Hey Veeky Forums, need some help understanding something. I tried to Google the above subject, but all I got were results about combining the two. I'm looking for more of a compare and contrast.
My biggest question is: are the ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting basically two paths to the SAME biological end goal?
I'm looking at descriptions of each and it seems that way to me, but I'm concerned by a lack of seeing anyone come outright and say it.
My understanding from what I've read and watched on YouTube so far is that IF seeks to put you into a Keto state for most of the day, besides your eating window and a little bit afterwards, as well as help you reap the other purported benefits of total fasting.
Keto seems to want to keep you in the ketogenic state the whole time by not letting you have any / the smallest amount of glucose possible, besides what your body makes itself. Though I am confused / skeptikal of the Insulin vs Glucagon, because don't Fat and Protein STILL stimulate an Insulin response, sometimes higher than carbs in the case of things like beef?
Self-admitting to be uninformed and a bit confused. Correct and enlighten me bros.
Sidenote: Not interested in either of these for weightloss, actually scrawny over here, just academically intrigued.
>tfw currently doing both but too stoopid to understand your post
Noah Lee
I'm basically wondering why people do both, because it seems like doing one or the other gets you to the same spot.
Like, provided your eating window on IF is reasonable enough that you don't have to binge eat and spike everything in your body. Keto might be a little "steadier," but if that's the ONLY benefit.. well, I'm curious if that's the only benefit, haha.
Ian Young
Done both before. The nutrional pro's and con's of each end up being a wash and at the end of the day if you're trying to manipulate bodyfat the only thing that will matter is maintaining a caloric deficit while keeping protein high. The ratio of the rest of your calories coming from fat vs carbs won't affect the rate of fat loss.
IMO the difference between the two that you would want to focus on is the lifestyles they allow. If you need carb-based food to sustain your mental happiness (occassional bread, sweets, whatever), obviously Keto isn't for you. If you have a busy schedule and don't see the intermittent fasting windows as an annoyance, you can use that and eat anything IIFYM.
Jack Davis
Yeah, like I said I wasn't interested in the weight loss aspect. Calories in, calories out has more validity than any diet claims.
So you think the Pros/Cons of both are 100% bullshit?
Jason Gonzalez
They aren't mutually exclusive. One is about timing, the other is about food choices. You can do both.
You are correct in that the underlying point of ANY diet plan is the same: To put you in a caloric deficit and keep you there in a relatively bearable state, i.e. so that you're not fucking ravenously hungry all goddamn day.
I've done keto and been successful with it. On my next cut I'm going to try IF.
Gabriel Carter
IF isn't a diet, what the fuck have you been reading? The point of IF isn't just so you do not binge eating, it's the fact that your insulin sensitivity increases when you are fasting and eating a lot of food in a short period. If you couple IF with calorie cycling, fasted workouts and an efficient lifting program it's a very very powerful tool (Bulking with very little fat gain) but requires quite a bit of dedication. Keto on the other hands is just aids. It's one of those stupid diets and honestly no one should do it. If you want to lose weight healthily, do a decent deficit, not too much, lift properly (Heavy, no high rep burn fat bullshit, that is what cardio is for), eat good food decent carbs, (not too much fats, 15-20% of your intake) and a lot of protein to keep the muscle. And do IF it's helpful and should make it easier. People try to complicate things to get the one quick shortcut to losing fat. Don't do that and do it properly you'll feel better and see better results. That said I do like things like mini-cuts with harsher deficits but the main points stick.
Parker Richardson
Maybe not the rate of fat loss but there have been studies that show that you put on less fat when you eat more carbs rather than fats. So it is quite helpful to see how many fats/carbs you are eating and not just eating eggs, milk and red meat every fucking day and every fucking meal thinking your calories are in check.
Luis Kelly
Well, perhaps I'm misusing the word diet, but caloric deficit isn't the only point. That would make this topic rather silly.
There's a repeated claim in Keto that the ketone bodies might be a better source of fuel for you than glucose, ranging from the mild "just to give it an alternative," the questionable "to clear out old fat cells that go rancid," and the miraculous "because cancer cells can only use glucose and you can starve it out."
Keto SEEMS to be suggesting you should do that all the time, a consistent state. IF seems, to me at least, to be wanting to get to that state by the fasting period, but not maintain it 24/7.
Is that accurate?
Jacob Clark
I feel like you didn't read the original post, where I specifically said I was not asking for weight loss reasons. Tame the rage, cut back on the preworkout brah.
