe
02-29-2008, 02:47 PM
so you are basically saying you choose the longer path because you like it and it is more convenient for you?

Genesis_
02-29-2008, 02:51 PM
I'm basically saying, don't think you have to do one particular diet, like Keto, to reach your weight/fat loss goals, or think that one diet is ultimately better than another.

I'm actually going to experiment with Keto diet for two weeks. Like I said cutting calories will do the job, but there are better/healthier ways to do the same job. That's why I'm going to try keto and few other things just for experimentation.

BlueFenix13S
02-29-2008, 02:58 PM
CHA diet.

Werd

dirtyeggroll
02-29-2008, 02:59 PM
my goal is to be 205 lbs @ 8% bf, at my height, i could never achieve that just by cutting cals, if were too ever gain enough muscle to weigh that much

gfundaro
02-29-2008, 04:22 PM
You just have to do what works for you. Despite what most people think, we aren't fat-burning machines on keto because we just don't produce that many ketones, and we still use the same energy systems whether we're in ketosis or not. It's not just calories in vs. calories out, but no one nutrient will make you fat, and with correct timing you can keep all of them in your diet. If you're pre-contest, you may have to cut starchy carbs to drop water, but the only other reason to drop them is for a total decrease in calories while maintaining enough protein and fat to regulate hormones and prevent illness.

Most people *aren't* carb-sensitive, they just don't have self control. Eat a meal, take your blood sugar, and if it's above 120 you're on your way to having a problem. Otherwise, you're just spouting broscience and making excuses for not working hard enough.

Loading up with protein doesn't increase protein synthesis, and if you're in a caloric deficit and a majority of your calories are coming from protein, those are going to energy production rather than protein synthesis. The purpose of fats and CHO is to spare the protein for tissue synthesis, so cutting carbs without bumping fat way up is actually the opposite of what you should be doing, although it seems logical.

Your training has a HUGE impact on hormonal fluctuations as well, so don't think it's just your diet. Specific types of training will stimulate or blunt GH release in men and women and test release in men. Exercise also increases insulin sensitivity (which makes all these active people being 'carb sensitive' absolutely preposterous).

honest-abe
02-29-2008, 05:20 PM
this is how i define carb sensitive. i cut at x amount of calories for 8 weeks with a loss rate of about .5 lb a week. without a change in routine, frequency or training intensity i start a keto diet at the same number of cals. i hit the same protein numbers and also include one out of every four days at maintenance. the next 6 weeks of keto i see an average loss of about 2 lbs a week. why would i eat carbs if i can cut from point A to B in a shorter amount of time. btw this is not brotology this is called what works for me. if this isnt text book "carb sensitive" what do i care. all the matters is simply i can lose weight easier while dropping carbs.

gfundaro
02-29-2008, 05:30 PM
this is how i define carb sensitive. i cut at x amount of calories for 8 weeks with a loss rate of about .5 lb a week. without a change in routine, frequency or training intensity i start a keto diet at the same number of cals. i hit the same protein numbers and also include one out of every four days at maintenance. the next 6 weeks of keto i see an average loss of about 2 lbs a week. why would i eat carbs if i can cut from point A to B in a shorter amount of time. btw this is not brotology this is called what works for me. if this isnt text book "carb sensitive" what do i care. all the matters is simply i can lose weight easier while dropping carbs.

Yea, that's called glycogen depletion and water loss. Great job. :rolleyes:

grapemaster
02-29-2008, 06:07 PM
if you are obese and coming on here and can't pump out the hard cardio like some of us can... I'd definitely recommend full ketosis... if you are getting under 12% fat or so... I wouldn't recommend it you start cutting into muscle hard.

BlueFenix13S
02-29-2008, 06:14 PM
if you are obese and coming on here and can't pump out the hard cardio like some of us can... I'd definitely recommend full ketosis... if you are getting under 12% fat or so... I wouldn't recommend it you start cutting into muscle hard.

Wrong. High fat diets are VERY muscle sparing, more so than high carb diets.

gfundaro
02-29-2008, 06:38 PM
Wrong. High fat diets are VERY muscle sparing, more so than high carb diets.

No they're really not...why does everyone think that?
I'm just curious about the reasoning. Not trying to be mean. :D

Sibrek
02-29-2008, 06:52 PM
Wrong. High fat diets are VERY muscle sparing, more so than high carb diets.

Stop spreading your stupid keto propoganda you skinnyfat manorexic. (no offense)

honest-abe
02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
Yea, that's called glycogen depletion and water loss. Great job. :rolleyes:

wtf is your problem??? yeah i'm sure the hydrostatic results were wrong and i didnt actually lose any fat. :rolleyes:

you know you might want to rethink most of what you post because you basically come across sounding like a really arrogant c.

BlueFenix13S
02-29-2008, 08:11 PM
No they're really not...why does everyone think that?
I'm just curious about the reasoning. Not trying to be mean. :D

Well I guess I should be more specific and say that CKD or TKD is, SKD I agree is not muscle sparing since ketosis is a catabolic state.

doakanthony
10-06-2016, 09:23 PM
Y'all need to cut back on the "juice"

dipatel13
10-06-2016, 09:47 PM
Y'all need to cut back on the "juice"

Why bump an 8 yr old thread for this?

xxYoungexx
10-06-2016, 10:16 PM
Why bump an 8 yr old thread for this?

so... 8 years have passed, what worked? :D

Did cutting carbs get you there any quicker?

/me gets the popcorn ready