The response to your question is in the post above mine. A basic class teaching the law of conservation of mass and the first law of thermodynamics should be required in every high school and college in this country.

The more muscle mass you have, the more calories you require to maintain that muscle mass. Also, maintaining that muscle mass requires effort (ie, exercise), which also requires calories.

Body composition (ie. The amount of fat and muscle a person has) determines BMR. Fit people who lift heavy and have larger muscles get to eat more calories, as long as they maintain their muscle.

Beyond that, your question doesn't make any sense to me. Even a person who consumes zero calories will not "disappear". They will die from malnutrition before that happens.

For arguments sake, let's think about the extreme example of this. 3500 calories a week is 500 calories a day. My BMR is roughly 1400 calories. If i cut back to 900 cal a day, here is what would happen:

In the short-term, I would lose fat, but over time I would also lose the muscle I've built 1) because I'm not eating enough protein to maintain that muscle, 2) I would not have enough energy to work out and exercise those muscles, and 3) eventually my body would start consuming those muscles for energy.

As I lost muscle my BMR would drop, because the less you weigh, the less calories you need to to maintain that weight.

If I severely restrict my calories over the long term, my body will start shutting down certain non-essential functions to conserve calories - that's why anorexic people start to lose their hair and women stop having a period. They aren't consuming enough calories to maintain those body functions.

There are a lot of other health problems caused by chronic undereating, but ultimately what it does is puts extra stress on the heart which can cause heart failure.

No one will "disappear", but think about severely malnourished people (like those who were found in concentration camps in WWII Germany) - they literally were skin and bones and looked like walking skeletons because they had lost all their fat and muscle.

Quote:

---

If you lose weight on the "carnivore diet" it is from calorie restriction. Calorie restriction is the "cure", not carnivore, or keto, or vegetarian, or vegan, or any other sort of diet.

Carbs are NOT inherently detrimental to your health. If they were, your carnivore diet would also be detrimental to your health because protein is broken down into the SAME glucose molecule as carbohydrates are (glycogen is just the stored form of glucose). When you don't consume any other form of glucose, the glucose that your cells NEED to survive has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is protein.

I agree you don't HAVE to eat carbs or sugar to survive, however, the body does need nutrients that are not found in protein (ie, fiber and other micronutrients). There are also sources of protein that are incomplete when it comes to the amino acids your body needs.

Kudos to you for figuring out what works for your body/mind/lifestyle. The benefits of losing weight and avoiding foods that trigger you to overeat and gain weight are immeasurable. If you need to avoid carbs/sugar to do that, it's great you realized and have the willpower to stick to it.

But the idea that carbs/sugar harm your body if consumed in any amount is simply incorrect.

Just to be clear, there is not any type of sugar or carb that is healthy or unhealthy, just like honey isn't healthier or than table sugar. However bananas/fruits are a "better" choice if you are trying to lose weight/maintain a healthy lifestyle because 1) it's hard to overeat fruit, 2) bananas (and other fruits and veggies) have beneficial nutrients, and 3) a serving of fruit is not as calorie dense as something like ice cream (so it can satisfy the desire for something sweet for fewer calories). These are the fundamental reasons why people can often lose weight if they shop at the perimeter of the grocery and primarily eat "whole" or minimally processed foods vs highly processed or "junk" foods (which are generally high in calories with little nutritional value).

Another reason the carnivore diet is effective is because it focuses on the consumption of protein. Most Americans don't eat enough protein and OVEREAT fat and carbs. If you're paying attention to what you eat and prioritizing protein, it becomes difficult to overeat fat and carbs and stay at or under your calorie goal.

---

I actually agreed with a big portion of that. Couple of disagreements:

1) Humans don't need fiber. If you get constipated on a keto or carnivore nutrition plan you are dehydrated and need to drink more water.
2) I'm not sure what proteins in meat are "incomplete" from an amino acid perspective given that meat is full of amino acids.
3) I know lots of people that overeat fruit. Its sugary and delicious and refreshing and triggers the brain to release all kinds of happy chemicals which temporarily make one feel good until they need that next fix.

The biggest problem is the biased one sided information that people receive and that influences decisions based on isolated facts out of context. 2 examples:

1) Orange Juice is a great source of Vitamin C.

Well that is true. Vitamin C is good. People need it. But the massive sugar dump of orange juice isn't worth it. You know what else is a great source of Vitamin C that the Orange growers don't want you to know about: Pork. Pork is a great source of Vitamin C

2) Eat Bananas. Bananas are a great source of Potassium.