I'm just interested in the mechanics. I just searched up these videos; they are NOT the best and I feel they oversimplify, but they are from the same source, and the same format, so they're good for comparing.
And after watching these, I see a glaring inconsistency. So, in both cases, insulin is reduced, in IF because you're not eating anything, and in Keto because the foods (supposedly, I've seen contrary evidence) don't spike your insulin. Okay.
Then the Keto video says that you use up your glucose, then your glycogen, then oxaloacetate, then the process to make Ketone Bodies.
Then the IF video says when the glucose runs out, your burnt fat turns into glucose, not ketone bodies.
Error on their part? Two different processes going at once?
Austin Martin
>you put on less fat when you eat more carbs rather than fats
I wonder who could be behind this post.
Adam Thompson
It's the jewish internet defense force, isn't it?
Landon Ross
Exactly right.
James Turner
Keto is what you eat. IF is about how you eat it.
Nathan Evans
You are seriously confused
The point of IF is that you probably eat less because a bunch of hours out of the day you aren't eating
The point of keto is that you probably eat less because you cut out an entire macronutrient
Nothing else matters. You can do both at the same time
Brandon Johnson
But the biological function both are trying to stimulate (turning stored fat into ketones), isn't it the same? Regardless of whether you got there by "avoiding carbs for life" or "avoiding all food long enough to start the process", then go back to glucose for a bit, rinse and repeat?
Isaiah James
I am confused!
Also, IF doesn't mean you'll eat less, 8 hours is enough time to binge eat crap. Hell, 1 hour is enough.
Keto only means you'll eat less because satiety is supposedly increased. Otherwise it's perfectly easy to stuff too much carb free fat down your gob. Mm, butter cubes.
Connor Scott
>IF seeks to put you into a Keto state for most of the day
That's the general idea, but nobody really knows all the ways in which IF and keto work, or if they even work at all though the mechanisms they theorize.
I'm pretty scrawny and keto helps me bulk. Maybe because sugar elevates your bitch hormones, maybe it's just my perception and it doesn't matter shit.
Liam Ward
No it isn't
It takes a few days to get to ketosis as your body depletes all your glycogen
Again, THIS DOESNT FUCKING MATTER. It makes NO difference with regards to weight loss
David Wood
If you're only eating 8 hours instead of 16 hours that absolutely can cause you to eat less. That's. the. Entire. Point. Not whatever bullshit you've been peddled
Blake Lewis
Why are you screaming about weight loss when I've repeatedly stated that's not the interest of my curiosity? I just want to know how the biology works. I don't need to lose weight, and I'm not trying to prescribe anything to anyone.
It can, it's not guaranteed to. Someone can absolutely get so ravenous as they keep their fast that as soon as the alarm ticks they eat a whole dozen donuts. While they're cooking the first meal they were supposed to have at that time.
Elijah Perez
>Someone can absolutely get so ravenous as they keep their fast that as soon as the alarm ticks they eat a whole dozen donuts.
i think you'll find most people won't do that...
Brayden Flores
I've seen 'em do it, except it was dried pineapple bits from a tin on the counter as they were making their "super healthy stir fry." I let them finish the tin before pointing out how they done fucked up.
Justin Parker
the point of both keto and IF is to help you lose weight. that's it. weight loss is the ONLY context in which keto and IF are discussed.
regarding the biology, it takes a few days to get to ketosis because it takes a few days to deplete your glycogen stores. you never enter ketosis through IF, assuming you're eating carbs every day, because 16 hours isn't long enough to deplete your glycogen.
James Clark
>the point of both keto and IF is to help you lose weight. that's it. weight loss is the ONLY context in which keto and IF are discussed.
no
Asher Smith
I've tried both. What works best for me is eating regularly, and making healthy decisions when it comes time to eat. All this other stuff is bullshit to sell products. Just eat healthy senpai.
Aaron Moore
>>regarding the biology, it takes a few days to get to ketosis because it takes a few days to deplete your glycogen stores. you never enter ketosis through IF, assuming you're eating carbs every day, because 16 hours isn't long enough to deplete your glycogen.
Okay, that might have been the step I was missing. I didn't realize it took so long to get to the ketosis part. So, on IF, what's the different method being achieved?
This may also be tripping me up, is there a difference between glucagon and glycogen? I'm seeing them swapped around in different places.
