[yupper32]

NO. IT. DOESN'T.

"As much"? Are you joking? This is why America is overly obese. So many people like you make weight loss seem so complicated when it's not.

CICO is the vast vast vast vast vast majority of the situation. You can completely ignore hormones and such and JUST pay attention to CICO and you'll lose weight 99.9% of the time.

[user3939382]

I’d refer you the research of Dr. Jason Fung or Dr. Robert Lustig, for example: https://youtu.be/ZKC3hiyLeRc

Here’s an article on keto from a medical journal https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(1...

Even the experts debating here aren’t contesting the role of insulin in weight loss, but rather the secondary effects like those on LDL. Here in turn is a talk by a doctor from UC Berkeley explaining more about that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gZt9DQqtZI&t=217s

From what I can tell, the sole focus on calories is the result of early misunderstandings and oversimplification of biochemistry in 1980s nutritional science.

Anecdotally, I did a 3 month experiment where I increased my calories (lots of olive oil, avocado, nuts, butter, etc) but consuming almost no carbs (and mostly carbs from vegetables) and I lost 8 notches off my belt.

[yupper32]

You're mixing up general health/a good diet with what causes weight loss. I'm simply here trying to get people to understand that the vast vast majority of what causes weight changes is how many calories you're consume, and how many calories you're burning during the day.

LDL cholesterol levels have nothing to do with weight loss. They have everything to do with how healthy you are.

Separating the two is extremely important when educating the masses, and most people, like you, refuse to do so. That is why I used capital letters. Not because I'm close minded.

When you separate the two, you are able to have people understand why certain diets work, and why they might not work. You can't just do Keto, for example, and expect to lose weight if you eat 3000 calories of chicken a day. (I'm just using Keto as an example, regardless of it's health benefits).

Then diets are easily understood. You have two parts:

Part 1: How do I lose weight? Consume fewer calories than I burn.

Part 2: How do I be healthy while losing weight and beyond? [insert whatever research you have]

Right now, people advocate mostly for Part 2. Then people trying to lose weight are confused when they don't and give up.

> Anecdotally, I did a 3 month experiment where I increased my calories (lots of olive oil, avocado, nuts, butter, etc) but consuming almost no carbs (and mostly carbs from vegetables) and I lost 8 notches off my belt.

Congrats, you consumed fewer calories than you burned.

[user3939382]

I pointed you to scientific research where even the experts on both sides of the debate agree that keto leads to weight loss. Keto is explicitly not a calorie-based approach. In my personal experiment I lost weight while increasing total calories. If you really care about this topic please watch the first video I linked you to. With all due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

[yupper32]

> In my personal experiment I lost weight while increasing total calories.

No you didn't, unless you increased exercise or were already losing weight. You can not lose weight without being at a calorie deficit. Did you even count those calories before and after?

> Keto is explicitly not a calorie-based approach.

Neither are most diets. They all try to do the same thing: hope the person ends up eating fewer calories than they burn.

Keto helps people stay full with fewer calories. Intermittent fasting hopes that the person doesn't eat more calories in the short period of time they're allowed to eat.

[user3939382]

You are wrong, period. Watch the videos, read the studies. Your body’s ability to store fat is a function of insulin levels, that is as much a factor as calories.