Again, absolutely true. Bananas have potassium and people need potassium. But again, massive glycemic load, huge stress on pancreas, insulin dumped into your blood to counteract, and this system grows less able to respond over time, and you end up with Type II diabetes.... So instead, you want some Potassium, guess what has more than a banana........BACON. Have I got your attention ? BACON is a great source of potassium.

So again, it is the isolation of information to drive peoples choices to products that yes provide (nutrient X) but one can get that thing from a much healthier source.

And for those arguing with Tx117 .....stop....that is my job. Hopefully you're all learning something along the way.......

But Tx117 is correct, losing "weight" is calorie differential.

But who wants to lose "weight" ? Nobody I know actually wants to lose "weight" unless you're anorexic and just care about a number on the scale and don't care about WHAT is lost.

Most people want to lose FAT. Lose FAT and keep MUSCLE. Given that assumption.
1) As Tx117 said - most people don't eat enough protein. I'd suggest 3-4g per kg of body weight. Sorry but you have to convert, and surprise there was a test.....a math test
2) Its hard to overeat protein above these levels, as in I doubt you'd want more.
3) And if FAT loss while maintaining or building muscle is your goal, again, you need to eat protein the building blocks of life (DNA, Amino Acids); and not eat the stuff that made you fat in the first place (starches, sugars, grains and such.....

I mean this is Texas right, we know about fattening up lifestock and feeding out animals with grains. Why would you eat stuff that you give to animals to fatten them up for slaughter ? Its crazy.

SARATOGA said:

---

And for those arguing with Tx117 .....stop....that is my job. Hopefully you're all learning something along the way.......

But Tx117 is correct, losing "weight" is calorie differential.

But who wants to lose "weight" ? Nobody I know actually wants to lose "weight" unless you're anorexic and just care about a number on the scale and don't care about WHAT is lost.

Most people want to lose FAT. Lose FAT and keep MUSCLE. Given that assumption.
1) As Tx117 said - most people don't eat enough protein. I'd suggest 3-4g per kg of body weight. Sorry but you have to convert, and surprise there was a test.....a math test
2) Its hard to overeat protein above these levels, as in I doubt you'd want more.
3) And if FAT loss while maintaining or building muscle is your goal, again, you need to eat protein the building blocks of life (DNA, Amino Acids); and not eat the stuff that made you fat in the first place (starches, sugars, grains and such.....

I mean this is Texas right, we know about fattening up lifestock and feeding out animals with grains. Why would you eat stuff that you give to animals to fatten them up for slaughter ? Its crazy.

---

I appreciate that you take my comments in more of the fun elbowing than anything else. They are intended that way. As I posted on the other thread, TXTransplant is doing a much better job at explaining all of this.

Your "points" actually are making my point.

Dude, it would be very...very difficult for your body to actually absorb and synthesis that amount of protein. Advanced strength athletes use the old 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight as a general rule and adjust from there.

You get "fat" from eating over your maintenance calories. That's it. The end. If you ate 3000 calories worth of steak a night, and you only needed 2000 calories to maintain...boom...you are gaining weight. Thats it. End of discussion. How your body stores those calories is completely up to genetics. But if you ate 1000 calories over your maintenance a day without resistance training....most of that is coming in as fat regardless if it was protein on the way in.

Other than in some very limited circumstances, you cant build muscle and burn fat at the same time. (You can be on steroids...that helps...you can be in a limited recomposition posture, but that's fairly limited).

Want to build some muscle? Eat over maintenance and heavy resistance train. You will gain some muscle and some fat. Want to lose some weight? Eat below maintenance and heavy resistance train. You will lose some fat, but keep some muscle (so long as you are eating enough proteins).

It really is that simple. Why people try their hardest to argue with this simple equation just boggles my mind.

Tex117 said:

---

SARATOGA said:

---

And for those arguing with Tx117 .....stop....that is my job. Hopefully you're all learning something along the way.......

But Tx117 is correct, losing "weight" is calorie differential.

But who wants to lose "weight" ? Nobody I know actually wants to lose "weight" unless you're anorexic and just care about a number on the scale and don't care about WHAT is lost.