>>the point of both keto and IF is to help you lose weight. that's it. weight loss is the ONLY context in which keto and IF are discussed. Ehhhh, no, cause I've heard several people ranting about using either for other stuff. Like, mood adjustment, diabetes, fighting mental disease, fighting cancer, etc. Aside from the diabetes I'd say all HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE claims, but something that seems to be inspiring a lot of skinny people with issues to try them out. More so with the Keto than the IF on that, though.
Michael Campbell
>All this other stuff is bullshit to sell products.
Neither keto nor IF require any "products" to be bought.
Glucagon does both makes keystones and glucose. You need a certain amount of Glucose for survival and when you are fasting or using the ketogenic diet your body produces it.
The only deference pretty much when you are eating carbs your body is storing energy instead of breaking it down.
So the video is correct that your body does break down fats and converts them into sugar... Only deference is you will be using keystones more and your fat stores for energy.
The only thing I am not sure about in this video is if your body breaks down muscle tissue with in 48 hours. I actually don't believe it does and if it does it is not really much.
This gook fuck explains your can pretty much go for long long time without burning protein. For fuel so you maintain muscle mass in a fasted state because it makes fucking sense to not use muscle when you would actually like try to get food and kill shit. Unless evolution would be retarded like Veeky Forums
Daniel Kelly
>The only deference pretty much when you are eating carbs your body is storing energy instead of breaking it down.
Makes no sense. Are you saying when eating carbs, your body doesn't break things down for energy and instead stores everything you eat as fat regardless of how many calories you've eaten?
Christopher Smith
glucagon is a hormone that does the exact opposite of what insulin does. it raises the concentration of glucose in your bloodstream.
glycogen is long chains of sugars. they're how animals store carbohydrates.
completely different things.
nothing is being achieved with IF other than that you're probably eating less. i don't know why you're so hung up on finding some mystical effect from fasting 16 hours every day.
i'm a biochem major btw
Henry Smith
>Makes no sense. Are you saying when eating carbs, your body doesn't break things down for energy and instead stores everything you eat as fat regardless of how many calories you've eaten?
It makes perfect sense, you just believe all calorie are the same because of broscientist and the food industry pushing bullshit. It depends on your insulin sensitivity if you consume high carb diet your insulin is pretty much shit and you start becoming a massive fat ass.
Easton Baker
>it makes perfect sense >links a cartoon explanation from the comedy film Fat Head
You're saying that, if your diet contains carbohydrate, then your body doesn't require energy to function and can instead use all incoming energy for fat storage. How does that make sense in your head?
Charles Walker
But they are BS philosophies that can be/are leveraged as marketing. You're an idiot.
Jace Sullivan
Thanks, that first video helped quite a bit! Saved the other one to watch later.
I'm not looking for a mystical effect. What? I just wanted to compare the two because it seemed they were doing the same thing, and I wondered why people did them together, or chose one over the other.
Another conversation I'm having outside of this forum suggests I might have been right, but there's a confusing terminology difference; and this relates to the post stating you don't start ketosis until after three days.
I'm being told that you actually are going through ketosis all the time, even when not on the diet; as soon as 4-6 hours after you last had food, or after doing strenuous exercise. Whenever your body breaks down fat that is ketosis.
People "On Keto" are trying to achieve "Nutritional Keto," which has to do with the amount of ketone bodies in your blood. 0.5-3.0 is that state they're trying to ride, but 2.5-3.5 is common post exercise for a short period, and 0.2-0.5 can happen just from "not eating in a while." IF may take you 0.2-1.5 if you're on a 16/8, so keto is happening on a much lighter scale, and not high enough to be called "Nutritional Keto."
That's what I'm being told, anyhow.
Jonathan Gomez
people do them to lose weight because they cause you to eat less. keto can also be used to treat epileptic seizures. that's it.
all this shit that you were saying: "mood adjustment, diabetes, fighting mental disease, fighting cancer" is complete horseshit. keto is probably good at helping with type ii diabetes because the disease comes from chronically eating too many carbs. some (key word: some) people also feel better if they don't eat carbs.
if you think IF or keto is going to help with cancer you're a fucking retard. go back to school
again, the ONLY REASON to do IF or keto is to lose weight. they confer NO OTHER BENEFIT. stop overthinking this.
Owen Murphy
>insulin spike = storing energy >Less insulin spikes less stored energy = less fat
Pretty much the gold standard for dieting it s CKD with days of fasting and Carb loading days.
I thought you retardeds actually understand fitness how can you be fit if you don't understand nutrition.
You make me sad you pathetic faggots.
