The traditional one, usually advocated by official policy makers, is to eat less and move more.

Both ‘traditional’ diets and the new-ish ‘keto’ diets can be classified under the general rubric of ‘eat less’… the difference is that with ‘traditional’ diets the ‘eat less’ refers to general quantities of food whereas with ‘keto’ the ‘eat less’ refers to specific types of food, though the end result is eating less calories overall.

The difference is not found in the actual diets but in human psychology: when people are told to ‘eat less’ in quantity they invariably go, immediately, to the minimum amount (they think) they need and end up eating drastically less then is healthy and they think the drastically less they eat the quicker they will get thinner. This is true, as you point out, only up to a point.

If you are constantly hungry you are not eating an appropriate amount of food: You are starving yourself; That’s not an appropriate diet; That’s self-abuse. ‘eat less and move more’ is very good advice that gets translated to ‘punish yourself and stress your body to its limit.’

Instead of eating drastically less, you should eat slightly less and listen to your body: if you are hungry, you should eat… just don’t eat as much as would have before and give yourself time to take the weight off: after all, if you didn’t gain it in a month you shouldn’t expect to lose it in a month.

If you applied the general amounts paradigm of the ‘traditional’ diets to the specific amounts of the ‘keto’ diet, you would find that ‘keto’ is, indeed, eating less calories overall… though not as drastically less as the ‘traditional’ diet because you’re likely substituting eating a lot less carbs for slightly more fats.

That’s the secret, if there is any, to it: ‘keto’ is a passive aggressive form of ‘traditional’ that limits the amount of limiting you can do to yourself; it won’t let you get drastic on your body.. that’s why it’s seemingly better.

‘Moving more’ is always a good idea.