Most people want to lose FAT. Lose FAT and keep MUSCLE. Given that assumption.
1) As Tx117 said - most people don't eat enough protein. I'd suggest 3-4g per kg of body weight. Sorry but you have to convert, and surprise there was a test.....a math test
2) Its hard to overeat protein above these levels, as in I doubt you'd want more.
3) And if FAT loss while maintaining or building muscle is your goal, again, you need to eat protein the building blocks of life (DNA, Amino Acids); and not eat the stuff that made you fat in the first place (starches, sugars, grains and such.....

I mean this is Texas right, we know about fattening up lifestock and feeding out animals with grains. Why would you eat stuff that you give to animals to fatten them up for slaughter ? Its crazy.

---

I appreciate that you take my comments in more of the fun elbowing than anything else. They are intended that way. As I posted on the other thread, TXTransplant is doing a much better job at explaining all of this.

Your "points" actually are making my point.

Dude, it would be very...very difficult for your body to actually absorb and synthesis that amount of protein. Advanced strength athletes use the old 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight as a general rule and adjust from there.

You get "fat" from eating over your maintenance calories. That's it. The end. If you ate 3000 calories worth of steak a night, and you only needed 2000 calories to maintain...boom...you are gaining weight. Thats it. End of discussion. How your body stores those calories is completely up to genetics. But if you ate 1000 calories over your maintenance a day without resistance training....most of that is coming in as fat regardless if it was protein on the way in.

Other than in some very limited circumstances, you cant build muscle and burn fat at the same time. (You can be on steroids...that helps...you can be in a limited recomposition posture, but that's fairly limited).

Want to build some muscle? Eat over maintenance and heavy resistance train. You will gain some muscle and some fat. Want to lose some weight? Eat below maintenance and heavy resistance train. You will lose some fat, but keep some muscle (so long as you are eating enough proteins).

It really is that simple. Why people try their hardest to argue with this simple equation just boggles my mind.

---

The bolded is true. The reason why keto works for some people is because they eat in a calorie deficit while they are on it. If you are eating 2000 calories a day, it's hard to get that many calories from JUST eating fat and protein. So you eat less and end up in a deficit.

If you are smaller and have a lower calorie requirement (my personal 1400 calorie example) it becomes really easy to surpass your calorie goal if you are eating very fatty sources of protein.

Protein has 4 calories per gram; fat has 9 (carbs also has 4 calories per g). When I eat very fatty foods and/or proteins cooked in a lot of fat, it's much easier to eat too many calories.

Also, the idea that anyone would believe bacon is "healthier" than a banana is just crazy nonsense. That's not even a valid comparison. It's as dumb a statement as "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat".

What is said above about muscle growth and fat loss is also correct. If you want to gain muscle, you have to "bulk", which means eating more than your maintenance calories. You will also gain fat in the process. After the "bulk" you "cut" or "shred" to lose the fat but maintain the muscle by eating in a calorie deficit until body fat is reduced. Ask any body builder about this and they will tell you the same thing.

TXTransplant said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

SARATOGA said:

---

And for those arguing with Tx117 .....stop....that is my job. Hopefully you're all learning something along the way.......

But Tx117 is correct, losing "weight" is calorie differential.

But who wants to lose "weight" ? Nobody I know actually wants to lose "weight" unless you're anorexic and just care about a number on the scale and don't care about WHAT is lost.

Most people want to lose FAT. Lose FAT and keep MUSCLE. Given that assumption.
1) As Tx117 said - most people don't eat enough protein. I'd suggest 3-4g per kg of body weight. Sorry but you have to convert, and surprise there was a test.....a math test
2) Its hard to overeat protein above these levels, as in I doubt you'd want more.
3) And if FAT loss while maintaining or building muscle is your goal, again, you need to eat protein the building blocks of life (DNA, Amino Acids); and not eat the stuff that made you fat in the first place (starches, sugars, grains and such.....

I mean this is Texas right, we know about fattening up lifestock and feeding out animals with grains. Why would you eat stuff that you give to animals to fatten them up for slaughter ? Its crazy.

---

I appreciate that you take my comments in more of the fun elbowing than anything else. They are intended that way. As I posted on the other thread, TXTransplant is doing a much better job at explaining all of this.

Your "points" actually are making my point.

Dude, it would be very...very difficult for your body to actually absorb and synthesis that amount of protein. Advanced strength athletes use the old 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight as a general rule and adjust from there.