Ayden Cox
>>insulin spike = storing energy >>Less insulin spikes less stored energy = less fat
I'll let you get away with saying this because it doesn't make a difference. You're saying that, with carbs in your diet, your body finds a way to function without requiring energy, so that it can turn all the energy you eat into fat mass, which will then accumulate regardless of how many calories you're eating.
It sounds like you watched some troll logic videos and accepted it all without thinking.
Jason Thompson
>You're saying that, with carbs in your diet, your body finds a way to function without requiring energy, so that it can turn all the energy you eat into fat mass, which will then accumulate regardless of how many calories you're eating.
I am saying you are retarded and will probably commit suicide because you can't handle logic.
THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING
Charles Wright
Oh
Jayden Bailey
Wtf. You did not understand it. Keto state is different than fasting state. The targets are also different. Are you retarded?
Jaxson Anderson
Protein poisoning (also referred to colloquially as rabbit starvation, mal de caribou, or fat starvation) is a rare form of acute malnutrition thought to be caused by a complete absence of fat. Protein poisoning en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning
See you can die from just eating just high protein diet essentially if all calories did the exact same thing this would not be a thing. But it is a thing and furthermore more proves my point
Andrew Jones
What does that have to do with what you were saying before about carbs and only being able to store energy and not break energy down? I don't see how it relates at all
Ryan Perry
Because if all calories are the same people would not drop dead from just eating rabbit meat. Protein can be converted into glucose from trough gluconeogenesis Effectively getting converted into to the same thing. So by your logic these people wold be alive and thriving with plenty of energy. But they die.
On the other hand eskimo's and native Americans would pretty much eat a high fat diet and survive. Lean and strong with no heart problems or cancer.
Sea mammals such as walrus, seal, and whale. Whale meat generally comes from the beluga whale and the bowhead whale. ... Ringed seal and bearded seal are the most important aspect of an Inuit diet and is often the largest part of an Inuit hunter's diet. Land mammals such as caribou, polar bear, and muskox.
>Because if all calories are the same people would not drop dead from just eating rabbit meat.
They have nothing to do with one another. You're referencing protein poisoning to somehow make the point that the human body can cease the need for using energy when carbs are ingested. Now you're going off on another unrelated tangent about eskimos.
Nicholas Lee
>On the other hand eskimo's and native Americans would pretty much eat a high fat diet and survive. Lean and strong with no heart problems or cancer.
>Now you're going off on another unrelated tangent about eskimos.
I do what I want. It depends on how sensitive your insulin is. Some people can burn off the fat faster then others depends on age and genetics. The mechanisms are the same for the most part. 15 subject not enough data to be conclusive and who knows if they were actually eating a traditional diet.
David Anderson
>15 subject >and who knows if they were actually eating a traditional diet.
Hahahahaha, you have no idea what that study is saying.
Hudson Davis
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749 Oh and I can tell one one thing cancer rates and heart disease went up in the US when fat got banned. So I really question this study.
here, you are just baiting me to link shit I don't care someone not retarded might be able to use this
William Allen
>not enough subjects.
It's not that kind of study, you dingle.
>The evidence for a low mortality from IHD among the Inuit is fragile and rests on unreliable mortality statistics. Mortality from stroke, however, is higher among the Inuit than among other western populations. >. Based on the examination of 15 candidate gene polymorphisms, the Inuit genetic architecture does not obviously explain putative differences in cardiovascular disease prevalence.
In other words, genetic factors likely aren't at play in the Inuit population. The data they gathered was from a completely different set of studies, not anything to do with the people they got the DNA samples from.
Asher Scott
Still not enough proof. Post more proof that high fat diets cause more cancer and heart disease.
Henry Campbell
I'm not watching some quack talk for an hour. You keep saying these completely retarded things and then can't explain any of your own points.
keto just restricts carbs, makes you lose a ton of water which might give you the idea that you're losing fat but its just water. No advantage over a normal diet with calorie restriction. Also keto makes you train like shit
If you have trouble eating a lot during meals, IF could work
Nolan Kelly
I'll get involved but posting from experience.
I put on loads of weight during a period of depression (went from a lean otter mode boxer to fat 20kg difference)
I couldn't lose the weight and I tried IF, low fat, calorie restriction, atkins etc.
What fixed it for me was eating low carb/medium protein/medium fat. I realized I had no fat source in my diet at all; I didn't buy cheeses or butter or full fat milk.
I started eating mini meals 300 - 400cals every few hours and made sure each one was 40%protein and 40%fat along with some leafy greens like spinach, or sometimes I'd have mushrooms.
