If I switch to an animal-based low-carb diet and just eat when I am hungry, will I end up eating less?

What the experts say

Kevin D. HallPhD · metabolism researcher; formerly Section Chief, Integrative Physiology Section, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health

No. In a controlled test, people ate substantially more

What it rests onInpatient randomised crossover trial, 20 adults, two weeks per arm, ad libitum intake. Both arms minimally processed and matched for non-starchy vegetables: a plant-based low-fat diet at 10.3% fat and 75.2% carbohydrate with high glycemic load, against an animal-based ketogenic diet at 75.8% fat and 10.0% carbohydrate with low glycemic load. NCT03878108.

Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ↗

Shawn BakerMD · orthopedic surgeon and strength athlete

Yes. Appetite regulates itself well enough that counting is unnecessary

What it rests onHis argument is that on this diet appetite regulation works well enough to be trusted, that fat does not need to be cut back or added, and that most meat is fatty enough on its own.

Source: carnivore.diet ↗

Overview

Hall's participants did not choose the diet, did not shop or cook, had no adaptation period, and ate a formulated 75.8%-fat ketogenic diet for fourteen days in a hospital. Baker is describing people who chose the diet, eat mostly ruminant meat, and have been on it for months. The two are not describing the same intervention or the same person, and the honest answer may differ for a two-week trial and a two-year habit.

Where they agree

More than either side's supporters would expect. Both hold that calorie counting is unnecessary and that appetite is the regulator worth trusting.

Both warn that glucose-lowering and blood-pressure medication need supervision through a sharp carbohydrate cut, Hall because a participant withdrew with hypoglycemia under clinical observation, and Baker in his own published guidance. And both accept that limiting ultra-processed food is worth doing: Hall's 2019 conclusion says the recommendation fits animal-based eating as readily as plant-based, and Baker's own catalogue tells people to skip processed meats.

What would settle it

A longer ad libitum trial with a proper adaptation period, or a free-living intake measurement accurate enough to test the claim outside a ward. Hall's published limitation section concedes the generalisation problem directly, arguing that current dietary assessment methods cannot measure energy intake accurately outside the laboratory. That concession is also why the dispute cannot be settled with existing tools.

Practice does not pick a winner here

You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.

Record where you land on this, and change your mind later without losing the history
Everything else these people publish, read and graded, in one place

Get started

Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.