You get "fat" from eating over your maintenance calories. That's it. The end. If you ate 3000 calories worth of steak a night, and you only needed 2000 calories to maintain...boom...you are gaining weight. Thats it. End of discussion. How your body stores those calories is completely up to genetics. But if you ate 1000 calories over your maintenance a day without resistance training....most of that is coming in as fat regardless if it was protein on the way in.

Other than in some very limited circumstances, you cant build muscle and burn fat at the same time. (You can be on steroids...that helps...you can be in a limited recomposition posture, but that's fairly limited).

Want to build some muscle? Eat over maintenance and heavy resistance train. You will gain some muscle and some fat. Want to lose some weight? Eat below maintenance and heavy resistance train. You will lose some fat, but keep some muscle (so long as you are eating enough proteins).

It really is that simple. Why people try their hardest to argue with this simple equation just boggles my mind.

---

The bolded is true. The reason why keto works for some people is because they eat in a calorie deficit while they are on it. If you are eating 2000 calories a day, it's hard to get that many calories from JUST eating fat and protein. So you eat less and end up in a deficit.

If you are smaller and have a lower calorie requirement (my personal 1400 calorie example) it becomes really easy to surpass your calorie goal if you are eating very fatty sources of protein.

Protein has 4 calories per gram; fat has 9 (carbs also has 4 calories per g). When I eat very fatty foods and/or proteins cooked in a lot of fat, it's much easier to eat too many calories.

Also, the idea that anyone would believe bacon is "healthier" than a banana is just crazy nonsense. That's not even a valid comparison.

What is said above about muscle growth and fat loss is also correct. If you want to gain muscle, you have to "bulk", which means eating more than your maintenance calories. You will also gain fat in the process. After the "bulk" you "cut" or "shred" to lose the fat but maintain the muscle by eating in a calorie deficit until body fat is reduced. Ask any body builder about this and they will tell you the same thing.

---

All true.

But that bolded part. Bwahaha.

For keto folks, just take a step back and look at just how silly this assertion is. You know damn well in your heart of hearts that eating a banana or a piece of fruit as part of a balanced diet of proteins, fats, and carbs (the exact balance being individual specific according to goals) is going to be better for you than eating every calorie you require in the form of bacon.

Come, the eff, on.

Do you follow Layne Norton? If not, you should.

TXTransplant said:

---

Do you follow Layne Norton? If not, you should.

---

I haven't, but I did just google him and this popped up.

I actually haven't listened to that podcast. But Norton's IG is pure gold. He has zero tolerance for BS and zero effs to give about offending anyone.

TXTransplant said:

---

I actually haven't listened to that podcast. But Norton's IG is pure gold. He has zero tolerance for BS and zero effs to give about offending anyone.

---

I've been listening to this podcast (will check out is IG), but its basically all the stuff we have been discussing here.

Great recommendation!

1 pound of muscle weighs the exact same as a pound of fat, or feathers or steel. A pound is a pound.

Bacon is absolutely healthier than a banana ( a sugar stick fast track to type II diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease )

As for protein intake, recommendations are changing: Most people don't eat enough.....

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190412101252.htm

https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0177-8

https://nutritionwithwendi.com/blog/evidence-you-should-consume-more-protein-from-a-dietitian-who-lifts/

Quote:

---

All true.

But that bolded part. Bwahaha.

For keto folks, just take a step back and look at just how silly this assertion is. You know damn well in your heart of hearts that eating a banana or a piece of fruit as part of a balanced diet of proteins, fats, and carbs (the exact balance being individual specific according to goals) is going to be better for you than eating every calorie you require in the form of bacon.

Come, the eff, on.

---

QUESTION THE INCENTIVES OF THOSE GIVING THE "BALANCED DIET" recommendations. I'd argue the only "balance" is across the product line of food corporations.

And also read the context given of the above. The "bacon vs banana" was given in reference to how people isolate one thing in an article or recommendation. In that case it was about potassium. I was not suggesting that anyone eat solely bacon.

But remember, in your "heart of hearts" that the first thing to remember is that you are your own test case, despite recommendations from government agencies (bought and paid for by food manufacturing corporations whose only motivation is to drive profits (and the best way to do this is with cheap addicting food).

YOU ARE YOUR OWN TEST CASE. Try a couple alternatives....

Get your blood drawn. Know where you stand. Track your sleep. Track your physical and mental energy.

1) Eat a "balanced" diet. Track your macros, and find your "maintenance" somehow. Count your portions and your calories, kill yourself on the treadmill, and be hungry all the time. Divide your plate into some government-recommended portion size. Eat the food pyramid. Consume little protein. Question every bite, and every purchase at the grocery store....