I just ate and the meal consisted of 3 eggs (200 calories) and some bacon (150 calories) along with some spinach leaves.
Or I'll have a chicken breast and half an advocado with spinach leaves; shit like that. This works best for me; but before I had a fat source I couldn't stay satisfied and my appetite was crazy. I could eat HUGE meals and still be peckish an hour later; it was because I had such a low fat intake. From what I understand fat is necessary for hormones and testosterone.
Bentley Roberts
>Peter attia
What does this have to do with anything?
Isaiah Brooks
It's the same dumb argument. "When fat was banned" as if anything like that ever happened.
Jeremiah Kelly
>the video actually says people ate more refined carbs.
He disproves himself people ate more sugar and got fatter. I still don't understand.......
Charles Anderson
>studies that show that you put on less fat when you eat more carbs rather than fats That's reverse.
Jose Adams
OP here.
This devolved quickly while I was at the store. I don't know wtf you faggots started talking about.
Thanks to the people that actually engaged about the topic. I'm still not sure I understand fully, but I do believe I understand better.
#DemKnowledgeGainz
John Barnes
>ate more refined carbs
And more fat, which is what you're claiming the opposite of.
Tyler Cox
He said people drank more skin milk.... less fat. The video is him contradicting himself constantly. I think this guy is retarded.
Robert Campbell
I did IF with Keto. Basically, you get two superhuge meals per day. And just drink coffee and water in the mornings.
Any other stupid thing you heard somewhere and instantly believed that you want us to correct you on here?
Sebastian Lee
I looked at the video...... he said less animal fat more carbs like a trillion times.
Levi Perez
We're not even on the video anymore. You have the data in front of you. Your prior claim that heart disease and cancer went up "when fat was banned" is refuted by the fact that nothing that could be called "fat being banned" ever happened, whether we're talking food policy or eating behavior. People gradually began to eat more food, more calories, more carbs, more fat, more protein. Fat was not erased from the American diet. You can blame carbs or whatever on obesity but the point you were trying to make about dietary fat has been disproven, which is all that's necessary to point out for the claim you put forth.
All of this still doesn't provide evidence for the initial dumb thing you said about carbs turning into accumulated fat no matter the person's energy intake.
fuck im tempted to start fasting on my days off work
Josiah Green
You should some of the things I have found over time that work good and wish I knew when I was younger. Is intermittent fasting, making a gratefulness list and meditation
Tyler Rivera
16 hour fasts or alternate day fasts
Brayden Perez
I honestly think you can get benefits from doing both. I think the longer the fast the better because over time your body starts switching over to using fat and killing off dead cells even more. I pretty much try to fast for as long as I can then go into shorter duration depending on how I feel. I go by feel because you have an adaptation period to switching fuel. So it might be hard to do a prolonged fast at first then keep playing with the variables and keep track of how you are functioning.
Brody Bell
>he says a caloric deficit doesnt cause weight loss i no longer can trust this man's opinion safely. and this is coming from an educated medschool student too, so no broscience here.
Noah Richardson
Pretty sure he means long term
Hunter Lee
Actually, what he said was a long term reduction in calories doesn't remain a caloric deficit. It will end up reducing your metabolic rate / calories out, so what started as a caloric deficit becomes a caloric surplus. Thermodynamics remain intact.
Evan Wright
This guy makes so many logical fallacies as he's trying to "explain to the layman". But in his arguments are some interesting things.
Benjamin Thompson
>"explain to the layman".
If you want more complicated this is probably hard mode
so when you're in a fasting state on a keto diet is your body turning your stored fat into ketones for energy? of course that only happens once you are keto adapted?
Caleb Watson
Someone else may have said this already, but ketosis is a hormonal state when your body stops using carbs as it's main source of energy, and instead uses fat. It is caused by not eating carbs, which triggers the body to produce ketone. IF is an eating schedule that allows you to eat pretty much wherever you want in a time window of 4-8 hours. This has been shown in numerous studies (check the sticky where it says that IF is stupid and cites 15 or so studies) to cause body recomposition, particularly in men.
Jonathan Gomez
You have obviously never done it. I've been doing IF for about 6 months, and I'm bulking. I have a 6 hour window, and I eat 3000+ calories in that time. And I eat normal food, too.
Jose Lopez
>so when you're in a fasting state on a keto diet is your body turning your stored fat into ketones for energy?
Yes,
>of course that only happens once you are keto adapted?
Body starts burning body fat 10-16 hours after fasting. As soon as you deplete your blood glucose it taps into the fat stores.