Then get your blood drawn again 3 months later. How is your blood glucose ? How is your blood pressure ? How is your health ? What does your doctor say ? (if your doctor is fat, get a new doctor)

And then......

2) Cut carbs. Eat animal proteins.

Get your blood drawn again 3 months later. See how you do....

I can tell you my bloodwork is excellent and I feel fantastic and this has been sustainable for 4 years now.

SARATOGA said:

---

Quote:

---

All true.

But that bolded part. Bwahaha.

For keto folks, just take a step back and look at just how silly this assertion is. You know damn well in your heart of hearts that eating a banana or a piece of fruit as part of a balanced diet of proteins, fats, and carbs (the exact balance being individual specific according to goals) is going to be better for you than eating every calorie you require in the form of bacon.

Come, the eff, on.

---

But remember, in your "heart of hearts" that the first thing to remember is that you are your own test case, despite recommendations from government agencies (bought and paid for by food manufacturing corporations whose only motivation is to drive profits (and the best way to do this is with cheap addicting food).

---

So eating plants is being driven by government agencies pushing on behalf of profit seeking corporations? How does that square with the fact that humans are omnivores who have been eating plants for as long as they existed. If said plants were so bad for you, how did we manage to not only survive but flourish?

SARATOGA said:

---

Quote:

---

All true.

But that bolded part. Bwahaha.

For keto folks, just take a step back and look at just how silly this assertion is. You know damn well in your heart of hearts that eating a banana or a piece of fruit as part of a balanced diet of proteins, fats, and carbs (the exact balance being individual specific according to goals) is going to be better for you than eating every calorie you require in the form of bacon.

Come, the eff, on.

---

QUESTION THE INCENTIVES OF THOSE GIVING THE "BALANCED DIET" recommendations. I'd argue the only "balance" is across the product line of food corporations.

And also read the context given of the above. The "bacon vs banana" was given in reference to how people isolate one thing in an article or recommendation. In that case it was about potassium. I was not suggesting that anyone eat solely bacon.

But remember, in your "heart of hearts" that the first thing to remember is that you are your own test case, despite recommendations from government agencies (bought and paid for by food manufacturing corporations whose only motivation is to drive profits (and the best way to do this is with cheap addicting food).

YOU ARE YOUR OWN TEST CASE. Try a couple alternatives....

Get your blood drawn. Know where you stand. Track your sleep. Track your physical and mental energy.

1) Eat a "balanced" diet. Track your macros, and find your "maintenance" somehow. Count your portions and your calories, kill yourself on the treadmill, and be hungry all the time. Divide your plate into some government-recommended portion size. Eat the food pyramid. Consume little protein. Question every bite, and every purchase at the grocery store....

Then get your blood drawn again 3 months later. How is your blood glucose ? How is your blood pressure ? How is your health ? What does your doctor say ? (if your doctor is fat, get a new doctor)

And then......

2) Cut carbs. Eat animal proteins.

Get your blood drawn again 3 months later. See how you do....

I can tell you my bloodwork is excellent and I feel fantastic and this has been sustainable for 4 years now.

---

Well, for starters, the "literature" at least with respect to protein, is about right. For resistance training individuals, about 1 gram per pound of body weight is a good rule of thumb. I do agree that most people don't eat enough protein, so we can agree there.

This smacks of qanon and other conspiracy b.s. dude. For your dinky little research papers (which most research at this level has been shown to be very flawed, not just yours), there are many more out there that show why this is wrong.

I have a resting heart rate of below 50, pitch perfect blood pressure, otherwise in excellent health. I've cut down to 6 pack abs, recently, and on a bulk now, where I'm lifting heavier than I ever have. I eat carbs, proteins, and fat. Love them all. Enjoy them all.

How athletic are you? How old are you? What are your lifts? Doing cardio? What kind and how fast? (In the end, you are eating below your maintenance (or eating at maintenance), and the genetic way you are wired is carrying you the rest of the way).

In the end, I'm glad its working for you. We are all different when it comes to these things. But keto should be far lower on the "diet" list for folks to try, and should instead work put in the work to determine macros, balance carbs, protein and fats, and heavy resistance train 3x a week and 2x 30 minute cardio. (Sure, there can be deviations from this, but if you do this....you will see results...period).

As for the banana versus bacon, I'm not even going to respond to this weaponized stupidity. Balanced means getting all of the nutrients from a variety of sources. Animal proteins (which Im a huge fan of, lets be clear), is only a piece of the overall puzzle.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16685046/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748

jtraggie99 said:

---

SARATOGA said:

---

Quote:

---

All true.

But that bolded part. Bwahaha.

For keto folks, just take a step back and look at just how silly this assertion is. You know damn well in your heart of hearts that eating a banana or a piece of fruit as part of a balanced diet of proteins, fats, and carbs (the exact balance being individual specific according to goals) is going to be better for you than eating every calorie you require in the form of bacon.

Come, the eff, on.

---

But remember, in your "heart of hearts" that the first thing to remember is that you are your own test case, despite recommendations from government agencies (bought and paid for by food manufacturing corporations whose only motivation is to drive profits (and the best way to do this is with cheap addicting food).

---

So eating plants is being driven by government agencies pushing on behalf of profit seeking corporations? How does that square with the fact that humans are omnivores who have been eating plants for as long as they existed. If said plants were so bad for you, how did we manage to not only survive but flourish?

---

And add that cultivated "carbs" gave rise to human civilization and continues to keep billions of people alive on a daily basis.

This thread was not intended to be to argue the merit/shortcomings of a low carb diet.

combat wombat said:

---

This thread was not intended to be to argue the merit/shortcomings of a low carb diet.

---

It wasn't your fault.

But it does need to be discussed. Too many people just jump on that bandwagon without understanding the real rules behind it. There are far better, healthier ways to go about weight loss than a keto diet.

Tex117 said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

This thread was not intended to be to argue the merit/shortcomings of a low carb diet.

---

It wasn't your fault.

But it does need to be discussed. Too many people just jump on that bandwagon without understanding the real rules behind it. There are far better, healthier ways to go about weight loss than a keto diet.

---

I started a separate thread from the other thread to not derail that thread.

Please expand on how there are "better" and "healthier" diets or nutrition plans....

Because "better" and "healthier" are just opinions until it is backed with scientific research not based on surveys.

And "getting all the nutrients from all the sources" seems much more difficult and much less efficient than getting all the nutrients from a few sources.

SARATOGA said:

---

Please expand on how there are "better" and "healthier" diets or nutrition plans....

Because "better" and "healthier" are just opinions until it is backed with scientific research not based on surveys.

And "getting all the nutrients from all the sources" seems much more difficult and much less efficient than getting all the nutrients from a few sources.

---

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-try-the-keto-diet
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905334/
https://www.verywellfit.com/low-carb-diet-nutrient-deficiencies-2242236

Lets start here. Like the second google hit.

You cannot get all of your nutrients through bacon. There are a lot of goodies that come from a variety of sources. Arguing with Keto people and crossfitters are like Branch Dividians.

This thread has gone to ****

No kidding.

LINK: What predicts drug-free type 2 diabetes remission? Insights from an 8-year general practice service evaluation of a lower carbohydrate diet with weight loss

SARATOGA said:

---

LINK: What predicts drug-free type 2 diabetes remission? Insights from an 8-year general practice service evaluation of a lower carbohydrate diet with weight loss

---

"lower carb..." There is nothing in that study that once mentions putting the body in ketosis.

Moreover, they are talking about Type 2 diabetes. Not general nutrition for the average person.

Well considering that the average American > 20 years old is pre-diabetic (a1c 5.86%), I would say its pretty relevant...

The average American over age 20 is now prediabetic (a1c 5.86%). Its nutrition advice like this that is getting us more & more diabetic and obese. Sugar is not required in the diet and should be specifically avoided! What is this world coming to that folks are defending sugar? pic.twitter.com/L8gv1ESNOx

— Dr. Ryan Attar (@ryanattar) November 9, 2021

Also, this was 2017-2020 data.....you think this has gotten better since the official government recommendation for "health" for 2 years was stay home watch Netflix and order GrubHub ?

Conclusion: If the average american is pre-diabetic, then the average american should be eating a low carb diet to remedy this and not develop type II diabetes.

SARATOGA said:

---

Well considering that the average American > 20 years old is pre-diabetic (a1c 5.86%), I would say its pretty relevant...

The average American over age 20 is now prediabetic (a1c 5.86%). Its nutrition advice like this that is getting us more & more diabetic and obese. Sugar is not required in the diet and should be specifically avoided! What is this world coming to that folks are defending sugar? pic.twitter.com/L8gv1ESNOx

— Dr. Ryan Attar (@ryanattar) November 9, 2021

Also, this was 2017-2020 data.....you think this has gotten better since the official government recommendation for "health" for 2 years was stay home watch Netflix and order GrubHub ?

Conclusion: If the average american is pre-diabetic, then the average american should be eating a low carb diet to remedy this and not develop type II diabetes.

---

You missed my point. Define "low-carb."

Im not saying gorge on carbs.

less than 50g per day I'd say is "low carb". Its about where I'm at. There are some in the HEB Mootopia Milk I buy, some in the Macademia nuts I snack on, and a few in the protein shake mix and some in the 92% dark chocolate squares I have a few nights per week.

I'm not usually in ketosis unless I fast for longer than 18 hours.

So out of the (I don't really know, maybe 2500 - 3500 calories) I consume in a day that is not much. I'm at probably 70-80% protein and 20-30% (fat) and a negligible amount of carbs.

Been "maintenance" for a few years now. Though I'd guess few people care enough to worry about finding their maintenance given all the factors affecting weight (sleep, stress, hydration, exercise, etc.)

And by your definition, I'm pretty athletic as I workout 5 times a week and I am pretty active on the weekends either at kids sports or with yardwork.

SARATOGA said:

---

less than 50g per day I'd say is "low carb". Its about where I'm at. There are some in the HEB Mootopia Milk I buy, some in the Macademia nuts I snack on, and a few in the protein shake mix and some in the 92% dark chocolate squares I have a few nights per week.

I'm not usually in ketosis unless I fast for longer than 18 hours.

So out of the (I don't really know, maybe 2500 - 3500 calories) I consume in a day that is not much. I'm at probably 70-80% protein and 20-30% (fat) and a negligible amount of carbs.

Been "maintenance" for a few years now. Though I'd guess few people care enough to worry about finding their maintenance given all the factors affecting weight (sleep, stress, hydration, exercise, etc.)

And by your definition, I'm pretty athletic as I workout 5 times a week and I am pretty active on the weekends either at kids sports or with yardwork.

---

2500-3500 calories is a pretty big swing. But yeah, if you are that active you qualify as someone who needs the generally 1 gram of protein to 1 lbs of body weight.

In the end, if it works for you, it works. To me, its not optimal in terms of muscle building or fat loss, but that's how Im built. And I have had a lot of good results. (And how most fitness people believe is the best path forward...all with results...)

I do think most people should try not going super low carbs at first (especially since most nutrition people say you want the most freedom as possible to eat what you want, just less of it)

In my experience, "trying to eat less", or count calories, or the old "eat less/move more" is extremely difficult, leading to hunger, anger, frustration, binge eating or yo-yo dieting.....all of which come with negative consequences to both health and relationships. Most people you'd encounter on some form of low carb (lets say around 50g per day) plan whether it is keto or more geared to carnivore have probably found that permission to eat whenever, and never having to be hungry provides greater freedom for them personally than being able to eat carbs and count calories and portions and amounts.

So if you'll permit an oversimplification:

1) Low Carb (Eat Whenever; just not Whatever)

2) Other Diets (Eat Whatever; but limit portions to below maintenance weight); if the goal is weight loss.

Each individual must figure what fits best with their mindset and lifestyle. I think if you truly got down to it with keto/carnivore people they "hate" being hungry moreso than hating passing on that afternoon office birthday cake.

Carbs are inarguably delicious, and quick sources of energy. But as I'm sitting here for 4 hours before a break and then another 4 hours of sitting, I don't need quick energy. I'm not climbing mount everest or practicing with the football team this afternoon. And its easy to pass on carb heavy snack when I'm still satiated from a high protein moderate fat breakfast.

SARATOGA said:

---

In my experience, "trying to eat less", or count calories, or the old "eat less/move more" is extremely difficult, leading to hunger, anger, frustration, binge eating or yo-yo dieting.....all of which come with negative consequences to both health and relationships. Most people you'd encounter on some form of low carb (lets say around 50g per day) plan whether it is keto or more geared to carnivore have probably found that permission to eat whenever, and never having to be hungry provides greater freedom for them personally than being able to eat carbs and count calories and portions and amounts.

So if you'll permit an oversimplification:

1) Low Carb (Eat Whenever; just not Whatever)

2) Other Diets (Eat Whatever; but limit portions to below maintenance weight); if the goal is weight loss.

Each individual must figure what fits best with their mindset and lifestyle. I think if you truly got down to it with keto/carnivore people they "hate" being hungry moreso than hating passing on that afternoon office birthday cake.

Carbs are inarguably delicious, and quick sources of energy. But as I'm sitting here for 4 hours before a break and then another 4 hours of sitting, I don't need quick energy. I'm not climbing mount everest or practicing with the football team this afternoon. And its easy to pass on carb heavy snack when I'm still satiated from a high protein moderate fat breakfast.

---

Again, different strokes for different folks.

For me, its incredibly easy to count calories and just "eat less." I do heavy lifting 3x a week and cardio 2x a week. I very much want my carbs to fuel that. I feel better. I perform better. Im happier eating delicious carbs with my protein.

Again, most high functioning exercise people do this.

Plus...man...if your caloric needs are 3000 calories AT LEAST to maintain (where Im at) thats a ton of freakin meat to be downing. Its not healthy.

Its not ALL meat.

And remember meat is healthy. Protein is literally the building blocks of life and super important for cell health. I want my existing body fat to fuel my workouts, and the protein I ingest to be used to build muscle.
(Granted being 40 it isn't like muscle growth is possible like when your 20, but its if you know that in the back of your mind)

2-3 eggs for breakfast with 1/2 cup cheese (and butter) with Starbucks Dark Roast cold coffee and Heavy Cream

"Sandwich" at lunch which consists of:
3 slices of Havarti Cheese
3 slices of Salami
3 slices of prosciutto
2-3 slices of Roast Beef

When I get home I might grab a couple of handfuls of Macademia nuts to eat while I'm making dinner.

For Dinner usually 16 oz of beef, in either ribeye, NY Strip, or Fajita Meat (Skirt) Steak. Other good options are tuna or salmon or taco meat (ground beef) but with that I'll have cheese and sour cream and avocado.

Then if I'm hungry after dinner for "dessert" I'll have a chocolate protein shake with Mootopia Milk a splash of heavy cream and a raw egg. Tastes like a milkshake really.

Anyway, its pretty easy, and pretty repeatable.

ptothemo said:

---

This is an unstoppable force meets an immovable object in thread form. All the words and not a thing is going to change because of them.

---

Nah. We were never going to change either of our minds, but if someone reads it, at least they can see the two schools of thought and make their own decision.

Tex117 said:

---

ptothemo said:

---

This is an unstoppable force meets an immovable object in thread form. All the words and not a thing is going to change because of them.

---

Nah. We were never going to change either of our minds, but if someone reads it, at least they can see the two schools of thought and make their own decision.

---

And debunk the absolutely garbage that "fitness influencers" have been telling people in order to gain a following.

Anyone who tells you that it is possible to "burn fat" and "build muscle" at the same time while not tracking how many calories you are eating in order to maintain a calorie deficit is absolutely full of $h!t.

First of all, from a metabolic perspective, it is extremely difficult to burn fat and build muscle at the same time. Why? Because building muscle requires extra calories and burning fat requires a calorie deficit. The two things are inherently at odds from an energy perspective.

Not eating carbs does not make one "burn fat and build muscle", and to state or imply that it does is straight up wrong.

To do it successfully, you cannot simply guess at your BMR/daily caloric intake needs or eat whatever you want (but avoid carbs) because you will most likely not be eating in a caloric deficit. The best you can do is lose fat and lose (or maintain muscle), or build muscle and gain fat.

If you don't believe this guy, there are plenty of other reputable sources that agree with him.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CwlKHqPJu0N/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Ok, for the sake of returning this thread to useful for the people lets talk about BMR (Basic Metabolic Rate). I have said that "You are your own test case", but still, given the various factors effecting metabolism and health (sleep, stress, hydration, activity level, and nutrition). What is the best way for an average Joe to determine their BMR ? You keep coming back to maintenance, below maintenance, and above maintenance......so for the average person are they supposed to track calories consumed and macros for a month, and not any weight changes.......followed by cutting 500 ? 1000 ? Calories and then note weight changes......and then add 500 to 1000 calories and note weight changes ?

I think you can get some extensive tests done, figuring body fat in a pool float test, and doing an exercise profile where they have you hooked up to a machine that measures exhaling to figure metabolism, but for the average person just Googling "how to figure BMR" isn't going to be very productive given all the variabilities.

So it seems that getting the BMR figured would be a great first step before figuring out what to eat and how you want to perform/exercise .....